Posts from P3D website

[Guest]

Well I can tell you what was released as an unfinished product; FSX, completely unfinished! and what's worse is that the developer never bothered to finish it in the 7 years since it was released. But its all going to work out for the best because they sold the unfinished product to a company that has the pursuit of excellence as a core value, so it will be finished so to all our benefit. :lol:

[alainneedle1 97]

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?

 

LM did not free up VAS that much, so my point is that what ever they did freed up will be use right away by developers or simmers.

 

We both agree on DX11 vs DX 9, but after reading some post I can see that some simmers do not understand that and thought that their sceneries would magically be transformed.

 

@ Arwen, I understand what you are saying but there is more to this Flight's story, way passed the suit, the dev. working on the engine did a fantastic job, more was planed for Flight, it's a shame that we did not see the full potential of Flight, in my opinion they should have waited another year before releasing Flight, the beta testers did not and will not tell everything as they are still under a NDA.

 

As for P3D, I also agree with you on the "simulator" part, and I also agree that P3D is not for the masses, keep in my that at any time and for what ever reasons LM can change their requirements, pull the plug or else regarding their licenses, will it happen, I don't know, can this happen...yes.

[JasonHarris 96]

LM did not free up VAS that much, so my point is that what ever they did freed up will be use right away by developers or simmers.

 

As for P3D, I also agree with you on the "simulator" part, and I also agree that P3D is not for the masses, keep in my that at any time and for what ever reasons LM can change their requirements, pull the plug or else regarding their licenses, will it happen, I don't know, can this happen...yes.

 

 

   Why save up money if you have no intention to spend it?   Of course the free'd up memory is so that it can be reused for additional functionality.   The computer isn't going to run better just because there is some free memory available for that process.   They are freeing up the memory so that it _can_ be used.   That is a benefit, you are painting it as a no win.

 

      You are right, I suppose they could pull support, just like MS has done for fsx and flight.   BTW, I am not saying an asteroid will hit earth tomorrow you know...

[Arwen 289]

@ Arwen, I understand what you are saying but there is more to this Flight's story, way passed the suit, the dev. working on the engine did a fantastic job, more was planed for Flight, it's a shame that we did not see the full potential of Flight, in my opinion they should have waited another year before releasing Flight, the beta testers did not and will not tell everything as they are still under a NDA.

I was one of the beta testers for Flight, which is why I didn't post more details. I never blamed the Flight Team for the failure of Flight.  If nothing else, Flight is a prime example of what happens when you take a potentially great flightsim (still in development) and then make the decision to mainstream it . . . by gamifying it (my own word).  

 

Thankfully it doesn't look like LM has any intention of ever mainstreaming P3D . . . yet some here don't seem to view this as a good thing, but are hoping for an entertainment/game instead of a simulator/training tool.

[Guest]

Well I can tell you what was released as an unfinished product; FSX, completely unfinished! and what's worse is that the developer never bothered to finish it in the 7 years since it was released. But its all going to work out for the best because they sold the unfinished product to a company that has the pursuit of excellence as a core value, so it will be finished so to all our benefit. :lol:

 

That does depends on what you'd call 'finished'... Flightsims will never be 'finished' until we can't tell the difference between flying in the sim and flying in real life! I don't think that will happen very soon, do you...? ^_^ And I can guarantee you that P3D won't be a 'finished' product either!

 

Concerning P3D being a sim and not for entertainment: that's probably the best things about P3D. We can only get a better sim if the product is being developed as a 'real sim' (used for real training etc.) because the needs and desires and required quality of a real sim obviously can't be compared with the needs and desires and required quality of a game.

[Guest]

 

 

keep in my that at any time and for what ever reasons LM can change their requirements, pull the plug or else regarding their licenses, will it happen, I don't know, can this happen...yes.

 

Microsoft could pull the plug on Windows today. McDonalds could stop the sale of hamburgers. Will it happen, I don't know, can this happen...yes. 

 

LM created a tool for training purposes so why would they pull the plug on the license that's of interest to us? If LM would ever pull the plug, they would pull the plug completely and stop development, support and sale of P3D altogether for everyone. That of course can happen. They could also go broke. But as long as they keep on working on P3D, everyone who wants to train (which is us), will be able to use P3D. Simple as that. 

[simmerhead 885]

I was one of the beta testers for Flight, which is why I didn't post more details. I never blamed the Flight Team for the failure of Flight.  If nothing else, Flight is a prime example of what happens when you take a potentially great flightsim (still in development) and then make the decision to mainstream it . . . by gamifying it (my own word).  

 

Thankfully it doesn't look like LM has any intention of ever mainstreaming P3D . . . yet some here don't seem to view this as a good thing, but are hoping for an entertainment/game instead of a simulator/training tool.

 

Well, there are those of us who would like things to be gamifyed. The problem with FLIGHT IMHO is that it was neither a good game or a good flight simulator. Flying chikens or taking people on sightseeing tours aren't exactly exiting.

 

As for P3D I agree that it is a good think that LM have a clear focus and vision with their product. That said, superb graphics and immersion doesn't make it less of a serious training tool, on the contrary. The more real it gets the better it is becomes as a training tool.

[DarkstarF16 72]

Well I can tell you what was released as an unfinished product; FSX, completely unfinished! and what's worse is that the developer never bothered to finish it in the 7 years since it was released. But its all going to work out for the best because they sold the unfinished product to a company that has the pursuit of excellence as a core value, so it will be finished so to all our benefit. :lol:

It was unfinished. P3D will fall into the same category. ALL software is in a constant flux of change and is released in a useable state with features that work but could be improved. It's the old problem of diminishing returns. Features that could be improved but are released 'as is' are usually those that take the most time and effort to correct, or are deemed workable, therefor unnecessary to correct at time of current release. With the benefit of hindsight, the decision to release FSX in the condition we know today was correct. The testament to that decision is that its still being used 7 years after release. Personally, I'm glad they made the choices they did.

