Also, P3D have ZERO commitment to supporting 3rd party ... they've made that pretty clear on FB and elsewhere.  You're a "student" not your typical consumer - very very different.

I don't know where you got the idea that there's no support for 3rd parties. Why else would they see me (and others) a developer's license with two seats (for Shared Cockpit testing of course)? I and many others pay $120/year for the ability and permission to create and distribute 3d party projects.

I don't know where you got the idea that there's no support for 3rd parties.

 

Pretty sure I said LM's "commitment" - which is not the same as "no support". $120/yr ($9.95/mo) is for permission to use the Prepar3D name in your product, that doesn't mean P3D have to support your product in future versions. If P3D V2.0 no longer works with your product, LM is under no obligation to make P3D work with your product. That was my point, perhaps poor wording on my part?

 

But the real question is, have LM really issued 3M+ licenses

Pretty sure I said LM's "commitment" - which is not the same as "no support".

LM has committed to provide the necessary tools to licensed developers to allow them to make any necessary changes to their products to support Prepar3D v2.0...

Absolutely!!  So did Microsoft ... but I still recall a BIG stink over the changes.

What if he meant to say "nobody is going to pay that much money for a *Windows* phone"... Also I'm not certain we won't see another FS from MS. FLIGHT gave them everything they needed to work out the cost of doing FSX over. All the MS FSs were never making enough money to be realistic compared to what they really do they were just prestigious, so I think they could turn up any time. Windows 8 is good, and the tiled page is misunderstood.

I agree with what you say. I'm about to buy my first installation of 8, this week. I'm 65 and the old brain cells take some kick starting but I've only used it twice and found it very intuitive. The real 'Game Changer' for all of us, is if they release their new file system as the next Win 9. It was originally supposed to be released with Win 7. What a revenue stream. I've been around the internet for as long as its existed. I find far less flaming of 8 v 7.

 

Jon

 

n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1.

a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

b. A public meeting place for open discussion.

c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

3. A court of law; a tribunal.

Pretty sure I said LM's "commitment" - which is not the same as "no support". $120/yr ($9.95/mo) is for permission to use the Prepar3D name in your product, that doesn't mean P3D have to support your product in future versions. If P3D V2.0 no longer works with your product, LM is under no obligation to make P3D work with your product. That was my point, perhaps poor wording on my part?

 

But the real question is, have LM really issued 3M+ licenses

 

One of the big selling points of P3D is FSX compatibility. It's listed as one of the "features" on their product page:

• 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.

   

 

LM also co-operate with many FSX developers - Lionheart Creations and IRIS (developers of FSX "entertainment" addons) have created aircraft included with P3D. OrbX are rumored to be creating the landclass and textures of P3D 2.0. So it's not a one-way relationship. Clearly the small P3D team owes a lot to FSX addon developers and they need them to stay in business and thrive (which is getting harder and harder with the aging FSX platform) to provide additional stock and add-on content.

Clearly the small P3D team owes a lot to FSX addon developers and they need them to stay in business and thrive (which is getting harder and harder with the aging FSX platform) to provide additional stock and add-on content.

 

I don't agree, why does LM owe 3rd party anything?  FSX sure, but P3D?

 

 

OrbX are rumored to be creating the landclass and textures of P3D 2.0

 

A rumor, but lets assume it's accurate ... why do you think OrbX are creating textures for P3D 2.0 that has a release date of sometime before 2016?

 

Can't move the FSX platform "significantly" forward without breaking compatibility ... lets be honest, P3D V1.0 - V1.4 has not really changed A LOT and hasn't focused much attention to what "the community" wants and more on military aspect.  There hasn't been much confirmed that is going into P3D v2.0 so again I'm not really seeing the same type of "community" involvement you see.

 

 

LM has committed to provide the necessary tools to licensed developers to allow them to make any necessary changes to their products to support Prepar3D v2.0...

 

Read this carefully from what I consider a very good source ... espeically the necessary changes part.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have no expectations of where P3D goes and if they can magically move P3D to full DX10 and DX11 without breaking any compatibility ... more power to them but it seems unlikely to me unless the scope of the changes rumored are inaccurate and v2.0 is much the same as v1.0 - v1.4 with only minor changes.  The same goes if P3D ever moved to 64bit code path, which IMHO is and should be the highest priority to the growth of 3rd party development. 

 

As it stands today, I can't run PMDG 737NGX ... not because of computation power, but because it will OOM.  End result is that I make a custom FSX.CFG and a custom DLL.XML and modify REX and and and ... all to keep one aircraft from not OOM during a flight ... this IS a big compromise (visually) and I hope it isn't the continued future of fligth simulation.

