Time to develop for a new sim me thinks?

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

I think that more people should also look towards aeroflyFS. The first version is extremely lacking, but it sets a very good foundation for the future, and the second version which will come out late this year will have much more depth (and it is going to be open for developers).

 

I'll definitely keep track of how that grows over the years.

[kevinh 409]

@hook

PMDG already produce a complex product for a niche market that takes thousands of man-hours to produce. The new techniques they use appear to make new developments more transferable so they can add more content in less time. I think they understand their market well enough to keep a balance between complexity and sales.

 

I personally think a transition to 64 bit P3D could be achieved fairly painlessly. Creating 64 bit versions of existing addons should not be difficult. However the big issue is whether Lockheed Martin see the need to convert to 64 bit. Their core market doesn't need it. Demand is coming from hobby simmers who weren't their intended customers.

[LHookins 3,117]

 

 

PMDG already produce a complex product for a niche market that takes thousands of man-hours to produce. The new techniques they use appear to make new developments more transferable so they can add more content in less time. I think they understand their market well enough to keep a balance between complexity and sales.

 

What I'm  saying is, PMDG could easily give in to market pressures and eventually produce an aircraft that only a few diehards could operate.  This aircraft will sell well.  The next one probably not so well.  If backing off on the complexity is not considered possible, they'll have to have another product line or they'll be gone.  I don't think it will happen, but I do think it could.  I didn't expect SPI to misunderstand their market either.

 

 

 

I personally think a transition to 64 bit P3D could be achieved fairly painlessly. Creating 64 bit versions of existing addons should not be difficult.

 

Forgive me, but "anything's possible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."  Put yourself in the shoes of an LM manager.  He'll ask, "What percentage of existing legacy addons will not work if we go to 64 bit today?"  If the answer is more than about 5% (and it will be much larger), then they won't do 64 bit.  When they have enough third party developers on board that they can have them create native 64 bit addons (or convert what they've already done), and legacy addons no longer matter (probably at leastT 5 years from now), that's when they'll consider a 64 bit conversion.  Currently, there's too much invested in the idea of using existing addons, even if some will require some work, to make such a radical change.

 

Hook

[Fabo 213]

 

 

They should have gone with 64-bit from the start. This would destroy pretty much all backwards compatibility, but so what? This would show which add-on developers are really committed to fully supporting Prepar3D. I'm sure that developers like Orbx and Carenado would recompile their add-ons, since they seem to be close to Lockheed Martin. And then there are others who just slap a triple installer and call their product "Prepar3D 2.0 compatible".

 

Hardly. The core redeeming feautre of P3D is that you can use most of the existing stuff without anything other than tiny changes. Moving to 64bit would mean nothing from FSX would work in P3D, save some textures and maybe some scenery. Maybe. Not orbx scenery, no. They would have to rewrite everything for a simulator nobody would want to use. Might as well go to XPL

 

 

To be fair, FSX is just as bad, if not worse in all those areas without the 3rd party add-ons, and that is really where P3D has the advantage over X-Plane with the easier portability of add-ons from FSX to P3D, even though X-Plane is arguably a superior platform.

 

It's the only advantage.

 

 

 

I personally think a transition to 64 bit P3D could be achieved fairly painlessly. Creating 64 bit versions of existing addons should not be difficult.

 

Should it not. Really.

 

 

However the big issue is whether Lockheed Martin see the need to convert to 64 bit. Their core market doesn't need it. Demand is coming from hobby simmers who weren't their intended customers.

 

This is the big one.

 

 

 

Yet it far outpaces both X-Plane and P3D. Take a look at the latest survey again. Yes XP10 has gained some support, but only a very small percentage of those who own it, state it's their primary sim. A whooping 61% of 761 X-Plane users state, it's their least used sim, while only 9% of that number says it's their primary sim,

 

Where are those stats coming from?

[xplanery 250]

 

 

What I'm  saying is, PMDG could easily give in to market pressures and eventually produce an aircraft that only a few diehards could operate.  This aircraft will sell well.  The next one probably not so well.  If backing off on the complexity is not considered possible, they'll have to have another product line or they'll be gone.  I don't think it will happen, but I do think it could.  I didn't expect SPI to misunderstand their market either.

