His dismissive comments certainly sound like he's packing a grudge rather than making any kind of reasoned and objective assessment. You'd think Austin kicked his dog or something.

 

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised that any commercial third-party developer would throw their weight behind P3D considering that it is explicitly not intended for consumer use.

I'm not convinced by the performance of the X-Plane engine. I fear it's because it's multi platform. It cannot use things like DirectX then, I'm sure that wastes a lot of ressources.

 

This is about as wrong as wrong can be. Cross platform support does not cause reduced performance, and OpenGL is at least as efficient as DirectX.

Of course, his statement won't make the a really excited user happy, but the statement "nor does it have a large enough customer base to make it worth our while" really says it all. Plain and simple, he is telling the X-Plane community that the sales will not justify the development costs. It sounds very much like a business decision to me.

 

There are ways around this, used in other hobbies. One is to take preorders. When enough people have committed to purchasing the product, develpment can start. If they don't get enough pre-orders in a reasonable time, then they know the project is not feasible.

 

They might simply start with one of their existing projects because it should be relatively easy to convert the 3d models from one format to another.

 

But doesn't X-Plane have a conversion program of its own? Maybe it would be more productive if this conversion program could be improved so it could work with Orbyx sceneries? (And if it does work, what's the beef?)

@ Mountain Man: I am with you on both comments.

He obviously knows something we don't. He explicitly said they are close to the Lockheed martin dev team. Current licensing has nothing to do with it. We don't know what p3d 2.0 licensing will entail. Maybe a sub company that will do the retail part keeping LM and the corporate side desperate. (Maybe microcrap) lol.

 

Also explains why everyone is starting support for p3d with native installers. Pmdg threw the wrench in but perhaps referring to the current one and its licensing. Licensing wording can be changed. I doubt that is a hangup.

 

Certainly causes more speculation mixing in his comments as s well pmdg and others. Quite the mixing bowl.

Will P3D 2.0 use DX11? If so Orbx is behind it because they can repackage the same scenery and charge you a fee because they implemented their sceneries with a DX11 patch OR just resale the same scenery again under DX11 umbrella, why using P3D 2.0 if not for DX 11.

 

Why are some of us using FSX, is it because we like popping autogen, OOM, because we don't like to max out your sliders or because we like to see 15FPS when flying big iron landing at a big airport, because we like to tweak or reinstall everything because something went wrong or because FSX was the only game in town for awile?

 

XP-10 64-bit NEED to be stable PERIOD if Laminar want a lot of good 3PD to get on board,.... the sooner the better.

 

As for JV's comments about XP-10.... when you are a profitable business making all kind of money you don't talk bad about your competition because you don't have any....look to me like the man is afraid of something...

 

XP-10 64-bit NEED to be stable PERIOD if Laminar want a lot of good 3PD to get on board,.... the sooner the better.

 

As for JV's comments about XP-10.... when you are a profitable business making all kind of money you don't talk bad about your competition because you don't have any....look to me like the man is afraid of something...

+1000

but the statement "nor does it have a large enough customer base to make it worth our while" really says it all.

 

+1

 

If I had a lot of money wrapped up in one basket, I'd probably defend that pretty vehemently too...you'd do anything, say anything to make sure your market was protected. It's to be expected. If it was me, I'd invest a small amount in investigating x-plane viability simply as a matter of business prudence. I am guessing he's been in talks with LM and once you've chosen a side, then talking "with the enemy" is just taboo as you might find yourself out in the cold. ORBX is a dependent entity....they need a sim base to make money and will play up their choice and play down opposition. His statements are high probability of being business only motivated so it automatically makes his statements about x-plane viability questionable, especially since he's only given speculative commentary and no definitive benchmarks of his claims. I've always said the market will do what it does...and I think x-plane will grow into the sim of the majority, but do think it will be many years before that happens.

 

Tom K

Well, looks like he has a huge crowd of sheep behind him who will do anything he says. So if JV says X-Plane is rubbish and we should all go to P3D, then they will quickly follow. You only need to look at the replies to some of his posts on the forum to see that some people seem to worship the guy.

