Prepar3d V2.0 entering beta

[CordoganAir 55]

 

 

this is my forecast of events

 

That forecast looks Sunny and accurate to me, you're right on Akila

[alainneedle1 97]

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.

 

Sorry, but PMDG explained in clear details why they are not developing for or let their product(s) been use with P3D, to some PMDG explanation is not good enough, discounted or not valid in their eyes. 

[Mike_CFII_MEL 837]

Hi,

 

Irregardless of their reasons. The bottom line is, PMDG is out of P3D addon development, so be it. I've accepted it and moved on. Thank God iFly is around to fill the gap in P3D, now lets hope iFly becomes the PMDG of Prepar3D with additional Boeing aircraft.

 

I know they have the ability to create exceptional aircraft for P3D, because their 737NG is one sweet lady...

 

 

Sorry, but PMDG explained in clear details why they are not developing for or let their product(s) been use with P3D, to some here PMDG explanation is not good enough, discounted or not valid in their eyes. 

[Akila 40]

@Mike_CFII_MEL, you are correct , everything I said before is my interpretation and understanding only.

there is no real bases on what I said.

I also believe that PMDG sooner or later will have to decide on their path as part of what I mentioned earlier on my previous post/reply.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/421584-prepar3d-v20-entering-beta/?p=2808401

 

time changes...

 

 

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.

 

I take it back, I did not mean to say that PMDG is better, equal or less then iFly and/or CS, between each other or compared to PMDG.

that is a whole argument by itself which I don't want to go into right now.

the point was that in PMDG users eyes , this is their perfect product, hence for them moving to iFly, CS, etc , it is stepping back in complexity.

this is how they see it in their eyes.

rather this is true or not, who cares. it is the point I tried making, not the actual product compare.

[Gregg_Seipp 573]

 

 

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.

 

The two things I'd like to see added to sim scenery...trains and church steeples.  I'd love to see trains rolling along the country sides down below.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 837]

Hi,

 

I agree, I think PMDG is going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place if your analogy is correct in regards to their agreement with Boeing. On the other hand, if they are not so tightly bound, cash will be the deciding factor.

 

 

@Mike_CFII_MEL, you are correct , everything I said before is my interpretation and understanding only.

there is no real bases on what I said.

I also believe that PMDG sooner or later will have to decide on their path as part of what I mentioned earlier on my previous post/reply.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/421584-prepar3d-v20-entering-beta/?p=2808401

 

times change...

[JasonHarris 96]

 

 

I once thought Orbx were the catalyst for what people would use as their base sim.

This now appears to be false, and the catalyst is really PMDG.

 

 

 

  I think few simmers (as a %)  use PMDG.   They are vocal and I am sure it's a good product but I doubt they form  the catalyst as to what sim will be popular or not.

[Akila 40]

I agree, I think PMDG is going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place if your analogy is correct in regards to their agreement with Boeing. On the other hand, if they are not so tightly bound, cash will be the deciding factor.

x2

can't agree with you more.

 

 

 

  I think few simmers (as a %)  use PMDG.   They are vocal and I am sure it's a good product but I doubt they form  the catalyst as to what sim will be popular or not.

I tend to agree with you on that one.

Even though I am a PMDG user (only flying the NGX, nothing else), I don't believe we are the majority.

we are big talkers and make a lot of noise though    making the impression we are the majority :Big Grin:

[goates 583]

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.

 

Multi-GPU support isn't really a feature that one adds (at a base level a game or sim doesn't even know there are multiple GPUs in the system, just that things get rendered faster), however one can optimize for it. FSX can make use of SLI systems, but due to the CPU bound nature its sim engine, it doesn't do much outside of the few situations where the sim becomes bottlenecked by the GPU. And even though other games can benefit from SLI/Crossfire, it doesn't always offer a large boost in performance. With most games, having one fast GPU is better for most people (lower system power requirements and less heat to worry about). It's when you get into the very high resolutions and multi-monitor setups that one really needs to look into multi-GPU setups, or you're trying to run the latest Crysis or Battlefield game maxed out on day one.

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/03/03/fsx-more-on-sli-and-multi-core.aspx?Redirected=true

 

Moving P3D to DX11 and cleaning up the graphics engine to make better use of the GPU should change the above situation quite a bit though. I think even more benefits would come from better multi-threading support. Moving to DX11 could provide better visuals and relieve the CPU of some load, but if the sim is still largely single threaded, it will still be a bottleneck. 

