I was hoping Prepar3D would have moved FSX forward to where it really needed to be to keep up with current hardware, but sadly I can't report that. I certainly am glad someone is still moving the FSX code base forward, but it does appear to be in baby steps. I don't mind spending the $199 to keep the project going (nothing compared to what I've spent in hardware and Add-Ons) -- it's realistically the only folks working on the original code base. "Flight" was interesting but lets be honest, it hasn't really generated much of a following or huge interest - hopefully valuable lessons were learned in that project - as in "there aren't as many casual flyers as we thought"

 

Couple of key developments that have not happened:

 

1. Transition to 64bit code base (this is a must as FSX already hit 32bit address space limits, USERVA=2560 helps but it's not a true solution)

2. DX11 support

3. Multi-GPU support (as in usage not "will work with")

4. Better multi-core support

 

I can only guess as to why Prepar3D hasn't made larger strides over the years:

 

A. Limited software engineer resources

B. Fear of breaking 3rd party vendor add-on support

 

I'm think the problem is around A (limited resources) as I can't imagine a "new product line" caring much about 3rd party vendor support ... or does it? Or perhaps code growth is actually being held captive to 3rd party vendors? I know moving to 64bit would kill most aircraft and/or any product that used the SDK. But I can't imagine 3rd party Vendors being so hostile to prevent the obvious need to break compatibility in Prepar3D in order to progress? FSX sure, but not for Prepar3D.

 

But this statement taken from their web site might actually be indicative of why code base growth/progress has been so limited:

 

Prepar3D furthers the development of Microsoft® ESP™ while maintaining compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator X, allowing many thousands of add-ons to be used within Prepar3D.

 

I've monitor this place and there clearly are some stubborn 3rd party vendors that resist any change that would require they re-do their product ... I'm not entirely sure why because it could be yet another source of revenue for them by producing a product that supports the new code base (Prepar3D).

 

My experience with Prepar3D "Professional" has been pretty "ho hum" and will remain so until compatibility is broken and items 1-4 are real deliverables in their next release.

 

It's a new year and I'm hoping Prepar3D folks have something "bigger" planned for 2013.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

p.s. please don't get all offended by this post, life is too short ... it's just one person's honest opinion, the world still continues to rotate whether you agree or disagree.

I agree with your statement about breaking compatibility to move forward. A true 64 bit Prepar3D would have interest (and dollars) from me and I think 3rd party vendors would jump on it--they could still sell FSX scenery and many FSX users would move to the Prepar3D platform and buy the addon again. And it would be the future. I'm not a programmer, so forgive me if I'm being simplistic, but I would think a lot of scenery would be relatively easy to port and perhaps the SDK could even be built with the porting of FSX applications in mind.

 

But yes, a true break is needed to really move forward.

I have read somewhere that Prepar3D is working on the things mentioned above. It takes time to optimize the existing FSX code, I would assume anyways. I mean either way, Prepar3D is just like FSX, but more stable. And that by itself is already a big step forward. Any upgrades they do to Prepar3D is like having FSX 2.0 (if that makes any sense). We just need to wait it out!

Don't forget that the priorities of LM may well be different to the priorities of the average AVSimmer.

 

They will be more interested in the feedback of there business customers, they are unlikely to be pushing for DX11, some may have bespoke software written for ESP, they are unlikely to either upgrade or re-write for a 64-bit code base which offers very little to them, is the 4gb limit really an issue for a business customer simulating procedures and fundamentals.

 

One of the first things added to Prepar3d was the bathymetric data, who wanted that...i would guess that not many avsimmers use or care about that?

 

It seems to be a very small part of LM, irregular updates, terse communication, at the moment they are effectively letting simmers play, but it's just a little too hush-hush-wink-wink for me.

Ian, I agree with your points but not your conclusions. Yes, LM is going after the business market (and the military market) and by adding things like bathymetric data they have shown that they want this to be a diverse simulation platform. But in my mind that screams for 64 bit code and stability, both of which require a true break from the existing FSX code, not incremental improvements. Yes, they'll continue to improve what they have, but if this is working for them from a business perspective I see a brand new platform in the future.

64-bit isn't really necessary... I know, I'm a developer. You might think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread... but... that doesn't make it necessary. Sloppy developers that munch memory like it's going out of style really don't need more memory. It's like giving the government more money... they'll just waste it. :wink:

 

As for DirectX 11... it's coming... L-M considers it critical in the rewrite of the 3D rendering code.

Ed, don't you think the extra addressable memory would be important if they wanted this to be a simulator for things other than just aircraft? They would be limited in what they can do with only 4GB available.

 

I understand what you mean by sloppy developers. When I say I'm not a programmer I mean I'm not now. I used to develop voice processing systems and I had 48 port systems running on OS/2-that's 48 separate processes all doing different things with different calls at the same time--and the system had 64mb RAM. Which was huge then lol. You're right, give them 16gb and they'll use 16gb...

No, if you need something that's going to use more memory... you're better off writing it as an external application that interacts with the base sim. Prepar3d supports this very well.

I have seen both xplane and dcs have improvements when they released their 64 bit exe's. I can't say if they are poorly written but it gave them room to breath and improvement was there.

 

I am disappointed in p3d as I have not had Fsx loaded for a while. I p3d I would get under 30 fps. I know that ati is not the preferred card with Fsx and I have a 7970. I put Fsx on and get 60 in the same scenarios. Blah. I am one of those who is not getting any benefit and I have done all the tweaks prior.

