And maybe LM just does not care for the entertainment market...

 

If you're a billion dollar international defense contractor, adding "We also make video games ala carte" to your resume doesn't really bolster your PR when it comes time to bid.

The idea that because you don't like what someone is talking about, you get to crap all over the thread, is something that is seemingly only tolerated here, and it is curious.

 

I'd like to find out more.

How am I "moderating"?

 

Is it because I don't follow blindly like a sheep in demanding updates for a product or telling a company to back flip on a policy?

 

As for crapping on a thread...if this was thr first ever topic on something like this I may be more helpful. But given until a couple of days ago I hadn't been on this forum for near 12 months. I come back and see the same topics over again.

 

Perhaps this is why the pmdg staff don't respond. ...because they have already answered the question 12 months ago and cbf repeating themselves 11ty times.

 

If people can't handle someone taking the opposite side of an argument than the interpascals is not the place for you

Why should I, or any other member of this forum, whom are all for the most part current or potential PMDG customers, care about what you or anyone else for that matter is tired of reading ?

 

You aren't arguing the topic, you are arguing the existence of the topic, that's the difference.

 

While there are certainly those who are just looking to stir the pot in threads like these, far more often than not, these are just people that are enthusiastic about PMDG products. 

 

The best solution for you ? Don't click the thread. it really is that simple.

Guys, go back and read - really read, in detail - Rob Randazzo's statement in the link Olli provided in post #13.  PMDG has its own set of business issues to work out, and the challenges range from liability to pricing (i.e. how does a training customer that paid a premium price react if a training-level product is sold to retail customers at retail prices?)  It sounds like they'd like to find a way to work with the platform, but Boeing gets a vote, LM gets a vote, and PMDG's counsel gets a vote.  PMDG clearly doesn't want to cut corners.  They don't when they develop their products, so why should they be casual or cavalier about licensing?

 

It might work out, it might not. But right now there's no indication that anybody has invited anyone to do anything.  Status unchanged, no matter what any third party suggests.

To the actual topic:

 

Now that we have Robert's stickied post to refer to, it seems pretty obvious that this is something they would like to jump into, but it's just not something they can do without hashing out the details first. How long that might take is anyone's guess, and there is always the possibility that it may never happen.

 

I'm sure PMDG values the opinions of those that are making the switch and would like to have their NGX and T7 with them. It would be crazy of them not to embrace that potential customer base, even if they cannot provide for them at this time. I really do feel, that in the end, PMDG's plan of action will be better for all involved, including us.

 

It seems to me that we are nowhere near the end of the story with this, but that a little patience will be required.

I just wonder what is in it for Microsoft to keep hanging on to the "Entertainment" market for Flight Sim.  They are clearly not going to make another sim and are completely out of this business.  So in that case why not just throw LM a bone and release them from this contraint.  Even if LM does not market P3D to the home user it would eliminate any ambiguity and let us all get on with it.

 

This is a pretty wild assumption. One of the men said to have made the final cut for possible selection as the new MS CEO is the man who led the 777 design team at Boeing. if anyone has a chance of resurrecting the actual MSFS series for us it's probably him.

 

Aside from that the MSFS license and source code/intellectual property are clearly worth money and MS could at some point attempt to sell them if they truly are done with producing flight simulators.

(...), but that a little patience will be required.

 

 

For the time being I've just flown the T7 from the Thorsten Reichert's Maldives to the brand-new FSDG Seychelles in ActiveSky weather, with AI and F1's heli traffic, REX textures and with the highest graphics settings I ever saved in a profile: Stunning visuals, no CTD, no OOM, no freezes, smooth frames.

 

Hard to believe but true: It was in FSX!  

For the time being I've just flown the T7 from the Thorsten Reichert's Maldives to the brand-new FSDG Seychelles in ActiveSky weather, with AI and F1's heli traffic, REX textures and with the highest graphics settings I ever saved in a profile: Stunning visuals, no CTD, no OOM, no freezes, smooth frames.

