Posts from P3D website

[alainneedle1 97]

 let me keep my hope, will ya! B)

 

:friends:

[simmerhead 885]

 

I do have high hopes for P3D. But yeah, I also had them for MS Flight. However, hope is the anchor of the soul, so just let me keep my hope, will ya! B)

 

Yep, keep on hoping. Hope is light, small and pretty easy to carry around!

[Eric Tomlin 10]

I could be wrong with what i posted but when they said simulation i would guess they meant like a commercial simulation package for pilots to train on, you know full cockpit and hi level of realism on a motion platform.

 

I respectfully disagree. That said what they meant, and they meant what they said, and simulation is, and can be, pretty broad. It was stated that way for a reason. Thank goodness, too.

[HighTowers 1,434]

 

 

As for P3D I predict, speculate or   ....that the visual and the way it run will be just about the same.

 

Why? This is not Mircosoft developing for consumer entertainment. This is LM developing for the purpose of professional and academic training. The standards to meet performance are raised alot higher. The reason this wasnt manifest in 1.4 is because they are dealing with all the old assembly code causing bottlenecks. They have noted that alot of this old code is now removed. Thus the performance increase.  If it frees up 800-1gb in VAS for the time being thats breathing room until they figure out a way to get it to 64bit

[KingGhidorah 209]

I think the time might be fast approaching for me to make a decision about rebuilding my computer around a 780X, prepare myself to say adios to the companies that won't support P3D, and get serious about jumping in to this platform.  I'm not sure how easy it would be to have both FSX and P3D on the same computer, but maybe that's an option.  When I think of all the time and effort put into getting my FSX just the way I want it, the thought of starting anew is a bit daunting, but it might be time soon. 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

I think you missunderstand what we was talking about Scott, we was talking about simulation and what it means in the world of flight and flight training and the level of simulation that can be provided with in the realms of what is allowed. In part it was a simple missunderstanding on my part for not explaining what i meant.

 

OK, fair enough.  It's easy to lose the thread of conversations going on and focus overmuch on a single word or phrase.

 

Scott

[Guest]

 

 

I'm not sure how easy it would be to have both FSX and P3D on the same computer,

 

Just as easy as having FSX and Photoshop (just to pick one) on one computer. ^_^

[alainneedle1 97]

Why? This is not Mircosoft developing for consumer entertainment. This is LM developing for the purpose of professional and academic training. The standards to meet performance are raised alot higher. The reason this wasnt manifest in 1.4 is because they are dealing with all the old assembly code causing bottlenecks. They have noted that alot of this old code is now removed. Thus the performance increase.  If it frees up 800-1gb in VAS for the time being thats breathing room until they figure out a way to get it to 64bit

 

I'm not saying that P3D/FSX can't be made better, what I'm saying is that V2.0 will not be day and night compare to 1.4, there is limitations still in place, as for performance increase...the day a mid. range computer will be able to run New York X with everything maxed out at 100 FPS steady I will call it a performance increase, not 3 > < 4 more FPS as there is to many variable to take into account to call it an increase.

 

What I'm saying is that making the CPU work less to make the GPU work more is transferring problems you had on a CPU to a GPU, is it a bad thing to do that...of course not but the same problems still there, the VAS you saved (not like you will have a unlimited amount of VAS) will be use somewhere else if not by a developer wanting to insert more eye candy in his sceneries or by a simmer wanting to use more of the sliders to the right or use a more complex airplane.

 

As for visual, peoples also think that using a DX9 scenery on a tweaked platform will make their sceneries shine like they were built with DX11 in mind...sorry, it does not work like that, the sim may feel and look a little better visually but will not make your sceneries look like they were built from the ground up in DX11.

 

Unless things changed in the last week or will before released there is a little modification LM did to get a little more out of the platform, some, not to say a lot won't like it as it will introduce another visual problem. 

[Guest]

Scream it there brother :-)

 

 

 

I want that too, but from the list of features, I really don't think we will get any of these :-/

 

Your right, Your Right! No developer cares about accommodating the most skilled pilots of all!

YEA that's right Sailplane pilots and the most skilled pilots of all! Got a problem with that go try flying one and stay in the air for more than 15minutes . LOL

Luckily for us it also the most affordable aviation unless you include Hang gliding but that's just flying a kit without the string! :LMAO:

[Arwen 289]

As for the excitement, I remember before Flight was released how peoples were excited and how wild the speculations were flowing all over in Flight's forum, nothing wrong with that, to some Flight was suppose to be the holy grail of simming, the excitement died pretty fast.

MS Flight failed because the initial focus was changed from making an actual flightsim (what could have been the successor to FSX) to making a flight game. Too many simmer aspects ended up being left out for it to attract enough flightsimmers and it was never appealing to enough casual gamer to be success. Quite a few beta testers tried to point  out this issue way before it was released, but marketing won out and released a very unfinished product . . . that ended up not selling well at all.  So MS cut their losses and abandoned it only a couple of months after it was released. The sad part was that it could have been a really good flightsim (and was headed that way until some suit decided that they would turn it into a game, so that it would appeal to more users.  MAJOR FAIL on their part!)

