Microsoft could sell the entertainment version of it, and Microsoft may not develop the software gene anymore, Does not mean Microsoft did not write exclusive clauses that gives Microsoft the legal right to sell entertainment version of this. Many ways to skin a chicken to cook. P3d may not sell as entertainment product, but Microsoft could write contract setup that give MS the right to sell an entertainment version of this with certain features excluded. Lockheed could just renegotiate with MS EULA agreements sell as Entertainment product split up the proceeds from the sale of the software.

And ORBX World scenery? Part of that conspiracy? I think so.

To put this thread back on track, a bit.....

 

From the FSX forum, yesterday----- Having to do with the Orbx situation

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

If you don't have Orbx login...

 

"And the good news - there are several former ACES devs busy with fixing and improving FSX (ESP) core code (including DX10/DX11 compatibility). They have now a contract at Lockheed Martin."

 

Yes, this statement put's this post right back on track. Everyone here was ridiculing the person who made the comment, JV, indicating that he doesn't know what he was talking about. This could very well be the reason. Some will disagree, some have a different view. The point being, he made a statement indicating that as far as "they" were concerned, Xplane didn't / doesn't have a future, to them it doesn't, their future lies with P3D, and now we have some concrete evidence as to perhaps why.

 

One thing is for sure, it appears he DOES know a lot more than you folks "speculate" he does. It appears there may be a "bright" future after all for P3D, and hence his business decision for staying in that area of the market, and the reason for his comments. Seems pretty logical to me, now.

 

There had to be some reason for his remarks, now you know. Whether you like it or not is moot, again, don't buy his products. As for his statement, the reasons are now clear(er).

 

I'll admit, when I first read what he had to say I questioned it from a business standpoint. I really don't care what he has to say about people on a personal level, no one should, it really doesn't matter. Now, it's a lot more clear why the business decision was made, and probably one I would make if I were in his shoes. Just carry on with a product / similar product that you have had so much success with. If you feel the need to publicly belittle the competition of a product you have / may develop for, so be it, I wouldn't, but none of us are JV, he can do / say what he likes.

 

Glen

Proving J.V. wrong will be voluptuary.

Do you honestly think he cares what you / we think?

 

He only cares where his revenue comes from. The only way your going to "prove him wrong" is by boycotting his product, just don't buy it. If you don't use a product that he develops for, then you can't boycott, and you are never going to prove anything. That's the only place your going to "hurt" or "prove him wrong". I would imagine he's sitting back laughing when and if he reads what's said here. He could care less. All he cares about is the future development of P3D, (provided it's true) and the revenue it could potentially bring, nothing else. Xplane does not exist in his world, it would appear.

 

Glen

No, I'm sure he doesn't care. Proving him wrong will be voluptuary neverthless.

No, I'm sure he doesn't care. Proving him wrong will be voluptuary neverthless.

Are you really a satyr? :rofl:

Heck, MS doesn't even sell FSX any more.

 

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/ThemeID.27509700/Flight-Simulator-X-Gold-Edition-PC-Game/productID.216458700

This means they primarily need to translate 32-bit code into 64 bit code and do multithreading optimizations as well, which I would think by 2013 is a heck of a lot easier than starting from scratch

 

My understanding is programming a multi-threaded application is more difficult than programming a single-threaded one, and taking an existing single threaded-application and plucking it apart to make it multi-threaded is extremely difficult and complicated, and it might very well be easier to just start from scratch.

My understanding is programming a multi-threaded application is more difficult than programming a single-threaded one, and taking an existing single threaded-application and plucking it apart to make it multi-threaded is extremely difficult and complicated, and it might very well be easier to just start from scratch.

 

FSX is already a multi-threaded application (Since SP1), that's not the problem! FSX (or ESP) still has legacy assembler code using 32bit registers dating back years in it. To go 64bit all this code would have to be identified, and recoded to a higher language using 64bit protocols or in 64bit assembler without breaking any of it's functionality. How much of it, and how deeply it's imbedded in the code will determine if it's at all feasible technically or economically to do.

I don't think it's a true multi-threaded application. If I recall correctly they only offloaded a handful of selected threads to other cores and didn't go the whole hog and make FSX properly utilise the processing power available to a modern quad or six core CPU. I believe the same is true for P3D as well, where only limited progress has been made in terms of multi-threading.

 

I can't remember if it was here or another forum I recently read an excellent post by someone explaining why it's a huge job to turn an older single-threaded application into a multi-threaded one and is quite possibly not worth the trouble and you might just as well start from scratch.

As for John V remarks, well he is entitled to his opinion, but if he fails to support XP10-64 he will become a footnote in the FS history book unless P3D goes 64 bits.

 

I can't remember if it was here or another forum I recently read an excellent post by someone explaining why it's a huge job to turn an older single-threaded application into a multi-threaded one and is quite possibly not worth the trouble and you might just as well start from scratch.

 

Maybe except for one potentially big issue: already known is exactly what you want the code to do. So starting from scratch, if you mean by this w/ no idea how you want to make the program run, would arguably much more challenging than having a template (the existing code) that works as it should to work off of. I have to guess this is exactly how LR w/ it's relatively meager sized staff did this for XPlane 64-bit.

 

We are at a crossroads: we either bite the bullet and jump to what multicore/64-bit/full multithreading can do which is big, or stay stuck with very old technology. This is bound to happen of course, either w/ XPlane continuing to improve, P3D changing to 64-bit, or something totally new. It's just a question of when. Why do I say this? Well, on a planet of over 7 billion people, as cool as flight simulation is, someone will do this right! It's why groups like AeroFly are doing what they are doing. Indeed, XPlane may still get there and at least they've taken the plunge. When it does, IF it did w/ P3D, we can expect a huge new era of development unfolding. It effectively aligns the trajectory of software development w/ hardware development. It gives users a new reason to upgrade. It makes overclocking much less important. It makes it meaningful to take advantage of 32Gb or more of ram which has become so cheap compared to a few years ago. 12-core processors & SLI become ultra useful if you design for this! FSX as far developed as it is, is a true dinosaur! Continuing to throw money at the dinosaur will get you only so far. One thing about FSX is that it does have enough of what you want to warrant the support it's gotten over the years. The next sim, be it P3D, XP or whatever, needs to have those elements present.

Starting from scratch is not always the best answer. I tend to agree with JV in that the FSX engine is really good at what it does. What the FSX engine would benefit from is to offload of many of the graphics calculations to the GPU as GPU's are much more efficient with so many cuda cores these days.

 

Cheers

jja

I might have seen this thread too late but anyway i'd like to know what JV would think about these :

 

http://www.beti-x.com/CZSTstewart.html

 

http://asn-xp.aerosoft.com/?page_id=1256