P3D feature requests

[ChaoticBeauty]

And then you will complain when you get what you asked for and blame the developer. I'm well aware of this "cycle". LOL

 

Really? Have you seen that in here?

[Gregg_Seipp]

 

 

And then you will complain when you get what you asked for and blame the developer. I'm well aware of this "cycle". LOL

 

Ed, that picture suits you perfectly. 

[mganz121]

And then you will complain when you get what you asked for and blame the developer. I'm well aware of this "cycle". LOL

 

Really? Have you seen that in here?

 

It's par for the course with this hobby as demonstrated by this letter to AVSIM way back in 1977. Same issues, just a different way of writing!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/19970619203101/http://www.avsim.com/pages/letters.htm.

 

MS95 Woes and Our April Editorial

In response to your editorial about FSFW95 in the April issue.

I was one of those who purchased FSFW95 and WIN95 so I could run it. I didn't need WIN95 for any of my other software, so it was a 150 dollar purchase right off the bat.

FSFW95 never did run right on my P100 with 24 meg of ram and a Hercules Dynamite video card with 2 meg of RAM.

Reading through the forums I found some problems have no solutions, and others say upgrade to faster computer or a better video card or more RAM.

I just can't afford that. I want a product that will run on the computer I already have.

From what I read very few scenery add-ons for FS5.1 will run of FSFW95 (although about 90% of the FSFW95 add-on scenery I download runs fine on FS5.1). Very few FS5.1 converted aircraft run properly on FSFW95. Problems with joystick compatibility pop up every day.

Perhaps for engineers and programmers like yourselves, these are easy things to over come. To people like myself who are not experts, we either have to live with the problems or gamble another several hundred dollars on upgrades and hope the thing will start working.

Perhaps MS didn't know what the problems were before shipping the product, but the have done precious little after-the-fact to try and satisfy the customer.

I've solved the problem for myself by taking FSFW95 and WIN95 off my computer and going back to Windows for Workgroups, DOS 6.2, and FS5.1.

But I feel I've been had by the reviewers and beta testers for FSFW95 who had the proper equipment to run the product on and told us how wonderful it was. They should have mentioned to us that if we didn't own state of the art computers to stick with FS5.1

Noel Sivertson

8.2nm on the 222 radial from CME

Roswell NM

Noel, we commiserate with you tremendously. The fact of the matter is that there are some shortcomings, but taking all issues into account, FS95 is the best simulation on the market today for its price. Our evaluation system is just about identical to your's. P100 with 48 megs of RAM and a 2 meg Hercules video setup. We have had our share of problems and have reloaded FS6 three times in our career. Reason? Simple; we screwed up. Not FS6. We did stupid things like put non-compatible a/c in the pilots directory; used dynamic settings when we should not have, and so on. We would encourage you to go back and take another look at FS6.

[mike2060]

Guys, just accept that P3D will never get better. According to WarpD our computers will never be powerful enough for any new features, and LM aren't capable of improving the engine because everything is impossible to do, disregarding them moving FSX from DX9 to DX11.

[WarpD]

Ok... how about we deal with some reality in this discussion.

 

First, if you're going to go 'over the top' like mike2060... don't. It's not a discussion at that point. That attitude is a "you suck and here's why" approach, not a discussion.

 

Second... when asking for features... shouldn't one ask for things that are actually useable? Anyone want to point to a computer/graphics system that can handle everything Prepar3D offers now? I mean everything dialed up to max/max and Prepar3D has zero performance issues? Anyone?

 

That's right, it doesn't exist. Yet. So when you add into that yet more items that would take processing power equal to or greater than cloud shadows... what do you honestly think is going to happen?

 

I understand it's a real "debby-downer" to have someone step in and point out the reality that no one manufactures hardware that can handle what you're requesting.

 

The point is... request things that are more realistic in expectations/results. We're far more likely to both get it and enjoy it.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Ok... how about we deal with some reality in this discussion.

 

First, if you're going to go 'over the top' like mike2060... don't. It's not a discussion at that point. That attitude is a "you suck and here's why" approach, not a discussion.

 

Second... when asking for features... shouldn't one ask for things that are actually useable? Anyone want to point to a computer/graphics system that can handle everything Prepar3D offers now? I mean everything dialed up to max/max and Prepar3D has zero performance issues? Anyone?

 

That's right, it doesn't exist. Yet. So when you add into that yet more items that would take processing power equal to or greater than cloud shadows... what do you honestly think is going to happen?

