I think more and more that p3d need us and that we are not the cling ons that hang around while their multi billion $$ client companies use their software.

 

We know the pricing, it's dirt cheap. It's expensive to keep a software team running and having a handful of billion dollar companies buying licenses that only amount to a couple thousand dollars does not keep a product afloat.

 

So why did they price it like that? What is their target? At that price the target has got to be in large numbers to recoup costs. So maybe it is the thousands of small simulators at flight schools, homes, education etc. The kinds of places that care about how it looks a lot more than the level D guys.

Lockheed Martin has made made it clear it is not interested in the entertainment market so why would its commercial customers want that level of detail? Their objectives won't include flying 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." What would be the purpose?

 

Au contraire...the P3D environment isn't about just flying and navigating around. Take a training event where we're training TACP ground controllers, air defense crews, and F-35 pilots on the coordination procedures to call for, validate, approve and execute a close air support mission. The TACP simulator has to have enough high-res ground detail so that the ground controllers can describe the target and the target environment as they would in real life...and the F-35 pilots need to be able to see those landmarks, as well as vehicles and other ground components in order to execute their part of the mission. The guys on the virtual air defense battery have to be able to see the kind of detail they need to do visual ID on the friendly aircraft as they transit their air defense sector. The kind of detail we're talking about here is at least as much as a typical good-quality FS add-on...and there absolutely IS a real need for good visual detail in many partial and full-task military training requirements.

 

When I was assigned to the Pentagon, I was in charge of the branch on the USAF headquarters staff that manages and resources development of the AF Distributed Mission Operations program (multidisciplinary interconnection of various simulations), as well as being the executive agent for the training budgets for all the joint US military commands. One only need watch the news and it becomes pretty clear that the days of the shrinking US military budget are nigh but upon us...I think the convergence between severe limits on resources and the real low-cost capabilities afforded by microsimulation environments like P3D is going to yield a lot more interest in the years ahead.

 

Why might LM might want us around? The same skills that go into making a good FSX add-on airport could be used to model the next Osama Bin Laden's hideout in P3D for a joint strike team. Why would LM want to independently recreate the wheel in building its virtual ops environment when there's so much in the way of experience, talent, and tools already out there now?

 

Regards

Move to X-plane, better graphics, better physics engine and now with 64bit in beta, larger adress space..

 

PS

Most 3rd party vendors are realizing XPX potential and developing more and more addons..

 

 

Unless you work for LM, or have a friend who knows a friend, then the end goal of LM will always be unclear to us. Meanwhile I am delighted with 1.4, and I have every FSX/P3D addon that I want running.

 

I have X-Plane but I seem the only person in the world who can't calibrate my controllers, and its graphics may be better, but its default scenery is pretty ordinary. With 64bit coming it may well be the go-to sim of the near future, but at the moment it has too many amateurish edges to it. No flames please, I am keeping a close eye on development and I will try it again in a version or twos time.

I think X-Plane v Prepar3D is called "healthy competition" where we come from, Ian. The market will ultimately decide but I really believe there is room for both. In the meantime I am sticking with the lead shown by Orbx who are clearly backing the P3D faction. I remain delighted with v1.4 and for most purposes it already meats the standards I require.

I don't want to talk about xplane but for now this suits.

 

xplane is nice, she is a bit like the naked lady, you see whats there, warts and all, and pretty much know a good time could be had. P3d rigt now is the fully clothed although with a slightly skimpy outfit. She is looking at you and your imagination is thinking about the possibilities. You know she looks good from the outside but whats underneath.

 

Thats a little bit of the fun with p3d - v2.

I don't want to talk about xplane but for now this suits.

 

xplane is nice, she is a bit like the naked lady, you see whats there, warts and all, and pretty much know a good time could be had. P3d rigt now is the fully clothed although with a slightly skimpy outfit. She is looking at you and your imagination is thinking about the possibilities. You know she looks good from the outside but whats underneath.

 

Thats a little bit of the fun with p3d - v2.

 

:lol: haha! What an analogy. Never heard it put like that way before to a flight simulation. Too funny! And bizarre.

I'm a long time software engineer also, 30+ years. I'm glad this topic stayed civilized and some interesting opinions.

 

I'll disagree on the 64bit code path ... IMHO, it's a critical implementation moving forward. I do Agree 64bit code doesn't necessarily improve frame rate performance, but what it will do is improve caching (ability to allocate considerably more RAM). Current SSD drives have mitigated the problem somewhat, but caching a lot of data in RAM (and ability to cache more texture data in the video cards RAM/address space) will greatly improve fluidity and image quality. But more importantly, a 64bit code base will leave A LOT of headroom for add-on's - specifically those that are memory intensive.

 

SSD's are certainly getting faster every month, but they are still less capable than the physical limits of Quad Channel RAM. I picked up 32GB of quad channel RAM for some ridiculously low price - $160.

 

Also, as video cards move up to 2-5GB video RAM, they'll need that address space and that only a 64bit application is really going to be able to utilize it to it's full potential. 64bit will ... has to be the future ... and yes it will break just about all compatibility.

Agree with comment above about p3d needing the sim community onboard, to build 3rd party assets.

 

Some posters are comparing this to level d sims with poor graphics, but LM are clearly trying to think outside the bix and build more of a 'world sim' for training.

 

 

Lockheed Martin will develop Prepar3D to meet the needs of its commercial customers and will provide the level of detail they need.

 

Its true that the TACP simulator has very high-res ground detail and if Lockheed Martin decided to enter that market the it would have to provide it. I suggest that's a very big if. It's a very limited market with established participants and the entry cost would be high. Lockheed Martin may choose to look elsewhere for business.

