Yep, but that market-driven goal is incompatible with this community's needs.

 

One wonders how long Orbx, PMDG, and a host of other beloved 3rd party simulation companies would last without market-driven goals? From what I gather, if some of them didn't have other markets (military and commercial) to supplement their bottom line, they would probably not even be able to exist.

 

It seems almost a certainty that P3D would not.

 

A company without a market driven goal, is a soon to be out of business company............

I have already Spent $200 on P3DV2
and I traded in my A2A C172 FSX license for a P3D only license.
I bought the A2A Cherokee license for P3DV2 only.
I have ASN Beta for P3DV2 and REX4 setup for P3D.
I paid the Upgrade fee of $15 to convert my Milviz 732 P3DV2 License.

All my international airports; FSDreamTeam, Flight Beam, Fly Tampe and Aerosoft

thankfully all have P3DV2 Installers.
My last purchase was the Milviz 407 P3DV2 only license.
I cannot what to get my hands on the PMDG 777 but I will wait
for the P3DV2 license. I bought a whole bunch of ORBX stuff
on sale on the strength of an Assurance on the FTX forum that
all of there products will be updated for P3DV2 free of charge.

 

The only thing I miss is the NGX

Thus far I have spent about $500 on P3D plus addons.
In the late fail when I do a complete overhaul of my system
and OS reinstall that is when FSX leaves my system forever.

It will be P3DV2.3 ( I Hope:-) and XPX only.

In my case the train has already left the (play)station! Pun intended

That's terrific, but what is your point? 

That's terrific, but what is your point? 

 

I think he meant to post this in the Prepar3d General Forum; where someone would actually care. :rolleyes:

The eye candy is usually spot on.. It's the actual `realism' and `simulation' that is where most tire of DTG.  The physics, and locomotive modelling shift wildly from garbage to great.  No matter how pretty it looks if the trains interior looks like crap and drives like a hotwheels car.. What's the point?

 

I tried a train-sim once... the thing handled like it was on rails.

 

:Whistle:

I tried a train-sim once... the thing handled like it was on rails.

 

:Whistle:

 

TY Robo!!

 

Thread probably needs some of the seriousness whacked out of it.

That's terrific, but what is your point? 

 

 

I think he meant to post this in the Prepar3d General Forum; where someone would actually care. :rolleyes:

 

I think his point is "This doesn't affect me".  And... he spent a lot of money.

 

Frankly, if this deal with DG doesn't turn out well and affects my P3D usage as well through some as-yet-to-be-seen connection, I'll go back to DCS and BMS Falcon.

 

This news was initially exciting, and maybe not in a good way, but after reflection, I'm just gonna go on "business as usual".  Too much drama about this...

With that said, I enjoy hardcore simulations. But hardcore doesn't have to be pushing buttons in an NGX. Hardcore can just as easily be flying a Stearman or a Cherokee realistically.

 

Bingo. You don't need to be at an FMC to be a hardcore simmer. Devotion to realism is enough, and you can have as much of a rewarding experience in a glider as a 737 if you try to do it as realistically as possible. Every form of flight has its challenges. It often takes as much time for me to program the RXP GPS in my GAs as it does to program the FMC in a Boeing. In the Boeing all I have to do is hit the company route button and the flight plan is imported.

 

The airliner guys always get the bad wrap for complexity, but GA can be just as bad if you do it realistically. But I don't see why realism for realism sakes should be shunned. If a developer models a panel, I like to see them do it as realistically as possible. Whether you use all those realistic features when you are simming is a personal choice.

I agree BeechPapa, and realism doesn't have to equal complexity. The A2A planes can be flown completely realistically without using any complex GPS or other computerized items on the dash. The complexity comes from an accurately modeled flight model, and from trying to fly the plane in as realistic a manner as possible.

 

The airliner guys only get a bad wrap when they imply that everybody else is just "playing a game". And of course not all of them are like that at all.

I agree BeechPapa, and realism doesn't have to equal complexity. The A2A planes can be flown completely realistically without using any complex GPS or other computerized items on the dash. The complexity comes from an accurately modeled flight model, and from trying to fly the plane in as realistic a manner as possible.

 

And also coping with realistic environmental effects and geography. My flight sim activity is mostly in GA bush planes, and helicopters. I use FSEconomy as a mission generator that forces me to fly into areas I've never been before, mostly small airstrips in interesting places. Lots of mountain flying, with real-world, real-time weather injection. That means dealing with icing, scud-running, cross winds on runways, you name it. 

 

I understand why some prefer flying big iron and learning complex systems, but there are other ways to appreciate "realism and complexity" in a flight sim. I have a feeling whatever Dovetail has planned, it's not going to give me what I'm looking for in weather effects, if nothing else. 

I really don't see the need for some to get so emotional about this.

 

The fact is everything in this 16 page long thread is speculation and what-ifs. We don't know exactly what DoveTail have in the pipeline. What we do know is that the Microsoft Flight Simulator series has been dead as far as development is concerned (obviously not including third party) for donkey's years and finally, whether it's what you want or not, there is something new on the horizon. No one is taking FSX, Flight, P3D or XPX away from you but there will be something new which is a good thing, right?

 

I personally quite like TS2014.

I agree BeechPapa, and realism doesn't have to equal complexity. The A2A planes can be flown completely realistically without using any complex GPS or other computerized items on the dash. The complexity comes from an accurately modeled flight model, and from trying to fly the plane in as realistic a manner as possible.

 

The airliner guys only get a bad wrap when they imply that everybody else is just "playing a game". And of course not all of them are like that at all.

Unfortunately, that is often too true about the airliner guys. I think that stems from a misunderstanding of GA, an oversimplification of it, or perhaps an addiction to magenta lines. For the most part, I really think GA is harder than airline flying. There's way more decision making with bigger dangers for making bad decisions. 

 

Regarding complex GPS, I don't use it in GA planes to introduce complexity. I started to fly IFR regularly in GA planes after having a few VFR into IMC incidents that ended quite badly. That taught me to create my own safety net and fall-back plan in the GPS. It was a matter of pragmatism, not complexity, which I think is exactly the kind of thing the sim should be teaching me.      

Their routes are great looking and always have.. Paul Jackson has said some of the latest routes that they have developed have cost over a million to produce..

Oh gee, if we could deliver these 737 fuselages to the Boeing plant, then wait briefly while they assembled it, then maybe we could climb aboard and perform the acceptance and delivery flights!

http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/222617/ss_f4e31baff34a9e6868eea3855e59fc791d731703.1920x1080.jpg?t=1389886208

I can't believe that anyone had to ask what the point of the post was :huh:

 

            World Coordinates and Terrain Movement:
 
UE4 offers “player-centered” movement where the world moves and the player stays at 0,0,0
 
That doesn't square with WGS84, GPS, etc.

 

Phil, for the most part I agree although this point doesn't make sense.  This is essentially how FSX and Flight both work, although they are camera-centered, and not player centered, but those are pretty much to the same.

 

I think these are the main requirements for an engine to be capable of being a "world" engine:

- Either full 64 bit floating precision through the entire engine, or the ability to render camera or player centered

- Either full 64 bit floating precision through the entire engine, or the ability to "slide"\transform the physics state to a new reference point

- Ability to have multiple physics worlds or the ability to have a non constant gravity vector

- Large draw distances

- Ability to stream content with different LOD by distance

 

I think for the most part the newest gen of FPS engine are pretty close to being able to be world-engines without major architecture changes.  No matter what engine you use, it is still a lot of work to implement the product specific features.