Just wondered where LM would generate the most revenue from for this, and in fact, other releases to date. I tried to google how many there are but its tiresome to trawl through them all and find out which ones would actually use P3D as a tool for there training.

I can imagine there being an interest from the military and your large carriers, as, with the slimming down of the worlds airforces over recent years will mean that the natural progression from military flying to civil once the pilots service has ended after say 25 years, means that there just wont be available, the next generation of pilots coming through in the future.

This means that a lot of the airlines need to train pilots from civilian backgrounds and so they would buy a licence at $200, but there can't be that many around the world that would make it a viable business to develop a sim product beyond the requirements of the airlines.  

I may be wrong, and according to my wife, I usually am, but I think that the majority of the income from P3D 2 will be from us guys. We alone have kept dozens of software companies going over the last 15- 20 years by our unending thirst for the next best thing to flying. Does anybody have access to how many copies of P3D were sold since its launch, and then divide them between us and the big guns? just who is driving this product forward?  

Also, all of the new features listed over on P3D v2 blog are fantastic and I am really looking forward to seeing them on my screen where I think they will be amazing, but that's just on our screens at home,  the commercial simulators don't have the graphics capability to show these to their full potential. The only ones I have ever seen look dull and dark because of the way that the image is portrayed onto the screen, usually a wrap around, and use projectors. I have never seen a commercial flight sim, not even the RAF ones, look anything as good as what I have at home.

As I said, I may be wrong but I think its you me and the rest of us armchair pilots that keep this industry going.

 

 

yeah there is way to many training companys around the world to count, what P3D does is allow a low cost alternative for training with both fixed base and full motion simulators.

 

There is already certified fixed based simulators using P3D as the base software, and when you think about it you could probably build a fixed based simulator for less $30,000 and get it certified which makes it a very very cost effective for trainie pilots and companys that wish to rent time on them. Full motion simulators have their place but not many can afford the cost of them.

Boeing has a training product called "Flat Screen Simulator". It appears that it might be a competitor for P3D.

One wonders if that may be the reason PMDG does not offer their new B777 for Lockheed's Prepare3D. That is: because Boeing made PMDG privy to many tech aspects of the 777- it would be illogical to allow a serious training version of that sim to be used on a competitor's software.

 

The absence of a 2D version of the Triple 7 makes me wonder if PMDG might be doing that for exclusive use by Boeing for professional training.

After all, the FAA requires the visual attributes of 2D presentation ie Virtual is not acceptable since instruments,switches and buttons are not in fixed locations.

january

Boeing has a training product called "Flat Screen Simulator". It appears that it might be a competitor for P3D.

One wonders if that may be the reason PMDG does not offer their new B777 for Lockheed's Prepare3D. That is: because Boeing made PMDG privy to many tech aspects of the 777- it would be illogical to allow a serious training version of that sim to be used on a competitor's software.

 

The absence of a 2D version of the Triple 7 makes me wonder if PMDG might be doing that for exclusive use by Boeing for professional training.

After all, the FAA requires the visual attributes of 2D presentation ie Virtual is not acceptable since instruments,switches and buttons are not in fixed locations.

january

This makes a LOT of sense to me. That's exactly what I thought the first time I saw Boeing's flat screen sim

The flat screen simulator is actually designed as systems trainer, i.e. learning to do the checklists.  It is not, nor can it be a replacement for actual training simulators that simulate the full environment.

 

As for commercial flight sims not looking as good as what you have at home, a good example of that is Redbird.  They have a full motion sim that uses Prepar3D.

Apart from airlines you also have business jet and charter operators who have to keep their pilots trained. Then there's police, ambulance, SAR, off-shore and news helicopters, GA flight schools, and potentially commercial UAV use in the near future. This is of course over and above all the military users.

 

Apart from that there's also research institutes. For example the Dutch aviation lab (NLR) has at least one research simulator that currently runs ESP (with their own flight model piped in).

As for commercial flight sims not looking as good as what you have at home, a good example of that is Redbird.  They have a full motion sim that uses Prepar3D.

 

Ed- thanks for your reply. Do you know if the Redbird / Prepare3D simulators use any Virtual aircraft panel presentation - or are they using 2D format only?

 

It is my understanding that the FAA will NOT accept/recognize Virtual simulation format because the panel elements do not remain always in the same physical location. 

This being so, I wonder if designers for future panels aimed at P3D, will pay more attention to 2D.

january

Redbird uses physical switches, etc. along with multi-monitors to provide the outside view, and instrument displays. A quick visit to Redbird's site will provide the best answer to the question...

 

http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/training-devices/

 

Note that all of their products except "The Jay" are at a minimum FAA  BATD certified as long as rudder pedals are used.

Ed- thanks for your reply. Do you know if the Redbird / Prepare3D simulators use any Virtual aircraft panel presentation - or are they using 2D format only?

 

It is my understanding that the FAA will NOT accept/recognize Virtual simulation format because the panel elements do not remain always in the same physical location. 

This being so, I wonder if designers for future panels aimed at P3D, will pay more attention to 2D.

january

The Redbird simulators utilize physical switches and controls to interact with Prepar3D as the base sim.  Prepar3D provides the outside view via multiple monitors as well as aircraft systems and avionics.