I use sb4 on the same pc without an issue. I simply used the Estonia migrator.

 

Thanks Will!

I'll try that next time I get some free time. To be honest, I have forgotten about P3D since I got it almost 2 years ago and have not kept up with any of the changes with it so I do not know much about it. I'll start downloading 1.4 tonight.

I stumbled on this thread from avsim front page and I'm glad I did.

But can you imagine a time when MS might ressurect FSX 11 ... and of course if by then LM has effectively created ESP 2.0 then how would ownership run?

 

From that video, it looks like Microsoft wanted to turn the commercial market over to LM. As long as MS develops for the consumer market and LM markets for the commercial market, there should be no problems. Similar situation with Flight.

 

Hook

Iwonder if MS ever regrets giving away such a strongly supported franchise....

 

I doubt very much the Microsoft gave gave away anyrhing - Lockheed Martin almost certainly paid for its licence. I believe that Microsoft decided that the franchise was no longer commercially viable years ago when it stopped further development of FSX into FS11 - it was no longer "stongly supported" enough

From that video, it looks like Microsoft wanted to turn the commercial market over to LM. As long as MS develops for the consumer market and LM markets for the commercial market, there should be no problems. Similar situation with Flight.

 

Hook

An interesting Video and sadly 4 years old now. Those of us awaiting the very close to release (?) MSTS2 where staggered when the Beancounters closed Aces. One of the lead developers of that title went on to found Cascade Games Foundry (with other ex Aces people) and they've released the scuba sim. The big diffrenec between Train Simming and Flight Simming to that point is that Microsoft (M$) had released four versions of FS in the lifetime of MSTS. MSTS2 (Take 1) was actually shown at one of the big games preview shows and then just died inexplicably. Picking up on Ian's point a huge issue with Train Simmers was backward compatability with existing add-ons. Whilst the Commercial Add-on industry for MSTS never reached the levels it has for MSFS there was none the less a thriving and improving market and many of us "punters" had spent a fair few £,$,€ on these releases. Of course in the Flight Sim World you'd been used to discovering you had to buy the latest ...again?!

 

The main difference between Train Sims and Flight Sims is that given a "reasonable" virtual world to fly in our main concerns are realistic aircraft, weather and airports. Given those you go where your fancy takes you? Trains however need tracks, points, signalling and AI traffic that complies with those limitations. Add to that scenery for the whole route that needs to be as good as a reasonable FS airport and you see it's a lot harder to make something convincing and that works when folk start creating their own "activities".

 

When MSTS2 was, much to all train simmers amazement, resurrected (years after the first attempt) it was yet again a totally new sim and it's main "revolutionary" feature was to be "World of Rails". Because of NDA's only a handful of folk got to see this and the few released videos and screenshots never really showed how this concept would work with the complexity of European railways, dense cityscapes, signalling or older era's (much more important/interesting to train simmers). Long before we got close to any answers we were left reeling from the shock of the Aces closure announcement like the FS community.

 

The good news is that it prompted a freeware development called Open Rails. This is a community effort and has been years in development but does have backward compatability. Stuck with one sim (to 3-4 FS versions) the developers, freeware and commercial, pushed the envelope and even came up with significant functionality improvements in the Sim.

 

Meanwhile RailSimulatorwas released and has transformed through Railworks to Rail Simulator 2013. Not a very loved sim by many and although it's the prettiest yet this comes with a price tag, both financial and in funcional issues.

 

I'm sure the accountants (Know the cost of everything and the value of nothing) pulled the plug on numbers on a spreadsheet and so we'll never know how close the Aces and ESP teams work came to furthering our simming hobbies.

 

In the meantime P3D seems at worst a great "lifeboat" for FSX and at best may bring a future development with some backward compatability for add-ons?

 

The trouble with totally NEW sims is that you have to pay again for what you already have. I ran FS9 alongside FSX but found that the newer got my money. Will P3D V2.0 mean much of that expenditure will cease to be compatible? Will 1.4 still be available in that case so that this dual development stuff still has a platform?

 

Speculation of course, but unless you've limitless resources worth considering?

 

Geoff

Geoff: no wonder we are GOGs.

 

Theoretically then, MS could reclaim ESP with all the improvements, of course, paid for, or removed if not wanted. Then they could rebuild a new iteration of ACES, and restart FS11.

 

In a free market that is possible and also we could speculate and cold guess, ie LM is in fact doing all the upgrading before MS re-enters the consumer entertainment market.

 

I don't have enough days left to worry. I'll take it how it comes. As long as LM stays with the Academic version or similar, then I am happy. Frankly when I had the developer licence nobody from LM asked me to report progress!

PS and I never thought for a moment that MS gave anything away to LM; it would have been a fully commercial transaction.

 

Our real problem is a lingering sentimentality that wants us to believe that there is a hard-core of FS developers lying in wait in MS HQ for the call to restart FS11.

