You can shut off the weather engine and just use the cameras, however, the full effect of the cameras are tied into the weather engine. Unlike ezdok which makes random 'sine wave' style effects based on general movement and has some DHM effects tied to weather, the Opus views react specifically to the prevailing weather conditions and also are recorded using accelerometer data from real aircraft. In my own opinion, having used both, Opus camera effects are more realistic, certainly when compared to what I have experienced in my real world hours.

 

Everyone has thier own opinion on this though of course.

 

 

 

Anyway, in terms of this thread, the fact that it already supports P3D is a big win / bonus.

 

 

Ah...so it's a turbulence thing.  At least I'm glad something's out there.  I don't think I could use P3D unless it had similar cameras...which it may in 2.0.  When I first got EZDoc and started using it all I could think was that it should have been part of FSX to begin with.  The dynamic head movement thing notsomuch but the need to move your head around quickly and easily is absolutely essential in the pattern, in emergencies, to see parts of the cockpit that are out of view.  No pilot could fly with their head in a brace and a box fixed around their eyes.

 

EDIT:  And I agree with you.  Suddenly my criteria for buying any addon is whether they're working with P3D.  Right now it's mostly hard to tell but there are some we know about.  If I don't know then my wallet stays in my pocket.

 

 

If your a long time FSXer tweaking and playing with the computer is a habit and I wonder how we'll all manage to live without getting our tweaking fix haha.

 

I don't think you need to worry about that happening (unless LM eliminates the text-based CFG file altogether). For those of us who tinker, the temptation is too strong to resist.

 

Some video games embed the CFG file in a binary file (It still looks like plain text to a hex editor like HHD's Neo), so you can't edit it easily. And we'll always have nVidia Inspector to prevent "cold tweakey".

Agree, it's a stretch to expect an end user to have to go thru all the many hoops to get FSX to work to one's hopes/expectation.  One has to be very dedicated ... the fact so many FSX'ers still exist is amazing.  There is clearly something very special about flight that so many are willing to tolerate so much.

 

If P3D V2 can pull off a flight simulator that is smart enough to configure itself to work with an end user's hardware, they'll probably bring back a huge market of casual simmers that left because of FSX configuration complexity ... while at the same time retaining those who want to learn the complexity of flight and aircraft systems and not the complexity of their computer.

 

The purpose has always been to learn about flight, not one's FSX.CFG, DLL.XML, EXE.XML, NVidia Inspector, etc. etc. etc.

 

The complexity of FSX is probably a big reason why many flight simmers moved on to other hobbies. I know a lot of them. Just installing an addon is above most casual PC users skill level. Most smartphones, tablets and consoles are idot proof, so computer skills aren't going to improve for the average user.

 

I've helped to setup and configure a few computers with FSX and Saitek hardware to real life pilots and they all shook their head in disbelief at the complexity. "Flying a real plane is nothing compared to this mess", one said.

 

However I don't see P3D as being something that can gain much popularity. Lack of gaming elements, the EULA, dated look (graphics wise), lack of marketing, consumer support and poor distribution are some of the factors working against P3D 2.0 becoming FS11. Hopefully I am wrong on all accounts...

I don't know Glenn, all I know is that the deal between MS and LM was for LM not to enter the entertainment business so I guess FSX was tagged as entertainment by MS, I may be wrong and will gladly stand corrected if I am.

 

Ironically, it does sound like LM made an "entertainment" version and its called Professional Plus. The  problem is that only the military gets to have it (ie- the version with all the bombs, missiles, guns and other fun toys).

These kind of patches, tweaks and workarounds represent a challenge for those of us who like to tinker with their computers. But for the average simmer, it is just an annoyance.

 

 

I did want to add something here that points to the impending FSX "apocalypse". The DX10 Fixer has a serious bug. If you followed the instructions as to how to install it and then you subsequently uninstalled it, the uninstall process deletes everything in your main FSX folder. That qualifies as more than just "an annoyance". Fortunately, a few poor souls reported the problem and a patch was made available immediately to prevent this behavior. A FSX "power user" wouldn't be too fazed by all this and would just reinstall FSX (and every add-on). But the casual user might be totally befuddled by this.

Ironically, it does sound like LM made an "entertainment" version and its called Professional Plus. The  problem is that only the military gets to have it (ie- the version with all the bombs, missiles, guns and other fun toys).