 

Modern airliners aren't that hard to operate, you really can't make a 777 or a 737 any more complex than they already have done. Backing off from current complexity would make no sense. 

 

 

.

Moving to 64bit would mean nothing from FSX would work in P3D, save some textures and maybe some scenery. Maybe. Not orbx scenery, no. They would have to rewrite everything for a simulator nobody would want to use. Might as well go to XPL

 

Why exactly ORBX scenery wouldn't work? I don't really see how their scenery is that much different from all the other products out there. 

 

I think big majority of the scenery that doesn't include any fancy custom DLL's or other such stuff would work and converting the rest shouldn't be too hard.

 

 

When they have enough third party developers on board that they can have them create native 64 bit addons (or convert what they've already done), and legacy addons no longer matter (probably at leastT 5 years from now)

 

Or they could just do what was done with X plane and have separate 32 bit and 64 bit programs, no need to wait 5 years. Third party developers would eventually convert their products to 64 bit as that's where most of the revenue would be coming. 

 

Where are those stats coming from?

 

Avsim

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

[Humpty 752]

Flightgear.

[LHookins 3,117]

 

 

Or they could just do what was done with X plane and have separate 32 bit and 64 bit programs, no need to wait 5 years. Third party developers would eventually convert their products to 64 bit as that's where most of the revenue would be coming.

 

Probably a million lines of code and you want to run parallel development on two different versions?  This will more than double the coding and testing time for any changes.  You already know this;  you're a developer.

 

As for the third party developers *eventually* converting their products to 64 bit, that's what I was talking about earlier.  Let's convert it all at once, we'll be a lot farther along in development that way.

 

Hook

[Fabo 213]

 

 

I think big majority of the scenery that doesn't include any fancy custom DLL's or other such stuff would work and converting the rest shouldn't be too hard.

 

Except orbx does. Specifically them. About converting - how the hell do you know? It's not just flicking a switch in Visual Studio. There are already problems with some semi-interactive scenery in P3D v2, and that is just with slightly modified renderer, not all-out rewrite. (Ever tried flying into, say, Aerosoft Munich at night in P3D 2?)

 

 

Avsim

 

Well, that explains a lot. Avsim being heavily MSFS-centric site, naturally the numbers don't seem favourable for X-Plane. If I placed a similar poll on x-plane.org, it will probably more then even out the balance.

Point is, the sample is not representative of all simmers (which, btw. PMDG have to repeat every time someone points out "but everyone on the forums says")

 

 

Flightgear.

 

Say, what?

[KingGhidorah 209]

What I'm saying is, PMDG could easily give in to market pressures and eventually produce an aircraft that only a few diehards could operate. This aircraft will sell well. The next one probably not so well. If backing off on the complexity is not considered possible, they'll have to have another product line or they'll be gone. I don't think it will happen, but I do think it could. I didn't expect SPI to misunderstand their market either.

 

 

With the board wargame analogy:  Although I was never part of a board gaming "scene" or "community" I'm going to venture a guess that it wasn't so much that people rejected increasing complexity of boardgames in and of itself, but only that the PC came along and allowed increasing complexity to happen with convenience...it was the PC, and the appeal of having the computer manage the rules and underlying mechanics, at levels of combat resolution impossible for a human player to do with dice and a resolution chart (hundreds of individual plane vs plane,  tank vs tank, at a theater-wide level being resolved each turn), not to mention little perks like sounds and graphics when battles were resolved. 

 

It seems to me that the only problem with developers producing things that are too complex to operate is very much resolved by the addition of AI-based multi-crew programs such as fs2crew and MCE.  Such planes as the FSL Concorde would be infinitely more desirable if they had either 3rd party crew support or better built in FO and FE...I don't favor the alternative though, of making a "light" airplane, or an intentionally dumbed down one.  Whenever I hear a slogan such as "complexity simplified" it makes me cringe :lol:

[Humpty 752]

just a joke   

[FS20 3]

I feel those who are firmly against X-plane haven't actually tried the sim at all:

 

When was the last time you saw such dynamic lighting effects in FSX? 