Just to echo tom's post above, its really understandable why orbx have hit out against x plane. They're really tied to fsx and p3d and as such, they'll do anything to rubbish the competition. Although, like tom above, if it was me, I'm not sure I'd want all my eggs in one basket. Of course, with orbx itself no running three offices worldwide (Austrailia, U.S. and the U.K.) it's highly likely that they don't have the budget to spare for starting development for a new platform.

 

The big question is of course, does X-Plane need scenery from ORBX. Simple answer is no. That doesn't mean x plane won't get Orbx level scenery. There are plenty of developers out there who could produce the same quality or better scenery. Even in fsx there are companies who are producing great quality scenery, and without the awful switching mechanism. Take a look at aerosoft's upcoming Deutchland X scenery. It's as good if not better that orbx, runs without interfering and there's even a small hope that it could be converted to X Plane.

 

So it's best to ignore stuff like this and at trust that the sim you enjoy is right for you. X plane does have its issues, but it also has its strengths. So the opinion of a man with a vested interest means nothing.

 

Jess B

Well, looks like he has a huge crowd of sheep behind him who will do anything he says. So if JV says X-Plane is rubbish and we should all go to P3D, then they will quickly follow. You only need to look at the replies to some of his posts on the forum to see that some people seem to worship the guy.

 

Im certainly not one of those with my past experience with him.

If it was me, I'd invest a small amount in investigating x-plane viability simply as a matter of business prudence.

 

As I indicated, this would seem to be relatively simple to do. First, he has a lot of knowlege about the business aspects. Second, he already knows a lot about making scenery.

 

Converting models from FSX to X-Plane should not be all that difficult. Personally, I convert buildings and other models from both FSX and X-Plane to The Sims 3 all the time.

 

Then you contract with an X-Plane developer to do all of the fiddly bits for X-Plane. You get a firm bid. But it is all contingent upon getting enough pre-orders.

 

Then, you take pre-orders. You demand a certain number of pre-sales, enough to cover your development costs. Maybe it is 500 units, maybe 1000, maybe 2000. When enough people have opened their wallets, you start development. It's a relatively low risk approach.

 

As far as competition with FSX and P3d, these claims make no sense. Microsoft seems to be pretty much done, and I doubt there will be another print run of FSX. Prepar3d is not a mass market product and will always be a niche market within a niche market. I really doubt LM wants to be in the computer game market. I doubt LM sees X-Plane as being "the competition" because it really is angling for different customers. I place the claims that the comments are based about fears of competition in the delusional category.

 

I suspect if Orbyx could be convinced there is a real market for their products with X-Plane, they would make an X-Plane version.

Just to echo tom's post above, its really understandable why orbx have hit out against x plane. They're really tied to fsx and p3d and as such, they'll do anything to rubbish the competition. Although, like tom above, if it was me, I'm not sure I'd want all my eggs in one basket. Of course, with orbx itself no running three offices worldwide (Austrailia, U.S. and the U.K.) it's highly likely that they don't have the budget to spare for starting development for a new platform.

 

The big question is of course, does X-Plane need scenery from ORBX. Simple answer is no. That doesn't mean x plane won't get Orbx level scenery. There are plenty of developers out there who could produce the same quality or better scenery. Even in fsx there are companies who are producing great quality scenery, and without the awful switching mechanism. Take a look at aerosoft's upcoming Deutchland X scenery. It's as good if not better that orbx, runs without interfering and there's even a small hope that it could be converted to X Plane.

 

So it's best to ignore stuff like this and at trust that the sim you enjoy is right for you. X plane does have its issues, but it also has its strengths. So the opinion of a man with a vested interest means nothing.

 

Jess B

 

You got that right.

I use a lot of ORBX regions in the F-sim. I don't think the X-sim needs it. We need a bigger region first, something like UTX, a fine landclass add on for thd US, Canada and Alaska. And a texture update like GEX. Just my 2 cents.

JV's comments are a bit blunt and unprofessional IMHO, Flight simming is a small community and this sort of internecine banter is really destructive.

 

It occurs to me that JV could put a small team together and start converting his products to XPX like they do at aerosoft. X-plane simmers would gobble them up.

 

It really does seem like it could a great revenue stream for them.