[Guest]

 

 

It wasn't very common during the original FSX development.

 

Will disagree with you here, SLI dates back to 1998 (3dfx Voodoo2) ... it wasn't necessarily called "SLI" back then, that term became mainstream by 2004 when NVidia acquired 3dfx.  I'm pretty sure it was more around not wanting to change a lot of legacy code in order to make SLI (or Crossfire) work in FSX ... unfortunate, but it is what it is.  Maybe Phil Taylor can chime in on the exact reason.

 

Either way, I HOPE the same mistake isn't repeated in P3D V2.0.  It's a lot cheaper and easier for end users to simply buy a 2nd GPU (or 3rd or 4th) to almost double performance ... rather than buy an entire new system to gain 10-25% (or less gain) improvement.

[bonchie 2,310]

Lockheed Martin said

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=2870.0#postid-12476.

 

The use of should rather than will means there's no guarantee that all V1.4/FSX models will work in V2.0. Simpler ones might work; more complex ones might not?

 

That must have implications for developers. Do they spend effort converting any V1.4/FSX models that don't work with V2.0 and who will pay for that?

 

In the future do they develop V2.0 models for a smaller market, continue to develop for V1.4/FSX, or develop for both with additional costs?

Should doesn't mean won't. Should means their is a high probability it will. And the issue is likely graphical, not one of complexity.

 

Secondly, if some don't then you'll have the same situation you had when FSX came out.

 

People will either patch them to continue bringing in new sales or they will charge an upgrade fee. In the future they will develop for whatever platform promises the most sales.

 

This isn't the first time backwards comparability might be compromised in an iteration of the FS engine nor is it some major issue that can't be overcome. FS9 to FSX had the same issues for several years.

 

Dozens of highly respectable developers are beta testing right now. If their are issues, they will work through them because they've made it clear P3D is in their future.

 

If some highly unlikely doomsday scenario happens where nothing from FSX works then so be it.

[SirStiggie 63]

Now the MSFT is out of the Flight Sim market completely I am predicting a modification of the agreement to allow entertainment use for P3D V2.0.  That will hopefully give us all a new sim. 

I really hope this is the case. I'm tired of the constant fiddling with FSX to keep it stable.

[Guest]

 

 

I agree, I think PMDG is going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place if your analogy is correct in regards to their agreement with Boeing.

 

I challenge anyone to post the agreement PMDG have with Boeing

 

 

 

It's when you get into the very high resolutions and multi-monitor setups that one really needs to look into multi-GPU setups

 

Disagree, with advanced shaders, tessellation, and high levels of AA (the higher the resolution monitor, the less the need for AA and conversely the lower the resolution monitor, the more the need for AA) can overwhelm a single GPU easily.  Pending on how/if P3D use Tessellation it can easily bring a single GPU to it's knees with 4XAA in a "global" poly scene like we have for a Flight sim ... even at low resolutions (which I'm consider 1920 x 1200 or 1920 x 1080).  Also, there are different frame rendering modes (alternate frame rendering, split frame rendering, etc. etc.) and with NVidia you can also use the GPU(s) to do physics processing ...example wind direction/velocity impact on an aircraft structures for example.  Lots and lots of processing can be done the GPU side, the more GPUs the faster it gets done ... hence the need for multi-GPU scalability support.

 

It'll all depend on how P3D folks want to implement all that is available to them for DX11.

 

FSX SP2 already has some CPU threading support (hence affinity mask), the problem is the CPU is doing way too much work that should be done by the GPU(s).

 

But if multi-GPU support is yet again, not really utilized and relies exclusively on the drivers do SLI AA only then I honestly think that's going to be a difficult sell for P3D.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Sorry, but PMDG explained in clear details why they are not developing for or let their product(s) been use with P3D, to some PMDG explanation is not good enough, discounted or not valid in their eyes.

 

I don't agree with Alain on very much, but on this one I agree completely.  I don't know why people continue to beat this horse.  Just as Orbx has said no to XP and put their eggs in the P3D basket, so PMDG has said no to P3D and have pointed to XP for their future.  You may not like what they're doing, and you may not agree with it (and if that's the case, you're free to vote with your wallet), but they've explained their reasoning - repeatedly - and no amount of "simmer-logic"™, no matter how impeccable, is going to change that.

 

Scott

[RWFeldman 159]

"simmer-logic"™ Did you patent that trademark Scott?  It's a good one. :smile: