P3D V2.3 Beta 2 Testing

[Raptor05121 1]

Hey Rob, great videos. I tl;dr'ed this entire thread, so I was wondering if you could give us a timeframe for release?

[Guest]

But to update the same addon you paid initially to work with p3dv2 and charge for it. Well, that just doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

It's really not a matter of right or wrong ... it's a business decision, if the work involved to make a product function correctly in the next version requires paying resources (aka programmers/designers) to do that work, then it seems very logical to me that there needs to be some recovery of cost.  How else can they continue - you really have answered that?  3rd Party developers can't predict the future of the platform they support and what they are going to need to spend to keep their products going in that platform.  Work is work ... converting to 64bit IS a NEW feature and it is work ... it's keeping the product viable rather than it ending with 32bit ... it's a chargeable and billable feature because it does require work, by definition.

 

If one were to apply your thought process ... auto manufacturers should be required to make all their propulsion units free upgrades as they progress thru the years and improve them.

 

As far as upgrades to 64bit products, all my upgrades have cost me something ... going from Apple's FCP 7 (32bit) to FCPX (64bit) was not free ... going from Adobe's 32bit PS to their 64bit PS was not free ... even Apple OSX 64bit version was not free (it was cheap, but not free) ... so I don't really understand where you are getting your 64bit upgrades are free?  

 

I think the biggest problem is that because software is not tangible (you can't touch it or feel it and it doesn't really take up any physical space) people seem to think no work or resource are required to create/change software ... it's actually a very common misconception ... and by your own admission ... "I realize I'm not knowledgable on what's involved." ... is also very common for those that just use software and have never actually produced software ... it's also why software is stolen by 60% of the population vs. cars which is <0.01% ... the tangible factor.  

 

Most people use autos and not many build/modify them, but because an auto is "tangible", they can equate that work and resources were put into making the auto so they don't expect a free engine upgrade when the next latest and greatest fuel efficient engine comes out.  Both auto manufacturing and software creation require human work efforts and resources ... they are exactly the same.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

so I was wondering if you could give us a timeframe for release?

 

Sorry I have no idea on release ... but since there is a plan for v2.4 to happen this year, I would imagine it will not be too much longer but that's just my speculation.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[nathanpinard 0]

Well it is a license Rob, but I can see your standpoint.

 

I talked with a friend that works at Microsoft, which works within the Windows department. He seems to agree with me. But I guess this is a niche so things change. I wanted a perspective of a software developer.

 

There is a certain degree where software developers need to continue to support with free updates to the same version software. Bug fixes, or features they wanted to implement but didn't until after release.

 

I believe in this case we'll have to do the agree to disagree thing. Don't get me wrong, I know 64bit infastructure is a different ballgame and takes time. Many professional sound/music applications around 2006 took months to do it. To my recollection, they did it for free. But those packages did cost roughly $500+ (virtual instrument libraries and the license to use them for commercial purposes, even if you profit)

 

Now the question is, taking the addon/3rd party developer out the equation, with P3D charge for the 64bit version? And will they STILL make the 32bit version available?I guess we'll find out in a year or so.

[carlito777 725]

As far as my time frame analysis, yes I have done that with comparison data to v2.2 using built in flight recorder. I haven't posted any charts from the data as my goal was to count "long frames" and see if v2.2 compared to v2.3 beta had more or less or same long frames. I use excel to do this (since time frame data from FRAPS comes out in Excel format files) ... even a short flight produces considerable data (over 48,000 data points). Anyway, what I did was calc frame times (time between frames), then in another column I flag (conditional) time between frame variances > 30 ms ... then I count this flag condition. I was seeing about 60% reduction in long frames. This was done in one area (French Alps) ... but it was the same recorded flight so it worked for "relative differences" from 2.2 to 2.3 beta 2.

 

Thanks for the heads-up on frame time analysis! Would be interesting to see if there is also a significant reduction in the variance of frame times in general as I would expect a stutter (or long frame) is a result of a preceding increase in frame time variance.

[Jazzfan 57]

And will they STILL make the 32bit version available?I guess we'll find out in a year or so.