[Humpty 752]

Ah is it going to be a flame war between FSX/ P3d vs  X plane ,   hey don't start yet let me get my popcorn.

[LHookins 3,117]

 

 

With the board wargame analogy: Although I was never part of a board gaming "scene" or "community" I'm going to venture a guess that it wasn't so much that people rejected increasing complexity of boardgames in and of itself, but only that the PC came along and allowed increasing complexity to happen with convenience...it was the PC, and the appeal of having the computer manage the rules and underlying mechanics, at levels of combat resolution impossible for a human player to do with dice and a resolution chart (hundreds of individual plane vs plane, tank vs tank, at a theater-wide level being resolved each turn), not to mention little perks like sounds and graphics when battles were resolved.

 

This is partly true, but when Campaign for North Africa was released, the main computers were the Apple ][ and Commodore PET.  It was several years before the computers caught up with the complexity of the board games.  I'm not sure they ever made a computer game as complex as CNA.  The board games started dying out before we had really good computers.

 

It wasn't just SPI.  Avalon Hill had rules in Advanced Squad Leader to track the kind of windshield wipers on your jeeps. 

 

At least the miniatures gamers understood the need for rule sets that were simplified and streamlined. 

 

Complexity is like a Mandelbrot image.  No matter how deep you go, it's still just as complex and you can go deeper.  We may already be getting close... what percentage of people do cold and dark?  Saying that PMDG would never get to that level of complexity is like saying LM would never go to 64 bit prematurely.  We can only hope.

 

One interesting thing is that PMDG is as likely as anyone to make the next big flight sim.  Imagine a tubeliner-only, no general aviation sim, and how much simplification you could do to achieve it.  Photoreal scenery only except for airports and cities near them, no autogen.  Vastly simplified weather.  You almost wouldn't need a flight model.  When we're looking 10 years into the future, things like this are possible.

 

Hook

[FS20 3]

Flight gear.

[kevinh 409]

What I'm  saying is, PMDG could easily give in to market pressures and eventually produce an aircraft that only a few diehards could operate.  This aircraft will sell well.  The next one probably not so well.  If backing off on the complexity is not considered possible, they'll have to have another product line or they'll be gone.  I don't think it will happen, but I do think it could.  I didn't expect SPI to misunderstand their market either.

I knew what you are saying, I just don't think PMDG would make that mistake. They understand the business too well.  RSR has stated they produce a level of detail to please themselves as users of FS products, not according to the demands of vocal users. Usually the level of detail surprises everyone each time.

 

Forgive me, but "anything's possible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself."  Put yourself in the shoes of an LM manager.  He'll ask, "What percentage of existing legacy addons will not work if we go to 64 bit today?"  If the answer is more than about 5% (and it will be much larger), then they won't do 64 bit.  When they have enough third party developers on board that they can have them create native 64 bit addons (or convert what they've already done), and legacy addons no longer matter (probably at leastT 5 years from now), that's when they'll consider a 64 bit conversion.  Currently, there's too much invested in the idea of using existing addons, even if some will require some work, to make such a radical change.

 

Hook

LM don't need to ask that question at all. They will go 64 bit if there's enough demand from consumers. It's up to the addon developers to determine whether their products can be recompiled for a 64 bit application or would be better redesigned from scratch.

 

An analogy would be going from FS9 to FSX. Some FS9 addons worked in FSX with little work, some needed more work and others really required a total redesign so weren't converted.

Should it not. Really.

 

In comparison to a wholesale move across to the totally unrelated X-Plane no it should not. A lot of code will simply need to be recompiled as a 64 bit application with some mods. Obviously there may be some code that relies on a 32 bit word length to work, but that is not an insurmountable obstacle. I'm not saying that is the end of it, but the work required is much less than a ground up redesign for X-Plane.

 

A lot of popular FSX addons works already in P3D.  Some scenery might not be compatible with new P3D features, but does that mean it won't work at all? I doubt it. Perhaps some additional code is required to satisfy the SDK.

 

See Ryan's post #14. He doesn't seem to think there are major obstacles, assuming you have the source code.