 

I understand it's a real "debby-downer" to have someone step in and point out the reality that no one manufactures hardware that can handle what you're requesting.

 

The point is... request things that are more realistic in expectations/results. We're far more likely to both get it and enjoy it.

 

There's a thing called "options" that let you choose what graphics features to enable depending on your hardware. I don't understand why you're so opposed to the idea of having an option for an amazing feature that you can enable when hardware gets faster. By having those options Prepar3D will never get old because with each generation of hardware you will be able to turn up more stuff (unlike FSX because it wasn't built to scale with future hardware).

[WarpD]

Yeah... no... that's still being absurd. Like I said... every time something like this is wanted... and it gets implemented... it won't run on most systems... people start complaining about how it was stupid for 'company x' to add that feature when no one can use it!! People rant and rave about how they should have spent more time on something else.

 

So... I'll say again... asking for features that are likely to be completely un-useable makes no sense either short term or long term.

[Bill Maher]

I usually remain a silent lurker, but I gotta agree with Ed's point here.  I don't think anyone is opposed to options, but I would rather have LM focus on features and improvements that we can enjoy now rather than dynamic tornado generation (or whatever) that we might be able to enjoy in 10 years.  Truthfully, there's probably nothing left in the 2.x run that will be earth-shattering and I'm okay with that.  SLI/Crossfire optimization, performance improvements, minor feature additions, and more 3rd party development would be great for me.

[ChaoticBeauty]

Yeah... no... that's still being absurd. Like I said... every time something like this is wanted... and it gets implemented... it won't run on most systems... people start complaining about how it was stupid for 'company x' to add that feature when no one can use it!! People rant and rave about how they should have spent more time on something else.

 

So... I'll say again... asking for features that are likely to be completely un-useable makes no sense either short term or long term.

 

Prepar3D 2.2 cannot be maxed out with today's hardware either but nobody is complaining. Gamers who play mainstream games might complain (they did complain with Crysis), but I don't think anyone in here would.

[fiftysix]

In the politest way possible, 'absurd' ideas usually turn out be valid.

 

When ever we have meetings at my work place, it is encouraged for people to voice their opinions and wishes, no matter how absurd it may sound. That way, you get a more confident and productive team.

 

I think same should be applied here in this thread... it's just an idea, how ever crazy it may sound, we should encourage any ideas people may have.

 

Doesn't need a 'telling off' 

[Bill Maher]

Ideas are great.  But "absurd" ideas must be tempered with realistic expectations about what can be incorporated into a point release of an already-developed software product.  Perhaps we should distinguish between what would be great to see in P3D 3.0 and beyond sometime in the more distant future vs. what we would like to see more immediately in 2.x. 

[WarpD]

nobody is complaining

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/440882-gate-b28-at-fbs-ksfo-in-ftx-nca-in-the-cs-super-md80-pro-at-6pm-w-cloud-shadows-off-fps-25/

 

Just one example of someone who is indeed not happy with Prepar3D's performance.

 

Oh wait... here was another thread:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/440537-why-worse-blurries-than-fsx/

 

People do complain when they don't get what they think they should get. They really don't care about the technical details.

[Brian Doney]

Just to be clear, things we cannot talk about according to Ed:

 

- DX12

 

- New Features

 

 

Anything I missed ?

 

Maybe we should get a sticky going. It would save him having to appear in every thread to tell everyone why they are wrong. That must be exhausting  :lol:

[ChaoticBeauty]

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/440882-gate-b28-at-fbs-ksfo-in-ftx-nca-in-the-cs-super-md80-pro-at-6pm-w-cloud-shadows-off-fps-25/

 

Just one example of someone who is indeed not happy with Prepar3D's performance.

 

Oh wait... here was another thread:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/440537-why-worse-blurries-than-fsx/

 

People do complain when they don't get what they think they should get. They really don't care about the technical details.

 

Both threads are about people using Prepar3D 2.2 without cloud shadows. The first thread is talking about being CPU-limited (and the fact that Prepar3D can still easily become CPU-bound is true) and the second thread is talking about terrain paging performance which is still in the works according to Beau. Can't see anyone complaining about the shadows being too much work for the GPU. The complaint about being CPU-bound is entirely valid because the main thread is still hammered with much work that is yet to be multithreaded.

[fiftysix]

Another absurd idea - The Northern lights.

 

Please don't kill me Ed for suggesting it. just an idea!