 

 Don't count on either of those dreams coming true. LM are in this to make a buck, not be St Nick. Secondly, a re-write of P3D will take a long time to complete. We certainly wont be seeing it next year.

 

 Jazz

[cowpatz 245]

Maybe I missed something along the thread but is there a plan to charge for version 2.3? I hope not. I have paid for 1.4 and 2.0 already (which is fine so far), however the down side to all this is that some simmers will see this as an endless cycle and say enough is enough and stick with the current version or try something else. This then becomes a major compatibility problem for developers. Just which version do you develop for? How long before that version becomes obsolete which will either restrict sales or require some sort of service pack to make it work (if it's possible)....and then along comes 64bit. It is already an issue trying to purchase an add on to ensure that the software will actually run on 2.2. Most vendors still just list FSX/P3D compatibility only to find after purchase that this is only for versions 1 to 1.4. To read that version 2.4 will be out before the end of the year is a mixed blessing really. If LM are looking at moving to 64 bit then why not nail down version 2 and then shift to version 3 64 bit. I don't want to keep purchasing expensive add ons when I know they will be obsolete when 64 bit comes along. This must adversely affect current V2.2 add on sales as simmers will probably be wondering how long before it becomes obsolete.

[Guest]

 

 

Maybe I missed something along the thread but is there a plan to charge for version 2.3?

 

What you are asking hasn't been mentioned in this thread ... as for your question, NO additional charge for 2.3 -- all versions of 2.x have not required a charge for each update so it's unlikely that will change for the rest of the 2.x series.  I have no idea about 3.x, so I'm not going to speculate.  

 

 

This must adversely affect current V2.2 add on sales as simmers will probably be wondering how long before it becomes obsolete.

 

Not really sure I understand this question ... if it is a question?  Are you asking if 3rd party will continue to update/support new versions of P3D?  If so, that question is best directed towards 3rd party providers.  I would think a 3rd party provider would understand that they are no longer producing products for a 7 year old static platform (like FSX) and are producing products for an evolving platform which will ultimately benefit them long term (if they are in it for the long term).  The evolving platform may require 3rd party to change some design/implementation details such that it frees them up from have to continually recompile new DLL and deploy with each new update/version of P3D.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[kevinfirth 1,489]

Mr. Pinard,

 

You couldn't be more inaccurate in your conclusions concerning third-party addons. Most addons do not use FSUIPC to communicate with the sim. Most addons use the built-in code interface provided by the sim to see data variables. Some use SimConnect, if it's needed. An aircraft addon with C/C++ gauges will require a complete rewrite.

 

All aircraft that utilize anything outside of XML gauge markup (I refuse to call it a language or code... it's neither!) will require rewriting. You think you deserve to get all of that for free?

 

Simply put, you really do not know what you're talking about. At all.

Forgive my ignorance as a non coder, but all the base material will still be there, such as the C code, models, textures etc, so rather than a complete rewrite, it would be more of an update and recompile which I assume would not be anywhere near as costly? We should still expect to cough up to cover what it does cost though, no question there...

[cowpatz 245]

Rob it is not really a question but more floating an opinion. It seems that a few developers are waiting until LM lock down a version before they develop P3D products. Here we have 2.3 in beta testing and you say a 2.4 before the end of the year. I hope that what works in version 2.2 will continue to work in 2.4 otherwise we will have to continue to endure more long waits whilst the likes of ORBX develop triple (or quad) installers for the new version, if indeed they can be bothered. Although it is great to have an 'evolving' sim platform it does pose significant issues for 3rd party devs.

[Guest]

Forgive my ignorance as a non coder, but all the base material will still be there, such as the C code, models, textures etc, so rather than a complete rewrite, it would be more of an update and recompile which I assume would not be anywhere near as costly?

 

I'm a programmer with 30+ years experience and I as I learn more about P3D/ESP/FSX the less I would want to speculate about what's involved in creating a 64bit version (the task seems massively daunting to me, including SDK support).

 

 

 

It seems that a few developers are waiting until LM lock down a version before they develop P3D products.

