Read here:

 

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2013/11/airdailyx-interview-with-wesley-l-bard.html

Comprehensive!

Very informative.

 

In a number of areas the approach seems to be that Lockheed Martin does not intend to make significant improvement to functionality but to provide hooks so that individual 3rd party developer can provide their own. I'm not sure what the real implications of that are.

This is my favorite comment in the interview:

We've partnered with many of them (addon development community) for v2, and as they continue to request differentiating features, we will evaluate and continue to work to implement them.

 

I love that they are and will continue to work with third party developers in a way that third party developers have a voice in getting features improved or implemented.  That means that the customers of these third party developers also have a voice.  

 

It is good that we consumers will have a place at the table and have influence.

:Party:

 

 

Imagine rear view mirrors in your favourite aircraft. Developers can do that now with custom cameras rendered into the mirrors

 

Taxi Cams?

 

Roll on Monday and the next 12 months

Great of the LM P3D team to take time out to answer ADX's questions. I suspect that means not much work is being done with the RTM, and Beta 4 is pretty much the real deal. It will be a great monday - and that don't happen to often

Lot's of very good information. It looks like the future of Flight sims and our hobby is going to be very much in the hands of our great FSX add on developers. As the former prison inmate Martha Stewart would say "That's a good thing"

Lockheed Martin has said that it has  made few, if any improvements, improvements to the flight dynamics to maintain backwards compatibility. Instead it  has provided a hook so that 3rd party developers can make their own. 

 

At first sight that appears attractive but does in mean that individual developers will each have to write their own  flight dynamic code and get their own realistic aerodynamic data.?

 

There is also the question where the hooks are. Will they require the developer effectively to input the linear and angular velocities in body axes and let Prepar3D calculate the transformations into world axes, or will the developer have to do make that transformation?  

 

I imagine there may be similar issues with other technical areas using hooks.

 

I suppose we'll have to wait for the SDK for more details, unless a beta tester can explain.

Gerry, those are excellent questions. I would think that a truly enterprising and gifted developer could code an external "FDE system" and then in turn license it for use by other developers who don't have the time or resources to develop their own in-house.

Lockheed Martin has said that it has  made few, if any improvements, improvements to the flight dynamics to maintain backwards compatibility. Instead it  has provided a hook so that 3rd party developers can make their own. 

 

At first sight that appears attractive but does in mean that individual developers will each have to write their own  flight dynamic code and get their own realistic aerodynamic data.?

 

There is also the question where the hooks are. Will they require the developer effectively to input the linear and angular velocities in body axes and let Prepar3D calculate the transformations into world axes, or will the developer have to do make that transformation?  

 

I imagine there may be similar issues with other technical areas using hooks.

 

I suppose we'll have to wait for the SDK for more details, unless a beta tester can explain.

That is a great question Gerry.  I would imagine that the developer would have the ability to utilize the legacy method of creating flight dynamics or create a more realistic FDE via the modernized P3D feature set.  To me it seems to be a solid approach in transitioning from legacy to modern by allowing both options.

 

Of course this is just my conjecture and would love to hear from someone in the know.

 

 

I would think that a truly enterprising and gifted developer could code an external "FDE system" and then in turn license it for use by other developers who don't have the time or resources to develop their own in-house.

 

That is true but I have my doubts about its practicabilty in the real world of 3rd party developers. For example will they want to hold fire while the FDE's being developed or would they be worried about a competitor getting the jump on them? I can't see them agreeing to hold fire.

 

 

 

it seems to be a solid approach in transitioning from legacy to modern by allowing both options

 

My understanding is that the hooks are in addition to the legacy features.

It's very interesting how LM opened up P3D for 3PD's and also clearly say they won't fix everything. I do wonder though if prices for P3D specific addons will follow LM's more professional prices. If you know what I mean. We are all used to 'game-prices' but maybe we have to prepare ourselves for 'pro-prices' for future addons? Anyone knows or heard anything about this? I suppose current FSX addon developers won't completely change their prices but new P3D specific developers whi will develop professional addons might ask more than we are used to. Just curious.

It's very interesting how LM opened up P3D for 3PD's and also clearly say they won't fix everything. I do wonder though if prices for P3D specific addons will follow LM's more professional prices. If you know what I mean. We are all used to 'game-prices' but maybe we have to prepare ourselves for 'pro-prices' for future addons? Anyone knows or heard anything about this? I suppose current FSX addon developers won't completely change their prices but new P3D specific developers whi will develop professional addons might ask more than we are used to. Just curious.

 

Developer's should be pricing their products to make the most money. Selling an add-on for $200 will not necessarily make them more money than selling it for $20.

I for one am no big fan of LM leaving a lot over to third party developers, but I'll take what I can get as the chances of anything better coming along are slim. I'd prefer a closed and intergrated addon market tightly controlled by the developer of the sim.

Lockheed Martin has said that it has  made few, if any improvements, improvements to the flight dynamics to maintain backwards compatibility. Instead it  has provided a hook so that 3rd party developers can make their own. 

 

At first sight that appears attractive but does in mean that individual developers will each have to write their own  flight dynamic code and get their own realistic aerodynamic data.?

 

There is also the question where the hooks are. Will they require the developer effectively to input the linear and angular velocities in body axes and let Prepar3D calculate the transformations into world axes, or will the developer have to do make that transformation?  

 

I imagine there may be similar issues with other technical areas using hooks.

 

I suppose we'll have to wait for the SDK for more details, unless a beta tester can explain.

 

Think FSX simconnect but on a far far greater scale. As with anything though its what you make of it and there are still more (By a big margin) FSX add ons out there that run standard FSX stuff as opposed to running custom stuff through simconnect etc.