I think the planner is one of those things that LM rather leaves up to the devs. So I wouldn't count on a better planner from LM. The same goes for ATC, weather, well, everything else for which addons exist. I think LM will mainly focus on getting the basics right and that's it. And in all honesty that's totally fine with me! I rather have them doing that than spending time on things for which better addons already exist (although they may not all be P3D 2.0 ready yet).

I think the planner is one of those things that LM rather leaves up to the devs. So I wouldn't count on a better planner from LM. The same goes for ATC, weather, well, everything else for which addons exist. I think LM will mainly focus on getting the basics right and that's it. And in all honesty that's totally fine with me! I rather have them doing that than spending time on things for which better addons already exist (although they may not all be P3D 2.0 ready yet).

 

But do flying schools and military training organisations have to rely on an add-on to use the flight planner properly? They have enough money to improve it, and they should.

But do flying schools and military training organisations have to rely on an add-on to use the flight planner properly? They have enough money to improve it, and they should.

 

I don't disagree, and in fact I kinda wonder why they felt the need to mess with it in the first place if it is indeed worse than what was available in FSX, but on the other hand, I can't think of any actual training scenario that would rely on it.

 

The two you mention would surely have far more capable methods/software for planning, tailored to their specific needs.

Guess its true that it has gone unnoticed, because even in FSX the flight planner was not great so many shifted to using dedicated add-ons for this purpose. I use FSC9 for all my GA planning and now PFPX for airline flight plans, both create my .pln files, and easy enough to get those loaded.

 

Agree with Jeroen, I think LM's focus is elsewhere at the moment, and things like flight planners with all the bells and whistles links to Google satellite imagery, Bing, opensource maps, 3D flight paths, etc, will be left to add-on devs.

 

I think we often lose sight of how vast this simulator software is, so for one company to cover all the bases, to the high standards desired by such a diverse and increasingly knowledgeable community,  is simply not possible anymore.

 

Rob

But do flying schools and military training organisations have to rely on an add-on to use the flight planner properly?

 

Er... LM made it very clear they only create the basics and want developers to add things to it. So yes, flying schools and military training organisations have to rely on an add-on to use a flight planner properly. It's the same for weather: if they want some realistic weather, they will need an addon for it. This also goes for the planes. So why not for the planner? To make the sim's planner usuable for training, they wouldn't need to totally redo the entire thing and I don't see them doing that. Specially when there are very realistic planners available already like PFPX.

 

One problem that won't be addressed, as its nothing to do with LM is a scenery provider I use has stated we cannot use their product in P3D – so unless that changes, it will be bit of a blow.

Interesting news about the scenery designer. Who are we talking about here?

 

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 4

Interesting news about the scenery designer. Who are we talking about here?

Where there is a real perceived need, someone else will fill the void.  I have no doubts whatever...

Pretty much how I ended up riding the 1.4 wave.. I stopped caring about who isn't (supporting the platform) and focused on who is..  Much better off that way.

Hi,

after a couple of days of tweaking and tuning, I got v2 running very well and a don't think about of going back to anything else.  

 

Bruno

My experience also.   I'm hoping REX 4 will significantly improve V2's water textures.  I find it's very difficult to go back to FSX and I attribute this to the truly different lighting and a few other really what amounts to eye candy aspects.  I didn't think those attributes would really be compelling enough but I find they truly are.  And I think this can be subsumed under the heading of making the experience more realistic/believable.  FSX just looks flattish by comparison to me now.  The completeness of FSX will have me keeping it installed for flying the PMDG stuff and FSPax.   I do have concerns about how V2 will run the PMDG birds.  I fear they may run poorly by comparison to FSX, but hopefully I'm wrong.  But what I find now is the actual task of flying the RA Duke for example is just very pleasant and encourages one to fly some VFR.  Also, in FSX I always set up flights at dawn or dusk just to get some coloration and contrast going.  Now I find in V2 even high noon flights are pleasant visually and that is a significant indicator of just how different & compelling V2 is--even when you have FSX running well.  My time flying now is about 80% V2, 20% FSX.  That may in part be more a case of testing & trying different things.  But geez some of the visuals are phenomenal.  Fly south over the Olympic Range out of Port Angeles at dawn was nothing short of beautiful, yet subtle and seemingly w/ much more depth & perspective at the same zoom factor.

I've not read any posts on their forums about it, but then again, it surprises me how few simmers have mentioned how poor the flight planner in P3D2 is, so maybe LM just aren't getting a clear message through about it.

 

Well they are giving it some attention at least because there is a crashing bug in it, and it's listed in their topic of things they are going to fix.

With a lot of add-ons in FSX working great I have parked my downloaded P3D2, waiting for further development. My minicockpit is not working properly, due to problems with FSUIPC i think, PMDG and Majestic Dash 8 do not Work in P3D2, Aivlasoft EFB is not compatible etc., etc.

Interesting news about the scenery designer. Who are we talking about here?

 

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 4

 

Horizon Simulations

 

http://forum.flightstore.co.uk/post/horizon-simulations-volumes-1-10-and-prepar3d-6646467

 

I'm sure many won't care, but I have 100's of GB's of scenery, airports/fields, trees, buildings etc, etc.. and its pretty much all I fly, so it is a blow to me – with no replacement to fill the void. Okay, you can still install it, or link the P3D library too it, and who's to know? but that means I can't post anything regarding it, so I'd rather not sneak around. 

 

Plus, before reading the statement I did run it in v2 and found it suffered terrible blurries, even flying at sub 100kts speeds, something I didn't get with landclass in v2 so something else is amiss there.

Nobody is mentioning how FSX works with SteveFX DX10 scenery fixer?

 

I bought Steve's DX fixer and had everything running great in FSX.  But, it was still a compromise as the platform itself is not going to change despite the excellent work done by Steve and many others.  FSX (not its addons and fixers) is dead. P3D is changing and getting better.  People are actually working to fix the problems with it.  It's not perfect, but I cannot go back to FSX now.  

 

The good news is that there are still people working on addons for FSX and will be for a long while.  So, for those who don't want to make the switch now, it is not required that they do so.  Plus X-Plane continues to develop.  So, flight simming appears to have a very bright od future which wasn't the case just a few years ago when Aces was disbanded by Microsoft,

a texture rendering bug was rearing its head too often for my liking.

 

Not sure if we're talking about the same issue, but i was getting blurries and affinitymask=14 solved it for me as per this thread

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/427801-blurry-texture-in-p3d-v2/?hl=+blurries

 

 

Not sure if we're talking about the same issue, but i was getting blurries and affinitymask=14 solved it for me...

 

AM=14 did provide benefits on the blurry side of things for me, but I was experiencing a different (acknowledged) rendering bug when I flew out ahead of the autogen (w/ FTX Global for P3Dv2). When it caught up and started repopulating, the system sometimes selected the wrong texture or the wrong method for displaying it, leading to an ugly scene. If I flew out ahead of it again, it might end up populating back properly, or it might populate wrong again.  It'll get fixed I'm sure and I'll be back, but for now I'm with what I know works for me...

 

Five or ten years ago I'd have been playing with P3Dv2 no doubt, but something happened after I got married and had a son - my available time to enjoy one of my favorite hobbies became a fraction of what it once was...I need to maximize my enjoyment of it.