...they tread a fine line because of the EULA but clearly they are encouraging and loving the support of addons which are previously fsx addons. Maybe corporate customers dont care. Maybe they do and love the enhancements. Reading between the lines suggest that they will continue to support and encourage it. All that has to be done is adjust the wording. Avsim is hobbyist. its not just a for fun simulator. we are more hardcord than that. Who here is interested in starting an aircraft with Ctrl E. The majority here follow proper procedures. Thats training, and education. We are students of aviation. If we want a just for fun sim than Flight would be a blockbuster sim right now, and or we could go get all the shoot em up flying games and shoot things down or fly through squares. I for one have no interest in that whatsoever.

 

I fully agree with this statement, i for one have no interest in turning the platform into a game like HAWX, i would not be posting on the LM forums asking were the go faster button is.

 

The trouble is that LM seem to believe there is no difference between the hardcore simmers and the PS3 crowd; or if they believe there is a difference the EULA does not make it clear. It's just all a little 'under the radar', i wish they would just come out and say that the product can be used for entertainment purposes, rather than the "Student licence".

 

I for one have no problems paying for major upgrades and considering 'we' are generally willing to spend £50+ on high end upgrades, a new sim offering significant advantages...well, i personally would be willing to pay £100 perhaps more.

For commercial customers, there is a difference between mass market items and professional items. FSX is mass market software, whereas Prepar3d is being targetted towards a professional audience.

 

You see this in other areas. A consumer may go to Barnes and Noble to purchase a book about law. A lawyer is going to purchase his books from an outfit like West publishing. The consumer will pay $20 or his book, the lawyer over $200 for his. The consumer will get a book containing information that the lawyer already knows. The lawyer will get a book containing highly detailed and specific information which costs a lot of money to compile. An outfit like West publishing will hire sales reps whose job is to contact lawyers and keep them apprised of new products.

 

Similarly, a consumer may go to WalMart to purchase over the counter medicines. However, the drug companies will send highly trained sales reps to each doctor's office to advise them and sell them on pretty sophisticated medications which are available by prescription only.

 

When I owned a bookstore, I had dedicated software which was specifically designed to manage inventory and sales. It cost me thousands of dollars, but was far more functional and usefule than an off the shelf inventory management system.

 

A software company may offer a high end graphics program like Photoshop or Maya. These programs are expensive and contain powerful features. A program like Maya may have a student version which is available for a lower cost. It is in the best interest of the developers to teach students to use the programs and to make them available to students because those students' future employers are more likely to purchase a program, for professional use, which their future employees already know how to use.

 

Business customers generally do not want mass market products. They want products which are tailored to their needs. In most cases, those products will be used in conjunction with high end hardware. Again, if you walk into a professional environment, you typically will not see computers or other hardware which was purchased at WalMart for a low price. Instead, you will see high end equipment which was purchased from high end vendors. Commercial customers want software which takes full advantage of the capabilities of their high end equipment.

 

I believe LM will pursue a similar path. LM is not in the business of catering to the low end market. Their customers will not balk at paying $10,000 or more for a simulator. In fact, many of their customers have already invested millions of dollars in high end simulators. And when one considers the cost of an actual aircraft, the cost of a high end simulator is trivial.

 

The reason for making the product available to a broader student market is a reasonable buisness choice. LM wants people who are planning to enter aviation professionally to know how to use their program, and more importantly, to like their program. If students like the program, the people who will employ those students in the future will want to purchase it.

 

Students will like the program better if it is fun to use and visually attractive.

 

It's sort of why Microsoft included Solitaire with Windows. They wanted people to like Windows. Offering a few fun games made Windows fun, which meant that people would prefer to use Windows over other operating systems.

 

With professional level software, a developer does not cut corners or go cheap.

, i wish they would just come out and say that the product can be used for entertainment purposes, rather than the "Student licence".

 

Lockheed Martin's current position is clear, like it or not.

Can Prepar3D be used for entertainment?

 

No, Lockheed Martin does not offer Prepar3D for entertainment, and we have no plans to enter the entertainment space. The EULAs explain that Prepar3D can be used for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment

 

http://www.prepar3d....sked-questions/

 

Also there isn't a "Student Licence."

Lockheed Martin's current position is clear, like it or not.

 

 

http://www.prepar3d....sked-questions/

 

Also there isn't a "Student Licence."

 

I am not sure if you intended, but your post comes across as rather abrupt.

 

Yes i am aware that LM's EULA position is clear, however they are allowing people to use the simulator for entertainment purposes, my entire (and apparently unclear) point was that they are saying cannot be used for entertainment purposes but at the same time (as eluded too above) they are encouraging 3rd party developers from FSX and simmers themselves to purchase the sim under the (my mistake) academic license, or the developer license.

 

Yes thank you 'Academic license'.

 

I was simply pointing out that i don't like the back hand nature of this arrangement.

I was simply pointing out that i don't like the back hand nature of this arrangement.

Like it or not, it's a position that L-M has no choice about making. I'm fairly confident that had anyone known that MS was going to completely shut down flight simulator development, L-M might well have negotiated a less restrictive license.

 

While it is certainly true that none of us know the exact wording of the license agreement between L-M and MS, L-M themselves have stated quite plainly that it (their license) prohibits them from entering the entertainment market (i.e., mass marketing through retail channels).

 

As a result, L-M has stretched the terms as far as they possibly can with their "Academic License" and their rather very loose definition of a "student..."