I as well need the T7 in my simulator.

 

If the "leaked" list of changes are indeed legit, mark my words, PMDG and Flight 1 will either find a way to work with LM, or go out of business. Of course, if the changes aren't that significant, fsx will remain the primary. It would take a very big leap forward in performance and visual quality in order to get something going.

 

 

If the "leaked" list of changes are indeed legit, mark my words, PMDG and Flight 1 will either find a way to work with LM, or go out of business.

 

Flight1 is already working with LM and 3PD. Take a look here:

 

http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AircraftSimulations/737NGforPrepar3D.aspx

 

You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

I as well need the T7 in my simulator.

 

If the "leaked" list of changes are indeed legit, mark my words, PMDG and Flight 1 will either find a way to work with LM, or go out of business. Of course, if the changes aren't that significant, fsx will remain the primary. It would take a very big leap forward in performance and visual quality in order to get something going.

Well said David.  This mirrors my thoughts exactly, because if v2.0 or later iterations lead to demonstrably better performance AND visuals, and users mass migrate to the platform, PMDG and other high profile developers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they stick to their no P3D stance.  When money is involved, any problem can be resolved.   PMDG are very business savvy, and I'm sure if a new P3D revolution takes foot, they will monitor the development and keep their options open.

Very excited to say the least and truly hope V2 lives up to the hype. If I need a PMDG fix, I'll always have FSX around.

 

The C172 Trainer from A2A installed into Prepar3d v1.4 with no problem. The time and maintenance log files are common for both simulators by the way, very cool IMHO. :good:

 

 

Rob, does having more video ram matter more than having multiple GPUs

 

Don't know, it's all in how LM code DX11 and what they decide to is important to them -- impossible to answer you question other than MORE VRAM is never a bad thing, especially with DX11. 

 

But if they are more focused on "non-entertainment" aspect then that implies high-end hardware and multiple monitors or at the very least large single monitors (like 4K monitors).  I can't see them being ok with working on 1920 x 1080 displays ... if that is wrong, then I'm not sure I could understand the justification to use DX11.  DX11 API is squarely aimed at high end hardware -- in other words, it'll take some "end user" commitment on the financial side.

 

But I honestly can't imagine LM doing all this DX11 work and not utilizing the capabilities of multi-GPU systems ... it just wouldn't make much sense to me.

Flight1 is already working with LM and 3PD. Take a look here:

 

http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AircraftSimulations/737NGforPrepar3D.aspx

 

You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

Thats the link I mentioned before. They have the clause is you will, that it is strictly an aircraft systems aid in the home academic environment only. Anything further is invalid and would need a professional training license. This seems to be the easy way to address the whole license issue. Obviously 3PDs know a whole lot more than we do but cant say anything, but the fact that the majority are on board has to say something about P3Ds potential and future. 

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).

 

Graphics in FSX are rendered by the GPU, but the problem lies in the unefficient coding which makes the CPU and GPU wait on eachother. A true flight sim will always be CPU intensive if there is to be realistic flight models, weather, AI etc. But better code might solve some of the problems. That said, you are of course right that this day in age all graphical apps should have full multi GPU support. SLI is almost a standard feature these days.

 

 

I as well need the T7 in my simulator.

 

This is my whole point. I see this again and again. How may people are willing to walk away from FSX if PMDG can never support P3D. If the die hards won't move, because they "must" have their PMDG planes, then PMDG will still have a market on FSX, because those users will still buy whatever PMDG produces. PMDG won't be going out of business, as the money will still be in the FSX platform for them.

I said this

 

  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.

 

You replied with this.

 

If this were really true, then P3D 1.4 would be going like a trooper, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I see lots of posts from people indicating that 1.4 is just like FSX (and maybe it is, I don't have it) so they won't change, or I'm only a PMDG flyer so I won't change, than anything else. Yes it has a following, but people aren't flocking to it.

 

V2 may be the catalyst people need to make the switch, I don't know. I'm waiting to see what it brings.

 

   I dont understand your response though?  How does myself saying that diehard pmdg users do not form a large enough group to decide which is the next big sim get your response?

 

    We are not talking about p3d 1.4.   The gains are much smaller for the average guy but V2 offers much more if the list is to be validated.

 

    I dont see how your point ties PMDG users back to being a group that decides the fate of sim platforms?

I do believe that the changes and improvement in P3D 2.0 must be substantial. Otherwise a professional user would not go and change a running system (“never touch a running system”!).

 

And very important: They are LM! They are not a no-name three men show. They certainly cannot afford to announce a 2.0-Version of anything without making it substantially better!  Imagine that Mercedes would come up with a new generation of one of its models and would only change the bumpers.

 

No: 2.0 must be the next generation not only a face lift. Otherwise (see above) professional users will not pay for it (the license and the investment in the new setup of hardware and installation) and will not accept the uncertainty of getting it to work properly. For most of us user it takes days to set up the installation from scratch. But for users who have developed (and built) tailor made cockpits or even use interfaces to other software the changeover will be a risk and a lot of work.

 

So 2.0 must certainly be worth it!

 

 

I dont understand your response though? How does myself saying that diehard pmdg users do not form a large enough group to decide which is the next big sim get your response?

I'm basing my assumptions on what I'm seeing people say on the forums. Somebody is holding the card that will become the tipping point for a mass exodus to a new sim platform. Currently there are really only 2 contenders in term of platforms. I believe the market (and developers to some extent) will follow PMDG, regardless of the % of users that use their aircraft. Just because PMDG have a small % of total users, doesn't mean they don't hold the balance of power. This was all I was really getting at. I'm not picking on you in particular.

 

The tipping point may well be V2 itself, since 1.4 doesn't appear to provide enough of an incentive for current FSX users. 

I'm curious what others think will be the tipping point for change.

 

For me -

FSX is old and tied, and I can't justify spending any more money on it.

X-Plane while new, is bland, and while some developers are supporting it, it appears they are in there for the "just in case" factor.

P3D 1.4 is about to be replaced. I can't justify spend money there.

P3D 2.0 is really my last hope, and I'm waiting to see what it brings.

 

But unless it attracts a significant number of developers, it will just be here, but not really going anywhere.

 

2012 was the year of waiting. 2013 has become the year of waiting as well.

 

I want something new and exciting and inspiring, and X-Plane just doesn't do it for me.

 

2012 was the year of waiting. 2013 has become the year of waiting as well.

 

I want something new and exciting and inspiring, and X-Plane just doesn't do it for me.

 

Don't forget the new kid on the block: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/6110-aerofly-FS-Development-Status

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.

 

This, This, This!!!

 

If v2.0 does not utilize SLI or Crossfire, LM will be shooting themselves in the foot.  This, in my opinion is why xp10 is really not much better than FSX. I still do not understand why Austin did this... 

Don't forget the new kid on the block: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/6110-aerofly-FS-Development-Status

 

This! aeroflyFS 2.0 has lots of potential, and is getting closer to what FSX is.

I was a little disappointed until I heard that LM purchased PMDG as well as Carenado.

 

Bob

I must have missed something here. When did LM make those buys?