I don't think LM were the ones that added the underwater environment.

 

It was already being developed as part of ESP - ESP being Microsoft's WORLD Simulator, for use in many applications, not just aviation.

 

Unfortunately, the underwater environment, and the support for it in P3D, seems very undeveloped, to the point where it is effectively useless, unless you want to complete the development yourself. !!

 

It will be interesting to see what progress LM make with P3D during 2013, and what they do to advance it to a point where it is real advantage to migrate from FSX to P3D (assuming that is a viable option).

 

As we enter 2013, we have FSX, the devil you know. It has issues, but most of them are know, and there are work arounds. A fresh install of FSX, with a few "adjustments", will provides a stable platform. Most issues with FSX come from addons with dubious SDK compatibility.

 

P3D is really no more stable, but whatever is changed for the next version, is virtually unknown to the user (or most developers) , till it is released. With no publicly available "Road Map", the next version of P3D is totally WYSIWYG. Exciting to wait for with anticipation, but often with more things broken than added or fixed (that are of any interest to the FS Hobbyist)

 

Maybe it will "get there" one day, but I am not holding my breath, and one is always haunted by the unknown chances of a potential termination, similar to the demise ESP & FLIGHT.

 

I firmly see P3D as a product for LM, being developed for LM needs, with the help of an enthusiastic collection of independent Beta testers, paying for the privilege of testing and evaluating the product.

Im no programmer and dont claim knowledge about it, but while 64 bit code wouldnt necessarily make it faster, it would probably make it smoother and more stable. Now LM is going after the business /corporate customer as the mainstream, then that is a premium product market. Premium products usually have the best, and those corporate customers are going to demand the best otherwise this business plan will fail.

 

2nd- 64bit addresses the 4gb limit and while the base program doesnt really need it, its all the addons that do. Specifically scenery, and the more scenery becomes more realistic and detailed the more its going to need. High definition takes up alot more than standard. And obviously writing extermal programs to connect doesnt seem to be working because I run very close to or at the upper memory VAS by the time I land everytime in prepar3d especially at addon airports.

 

With these issues, I cant see business corporate customers putting huge amount of dollars to use this as training if they run into this all the time.

A corporate customer will want the most realistic possible, with real world procedures. Cutting corners due to programming limitations because of old 32bit code doesnt seem like it would sell well. IMHO

 

I agree with the above. The addon devs have to break away and embrace the new. The same way that devs from any other program out there for windows 7 is usually programmed for 32bit and 64bit. When you have the option to download something for win7 you have a 32 and a 64 bit option.

Thats reality.

 

Obviously LM is keeping the hobbyist/ avsimmers in mind or they wouldnt care one bit about add on compatibility in the future, which by the way are all add ons for the entertainment market.

 

If LM is taking the progression of p3d seriously, they will have to take the big jump to 64. Addon devs will follow suite whether they like it or not because there is opportunity as evidenced by selling for 32bit. If we didnt care about all this, FSX wouldve died a long time ago.

And something tells me that if Microsoft were ever to redevelop FSX it would not be 32 bit. Never looked into flight because of its casual nature but im pretty sure that was 64. Its 2013 now folks. Not 2006. Technology doesnt stand still.

Definitely agree they need to move to 64bit. You just can't have the level of detail with addons such as OrbX, a detailed airliner (i.e. PMDG NGX) with max settings and a whole heap of AI flying around in a detailed area like London with addon airport scenery and not expect it to crash due to the 4GB memory limitation.

 

I find it very frustrating having to tone down settings like autogen (especially in Orbx scenery where it actually looks good) just to prevent OOMs when flying into Heathrow for my VA.

 

Xplane 10 is now 64bit and just look at some of the screenshots around - extremely dense autogen literally as far as the eye can see. It proves the immense level of detail that can be reached once this limit is removed.

Um... training systems don't use a bunch of airports all over the world in super-high detail. They really don't require that one bit.

 

FSX has much higher detail out of the box than most training systems.

 

As for the lower frame rates... reduce your texture sizing... Prepar3D doubles what FSX supports in size.

LM has already styated that they are moving toward 64 bit code BUT NOT for version 1.x. There are several shortcomings in 1.x that they have said will remain as to expend the effort to correct what will be "throw away code" (their words) when V2 comes out would be a waste of resources.

 

Completely rewritten code, DX11, 64bit - all those things and more are being done but NOT for version 1.x.

 

As to frames - I have FSX on a 980X at 4.43ghz with a gtx480 card and I have P3D on a Q9650 @4.14 with a GTX 650 card. I have P3D maxed out and FSX tweaked. Using Orbx PNW in FSX, I am stretched to get a consistent 30fps where in P3D it's smooth as silk.

 

Different strokes for different folks. My FSX runs beautifully - my P3D runs a little bit better - I do not know why and frankly, I don't care.

 

Vic

Don't forget that the priorities of LM may well be different to the priorities of the average AVSimmer.

 

They will be more interested in the feedback of there business customers, they are unlikely to be pushing for DX11, some may have bespoke software written for ESP, they are unlikely to either upgrade or re-write for a 64-bit code base which offers very little to them, is the 4gb limit really an issue for a business customer simulating procedures and fundamentals.

 

I suspect this is exactly right. If you've ever seen a real Level D full flight simulator, FSX/P3D is already miles ahead of the graphics they have - their commercial customers probably already think it's amazing compared to what they're used to.