We can obviously see LM's business model here where the actual 3rd party products will replace the default setup and LM will provide the core engine refinements for those developers to create products to improve what we all do and see in the simulator platform.

 

This is something Microsoft never did, they did it their way and only their way which was their business model; obviously we all saw where that led to.

 

I think LM just hooked into the existing culture of this simulator genre because it was already working and so they were able to maintain focus on the core engine which is what we all want now isn't it?

 

Nice work, indeed. Looking forward to all the advancements. In the meantime, I can fly without those horrible bugs and stutters that made the flying experience less than acceptable.

 

Cheers,

 

Kelvin

Developers still be able to generate OOMs

 

That's not what was said.  Although this is true, it's not in context:

 

 

 

finding the edge cases where memory leaks may happen is challenging

 

AND

 

 

finding and resolving memory leaks is exponentially easier in the new engine

 

 

... means something different.

 

Developers can't be responsible for how 3rd party API users manage their own memory space, and the consequences those failures have on the whole.  LM is saying that they are able to discover those much quicker and have made a commitment to do so, even asking us to be on the lookout for them (this is an honest approach).

 

Memory management is an economical and ecological balance.  Short of writing in a leak check in every other line of code, which itself would slow the program, development timetables, and increase costs, as well as increase memory demands,  it is impossible to have a scientific certainty that there will be no leaks.  And probability goes up logarithmically in software as more and more interfaces are exposed.  

 

It is in fact a Management PROCESS for software that is Wide Open and IN THE WILD, as P3D is.  By stating that leaks will be easier to find they are clearly aware of the need for structure and metrics in their code to resolve memory issues and accommodate the 3rd party manipulations as they are invented.  This gives me confidence that any current setup ported over from FSX will be stable.

 

Think of the SR-71.  Management and consideration of a fuel leaks while on the tarmac and at slower speeds are part of the flight program.   If you are operating any machinery with high power they also demand high levels of maintenance.  

 

Flight Simulator has ALWAYS been the hardest pushing single piece of software available for the PC, in all it's flavors, in 3 decades!  For that matter, FSX is not going away.  I'll keep visiting it until I gradually migrate over how ever long it takes me, and when it's time to build a new puter for P3D 3.0, then I'll leave it behind.  I don't have to delete it from my HD Monday, that's just silly, and really impractical.  You can keep your current simulator if you like it.  

 

The pie is only growing.  I guess some slices will be PMDG and other flavors.

 

 Now where's dinner?

On a subject not asked of LM its nice to see they are looking at the Oculus rift. I would love to see a good GA sim supported on the rift.

In another blog, they did address this. I believe they stated they are working on full functionality but don't quote me. 1/2 way down the page:

 

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

 

 

That's not what was said. Although this is true, it's not in context:

 

What was said

 

That being said, it seems that almost every 3rd party addon developer has  found a way to extend the legacy engine and do complicated things a few different ways, so finding the edge cases where memory leaks may happen is challenging.

 

The Oculus Rift is another device that has me drooling; perhaps I've never wanted another piece of hardware more.  And then those new gsync monitors are exciting too.  Oculus Rift and gsync in 4k?   I'd be the guy wanting back in the matrix.

My quote came directly from mgh, not LM. So no, I didn't take it out of context. I'm 100% for V2, I just stated my concern in my original post. I too will keep FSX until my P3D setup surpasses FSX. And the only real reason I'm getting P3D V2 is the claimed memory improvement, which I hope that means OOMs will be rare.

 

The questions and answers overall give an interesting insight into Lockheed Martin's strategy.

 

This appears to have concentrated on rendering and graphics that it would be almost impossible for developers to provide. The videos show impressive improvements in rendering but I don't see the ability to run 12 monitors to be of much interest to the majority of flight simulation enthusiasts here.

 

But many other features are unchanged - "The core weather engine has not changed", "The world mesh and land class for the Prepar3D world has not been updated" (the question about updating maps, navaids, and world navigation and

airport databases wasn't explicitly answered, making me think they weren't), Developers will still be able to generate OOMs, and runways still have to be flat. Lockheed Martin said on it forums that the flight dynamics is little changed.

 

Lockheed Martin’s strategy appears to extend SimConnect and provide "hooks" into Prepar3d to enable individual developers to provide their own improvements.

 

Although this appears attractive, there is a downside for smaller developers catering for flight simulation enthusiasts. Creating their individual ways of hooking into Prepare3D must take time and increase their costs which will have to be reflected in prices. It may also prove to be impracticable. Developing new flight dynamics may require realistic aerodynamic data that may not be available or affordable to such developers

 

On the other hand, Lockheed Martin's commercial contractors (and its internal training divisions) developing applications commercial real-world training will have no such problems. They’ll be able budget for these costs in their project prices, and have enough influence to get the data. Lockheed Martin developing for army, navy or air force will find doors opening.

 

 

WoW!!!! OK Gerry we will put you down as very optimistic but undecided at this point. LOL!

 

 

WoW!!!! OK Gerry we will put you down as very optimistic but undecided at this point. LOL!

 

I prefer to think I'm being realistic.

I prefer to think I'm being realistic.

 

That got a "funny" from me. How can you be a flight simmer and realistic? There is an oxymoron in there somewhere. :Big Grin:

I'm thinking a PC with FSX running advanced panel software and networked to another PC using P3D to render multimonitor exterior views might be a very interesting drill that could net the best of both platforms. 

 

Cheers

 

I prefer to think I'm being realistic.

 

 

OK Gerry, not looking for a fight. LM never promised us that V2.0 would work as good as Healthcare.Gov....Just that they would bring an old code up to more modern standards. I think they delivered and all this will pay off in the future.

That got a "funny" from me. How can you be a flight simmer and realistic? There is an oxymoron in there somewhere.

Not really. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

That got a "funny" from me. How can you be a flight simmer and realistic? There is an oxymoron in there somewhere. :Big Grin:

 

Tom you should be very worried. I had the very same thought. A man of you position should not be in that state of mind.!!LOL!

OK Gerry, not looking for a fight

Nor am I.

 

I  commented on what Prepr3d is actually offered  - as far as I'm aware what I said is factually correct so why so touchy?. 

 

 I also commented on Lockheed Martin's apparent strategy .

Evidently, P3D is coming a long way!