Aces with their room full of developers did not get near what you are asking P3D to do...can miracle happen

 

Really? First of all, they didn't see a need to so they didn't. Second, they have a complete template of how it all is put together to work off of. 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, as Aces room full of developers had to do. No, I'm not assuming this is a case of running a batch file to make the conversion overnight, but I do think the basic architecture works, is proven, has a great following, and has essentially unlimited upside potential if the constraints are removed. Using it for a template to create the code I'm talking about may be more doable than we think, or not. There may even be developer tools that solve some of this. Huge project, but long terms rewards as there is big headroom then for years to come. 14-core machines, 128GB of ram, etc. No need for extreme cooling and overclocks. If someone said to me now, buy P3D 64-bit, DX11, multicore optimized, and currently all you can use is the default aircraft, I'd still take it immediately as it would only be a matter of time before others realized the incredible potential of the core platform over the current one, and developers of existing addons could opt to move on w/ the new engine or stay back w/ the dead end code. So much less of a gamble than something totally new. They would be tasked w/ the same undertaking: convert 32 to 64bit. They already know which are the premium addons sales-wise--they could duplicate only those. PMDG NGX, REX E+, etc. Other optimizations could be done as well, including SLI/Crossfire. Huge undertaking, but long term platform. What's attractive about this is quite simply: FSX is a proven, albeit constrained product. It's why users don't flock to XPlane. It would be useful for someone who understands the core issues involved in converting from known 32 bit to 64 bit to chime in right about now...

I think bang for buck revising P3D to be 64-bit native code, DX11 & multicore is the only real path to future proofing the platform. And for flight simulators, it's future-proofing that insures long term success.

 

More the point, it's what's needed for long-term commercial success, but is Lockheed Martin interested in commercial success? Their current agreement with Microsoft explicitly prohibits them from pursuing it, and I've heard from other sources that their primary interest in P3D is to promote the sales and training of Lockheed Martin aircraft.

 

Orbx CEO most know something we do not know

 

Or wants us to think he does...

Their current agreement with Microsoft explicitly prohibits them from pursuing it, and I've heard from other sources that their primary interest in P3D is to promote the sales and training of Lockheed Martin aircraft.

and thats why our Orbx friend is so committed to P3D and LM's future. I too would much rather create scenery for serious applications like combat/warfare simulations than a bunch of picky geeks like us.

Are those interested in combat/warfare sims really going to care about whether or not you can count the shingles on a barn, or that there are animated people on the tarmac?

or that there are animated people on the tarmac?

 

The animated people on the tarmac are potential threats.

 

The shingles on the barn are there for the same reason they're there for the picky flight simmers. Otherwise you could use filled polygons for your buildings. I mean, that's all that's important, right? When I'm lining up a tricky crosswind landing, hand flying, I don't notice insignificant things like buildings (unless they're an obstacle in the approach path). It's not until I'm actually taxiing to parking that I see any buildings.

 

Hook

That would mean you are happy with a simulator that has one runway, adjustable lenght and heading, one NDB, one VOR, ILS and one GPS approach. You need a good weather injector and that's it. No 20.000 airports, no scenery, no outside view of plane, no textures. You need a procedure trainer, not a flighsim.

That would mean you are happy with a simulator that has one runway, adjustable lenght and heading, one NDB, one VOR, ILS and one GPS approach. You need a good weather injector and that's it. No 20.000 airports, no scenery, no outside view of plane, no textures. You need a procedure trainer, not a flighsim.

 

Well put Ralf......don't need to add anything.

 

Glen

The animated people on the tarmac are potential threats.

 

The shingles on the barn are there for the same reason they're there for the picky flight simmers. Otherwise you could use filled polygons for your buildings. I mean, that's all that's important, right? When I'm lining up a tricky crosswind landing, hand flying, I don't notice insignificant things like buildings (unless they're an obstacle in the approach path). It's not until I'm actually taxiing to parking that I see any buildings.

 

Hobbyists might care about that kind of thing, but does someone running a professional sim for combat training? That's the query I was responding to, and it seems to me the answer is probably no.

