I wonder if one of Lockheed's objectives with P3D is to make it stable and usable by non computer geeks- that is folks who wish only to FLY and who have little or no interest in what is inside the PC case.

So I would anticipate that this new version of FS will be much more stable and usable with "reasonably" average & current PC hardware. 

A pro training simulator that needs customized & tweeked hardware, is a recipe for market failure!

I'm pretty sure LM is familiar with the expression KISS.

january

 

 

I wonder if one of Lockheed's objectives with P3D is to make it stable and usable by non computer geeks- that is folks who wish only to FLY and who have little or no interest in what is inside the PC case.

So I would anticipate that this new version of FS will be much more stable and usable with "reasonably" average & current PC hardware. 

A pro training simulator that needs customized & tweeked hardware, is a recipe for market failure!

I'm pretty sure LM is familiar with the expression KISS.

january

Actually, that appears to have been their main goal with P3d 1.4. My experience has been that unless you mess around with nVidia Inspector or the cfg file, P3d 1.4 is very stable. Stability is P3d's main advantage over FSX. There certainly isn't a significant performance difference. With the update to DX11, P3d 2.0 will probably be both faster and stable. But you never know with new versions of complex software.

 

 

Also a lot of FSX, FS9 people would really disagree with the statement of FSX, or MSFS, being a game and P3D being a simulator, some people take their flying extremely seriously; take using VATSIM flying for instance

 

Taking it seriously doesn't  mean it isn't a game. Many people take the games they play, such as football, very seriously but they are still games.

Taking it seriously doesn't  mean it isn't a game. Many people take the games they play, such as football, very seriously but they are still games.

I think we should have a lengthy discussion on the definition of the term "game".

 

Vic

 

 

have a lengthy discussion on the definition of the term "game".

 

Not really. I know what a game is -  an activity that one engages in for amusement - and have enough self-confidence to admit the FSX is a  game.

 

 

and have enough self-confidence to admit the FSX is a game.

 

Well said that man! Agree 100%. :Applause:

We shouldn't get so hung up on terms, as that often ends badly (usually in a bashing contest).

 

But, if you really want to get picky, neither Prepar3d nor FSX is actually a flight simulator . . . not according to the Oxford dictionary definition: "a machine designed to resemble the cockpit of an aircraft, with computer-generated images that mimic the pilot’s view, typically with mechanisms that move the entire structure in imitation of an aircraft’s motion, used for training pilots."

 

At best, either one could be the computer software component that that a particular fight simulator uses.

A machine = not necessarily mechanical in nature, can also be a computer (=programmable machine).

Resemble cockpit = check

Computer generated images = check

Mimic pilot's view = check

Typically = doesn't mean exclusively

Used for training pilots = P3D, check

 

So umm yeah, a flight simulator by all means.

Not really. I know what a game is -  an activity that one engages in for amusement -

 

So according to you, when I go horseback riding, an activity that I engage in which brings me amusement, I am playing a game. Or when I drive my car alone on an oval track - I am gaming. Of all the criteria for determining what is a game, being amused is the least important.

 

 

According to Oxford Dictionary:

 

1a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

• a complete episode or period of play, typically ending in a definite result:a baseball game

My point being, just to state that FSX is a game and P3D is not - is too broad a brush.

 

There are LOTS of activities which bring me amusement which are not games. There are lots of games which do not bring me amusement. I contend that FSX and P3D are both. If you see it as a game, which you apparently do, then TO YOU it is a game. If you see them as learning tools or tools to increase your proficiency, then TO YOU they are NOT a game.

 

I see neither FSX nor P3D as a game.

 

Vic

According to Oxford Dictionary

 

According to the Oxford Dictionaries a game is:

 

1 a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.

 

• (games) a meeting for sporting contests:the Olympic Games

 

• (games) British athletics or sports as a lesson or activity at school: in order to be popular, you had to be good at games

 

•a person’s performance in a game; a person’s standard of play:Rooks attempted to raise his game to another level

 

2 an activity that one engages in for amusement:

 

a computer game

•  the equipment for a game, especially a board game or a computer game: buy your games and software from us

[My emphasis] 

 

My point being, just to state that FSX is a game and P3D is not - is too broad a brush

 

I agree: they are both games in the context of these forums. 

 

If you see them as learning tools or tools to increase your proficiency, then TO YOU they are NOT a game

 

Increase your proficiency in what - playing games?

You folks need to read some Wittgenstein.

 

Good luck living your life through the Oxford dictionary.

Honestly, unless it is certified by an authority such as the FAA or whoever your local regulator is, it is still a game. I think that many who refuse to accept that are ones who want to go tell their friends "Yes, I can fly a (..insert aircraft here)...".

 

Sorry guys, unless you can legally log flight time, while being a very useful tool, it remains a game. Keep it in perspective.

Someone said -

 

"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

I should have listened.

 

 

Vic

Not really. I know what a game is -  an activity that one engages in for amusement - and have enough self-confidence to admit the FSX is a  game.

It's my understanding tthat the USAF Academy has, for some years, provided each cadet, in his dorm,  with a PC loaded with Flight Sim. 

I have to think that is NOT just to keep cadets amused with a GAME but perhaps to let them practice some of the things they learn in class or even in a real cockpit.

One wonders how quickly P3D V2.0 will get loaded onto those 'puters?  (if not already, as Beta testers)?

january

 

 

A machine = not necessarily mechanical in nature, can also be a computer (=programmable machine).

Yes, but the software is NOT the machine . . . your computer (+ joystick/throttle + whatever) is the machine.

 

That's why I wrote in my previous post: "At best, either one could be the computer software component that that a particular fight simulator uses."