Now that personal consumer entertainment isn't mentioned in the P3Dv2 EULA anymore, it's about time for me to get a professional job ... including a professional income!   :rolleyes:

Lockheed Martin originally didn't include personal consumer entertainment in the Prepar3d v2.0 EULA. It has now  added  the words personal consumer entertainment .

 

The way is tell is to deference un the file eula_professional.rtf in the Prepar3D folder. There are now two versions of the EULA.

At least they are being honest, but it seems they have NOT made the product fully compatible with P3DV2 so it's unlikely I would purchase this product.

Rob, here's a little known fact.  At this moment in time, there are only two differences between an FSX model and a "native" P3Dv2 model:

• A new option for Z-Bias has been added to the exported Material settings.
• The export module from Max to .X files, and the XtoMdl compiler have been modified to "break the previous 65K texture vertex limits" thus allowing for easier exporting and compiling of complex models.

Now this is not to say that there won't be further divergences in the future, but for the moment, these are the only differences. So, the models aren't where the major improvements of Prepar3Dv2 are to be found. Those improvements lie in the realm of the core engine and rendering system.

 

Perhaps of interest, the only aircraft in Prepar3D that is an "authentic native P3D model" is the Raptor. One can load the .mdl file(s) in notepad.exe and look in the header to determine the model's origins. P3Dv2 native models will have "PV20MDLH" in the first few bytes of the file.

 

FSX native models have "MDLXMDLH" in their headers, and FS9 models have "MDL8MDLH" in their headers. Oddly enough, there is one FS9 model in Prepar3Dv2: the venerable P38 variants.

 

 

Rob, here's a little known fact.  At this moment in time, there are only two differences between an FSX model and a "native" P3Dv2 model:
A new option for Z-Bias has been added to the exported Material settings.
The export module from Max to .X files, and the XtoMdl compiler have been modified to "break the previous 65K texture vertex limits" thus allowing for easier exporting and compiling of complex models.

 

I did not know that, very good info, thank you.  

 

I would think a different texture and compression type would be used and optimized specific to P3DV2 because DX11 supports more options specific to HDR.  For example, HDR requires floating-point textures -- actually I shouldn't say "requires" (because it's not) but true HDR should use fp textures.

 

Although HDR is in FSX DX10 very few FSX aircraft were model for (focus) DX10 from what I can see -- I guess you could say it was in DX9 also but as I understand it DX9 had half baked support for floating point textures.  I "think" most FSX textures are DX9 focused and fixed-point data, not floating point.  Certainly DX9 fixed-point textures can be used and may work well in most cases, but for true HDR, floating point will avoid over bright post processing on bloom and other rendering issues resulting from the conversion of fixed to floating.

 

Good read from Sebby web log:  http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sebby1234/archive/2007/10/25/fsx-acceleration-sp2-dx9-bloom-versus-dx10-hdr.aspx?Redirected=true

 

My assumption is that all FSX (DX9 or DX10) textures are all fixed point -- is that accurate?

 

Cheers, Rob.

My assumption is that all FSX (DX9 or DX10) textures are all fixed point -- is that accurate?

Rob, apples and oranges are being mixed. What Sebby is referring to is what occurs post-processing. The fixed vs. floating point distinction lies in how the shaders are used to tweak the textures in GPU memory before being sent to the monitor.

 

The actual "physical" bitmap textures used are in DXT1/a, DXT5, or 32-bit BMP format. Textures used in the panel system remain 24-bit BMP format. In that respect, nothing has changed from FSX.

Nota Bene:

Dunning-Kruger Effect may be at work in the above:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

 

The actual "physical" bitmap textures used are in DXT1/a, DXT5, or 32-bit BMP format. Textures used in the panel system remain 24-bit BMP format. In that respect, nothing has changed from FSX.

 

I was assuming DDS physical file formats with DX11 specific compression ... BC6H?  In terms of optimal for DX11 ... not suggesting "required".  I don't think FSX supports BC6H ... does it?  But P3DV2 does since it's DX11.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh308955(v=vs.85).aspx

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh308952(v=vs.85).aspx

 

I'm not pretending to be any expert here, so please don't take this the wrong way.  More curiosity from my current level of understanding of DX11 ... so hopefully I'm not offending anyone.

 

Cheers, Rob

Lots of interesting posts in this thread! Thank'you everyone!

I don't think you should assume that this will be the pricing of P3D versions, when the iFly 737 is only one example that is priced higher.

 

Milviz, Carenado, Alabeo, FSDG, FSPS, Orbx, etc. all have prices on par with FSX, or have a dual installer for P3D.

 

Therefore, based on comparing what has been released for P3D from all the different companies listed above with the Flight1 published iFly 737, I think it's safe to assume we aren't going to see "professional" prices except in rare circumstances.

I don't think FSX supports BC6H ... does it?  But P3DV2 does since it's DX11.

Does it? I don't recall seeing any mention of it in either their forums nor in the SDK, nor do I even know if their tools support the BC6H format.

 

The only native P3D format aircraft uses bog-standard DDS/DXT5 textures.

1. Developer's can't gouge us because we don't have to buy anything

 

2. Charging a much higher premium for P3D v2 products will just lead to more piracy. This is just a known fact in the gaming world. Cheaper software = less piracy.

 

3. Charging more for P3D v2 products will lead to people buying fewer add-ons.

 

4. A developer may not be maximizing their profit by charging a high amount. Selling 1000 units at $30 is better than selling 400 at $60. The price developer's decide to sell their products at should be based strictly on what will maximize their profits.

exactly I refuse to pay more for the same sim but with a new name and some HDR. For complex addons I understand that some of the very advanced systems they have in there planes take some different coding in p3dv2 to work but charging extra to use the plane on p3d is just wrong since complex planes like a certain 737 runs about 10fps lower on v2 than with fsx

$70+ for a complex aircraft add on is reasonable given that is a niche market of flight simming which is also a niche market. When a product is sold in small quantities and there is a lot of overhead in its production, the price per unit will be high.

Let's be crystal clear, to many of you... this feels like the same sim. In reality, it's not. It's usage is different. FSX could never be used for commercial purposes whatsoever. However, Prepar3D can. In that regard there is a quandary. Do you sell your product for $20 and watch someone make tens of thousands off of it in turn by purchasing your $20 product and adding it to their product and reselling it for a much, much larger 'commercial-use' profit?

 

Of course you don't want to "pay a lot for a muffler"... however, you can't, in turn, expect the developers to take it in the shorts just so you get what you want. There has to be a balance, and I think right now... the balance is unknown and it's going to take some time to find it.

@WarpD ,

 

 Please enlighten me about the commercial usage in P3d ? What exactly do you mean ?  

@WarpD ,

 

 Please enlighten me about the commercial usage in P3d ? What exactly do you mean ?

What do you need "enlightenment" about? Commercial usage as in it's used for commercial purposes (where people pay to have access and use of it in one form or another). Flight schools, training, etc... and if you think that because it's training that FS addons would never, ever be purchased for that purpose, you're only kidding yourself.

What do you need "enlightenment" about? Commercial usage as in it's used for commercial purposes (where people pay to have access and use of it in one form or another). Flight schools, training, etc... and if you think that because it's training that FS addons would never, ever be purchased for that purpose, you're only kidding yourself.

 

What I meant about "enlighten " ( that was a typo) was simply that I don't know about the commercial usage (Of course I do not have P3d) . 

Since when does a potential commercial use require charging a high price to an end consumer? It only requires different license options (with different prices) depending on the use of the software. Or do you pay the same price for a movie that your local cinema pays for it?