 

The sheer depth and brilliance of FSX will however, live on, and we should pay homage to the original developers and rejoice that LM understand this and are willing to make it better. its foolish to expect that everything will be perfect. I agree with Jeroen, the pursuit of perfection is always a step away.

 

[Eric Tomlin 10]

 

 

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

 

+1000

[alainneedle1 97]

   Why save up money if you have no intention to spend it?   Of course the free'd up memory is so that it can be reused for additional functionality.   The computer isn't going to run better just because there is some free memory available for that process.   They are freeing up the memory so that it _can_ be used.   That is a benefit, you are painting it as a no win.

 

      You are right, I suppose they could pull support, just like MS has done for fsx and flight.   BTW, I am not saying an asteroid will hit earth tomorrow you know...

 

Of course it's a good thing to free up VAS, and to use it, but the same problems will occur again if for example a developer used them all up in is new sceneries by adding more eye candy, the amount freed up will be recycled again and the same problems you have now will happen again.

 

Unless P3D become a 64-bit platform (if it ever become one) the same limitations will apply, 2 + 2 always = 4.

 

Thankfully it doesn't look like LM has any intention of ever mainstreaming P3D . . . yet some here don't seem to view this as a good thing, but are hoping for an entertainment/game instead of a simulator/training tool.

 

Very good point Arwen.

 

By the way I've never said (in case you were referring to me) that P3D is not a good thing, I agree with you on some of your statements  but let me play devil advocate here if I may, in you opinion how can LM keep control of their license between entertainment/game and simulator/training, is it possible that LM can decide to enforce their simulation/training aspect of their license (PMDG explained that in one of their reason to not support P3D) to make sure that their license is not use as a entertainment/game?

 

Lets not fool ourselves here as we both know that not all purchaser of a license will be purchasing it with the entente of using it as a simulator/training one, take Flight1 or PMDG for example, they found a way to enforce their "not to be use with P3D" statement by modifying some of their products, so lets play along here and let say that LM become under pressure (does not matter who put pressure on them) about P3D and their looseness way of licensing, in your opinion, what kind of criteria or way of verification can LM use or put in place to enforce or keep some kind of control over their license to make sure that they are not be use as entertainment/game?

 

 

 

 

 LM created a tool for training purposes so why would they pull the plug on the license that's of interest to us?

 

I should have use the word "enforce", my mistake.

[Guest]

 

 

I should have use the word "enforce", my mistake.

 

Hm, that only would have made the remark even less useful LOL    How would enforcing the EULA change the fact that everyone is allowed to use P3D for training and learning? 'Pulling the plug' could happen and it would have effects on the use of P3D but enforcing makes no difference at all in this case...!

[Arwen 289]

Alain, 

 

I still don't see any issue with LM's decision to make P3D a Simulator/Training Tool.

 

Definitions are from Oxford Dictionary:

 

Simulator: noun - a machine with a similar set of controls designed to provide a realistic imitation of the operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system, used for training purposes.

 

Training: noun - the action of teaching a person or animal a particular skill or type of behavior.

 

In this case the "machine" is your computer + the flightsim software + your joystick/throttle (etc). So P3D is being sold/licensed as a piece of software that is "designed to provide a realistic imitation of the operation of" aircraft (and other vehicles, and other complex systems), which is designed to teach the user the particular skills involved (like proper procedures),  That's pretty much what I'm hoping for.

 

Edited: There are LOTS of ways that the training part can be implemented (tutorials, missions, rating landings, etc).  There is always going to be some blurring between entertainment and learning/improving skills, especially when you're talking about flightsims . . . most of us here find flight procedures to be entertaining . . . while most of the general population doesn't see the enjoyment in learning this stuff, or understand our desire to spend countless hours improving our flight skills.

[alainneedle1 97]

Arwen,

 

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, but you still have not answered my question, since you defined entertainment/game and simulator/training as two different things (as LM does too) in your own opinion how can LM enforce their license to make sure they will not be used as entertainment/game?

 

 

Hm, that only would have made the remark even less useful LOL    How would enforcing the EULA change the fact that everyone is allowed to use P3D for training and learning? 'Pulling the plug' could happen and it would have effects on the use of P3D but enforcing makes no difference at all in this case...!

 

Jeroen,

 

Lets say I'm already a flight student at my local airport or I already have my pilot license and I am wondering about how I can train/simulate to get better under defined conditions without having to jump in a plane every time, can P3D help me to do that....big time yes. 

[bonchie 2,305]

By the way I've never said (in case you were referring to me) that P3D is not a good thing, I agree with you on some of your statements  but let me play devil advocate here if I may, in you opinion how can LM keep control of their license between entertainment/game and simulator/training, is it possible that LM can decide to enforce their simulation/training aspect of their license (PMDG explained that in one of their reason to not support P3D) to make sure that their license is not use as a entertainment/game?

 

This again?

 

Does LM need to write it in the sky for you? Tom said don't turn this into a EULA argument or he's gonna lock the thread. Why make him do it?

 

You can either accept LM's stated, extremely clear position or not.

[alainneedle1 97]

This again?

 

Does LM need to write it in the sky for you? Tom said don't turn this into a EULA argument or he's gonna lock the thread. Why make him do it?

 

You can either accept LM's stated, extremely clear position or not.

 

 

You'r turning it into something I did not mentioned.

 

Instead of getting all upset, there is a button at the bottom of your screen "report", use it.