P3D 2.0 Lessons Learned

[n4gix 4,947]

The point is that LM (if they will be the best Flight Simulation provider) needs to break out of the FSX mold and develop a totally new platform but at the same time support legacy FSX assets.

It seems to me those two goals are contradictory. In order to "break out of the FSX mold" will require -among other things- massive recoding to a full 64bit engine...

 

...which alone would result in completely gutting any "legacy FSX assets."

 

What I see is are several opportunities for some clever programmers to develop bolt-ons for the Prepar3D platform:

• AI engine
• Weather engine
• Flight Dynamics engine
• ATC engine

Any or all of the above could be offered with an SDK/API for freeware developers, and a licensed "professional" SDK/API for payware developers.

[wlix261 79]

The point is that LM (if they will be the best Flight Simulation provider) needs to break out of the FSX mold and develop a totally new platform but at the same time support legacy FSX assets.

 

This is how it is traditionally done when moving a platform forward.  

 

Regards

jja

Platforms normally evolve keeping backwards compatibility with 1 or 2 previous releases. Like FSX kept some conpatibility with FS9 and P3D kept some compatibility with FSX.

But that might not break our the mold. In fact, it doesn't by definition, because the core platform stays.

Maybe  to break the FSX mold there has to be some kind of entirely new platform (X-Plane?) Something entirely different and new.

[RWFeldman 159]

Also need SP4, 5 and 6.

[Dillon 2,194]

The point is that LM (if they will be the best Flight Simulation provider) needs to break out of the FSX mold and develop a totally new platform but at the same time support legacy FSX assets.

 

This is how it is traditionally done when moving a platform forward.  

 

Regards

jja

 

First off you can't make a totally new platform that still use legacy 32bit FSX add-ons especially when everyone is calling for a 64bit version released.  Second P3D v2 is a great platform void of the bugs and problems FSX had.  P3D v2 will grow while FSX will stay the way it is.  Your points here come off as 'Trolling' more than anything else, creatively trying to kill all joy for this effort.  There's no way FSX is in the same class as P3D v2 especially when developers start developing for it.  The FSX code had to be cleaned up first now LM can advance it in any direction they see fit..  Currently their allowing us to help in that direction.

[KingGhidorah 209]

First off you can't make a totally new platform that still uses legacy 32bit FSX add-ons (when everyone is calling for a 64bit vesion released).  Second P3D v2 is a great platform void of the bugs and problems FSX had.  P3D v2 will grow while FSX will stay the way it is.  Your points here come off as 'Trolling' more than anything else, creatively trying to kill all joy for this effort.  There's no way FSX is in the same class as P3D v2 especially after developers start developing for it.  The FSX code had to be cleaned up first now LM can advance it in the direction they see fit..  Currently their allowing us to help in that direction.

 

Dillon!  Knock it off, man.

 

You see what I mean when I'm complaining about this concerted effort to play whack-a-mole with any point of view that isn't totally pro-p3d?  I considered this an informative and respectful discussion, even citing it in another post as an example of such, until your comment above.  What so trollish about this guy's opinion? 

 

Who is the one "trolling" ?

[Noel 4,483]

Platforms normally evolve keeping backwards compatibility with 1 or 2 previous releases. Like FSX kept some conpatibility with FS9 and P3D kept some compatibility with FSX.

But that might not break our the mold. In fact, it doesn't by definition, because the core platform stays.

Maybe  to break the FSX mold there has to be some kind of entirely new platform (X-Plane?) Something entirely different and new.

It sounds like there is a lot to like in XP64 even though it's apparently lacking in some substantial ways still.  But the core engine--how does it stack up against P3D V2?  Is it better at multithreading than V2? 64-bit has to change the approach to coding I would imagine in a pretty big way so I would think that gives a leg up at least theoretically to V2.  So the question becomes, is it better to support something that has a leg up on a future in terms of fundamentals, or to support V2 whose future is very much 'on the come.'  It's possible LM may never get to 64 bit.  If their agenda is primarily training, and not impressively more visual content & 'entertainment' focus, then they may already have what they need to deliver on training, barring fixing some bugs and developing interfaces.

[Dillon 2,194]

LOL Darkstar - I'm just a flight simmer who like many is looking for the ultimate flight sim experience so I cannot give you any god-like answers. Suffice it to say that many like me are still waiting for FS11 in our hearts but alas MS disavowed the Aces team so we are crying in the wind at this point.

 

Suffice it to say that It would be really nice if.. Well we have P3D at this point for good or naught.  The optimist in me says let's do this thing right and if I had booku $ then it would be done.

 

Anyway if a company like say ORBX decided to do a new Flight Sim version then I would be fully on board with $ to back the effort.  It will just take someone to push the effort forward is all I'm saying.

 

Regards

jja 

 

 

LM is our best hope as no one else has the money or resources to do it right.  Not even Austin with his X-Plane effort. If so much was accomplished with FSX in it's lackluster state what we could do with P3D v2 will be nothing short of incredible...  I marked this as 'Old' because this has been discussed before even by Aerosoft and no one can pull it off.  Outerra came to this community for our support in building a new base engine and everyone opted to dismiss them in favor of cuddling up with outdated FSX... 

[mgh 89]

Your points here come off as 'Trolling'

Only if you define trolling as meaning having a different opinion to yours.

