POSIT 4: Randazzo is allergic to anything military and is afraid that LMOC may put weapons and bombs on the 777, 737, etc.

 

That is enough to make me 100% supportive of PMDG's position!

That is enough to make me 100% supportive of PMDG's position!

 

I agree that this is a mixed blessing and can understand PMDG's position in that respect. 

2bit is 4GB (232  = 4,294,967,295), Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GiB of byte-addressable memory. it is pure math.

http://en.wikipedia....l_address_space

you are mixing with 32bit OS which by default allocates 2GB to kernel mode and 2gb for User mode (=4GB total).

when adding the /3GB switch, you reduce kernel mode to 1GB and increase User mode to 3GB (=4GB in total).

 

lol...read my post again

Party pooper. :Big Grin:

Nah... no one will believe me. :grin:

I think a lot of people will be really dissapointed when they run P3D 2.0 the first time and discover it doesn't look much different from FSX and P3D 1.4.

 

 

 

+1 ( not a beta tester)

All this discussion about 3PD and PMDG's position regarding it is pretty entertaining. Let me put forward some other thoughts on the subject. Standard caveat applies; I know nothing of the details, am not privy to Rob's thinking on the subject, and am definitely NOT tied into the thinking of LMOC, Boeing or any other stake holders in this discussion. Having said that, keep in mind I am retired Northrop Grumman, so I do have some insight in to the possible mindsets. So, this is just speculation on my part.

 

POSIT 1: Boeing and LMOC are competitors. 3PD is fundamentally a LMOC military product, presumably to aid in sales of their own aviation products.

 

POSIT 2: LMOC won't allow a Boeing product of such fidelity such as the PDMG 777 on their "training" product.

 

POSIT 3: Boeing won't allow a high fidelity representation of their product to appear in a competitor's product (remember, Boeing makes trainers and works in conjunction with companies such as CAE to producer high fidelity trainers too).

 

POSIT 4: Randazzo is allergic to anything military and is afraid that LMOC may put weapons and bombs on the 777, 737, etc.

 

Okay, so there you have it. The posit of Allensworth, for whatever they are worth. B)

 

Tom

 

I believe you forgot option 5, PMDG doesn't have the technology yet to bring the wood pigeon into P3D. It would just make sense to port their entire fleet into the program and if the wood pigeon can't be done then why waste time on the others :ph34r: .

I think a lot of people will be really dissapointed when they run P3D 2.0 the first time and discover it doesn't look much different from FSX and P3D 1.4.

 

 

Aside from how the water looks (pixel shader 2.0 DX9 vs 5.0 for DX11 as well as water tesselation).

I do enjoy how P3D seems to get connected to PMDG as if flight simulation can't exist without PMDG.  As much as I enjoy and respect the PMDG's work they don't define flight simulation, they are just one player in a large community of players.

 

But for the sake of the endless debate ... toss this around, LM contract out work to PMDG to do a L1011-500, or a C-5 Galaxy, or a JetStar II ... problem solved for PMDG

Hi,

 

Agree 100%, the iFly 737NG is right up there with PMDG. P3D's core means more to me than any third party addon, this includes PMDG. So right off the bat I'll have P3D V2.0  and iFly's 737 NG aircraft.... In a word..................SOLD!!!

.

 

 

To place the iFly on the same (low) level as a CS in terms of complexity is like saying a rotten apple is as tasty as an apple fresh from the tree. The iFly is leagues better than CS stuff.

 

 

 

 

Even if an 8 GHz Haswell comes out tomorrow, we're currently at the stage where developers simply cannot add any more detail.

 

No, the purpose of Multi-GPU is to allow scalability and remove work load from the CPU.  DX11 is good at doing this and can cache into it's own VRAM reducing VAS usage considerably.  This is why I think it is so VERY important that P3D V2.0 provides full support for scalability via GPU count (more GPUs = better performance).  The multi-core CPUs of today are more than capable of doing the other tasks of flight dynamics/systems.

 

FSX suffers from not utilizing multiple GPUs ... multi-GPU utilization was pretty common even back in 2006, I don't recall the reason it wasn't implemented in FSX SP2 (I think backwards compatibility was tossed out there as a reason) but I do remember debating it with Phil Taylor.

Think of these two possibilities:

 

 

If the leak was a fake it could be initiated either from LM (in order to hype things a little) or from X-Plane (to rise the expectations that would have to be deeply disappointed after a release with much fewer features).

 

FSX suffers from not utilizing multiple GPUs ... multi-GPU utilization was pretty common even back in 2006, I don't recall the reason it wasn't implemented in FSX SP2 (I think backwards compatibility was tossed out there as a reason) but I do remember debating it with Phil Taylor.

 

It wasn't very common during the original FSX development. By the time SP2 and Acceleration hit the shelves ACES was allready knee deep in Train Simulator II and FS XI.