If you want a similar add-on for FSX, Google "VRS TacPack". There presently is not a publicly available P3d version, though.

 

If you want a similar add-on for FSX, Google "VRS TacPack". There presently is not a publicly available P3d version, though.

 

I have checked that out in the past. It leads me to wonder what code v2.0 regular and Pro Plus share regarding weapon dynamics. In other words, will it be easier for a third-party to develop v2.0 into a type of Pro Plus (ie- combat sim).

I don't know Glenn, all I know is that the deal between MS and LM was for LM not to enter the entertainment business so I guess FSX was tagged as entertainment by MS, I may be wrong and will gladly stand corrected if I am.

 

My hopes are that MS will allow LM to enter into the "non-professional" market now that they have pulled out. Maybe they will ask for some fee for that. LM than should consider that there are about 110,000 registered user in AVSIM which might be in indicator for the market.

 

And gameplay (aka: missions) could easily be added to the sim if only it would be the intention to do so.

 

EDIT: Or even better if it would be easy to install all the one million available missions and aircrafts and repaints and sceneries!

My hopes are that MS will allow LM to enter into the "non-professional" market

Does Lockheed Martin want to enter that market?

Does Lockheed Martin want to enter that market?

 

I don't know?

 

But as I have mentioned above: There are certainly 100,000++ potential customers (100,000 x 50 USD = ?) for the product and (maybe more important) these 100.000++ customers demand for the development of add-ons that make P3D much more attractive. I doubt that FTX-Global would be there if there wouldn't be the demand of a lot of (non-professional) customers for it (same for a lot of other add-ons). Or put it the other way around: If there is no demand there will be no add-ons.

 

And I am sure that a lot of professional customers will "pimp" their P3D with FTXG, planes, etc. because it will dramatically improve the default experience.

Tom,

 

The quote I posted came directly from JV, you can't have a better source then that about Orbx own deal with MS right? That's the deal they have, no mention of a uninstaller in his quote or else as long as the files are backed up and switched, the files are backed up but without a switcher like they had for the regions since FTXG, nothing else was mentioned about "Yes but, and because of" in his quote.

 

I have GEX and there is a "enable, disable" switch for all of their regions in the control panel, I call that a switcher.

 

Again, lets keep it about P3D.

This is silly.

 

GEX's "switcher" is just the restoring of a backup of the original files, the same thing the Orbx uninstaller does.

 

Neither is a switcher like the Orbx regions. Talk about arguing over nothing...

...so I guess FSX was tagged as entertainment by MS, I may be wrong and will gladly stand corrected if I am.

 

This has little to do with what the product is (FSX - not ESP, but boxed, off-the-shelf FSX - was even sold as part of a Redbird trainer before P3D came along) and everything to do with sales channels.

 

Any hope that LM will get into the entertainment market is pretty much a vain hope. P3D will always be designed and marketed towards those who want a flight simulation product as opposed to a flight game. Way too many people get way too hung up on this simple fact - it certainly doesn't mean you can't buy it, "play" it and be entertained. There are licenses available to cover any legitimate scenario for use by simmers here, including buying a full license if you truly don't qualify under the educational one - it just ain't ever gonna show up on the shelves of Gamespot or be available through Steam, or be advertised on gaming sites. Its market will be smaller, but more focused.

 

Much of the angst over this is manufactured. Some third parties will be fine with this, others won't and new ones will likely come along to fill the voids if the sim community moves in P3Ds direction. The fact that so many developers are already paying very close attention to P3D compatibility is a strong indication of this.

 

Flight simming, as most of us practice it, has moved into the niche category. It is what it is. It DOESN'T mean it's dead, it just means it's not mainstream anymore. Even if you put a fully modern graphics engine in place and made it look pretty it still wouldn't be mainstream unless you focused more on "game" and less on "sim".

 

Scott

I agree with Scott. LM getting into the entertainment software business is beyond belief. They are a major military and civilian contractor. Why would they want to subject themselves to the abuse and constant unsophisticated questions that the entertainment world produces?

 

What people fail to understand is that their processes for development and support are based on large customers/contracts. Most people here have never seen the support that IBM, Oracle, etc. provide to large customers (including rides in corporate jets).

