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

I think this is a very valid point Arjen, in particular based on this very real consideration:  P3D v2 in most ways is more of the same, no?  While the areas addressed may be significant my sense is in large part you won't be able to tell you're in P3D v2 in many ways, except you won't be in your favorite birds quite yet, or maybe never.  If you're an FSPax user as I am, you may not be enjoying that any longer either.  And right now as any perusing of this forum will validate most users w/ modern hardware are having quite the decent experience already using FSX modded.

 

I'm still hopeful for XPlane too.  For starters, it's completely different, and that has it's good side.  I think the one glaring deficit that I know users have in some ways been able to cope w/ is the lack of worldwide airport building coverage.  That however seems like the perfect opportunity for a 3rd party to tackle, perhaps by continent or what have you.

 

 

I hate this word 'Entertainment' . Its all hinged on that word and its stupid.

 

10+!  The entire distinction verges on nonsense.  After all, if something is to be licensed for training or learning, does this require one to not enjoy, or not be entertained by the process?  That's the sort of ludicrous questions that come out of the discussion.  Now, if LM really wanted to commit to this idea they would have to sell the software only thru for example commercial interests who plan to use the product in their training programs.  I don't think we've heard this is the case, else we only be seeing commercial only licensing, and even that could be somewhat tricky, i.e. ridiculously cumbersome, to enforce.

To get chicks.

 

Do you live on a farm?

Well the enretainment is sure not very well defined. But even if it is not the case then I'm not going to pay 200$ for some kind of small upgrade on FSX, there is no really big change, sure it's all nice, but I don't see myself paying 200$ for an "FSX update" and even for a standalone sim.

 

As the academic is only for children/university students, being neither of them, I fall in the Pro version, which is really too high of a priced for me with the little step forward.

Do you live on a farm?

 

No, hence the flying.

 

Well the enretainment is sure not very well defined. But even if it is not the case then I'm not going to pay 200$ for some kind of small upgrade on FSX, there is no really big change, sure it's all nice, but I don't see myself paying 200$ for an "FSX update" and even for a standalone sim.

 

As the academic is only for children/university students, being neither of them, I fall in the Pro version, which is really too high of a priced for me with the little step forward.

 

Agreed. 

 

I think the real reason I'm not all that excited is that, for the most part, it's just a bunch of visual stuff that I honestly don't care about. Like, even a little. Zero cares given for the feature list. Others will of course feel very differently, and I respect that, but it's just not why I am here.

 

Now, the dev support stuff might be interesting...in a year or two, but I'll re-evaluate then, when and if something actually warrants uprooting from a sim I just got settled into.

 

It's an interesting situation. Part of me would love to support further development, but at the same time, I've yet to see a single thing I am actually interested in touted as a feature, so why should I ?

 

 

some kind of small upgrade on FSX, there is no really big change, sure it's all nice, but I don't see myself paying 200$ for an "FSX update" and even for a standalone sim.

 

Not sure where you are getting that from. There are big changes to the core which is not visible per say to the eye. DX11 allows for a whole slew of possibilities and its baked in officially rather than dx10 as a project that may or may not work. Memory managment is really cleaned up. Maintains compatibility for now and invites 3PDs to develop more with plenty of hooks. Even simconnect has a better upgrade. 

 

Not to discount XPX because there is potential, but I tried it, and couldnt get used to it not to mention the lack of scenery, AI, weather limitations, and visibility at high altitude. Im sure it will come but its not there yet.  I still dont see a whole slew of people migrating to XPX. I see alot more devs excited about P3D and thats what dictates whether its successful or not. Being able to use previously bought software for the most part is a huge plus whereas going to XPX you have to buy all over again. And P3D actually maintaining a strictly simulation and learning platform keeps it for serious people to use it, rather than "entertainment and gaming". Something I always thought PMDG was very adamant about was quality and as realistic as possible which doesnt fall into just casual flying for the fun of it but goes above and beyond.

 

Those are my thoughts and are just subjective, entirely out of opinion, and will very likely differ from everyone else. No one is right or wrong.

As the academic is only for children/university students,

 

The Academic Licence is for those who are " licensed, chartered or otherwise accredited to provide Academic Education."

Allrights, so it's for children/university students, and their teachers. Fair enough?

Not sure where you are getting that from. There are big changes to the core which is not visible per say to the eye. DX11 allows for a whole slew of possibilities and its baked in officially rather than dx10 as a project that may or may not work. Memory managment is really cleaned up. Maintains compatibility for now and invites 3PDs to develop more with plenty of hooks. Even simconnect has a better upgrade. 

 

Not to discount XPX because there is potential, but I tried it, and couldnt get used to it not to mention the lack of scenery, AI, weather limitations, and visibility at high altitude. Im sure it will come but its not there yet.  I still dont see a whole slew of people migrating to XPX. I see alot more devs excited about P3D and thats what dictates whether its successful or not. Being able to use previously bought software for the most part is a huge plus whereas going to XPX you have to buy all over again. And P3D actually maintaining a strictly simulation and learning platform keeps it for serious people to use it, rather than "entertainment and gaming". Something I always thought PMDG was very adamant about was quality and as realistic as possible which doesnt fall into just casual flying for the fun of it but goes above and beyond.

 

Those are my thoughts and are just subjective, entirely out of opinion, and will very likely differ from everyone else. No one is right or wrong.

I completely agree with you. I think Mr Mayer's ego was little too big in the beginning and that hunts them today. Recently they started to listen to what customers and developers really want and are slowly moving in right direction (adding 64-bits and more). In future I am sure that x-plane will be dominating market if they continue to listen to big development companies like PMDG, ORBX, FSDreamteam. But now it's little too early in my own opinion.

 

 

Not sure where you are getting that from. There are big changes to the core which is not visible per say to the eye. DX11 allows for a whole slew of possibilities and its baked in officially rather than dx10 as a project that may or may not work. Memory managment is really cleaned up. Maintains compatibility for now and invites 3PDs to develop more with plenty of hooks. Even simconnect has a better upgrade. 

 

Well sure they changed the renderer to DX 11 I've seen that and I agree it is nice as well as a few new bits on the tools and the (should be better) memory management.

 

But at it's core it's still FSX, or well ESP, there is nothing about change in terms of scenery, flight models, weather models, it will be depicted more beautifully, I won't deny that, but I'd me much more interested if there had been changes in what is at the core of the sim, that really is invisible. There it just is visual. 

 

And there will still be potentially OOM as the new version is also still 32 bits. Of course I can understand the conservative move on that as changing to 64 bits will break things obviously.

 

So it's nice to see them continue to develop it, but I'm waiting for something more consistent than what they have and that they do give a realversion that general person like me can get without haveing to go well they don't check things so I can take the academic even if I'm not in this case. 

 

 

If defined as I think it does then it simply means gaming fun. We are the furthest thing from that. Particularly developers like PMDG , FSLABS, and others. PRECISION manuals clearly implies quality and to simulate as close as possible. If Entertainment is what this is all about then why are we so concerned with FCOMS and the few thousand page manuals, and have correct procedures with tutorials. Might as well start it all up with the E key. And press Z for autopilot and hope it works. Heck Entertainment implies flying through squares and hitting balloons for points.

 

So you don't have fun nor enjoy flying aircraft in a video game?  If you don't then why are you here?

 

Just because you have a preconceived notion of what "entertainment" means (or doesn't mean) doesn't make it so.  Making high fidelity aircraft and in-depth manuals doesn't change that fact.  The bottom line is that, at the end of the day, you do it because you enjoy it.

No more speculation, conjecture or supposition. This question has finally been answered!!