Prepar3d V2.0 Compatibility

[vgbaron 3,714]

But why should Lockheed Martin want to spend resources on maintaining backwards compatibility with a range of FSX add-ons of variable standards and quality? Its primary interest is in commercial/military training

Money comes to mind as a good reason.  It would make their product more attractive to a certain segment of the community. That equates to built in sales. Now, you might say, what does LM care about the FS community ? It's not an entertainment product, you might say. The academic sales provide two immediate things - some working capital and some very experienced testers. I gurantee they have received MORE valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners. So, the longer they keep us in the loop, the better for them and us.

Personally, i don't care if they're backwards compatible or not, I'll just buy new add-ons and go enjoy myself - leave the analytics to those who see the glass half empty.

 

I'm sorry, but IMHO, I see this type of thread AT THIS POINT IN TIME, as a great keyboard excercise that has absolytely NO merit other than to have something to talk about. Everything being said is pure and complete speculation, and now we're heading into page 3 of it. Could all this happen? sure! WILL all this happen? unknown at this point - why not wait and see what LM develops AND if they continue to release to the academic market and THEN discuss options.

 

It does help the message count though.

 

Vic

[Guest]

If P3D V2.0 is that good, it will "sell", compatibility will not detract from it's sales.

 

There will always be people that hang on to the past, we shouldn't let these people stop/prevent a future.

 

I think a more relevant question would be how many people would by P3D V2.0 without PMDG support?  Looking at PMDG forum thread counts and a simple Google search would indicate to me that PMDG is a KEY element in any future flight simulator (not just from a compatibility view, but from ongoing future supported products).

 

 

I'm sorry, but IMHO, I see this type of thread AT THIS POINT IN TIME, as a great keyboard excercise that has absolytely NO merit other than to have something to talk about. Everything being said is pure and complete speculation, and now we're heading into page 3 of it.

 

 

No need for apology, this is the internet, it's full of speculation ... discovering fact from fiction takes considerable effort.

[mgh 89]

Money comes to mind as a good reason. It would make their product more attractive to a certain segment of the community. That equates to built in sales. Now, you might say, what does LM care about the FS community ? It's not an entertainment product, you might say. The academic sales provide two immediate things - some working capital and some very experienced testers.

I doubt very much that Lockheed Martin are relying on sales of $50 Academic Licences to provide working capital.

 

The U.S. Army competitively awarded Lockheed Martin a $114 million, five-year contract to upgrade combat vehicle simulators for soldier training and to expand the training capability for the Marine Corps.

That's where the real money is and it's the needs of that type of business that will drive P3D's development - not ours.

 

I can  gurantee they have received MORE valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners.

Can you?

[vgbaron 3,714]

I doubt very much that Lockheed Martin are relying on sales of $50 Academic Licences to provide working capital.

 

 

That's where the real money is and it's the needs of that type of business that will drive P3D's development - not ours.

 

 

Can you?

You asked a question - I answered - money and beta testers. Any income is significant to a company, even a giant like LM - they get to be big that way. Not talking at ALL about what drives their development. Mere speculation.

 

and yes, I guarantee it.  When you prove that it is not accurate, I will honor my guarantee. 

 

I await your documented proof. Keep speculating. and one day, who knows, the sky MAY really fall.

 

Vic

[mgh 89]

 

 

and yes, I guarantee it. When you prove that it is not accurate, I will honor my guarantee.

 

you made the claim so where's your documented proof to show it's accurate?

[vgbaron 3,714]

you made the claim so where's your documented proof to show it's accurate?

A guarantee just insures that something will be done if the guaranteed item is false or defective. I stand by my statement:

 

"I can  guarantee they have received MORE valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners."

 

If you question the validity of that statement, prove it is inaccurate. Otherwise.........

 

Vic

[mgh 89]

A guarantee just insures that something will be done if the guaranteed item is false or defective. I stand by my statement:

 

"I can  guarantee they have received MORE valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners."

 

If you question the validity of that statement, prove it is inaccurate. Otherwise.........

 

Vic

On the basis of your logic(?):

 

I can guarantee they have received LESS valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners.

 

If you question the validity of that statement, prove it is inaccurate. Otherwise.........

 

Returning to reality of Lockheed Martin’s apoproach to flight simulation enthusiasts, why hasn’t it responded to our thread Make LM know we want a startup screen in P3D? I suggest it hasn’t because it’s not needed for it's military/commercial training business.