Uhh Boeing and LM aircraft is not allowed in the simulator cause they are competitors? LOL 

We all run within the simulator now competitors to Boeing. Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer even the captainsim L1011! etc. If that really was a contentious issue, than Boeing would have never agreed to have its aircraft in a simulator with Airbus in the first place. They were default aircraft. LM being the developer doesnt really have anything to do with it else they would have banned any 3PD from native P3D installers for Boeing aircraft.  (Ifly) for example and probably more to come.

BAE has a native P3D installer for the Avro. They also build military aircraft. I dont see any conflict there. 

 

I really dont think its anything to do with being competitors. Its about being used as a training product. Ifly puts a big disclaimer that the aircraft is for home/academic reasons only. If you want it as a trainer in classrooms etc then contact them for that license. Simple, and problem solved.  After all why would LM/P3D say no to all this attention and potential money flow from academic/home licenses. Sure 49$ is a drop in the bucket for them, but its still money towards the project. 

LM provided the tools for 3PDs, and they will come. Imagine what they could do now, with alot of bugs squashed.

Its probably why ASN will be released for P3D after FSX, because it will be based on V2 with its revamped weather core.

 

One more thing. This is prepar3d Version 2.0 were talking about not 1.5 so it would be expected just from a version number that there would at least be a marked improvement. So the list makes some sense. I agree that would be difficult to just make up. 

Uhh Boeing and LM aircraft is not allowed in the simulator cause they are competitors? LOL 

We all run within the simulator now competitors to Boeing. Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer even the captainsim L1011! etc. If that really was a contentious issue, than Boeing would have never agreed to have its aircraft in a simulator with Airbus in the first place. They were default aircraft. LM being the developer doesnt really have anything to do with it else they would have banned any 3PD from native P3D installers for Boeing aircraft.  (Ifly) for example and probably more to come.

BAE has a native P3D installer for the Avro. They also build military aircraft. I dont see any conflict there. 

 

I really dont think its anything to do with being competitors. Its about being used as a training product. Ifly puts a big disclaimer that the aircraft is for home/academic reasons only. If you want it as a trainer in classrooms etc then contact them for that license. Simple, and problem solved.  After all why would LM/P3D say no to all this attention and potential money flow from academic/home licenses. Sure 49$ is a drop in the bucket for them, but its still money towards the project. 

LM provided the tools for 3PDs, and they will come. Imagine what they could do now, with alot of bugs squashed.

Its probably why ASN will be released for P3D after FSX, because it will be based on V2 with its revamped weather core.

 

One more thing. This is prepar3d Version 2.0 were talking about not 1.5 so it would be expected just from a version number that there would at least be a marked improvement. So the list makes some sense. I agree that would be difficult to just make up. 

I think you missing the point here then.

it is not LM that putting the foot here for not having PMDG in.

it is PMDG that doesn't want to get into LM simulation as Boeing doesn't want their high level detailed simulated planes that they (as Boeing) helped PMDG retrieve that highly detailed info, test it with them, lease them real airplanes for the product, etc. to be run on an official training simulation by their competitors.

Maybe PMDG do want , but Boeing are pushing them back.

Due to the nature business between PMDG & Boeing they have influence on PMDG to step back.

 

Other 3rd party Simulation plane vendors (other then PMDG) out here as you mentioned, they don't have a tight bind with the actual Airplane manufacture, hence they can do whatever they want to do. they are not obligated in any way, to any manufacture request not to join in LM, as they (as the plane manufacture(s)) were not part of the Simulation product production line, R&D, etc.

 

PMDG however on the other hand has some legal commitment to Boeing,or maybe even just moral obligation to Boeing.  that is due to the fact that Boeing was part of the product R&D and/or information given , testing, etc. (even if very small part of it), therefore they can't enter LM Simulation due to Boeing request, not LM.

 

Now for the question, as for why Boeing are so pushing back not to enter LM Simulation and it's not happening with  other manufactures (at least as we know of) like Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc? I don't know.

maybe Boeing and LM have a long negative history with each other. or some other regulation issues, etc.

Hi,

 

Not having access to privileged information about what agreement was reached between said companies behind closed doors, the only individuals that know the real reason aren't saying "other than they are not developing for P3D". If the agreement between both parties are as tight as you believe, they have closed themselves off to a large market. Especially, if P3D lives up to the 2.0 hype.

 

Combine the improvements of P3D 2.0 with existing FSX compatible addons. People will begin to embrace P3D by the numbers.

 

 

I think you missing the point here then.

it is not LM that putting the foot here for not having PMDG in.

it is PMDG that doesn't want to get into LM simulation as Boeing doesn't want their high level detailed simulated planes that they (as Boeing) helped PMDG retrieve that highly detailed info, test it with them, lease them real airplanes for the product, etc. to be run on an official training simulation by their competitors.

Maybe PMDG do want , but Boeing are pushing them back due to the nature business between PMDG & Boeing

 

other Vendors here you mentioned, they don't have a tight bind with the actual Airplane manufacture, hence they can do whatever they want to do.

PMDG however on the other hand has some legal commitment to Boeing , therefore they can't enter LM Simulation due to Boeing request, not LM.