 

LM maintaining their rigorous development and testing processes for P3D is just what we need. Entertainment junk is for the masses. Do you want P3d to deteriorate into that morass?

 

Recent news release by LM:

08-16-13

ELITE Simulation Solutions and Flight1 Aviation Technologies have combined forces to build a new PI-1000 glass cockpit training device with the Prepar3D® simulation platform. The training device recently received Federal Aviation Administration certification as an Advanced Aviation Training Device.

Designed for pilots who fly Cessna, Diamond and other aircrafts, the trainer is one of the few certified offering a glass cockpit. This allows pilots who fly with glass panel technology to train with glass and the visual realism offered by Prepar3D.

 

Please look at the P3D learning Center. There is actually a Tuning Guide and mention of Bojote's tweaker.

 

 

It comes down to how well the APP, cleans up after itself, to determine how far you can get before running into trouble!!

 

Without a complete re-write of the core engine to native 64-bit one would have to think they will be working better to have the engine clean up better after itself.  It buys some time until they do a whole re-write to not only 64 bit but to be better multithreaded.

 

 

I agree with Scott. LM getting into the entertainment software business is beyond belief. They are a major military and civilian contractor. Why would they want to subject themselves to the abuse and constant unsophisticated questions that the entertainment world produces?

 

I think appealing to a broader audience could have value for them as PR if nothing else.

I don't know?...

Surely, it's not just a matter of revenue but also whether Lockheed Martin wants to be in the consumer/entertainment business at all. It's a major defence contractor with no experience of that business.

 

Also I suggest using a figure of 100,000 is optimistic. Tom Allensworth recently said there are a steady 63 new members a day - that's about 23,000 a year. (See post #25 of http://forum.avsim.net/topic/397422-just-how-big-is-the-fsx-community-worldwide/?hl=+members)

 

Optimistically assuming they all bought P3D licence, at US$50 that's a potential annual revenue of US$1.15 million. That's only about 0.0025% of Lockheed Martin's current revenue of US$47.2 billion. Maybe Lockheed Martin would prefer to concentrate it's efforts on training contracts such as its $114 million, five-year contract to upgrade combat vehicle simulators for soldier training and to expand the training capability for the Marine Corps.

 

 

P3D will always be designed and marketed towards those who want a flight simulation product as opposed to a flight game.

 

This distinction isn't really as prominent as many of these comments suggest.  Do you think someone who is jumping in their simulator is doing this purely for academic reasons?  Bologna!  I would venture to say many private pilots are private pilots primarily for...entertainment!  It's a big expensive game for them.   Moreover, if you sampled 100% of all FSX or XP users you would find the vast majority want a professional grade product--one that really helps sustain the illusion for both the learning and entertainment value.  And LM, despite the EULA, would be tickled to have 100's of thousands of customers for P3D who will never become actual pilots--only helps them defray the cost of the product for their more professional market.

 

 

Even if you put a fully modern graphics engine in place and made it look pretty it still wouldn't be mainstream unless you focused more on "game" and less on "sim".

 

Scott, how many FSX users use it as a 'game'?  Just what components even in FSX are 'game' and not 'sim'?   Are you using FSX as a game when you create a credible flight plan and execute it as perfectly/realistically as you can?  This is how the majority of current FSX users use the product.  When MS tried to make Flight I think they failed to take into account SIMULATION is what LONG TERM users are always looking for--i.e., you can't take a simulator and do all that much beyond making an excellent simulation by adding 'game-like' features in order to appeal to a larger market.

 

 

However I don't see P3D as being something that can gain much popularity. Lack of gaming elements, the EULA, dated look (graphics wise), lack of marketing, consumer support and poor distribution are some of the factors working against P3D 2.0 becoming FS11. Hopefully I am wrong on all accounts...

 

No one really cares much about gaming elements IMO--they have no staying power really.   What all potential long term users want is a realistic & robust simulator.  I think there is enough of a market there to pay the tiny team of engineers who work on P3D (relative to LM's entire workforce) enough to sustain the product, which is largely a PR campaign by LM, really.  Heck their annual budget is in the 10's of billions.  LM will be happy to have anyone buy the product even if they have no plans of becoming real world pilots.   The whole concern of the P3D EULA is just them trying to frame the product a certain way and has no teeth in it for users who buy it for 'entertainment'--the distinction between 'entertainment' and 'learning' is exceedingly blurry.