 

That would mean you are happy with a simulator that has one runway, adjustable lenght and heading, one NDB, one VOR, ILS and one GPS approach. You need a good weather injector and that's it. No 20.000 airports, no scenery, no outside view of plane, no textures. You need a procedure trainer, not a flighsim.

 

Please read the context again. It's not about what I am personally happy with. My response was to someone suggesting that those running a combat sim for training purposes will be interested in the high fidelity scenery packages offered by OrbX when eye-candy is more of a hobbyist thing. I suspect anybody running P3D as a professional trainer will be perfectly content with whatever base scenery Lockheed Martin provides.

Hobbyists are 90+ % of the customer base of a desktop flight sim. "My name is Ralf, I'm a hobby user of XP. Therefore I care about eye candy, scenery, seasons and landmarks".

 

I think it's fine to use XP for procedure training. But for me it would be cool if I could buy ORBX like sceneries.

I didn't make myself clear. The filled polygons are only important for training purposes. I'm a flight simmer, and I like my eye candy. Sometimes I'm too busy to notice it.

 

Turn on failures, turn on passenger evaluation, turn on pilot evaluation, turn OFF autopilot and see for yourself.

 

On the route I took on my last fight, I normally watch the clouds closely. It was the flight I used to test various weather settings. This last time I barely noticed the clouds; I was just too busy. It wasn't until I ran across some stratus just below my 3000 foot cruise altitude that I really noticed. It was a situation I hadn't seen before. It was a short fight, 1 hour, so I was hand flying the plane, and I was testing some gauge code as well, so I had my head inside the cockpit more than I usually do.

 

When I'm flying, I want clouds that look right. I want a city skyline to look right. I expect reasonable autogen. If I'm flying in winter, especially in Alaska, I expect to see some snow on the ground. I want real world weather... and it's more important for it to be interesting rather than perfectly accurate, although the weather I'm getting is certainly accurate. I want a good flight model without unpleasant surprises. Even when I'm busy I still look out the window occasionally... so I expect some good eye candy. I am a simmer, after all.

 

Hook

My point was that maybe..and I mean maybe, Orbx is fully committed to LM is because they see more opportunity. If LM cannot sell P3D to consumers, why would a consumer based business stick with LM?..that leads me to believe Orbx sees a future with professional type applications.

Hobbyists are 90+ % of the customer base of a desktop flight sim. "My name is Ralf, I'm a hobby user of XP. Therefore I care about eye candy, scenery, seasons and landmarks".

 

I think it's fine to use XP for procedure training. But for me it would be cool if I could buy ORBX like sceneries.

 

I think we're talking past each other. :shrug:

I think we're talking past each other. :shrug:

 

Yep.

 

Guys, what MM was talking about was whether a commercial buyer of P3D for combat training purposes would require such high fidelity scenery as Orbx produces. We can say WE want it, because we're the idiots that will buy a new graphics card every time REX comes out with a "super, intense, ridiculous resolution cloud textures, and we REALLY mean it!" upgrade. Enterprises don't run for the latest and greatest hardware every 2 months. Case in point, my company just now went to Windows 7 from Windows XP only in the last year, and we don't exactly build tricycles.

Guys, what MM was talking about was whether a commercial buyer of P3D for combat training purposes would require such high fidelity scenery as Orbx produces.

 

And the answer is, some would. Recall the very detailed UK scenery for FSX (Shawbury Fields?) that was originally developed for the military - for low-level helicopter training I think - and then brought out for us casual simmers.

 

Scott

And the answer is, some would. Recall the very detailed UK scenery for FSX (Shawbury Fields?) that was originally developed for the military - for low-level helicopter training I think - and then brought out for us casual simmers.

 

Scott

 

Yeah, I figured as much. Thing is, what sort of volumes are we talking about? I doubt the military, at least the US military would be interested in a broad platform. They're more focused on specific equipment sims. So what, 5 licenses here to this flight training center, 10 to another? What's JV getting per license if Orbx scenery is included? Is it enough to hedge all his bets, assuming Lockheed isn't able to secure the rights to a retail release?

 

These are, of course, rhetorical questions.