 

I’d also suggest that will be its overall approach to us. We will get what we are given because we are simply not in its mainstream and aren’t valuable enough. Lockheed Martin’s Missions Simulation and Training (MST) division earned $7.63 billion in the last FY. The first four results on Googling Lockheed Martin Training Contracts are for contracts worth $114M, $89M, $780M, and $156M - that's more than $1 Billion. With that scale of contract to be won, Lockheed Isn’t going to be concerned about $50 Academic Licences.

 

 

[Andydigital 93]

If the $50 meant nothing to them they wouldn't have released an Academic version in the first place.

[ctec1 6]

 

 

We will get what we are given because we are simply not in its mainstream and aren’t valuable enough.

 

Well so far we have received V1.4 which on my setup and personal experience is far more stable than FSX ever was. P3D is not leaps and bounds ahead of FSX as far as performance/frame rates are concerned but it is absolutely more stable. It cost me $50 bucks. I'm all over that deal regardless of all the EULA BS.

 

As far as compatibility concerns going forward, there arent any here. All my current addons will still work in 1.4 or in the worst case scenario, going back to FSX (which has been long gone from my hard drive).

 

If V2 stays within a reasonable price structure I'm going to be on board.

[mgh 89]

If the $50 meant nothing to them they wouldn't have released an Academic version in the first place.

 

Lockheed Martin released the Academic Version to give something back to the community - the academic community in this case.

 

It's price was probably based on making it affordable to the academic community while avoiding the excessive downloading that would happen if it were free. It also makes the EULA enforceable. 

 

I very much doubt if Lockheed Martin's business plan for buying the ESP license and developing P3d depended on sales of the Academic Licences - or any other licences.

[vgbaron 3,714]

On the basis of your logic(?):

 

I can guarantee they have received LESS valuable information from the flight sim community than they have their commercial partners.

 

If you question the validity of that statement, prove it is inaccurate. Otherwise.........

 

Returning to reality of Lockheed Martin’s apoproach to flight simulation enthusiasts, why hasn’t it responded to our thread Make LM know we want a startup screen in P3D? I suggest it hasn’t because it’s not needed for it's military/commercial training business.

 

I’d also suggest that will be its overall approach to us. We will get what we are given because we are simply not in its mainstream and aren’t valuable enough. Lockheed Martin’s Missions Simulation and Training (MST) division earned $7.63 billion in the last FY. The first four results on Googling Lockheed Martin Training Contracts are for contracts worth $114M, $89M, $780M, and $156M - that's more than $1 Billion. With that scale of contract to be won, Lockheed Isn’t going to be concerned about $50 Academic Licences.

 

 

Now I know how you got to 5000 posts Gerry. Lot's of hot air and rabble rousing. Whatever in this world made you so negative? Everything you say is a possibility but so is the exact opposite. I prefer to look at the bright side. We have exactly what we have been complaining about for the last year or so - further development of FSX, improvements to the code, growth. The fact that LM aims at the commercial market is of ABSOLUTELY NO importance. We non commercial entities are reaping the benefit of their work. The fact that they could pull the plug at any moment is also irrelevant. Using that as a reason NOT to get the product is silly. I respect your right to make your own choices but I sure wish you wouldn't pass your personal brand of negativity to others. With your logic, why on earth did you ever buy FSX? Didn't you realize that to a large corporation like MS we are insignificant? Didn't you realize that they might have fired the Aces team?

 

As to why LM hasn't responded to the call for a startup screen - they did indirectly - in a positive comment. I'll leave you to search the LM forums for the answer I am referring to. But considering the efficiency of Martin's SimLauncher - they don't need one.

 

Maybe you should wait for version 1.5 before you speculate further and make no mistake, most of what you have said so far about P3D has been nothing but PURE speculation.

 

I would venture a guess that if they read some of these forums, they would be ROFL.

 

Yes, these are open forums and you can post your opinions freely but lighten up on the negativity.

 

The positive fact? No matter WHAT Lm's motives are, *WE* are benefitting from an improving product. For however long that is, why not just STFU and enjoy it. And when it's gone, we can complain about something else. A win-win situation.

 

Vic

[Guest]

Just tossing this thought out there, when was the last time classified military software/training was made available to the public?  Think about it and you'll have your answer.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

When was the last time that ANYTHING that was classified was made available to the public, legally that is?

[mgh 89]

 

 

Lot's of hot air and rabble rousing

 

Are you reduced to descending to personal attacks because my opinions differ from yours??

[vgbaron 3,714]

Are you reduced to descending to personal attacks because my opinions differ from yours??

If you consider that a personal attack, I apologize - I just call them as I see them - on this subject your posts, IMHO, have been full of hot air, speculation and apparent attempts at rabble rousing - if the shoe fits - wear it.