 

I'm thrilled that P3D is NOT being released as an Entertainment product, but as a Simulator.

[DarkstarF16 72]

I'm not saying that P3D/FSX can't be made better, what I'm saying is that V2.0 will not be day and night compare to 1.4, there is limitations still in place, as for performance increase...the day a mid. range computer will be able to run New York X with everything maxed out at 100 FPS steady I will call it a performance increase, not 3 > < 4 more FPS as there is to many variable to take into account to call it an increase.

 

What I'm saying is that making the CPU work less to make the GPU work more is transferring problems you had on a CPU to a GPU, is it a bad thing to do that...of course not but the same problems still there, the VAS you saved (not like you will have a unlimited amount of VAS) will be use somewhere else if not by a developer wanting to insert more eye candy in his sceneries or by a simmer wanting to use more of the sliders to the right or use a more complex airplane.

 

As for visual, peoples also think that using a DX9 scenery on a tweaked platform will make their sceneries shine like they were built with DX11 in mind...sorry, it does not work like that, the sim may feel and look a little better visually but will not make your sceneries look like they were built from the ground up in DX11.

 

Unless things changed in the last week or will before released there is a little modification LM did to get a little more out of the platform, some, not to say a lot won't like it as it will introduce another visual problem.

Your quite correct. VAS will remain at 4GB. What will change is the amount that is free. What do you consider to be the acceptable level? You seem to be implying that it will be easy to exceed the limit. How can you be certain?

 

I don't quite understand your point regarding scenery. Do you mean that it won't utilise the full potential of DX11? If this is your point, then first and foremost I agree, but that's for future development isn't it? Possibly how current scenery can utilise the potential of DX11 is beyond me, bearing in mind that the majority of developers develop for DX9. It seems your pointing out the obvious.

 

Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but what exactly is your point?

 

[CarlosF 1,239]

Although Im an owner of PMDG software, If they don't, its their loss. They can put all the eggs in the xplane basket if they wish. With Xplane and P3D constantly developing it will only be a matter of time that FSX, like FS9 will not be a viable platform to develop for.

 

PMDG T7=Boeing, P3D=Lockheed Martin, doesn't that tell you something?

 

 

MS Flight failed because the initial focus was changed from making an actual flightsim

 

MS Flight failed because it wasn't a money maker, M$ is all about $$ and not flight simulators.

 

 

but marketing won out and released a very unfinished product

 

Can you tell me what would have made Flight a finished product?

[Guest]

_{Let me put it another way. To all intent and purpose P3D is FSX. FSX is magnificient. If it was not, no sane person would put the herculean effort that many of us Flight simmers do spend top dollar on the most sophisticated PC hardware and spending hour optimizing Windows and overclocking the already powerful hardware to force it to run reasonably well! Make no mistake about it what we are doing is forcing a pile of dog poop code to work in a reasonable fashjon with major hardware overkill! it is like putting in a thumbtack with a sledge hammer. All of the nonsense and aggravation with FSX is over this and this alone!}

 

_{P3D V2 could be exactly the same as FSX except instead of being a pile of dog poop code it will be more akin to a symphony. The Program will be akin the Thumbtack and hardware will be akin to the thumb.}

_{all of the good stuff (over time preserved and all of the Dog poop taken way. 7 year old big problem taken away!}

 

_{I have never tried P3D but I have read enough about it to know what its. and I will be buying V2 day 1 and that is something I don't do ever.}

[Arwen 289]

Can you tell me what would have made Flight a finished product?

 

Stuff like ATC, AI planes, a Flight Planner, a Detailed Weather System (based on real world weather), and a MUCH larger variety of aircraft (No Airliners, Gliders, or Helicopters were ever released for Flight). Plus the biggie ... the entire planet, instead of just two US states.

 

Of course there are flightsims that don't include all the above, but Flight was always going to be compared with FSX (no matter how much MS tried to ignore this fact), so it was never going to be view as a complete product when it fell so far short.

 

But we really need to get back on topic . . . my point was that I'm very please that LM is focusing on making a Simulator, instead of on an Entertainment product (for the masses). Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I see this as a big win for this community. 

[CarlosF 1,239]

my point was that I'm very please that LM is focusing on making a Simulator, instead of on an Entertainment product (for the masses). Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I see this as a big win for this community.

I totally agree with you!

 

In the case of Flight being released as an unfinished product, I don't agree, but no need to get into a debate on a subject that has been buried.

 

I'm an XPlane 10 user only for now but I sincerely hope P3D v2 lives up to the hype and if XP 10.30 doesn't address some of its shortcomings then I'm probably in too.