 

Hard to believe but true: It was in FSX!  

 

I hear ya.

 

The T7 is what brought me back to the sim after quite a long break, and since release:

 

[engine.0]

accumulated_time=325.012011

[engine.1]

accumulated_time=325.23013

 

Not a single issue in all of that time.

 

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see some movement down the road. The rig I am running now is far more geared towards P3Dv2 than FSX. For the time being though, I am completely satisfied.

 

EDIT: I do understand though, why others might be "chomping at the bit" a little to see a resolution. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is a bit more nuanced than what would allow for a quick decision. The relationships that PMDG have cultivated, relationships without which the T7 surely would not exist in it's current form, add a bit more complexity than we are typically accustomed to hearing about. It seems the primary issues preventing a full P3D product are not technical in nature, but born out of necessity to protect the rights of all that have invested in creating the product(s) in question. It's certainly not an exciting answer, but it is entirely reasonable.

 

 

I just wonder what is in it for Microsoft to keep hanging on to the "Entertainment" market for Flight Sim.

 

Microsoft is still making money by selling FSX.

Why... why does the next platform HAVE to be P3D? Just a few advantages of X-Plane:

 

- 64-bit

- amazing graphics (better than P3D V2)

- no licensing issues between developers and other parties

- constantly developing

- widely supported by PMDG quality developers

- we are gonna have PMDG products

- meant for entertainment

 

Just watch Froogle's latest video if you're not convinced.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Why... why does the next platform HAVE to be P3D?

 

Perhaps because many think P3D  will be the best.

- amazing graphics (better than P3D V2)

Is it really fair to judge this fully before it's even on our own PCs? I've seen screenshots of both platforms with stock scenery/aircraft that look pretty bad and pretty good, but haven't had the chance to try either out on my system. It's just a matter of settings. Both platforms are very capable visually. P3D seems to have at least caught up with v2, but we won't know for sure until we can try it out for ourselves, will we? Also keep in mind that the goal of P3D is not fantastic default scenery, but rather to provide the ability for developers to create stunning scenery themselves.

And maybe LM just does not care for the entertainment market...

 

Can you blame them? Would you want to draw the comments and at times vitriol that has been generated by hundreds of "gamers" in many forum threads in recent months?

 

 

Can you blame them? Would you want to draw the comments and at times vitriol that has been generated by hundreds of "gamers" in many forum threads in recent months?

It has nothing to do with anyone's behavior, MS simply sold the code to LM for non-entertainment simulator use only, plain and simple. 

 

They clearly do care about us simmers anyway as they are seriously looking at backward compatibility and working with existing FSX developers. 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

 

- constantly developing

This is the big drawback with X-Plane, they keep churning out new versions, it's constantly being tinkered with. I don't see it as a plus at all. It used to be an issue with MSFS biennial updates too. You had to keep replacing perfectly good addons because they either no longer work with the new version or some enhanced version appears solely for the updated platform. The lack of development in FSX can also be seen as an advantage in that it gives developers stability. They aren't constantly having to second guess how things will go.

 

Yes it would be nice if the bugs in FSX could be fixed and a 64 bit version created. But visually it is hard to improve on. The real improvements come from developers like PMDG, not the makers of the simulation platform.

 

 

I guess none of us know for sure but I think it is a pretty good educated guess and MS always has the option of restricting the licensing for P3D 32 bit versions only, or for a specific number of years (say 5) so that if they do ever come out with a new consumer flight sim they could get back in without any LM competition.

Why do you think this? The situation is pretty clear. LM bought the rights to ESP after MS stopped its development. Why would LM do this if there was some restriction on how they could develop it (i.e. 64 bits)? They may not see the need to go to 64 bits for their purposes yet. The division is fairly clear. LM have the professional use version, MS retain the rights and code for the entertainment version. LM aren't an entertainment company so why would they even bother competing with MS in the games market. Selling the professional version is much more lucrative, especially with defence sales.