[wlix261 79]

It sounds like there is a lot to like in XP64 even though it's apparently lacking in some substantial ways still.  But the core engine--how does it stack up against P3D V2?  Is it better at multithreading than V2? 64-bit has to change the approach to coding I would imagine in a pretty big way so I would think that gives a leg up at least theoretically to V2.  So the question becomes, is it better to support something that has a leg up on a future in terms of fundamentals, or to support V2 whose future is very much 'on the come.'  It's possible LM may never get to 64 bit.  If their agenda is primarily training, and not impressively more visual content & 'entertainment' focus, then they may already have what they need to deliver on training, barring fixing some bugs and developing interfaces.

For what the poster asked for:  "Break out the FSX mold" I would think X-Plane would be a good candidate.

Obviously the subject of rivality between fans of P3D and fans of X-Plane is much broader. One (neutral - still - temporary - happy - FSX - simmer) could say: LM is way better company to invest and make the new platform fly high for the log term, but also, one could say that the X-Plane platform is better because is newer. So, where do we go from here?

 

Time will tell.....the direction developers take will play abig role here for sure ...

 

Hint: Having been a windows user for many many years I switched to OSX and Mac for work about a year ago. Why ? ..... because the business apps ( MS Office included) finally got up to the level I needed in the Mac environment,

[Dillon 2,194]

Only if you define trolling as meaning having a different opinion to yours.

 

 

A different opinion is one thing and I support that but it's like this guy is writing off P3D v2 in favor of FSX in the most creative way I've yet seen.  At the same time where was he when Outerra asked for our help in creating a new FS platform?  Based on what this guy is saying I say just stay with FSX and be done with it because the points being made make absolutely no since.  You can't have a totally new platform expecting legacy FSX add-ons to work and you can't have a 64bit version expecting the same thing.  LM starting off is getting the legacy code cleaned up and this guy has so much to say negatively about it when the project is just now gaining real traction.  He's asking for pie in the sky when the market is not large enough for a company to come in and make a totally new sim.  The only way LM is able to do it is for one they have the money second they pass it off as a total training tool.  Jja doesn't realize that the Aces team he's talking about is the same team that's working on this new effort.  I would imagine allot of these guys wanted to finish properly what they didn't get a chance to fix back in 2006.

 

The FS community is shaping this product more than ever before.  I'm fine with an opinion but respect the fact that LM has the Aces members that worked on FS for so many years and what we have today can evolved into something great down the road.  For now this is all we have on this kind of level and coming in here with hypotheticals that can never be in reality is pointless.  Make this effort the best we can make it like Aerosoft, PMDG, Orbx, and others are doing (or how you settle down and did with FSX) because X-Plane ain't cutting it and no one has the money to fully develop a better alternative.

[KingGhidorah 209]

Dillon, will you deny that you have an agenda to promote all positive things about P3D and suppress any negative or even balanced discussion of it? 

[Murmur 3,940]

Time will tell... Time will tell... :wink:

[shivers9 1,174]

It seems to me those two goals are contradictory. In order to "break out of the FSX mold" will require -among other things- massive recoding to a full 64bit engine...

 

...which alone would result in completely gutting any "legacy FSX assets."

 

What I see is are several opportunities for some clever programmers to develop bolt-ons for the Prepar3D platform:

• AI engine
• Weather engine
• Flight Dynamics engine
• ATC engine

Any or all of the above could be offered with an SDK/API for freeware developers, and a licensed "professional" SDK/API for payware developers.

 

 

I think this post is dead on correct and it points out something most seem to be overlooking. As developers do start the "bolt on" type add ons we will end up with a much trimmed core program and several separate add on's which belong to developers. We could see the time when the P3D program would do away with all the code for say ATC and use the best programs by developers. All of this would make the transition to 64 bit code much easier as all the work would be split  into smaller projects. This could be one of the reasons that LM has made a great effort to make the SDK's and hooks much more open and developer friendly. Think outside the box here guys. It may be that no one company is going the build the complete next best simulator. LM is a huge corp. and they build airplanes for a living. They don't try to build their on radio equip. or make their on tires. They bring in the experts from other companies to develop those things to their specs. The  kinds of computers and tech we have today, I think that building a "next" Flight simulator may be too big for one company. I was just reading the other day about a couple of programers who are on the verge of a working 360 degree "Holo deck" for home use. How do you think that is going to work with FSX??

[ErichB 3,636]

The point is that LM needs to break out of the FSX mold and develop a totally new platform but at the same time support legacy FSX assets.

 

 

Regards

jja

How is that even possible?

 

And why would they, if it currently meets their commercial needs? We are fortunate enough to be riding on the coat tails of a product which has not really been developed for the entertainment crowd.

It seems to me those two goals are contradictory. In order to "break out of the FSX mold" will require -among other things- massive recoding to a full 64bit engine...

 

...which alone would result in completely gutting any "legacy FSX assets."

 

What I see is are several opportunities for some clever programmers to develop bolt-ons for the Prepar3D platform:

• AI engine
• Weather engine
• Flight Dynamics engine
• ATC engine

Any or all of the above could be offered with an SDK/API for freeware developers, and a licensed "professional" SDK/API for payware developers.

The voice of reason once again.

[MarkSC 122]

The point is that P3D scales performance with the GPU. Yes, the CPU is stressed, but upgrading your GPU gives you a performance increase in line with that for any other modern game., which was just not true for FSX. Specifically, in my benchmarks I tested a 760 and a 780. The 780 gave a 30 percent plus performance increase, in line with benchmarks for that card. In FSX, it would have been negligible. FPS with P3D and a good GPU is greater and much smoother than equivalent settings in FSX.

 

P3D has a very bright future indeed. Performance will continue to scale with GPU technology. Add to that the fact that the platform continues to be developed, and even more will likely be moved to the GPU as LM optimizes. There is no doubt in my in my mind that P3D is the platform of the future for our hobby.