 

Compatibility chain IS going to have to break some time (it did to some degree going from FS9 to FSX) to move forward in any significant fashion, otherwise we'll forever be in the land of compromises with the same old same old (aka OOM, doesn't work in DX10 Preview, CTD, etc. etc.).  My desire to get out of OOM far exceeds my desire to "hang on to" all my existing 3rd party products.

 

Clearly the small P3D team owes a lot to FSX addon developers and they need them to stay in business and thrive (which is getting harder and harder with the aging FSX platform) to provide additional stock and add-on content.

 

Let's put this into context. When Lockheed Martin licensed ESP from Microsoft the vice president of Engineering at Lockheed Martin’s Simulation, Training & Support business unit said “The training needs of our military and civil government customers continue to expand. Seeking out and developing new innovative solutions such as this one based on the proven Microsoft ESP technology allows Lockheed Martin to provide our customers with new and tailored training systems more quickly and cost efficiently.”

 

To get an idea of the scale of this line of business, I Googled “Lockheed Martin Training Contracts” and the results on the first page include:

• A five-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity training and technical support services contract from the U.S. Coast Guard. – $57M
• A contract to continue providing the US Army with the production, assembly, training and deployment of virtual local area network training units. -  $22M
• A contract from the USAF to upgrade weapons systems trainers used in the C-130 Aircrew Training System (ATS) II - $24M
• A five-year contract from the US Army to upgrade combat vehicle simulators for soldier training and to expand the training capability for the Marine Corps - $114M
•  G3 Training and Readiness Support Service contract and a three-year period of performance for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command - $89M
• Contract to train Royal Saudi Air Force pilots and mechanics to fly and maintain the new F-15SA fighter jets - $253M.

That’s over half a billion dollars. Somehow i don’t believe Lockheed Martin needs 3PDs

 

P3D’s development must, surely, be driven by the need to support such contracts– not by the need (desire?) of the flight simulation community.

 

That’s over half a billion dollars. Somehow i don’t believe Lockheed Martin needs 3PDs

 

And yet microsoft could not see any value in the codebase, still par for the course for a company that missed out on the start of the internet by five years at least.

That’s over half a billion dollars. Somehow i don’t believe Lockheed Martin needs 3PDs

 

And yet microsoft could not see any value in the codebase, still par for the course for a company that missed out on the start of the internet by five years at least.

 

Well, it's not like MS gave LM the code for free I would assume. Also don't forget that those contracts involve a lot more than just P3D, it's about building simulators (i.e. hardware), teaching classes, etc. It's also a lot easier to go: hey, you've bought our shiny new planes, want a nice simulator to go with that? than it is to say: hey, you've just bought some other company's shiny new planes, want to buy a simulator developed by someone without access to the actual plane to go with that?

Well I was downloading files with a teletype terminal 30 yrs ago and wrote a small helper program, an early browser if you like. Some time later I was working on early IT as the "internet revolution" finally turned up in the office, the browser and OS was from MS. I don't think MS turned their back on the value of the ESP/FSX codebase, after all they only licensed it to LM.

 

Some time later I was working on early IT as the "internet revolution" finally turned up in the office,

 

When the "internet revolution" finally turned up in my living room in 1993 courtesy of Demon internet we had the pleasure of using MSdos and KA9Q to connect, imagine our joy when Mosaic was released and the internet finally became visual.

 

Some time later Microsoft woke up and decided to get a browser of their own, not having the first clue about how all this new stuff worked they licenced the code for Mosaic through spyglass and Internet Explorer was born.

 

They are still playing catch up today only the playing field has moved from the Internet to Smartphones and tablets.

And yes MS did not see those two coming either.

I saw it as the other way round. MS employed people and technology they needed to make a difference. A very small minority had even heard of the internet, but MS was prominent when the office started using it to advantage. A difference they did make.

 

but MS was prominent when the office started using it to advantage. A difference they did make.

 

Well if your Office waking up to the Internet is your point of reference and  starting point in what unfolded then I can see why you see it like that.

Fact remains MS were late to the Internet party and continue to miss every technological advance.

Difference was in the early days they could almost catch up by just buying the innovating companies.

Not any more and the partnerships they do make are with already failing companies... Nokia ect.

 

Online music.. ZUNE.. a failure

Windows on a Phone... a failure

Surface.. A failure

Windows 8 ... 2% market share, a failure

Online gaming... a  failure, Steam own that market.

Well if your Office waking up to the Internet is your point of reference

I didn't work in an office.....

 

By "the office" I mean, well, "offices in general" LOL.