 

Brush the dream aside, hard men have judged the franchise to be under-yielding, the ROI too low, and there are better things to invest funds in (and with the decline of the PC they are searching hard).

 

We deep in our passion are blind to the reality that there are few in our families, let alone in the world beyond, share anything of our solitary pleasure.

 

So be glad for LM giving us some respite, X-Plane for building a clan of fanatics who develop and now create some great material, and other developers with a transient belief in their own ball-busting simulations, and developers who still believe they can make a buck out of the longevity of FSX and compatibility with P3D.

That people actually prefer a stripped down and tuned version of FSX, aka Prepar3D, with 2006 graphics says a lot about X-Plane and how strong a product Microsoft built. And even AVSIM can't make a good enough ROI on their addon shop to find it worthwhile. That says a lot about the state of our hobby. Too bad Microsoft totally missed the mark with Flight. It had great potential...

Pure speculation but I see it this way. MS licensed ESP to LM with the "no entertainment market" caveat mainly because they thought that Flight would be a winner. Ian, I serioulsy doubt there would be anything like a "takeback" from MS. I guarantee that LM's lawyers would not commit to investing millions of $$ if there was any chance of that.

 

What *I* predict - LM will partner with MS down the road to use MS retail, entertainment market to distribute the "entertainment" version of P3D. The ambiguous nature of the EULA and the "academic" version points in that direction to me.

 

One has to accept the reality of corporate maneuvers - there is NO way that MS is going to stifle LM - if anything, they will just want a bigger cut of the pie. A lot of people seem to be confused about the "entertainment" aspect of P3d. The EULA doesn't state that one cannot derive entertainment from the product, simply that it in effect, cannot be packaged as entertainment product nor distributed through entertainment marketing channels.

 

I am pleased with where P3D is now and am looking forward to their further development. As simmers, we are going to benefit from their commercial efforts.

 

For all those who won't try P3D because they won't violate any EULA - think about it - do you REALLY think, in today's litigious society, that LM would open itself up to millions of $$ in lawsuits by releasing an academic version THAT ANYONE CAN BUY WITH NO SECURITY CHECKS without the blessing of their corporate legal team? Considering how long the academic version has been available, don't you think that MS would have started some action by now?

 

I still like my LM/MS retail distribution scenario, and think that anyone who doesn't consider P3D for home use is missing a lot of fun.

 

Vic

The computer entertainment business is just too far away from LM's core business. LM is a B2B corporation. It would require a much larger team with the addition of many PC game retail experts to work on content, usability, marketing, distribution, support etc. Ain't gonna happen.

 

The 2.0 version of P3D will probably be nothing more than a facelift for most user, and not an upgrade to a state of the art graphics platform that will be one of many requirements to have success in the gaming industry in 2013. Even in 2006 FSX graphics were dated compared to other games. The consumer market for P3D is limited to a very small group of FS enthusiasts = pocket change money for LM.

 

LM will have one focus with P3D: To provide customized simulation environments for corporate and gouvernment clients.

Good discussion, guys, very good, with some plausible suggestions.

 

However it is not for us to know, and those who do will play it close to their chest, probably not even discussing it outside of small circle of management.

 

It is business, and I am not a shareholder of either company .. always too late to the party.

 

Even worse, if X-Plane is the future, why can't I calibrate my controllers, axes and buttons? So I am committed by inherent incompetence to FSX and its derivatives.

 

PS maybe Boeing with their great 'continuous' simulation graphics may enter the entertainment realm in alliance with one of the familiar FS publishers.

In this video you can see what ACES were working on while developing ESP 2.0. Notice the intergration of trains, and peopleflow (sorry ORBX )

 

Thanks mate for that, it was a real eye-opener. And it leaves more to regret that MS made the wrong decision and tried to turn the sim into a kid's game. That ESP 2.0 would have been fantastic, now its a question of how much of that will be in P3D 2.0.

 

It also shows that there is nothing new under the sun, so full marks to Orbx in grabbing the edge on Flows, tho I suspect others are not far behind.

 

But FS11 would have been, could have been a great step forward, and FS12 would no doubt have been 64bit.

 

PS yes I always thought that the ESP 1.0 scenery engine would have been the base for trains, submarines, surface ships and all other kinds of simulations. Geoff wouldn't it be great if a train simulation could run over a large part of the rail network illustrated in FSX.

Yep, how one can't resist to think of what could have been if only. But the same longing is what got man to create airplanes in the first place. I guess the Wright brothers were told countless times to just enjoy their bikes and stop looking onwards and upwards...

 

 

I have confidence the innovation will continue, but it is so far beyond my computer understanding that I can only reassure developers I am an easy touch.

I second the motion that LM is doing all the developing and will continue to focus it on their side to the corporate side. Then Microsoft takes care of the consumer side of licensing and marketing. Makes a lot of sense and probably a viable product for them now because they don't spend on developing costs. Academic version is an interim solution until that happens. And don't think that Microsoft is turning a blind eye to how p3d academic is being received by the consumer flight swimming community.