Prepar3d version 2.0

[Andydigital 93]

I have no idea, its not something I have ever tried. I did say it was technically possible and not that I had done this already.

[mgh 89]

.agn files are in various scenery folders

[Gregg_Seipp 571]

Uh...so...do I put those in with the .bgl photoscenery files in the photoscenery folder? I did a quick search and didn't find any agn files in scenery folders I did find spb files in the Autogen folder along with default.xml
 

[Eric Tomlin 10]

I think it's called 'land class'...ground cover that would cover the photoreal.

 

Land Class is not ground cover. It's a description system that describes the area's attributes so that the proper textures, etc. display relatively accurately. See here for a better explanation:

 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/landclass-and-how-it-effects-what-you-see_topic24965.html

[gheeD 62]

If i do a search in my MS FSX/scenery folder for .agn, it finds about 1500 .agn files. Most of default .agn files located in Scenery\World\Texture and with ultimate terrain installed i guess in some of the UT folders inside scenery folder.

[Gregg_Seipp 571]

 

 

If i do a search in my MS FSX/scenery folder for .agn, it finds about 1500 .agn files. Most of default .agn files located in Scenery\World\Texture and with ultimate terrain installed i guess in some of the UT folders inside scenery folder.

 

Thanks.  I must have made a mistake and not copied those.  Anyway, I copied them all over, rebuilt the scenery database but still no joy.  Nothing new is added to the photoreal.  Sliders are maxed out, tried the photoreal as top-most and bottom-most in the library.  It stays visible even when it's at the bottom...I guess it's the highest resolution?  Nothing gets displayed on it other than the buildings in the picture above.

[Drumcode 1,907]

I wonder if this new version will be enough to cause a major exodus from FSX.

[Eric Tomlin 10]

I wonder if this new version will be enough to cause a major exodus from FSX.

 

I already have FSX installed but use it rarely (I'm a die hard FS9 user for many reasons, namely being a better platform for me as a full scale sim builder). I'm really looking forward to v. 2.0 because I think at that point I will be ready to move on from FS9 maybe. 

 

The main issue IMHO will be if folks can finally accept that LM want desktop users to use the product and it's totally legal. The other issue will be how compatible FSX items can be used in ver 2.0 or how quickly LM enables 3PDs to create new compatible content. 

[Gregg_Seipp 571]

I wonder if this new version will be enough to cause a major exodus from FSX.

 

 

It might be a sloooow stampede.  Here's my little list of hopes:

• More efficient use of multiprocessors
• Ability to select ground cover and autogen independently from each other (*I* *AM* *DREAMING*!)
• Ground/terrain effect on wind.
• Better color...not the eternal cloudy day.
• Better turboprop model.
• Non-supernatural cars (no disappearing, reappearing)...maybe even stoplights. 
• Better ATC.

Did I mention I'm dreaming?

[Jimmy RFR 406]

As much as it would be great to finally have a proper successor to FSX, you gotta think that it would be difficult to implement much change and retain backwards compatibility with our current addons.  So my guess is that we're either going to see nothing really groundbreaking, or else we'll see a complete split with the past.

 

It would be reasonable to think that LM doesn't really give two hoots about backward compatibility with FSX in their business model; the reason they acquired ESP has nothing to do with our hobby.  We're currently only benefiting from the Prepar3d devs who have been doing their best in allowing the flight sim community access to the product by creating a "generous" licensing strategy.

 

A starker reality is also that at any time Prepar3d could be completely scrapped with a penstroke; as much of a low cost project as it is in comparison to the core of their business, I doubt anyone in the higher echelons at LM would even so much as blink if say, some cost cutting measures needed to take place.

 

Now, I'm not saying LM will or would cancel Prepar3d; but doesn't it make anyone even a bit nervous that such potentially important software to the community is being controlled by a company with no dependance on the community?  I know if I were a payware developer, developing for a future 2.0 platform, investing development costs and time with the hopes of sales on that platform, I'd be nervous.

[Clutch Cargo 385]

I think you may be "dreaming" just a little.  I would bet all the energy is being put into the "engine" for better stability, speed and use for today's hardware - multi GPU's, CPU's and displays.   Probably some bug fixes (hopefully), like the ATC window,  the IFRonly= issue,  maybe a basic launcher but I think they are even leaving that to 3rd parties...  at least I hope they do!  (hint-hint).

 

I would be surprised if they did anything such as improved weather, ATC, autogen and the like.  I don't think that is on their radar.  It seems they are really pushing (and nicely so), for 3rd party developers for those types of enhancements.   Saying that,  my only real guess is that Orbx's upcoming world scenery would be the new "baseline" or default scenery for P3D v2.  Again,  just a huge guess on my part but wouldn't that be something?   Just hope LM gets those "tools" out either to 3rd parties or to end-users they have talked about to make all the goodies work with DX11.

 

I think if P3D v2 lives up to the hype and can show real-world increased perfomance, simmers will start coming over in droves.

[Eric Tomlin 10]

Give a little credit to the community if for no other reason than this: LM saw a rich resource for outsourcing content for Prepar3d. That's a major reason for their interest in the ESP platform to begin with. While they may break backward compatibility, they will INDEED still depend on 3rd parties for content creation. Go back and read some of the interviews from the various project leads on this product. They bought the intellectual property rights to this platform because not only does it model the ENTIRE world, but there is an entire WORLD worth of 3rd party content that meshes seamlessly into Prepar3d. This greatly reduces the workload to create content for their base package and not even billions of dollars would buy them the collective knowledge and contribution that the "desktop sim" community has made to the FS franchise. Seriously. There's no doubt in my mind that this was a major point of decision when the deal was made with MS. They may have paid millions for the IPR, but they are paying pennies on the dollar for scenery, aircraft, and other development. All the other Def Contractors can not say the same and it positions LM very well to have an instant world-based simulator on demand on the average PC any where in the world for any of their customers at any time compared to bulky, overly-expensive proprietary systems.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

I'm sorry to have a slightly negative opinion on it, and I realize that it may differ from the mainstream, but I'm not placing my hopes or personal feelings into it.  I, as much as the next simmer, want to see an improved version of what we have right now, and I'm looking forward to seeing what 2.0 consists of.

 

There's no question that the combined knowledge in the community is quite high and in it's own way, can be quite a valued resource.  But I still think that it's important to remember that for all the investment and promise that LM is putting into Prepar3d, in the end, it's owned by a company that can, and will, do what it wishes, without needing to take into regard any community or franchise history.

 

Consider this: What if, at some point in the future, someone much higher on the corporate ladder decides that they only want the platform being used for training for LM products and systems?  What if, at some point in the future, the decision comes down to require proof of current educational enrollment?  What if, at some level of government, a concern is raised that a defense contractor is supplying training that some idiot could consider to be a security risk?

 

I personally think that the potential threats to the longevity of the Prepar3d platform are many, and quite varied.  We're conditioned to think as consumers - that the companies which produce the products we enjoy have our best interests at heart, since it is in their financial interests to do so.  But in this case, we're not the consumer here, no matter how much we want to be.

[SRAces 76]

Having shelved my FSX setup and now flying P3D exclusively, I for one am extremely happy with P3D 1.4.  If LM never offers any future version to regular consumers, it was still well worth the $50 spent.  I sometimes don't understand all the speculation from the community and the second guessing.  I'm just happy we have it.

 

I spent my last 5 years in the Air Force working with Lockheed Martin as a Training Manager at the command level.  Computer based training has always been an avenue that LM pursued.  I remember flying F-15s on simulators on a SunSparc Unix system even in the early 90s.

 

Eric's comments above are probably spot on.  Personally, I do believe LM is in this endeavor for the long haul.  The cost of fuel and other areas make flight simulation training the next best thing to being there and a highly affordable option.  I firmly think that even if there are commercialized add-ons and licenses that have to be bought for business uses, we will still see this application expand for the private flight simmer environment.  Just my thoughts....

[jcomm 5,973]

@SRAces: I surely hope you're right. A few years ago CAE mentioned on a public session that they might develope a PC-based flight simulator for the simmers consumer market. I dreamed about it, but I also never saw any further developments being announced.

 

Having LM produced 1.4, and working on 2.0 is, at least, very promissing! And, I am really enjoying P3d v1.4, a lot more tha I did FSX or X-Plane10!