 

Not sure I agree with that, Orbx, Aerosoft, Alabeo, Carenado, Captain Sim, A2A, iFly, HiFi, PILOTs, OpusFSX, Majestic, FSUIPC and many more have provided P3D V2.x products ... we're not seeing "exclusively designed for P3D" products yet but I think that has more to do with wait and see how P3D fairs on consumer market share so that any exclusive investments will provide some ROI ... I don't think it has anything to do with waiting for a specific version of P3D.  In fact, newer versions of P3D v2.x have usually provide some additional level of compatibility such that 3rd party has to do less to get their products to work with P3D V2.x -- there are limits, some old compatibility is being removed for the benefit of performance and program maintenance.

 

LM have provided/offered help to those 3rd party that still use very old (circa FS8/FS9) techniques to help use alternative methods to accomplish the same task.  Also keep in mind that many 3rd party developers are already on the P3D Beta team so they'll get  a head start on any changes that need to happen so by the time the next version of P3D is release, those 3rd party developers are already on top it and have an update ready to go (in some case before release).

 

Cheers, Rob.

[cowpatz 245]

Well that is good to know Rob and hopefully those 3rd parties involved in the current beta have a heads up as to what is proposed in 2.4.

Thanks

Steve

[jabloomf1230 2,452]

 

 

See my earlier response on LOD RADIUS values ...

 

I did see. I was being rhetorical in my original response. What would be nice is a false color comparison of P3d LOD and FSX LOD, though. Weren't you the one who started that thread originally for FSX? It's not possible here to search on "LOD" (only 3 characters) or I would find it and post a link.

 

In general, most video games had their CFG text file imbedded in a larger binary file (usually the EXE) to prevent meddling by the users.  Game modders figured out that they could extract the CFG file and place it in a specific location thus allowing  "debug" settings to be modified by the user that were not visible via the game's UI. I'm almost of the mind that LM should go back to that approach. 3rd party add-on authors would still be able to figure out how to modify the internal settings if needed.

[Guest]

Weren't you the one who started that thread originally for FSX?

 

Yes I started that thread, but I was not the one that had done the color tile analysis for LOD levels are various LOD Radius values ... which I found to be very informative.  That color tile analysis would look different in P3D where you'd see the higher LOD levels out further in the LOD Radius up to 6.5 max.

 

To be honest, I'm surprised that a lot more resources (.cfg, .ini, etc. etc.) aren't compiled into the EXE and obfuscated to prevent tampering ... access to anything should require the SDK ... this would prevent a lot of abuse and end users shooting themselves in the foot and in some cases just giving up on flight simulation.  LM should still leave the door open for 3rd party and SDK tools, but they don't necessarily need to leave it WIDE OPEN for anyone.

 

Whether folks hate my videos (subscribe to my channel just so they can hate them, yes sadly that does happen), like my videos, see stutters or don't see stutters, I'm still going to continue to post them and hopefully motivate those that are capable of using a blind eye and understanding the limits of software/hardware and what LM have inherited and accept that the simulated world is not perfect.

 

It's unfortunate to see some focus on one single element of the flight simulated experience and decide that if that element doesn't meet their desires/goals then everything else is not worth the effort.  That just seems defeatist and extremely negative.  I'm all for critique, and there are many valid criticisms ... but where those criticism fall apart is what follows the critique ... in many cases what follows is "can't use P3D because of that".

 

Anyway, need to get back to doing some work that actually pays my bills ... will post more videos later this weekend.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[brucek 38]

I'm not one of the more regular subscribers to your site, Rob... although I have been there from time to time....I figure when it's done, it's done, and if I don;t like it I'll find something else to keep me occupied in the 1 hour of spare time I get in an average day....  but I do (for one, and I'm sure there are many people) really appreciate what you are doing for all of us, and for LM, in being a go-between and giving us an insight to up-versions that we never had before.  Keep up the great work, and don't let anyone "shoot the messenger"... 

 

Bruce.

 

 

[MarkSC 122]

Rob, P3D has had a bug since v2.0 in Win8 whereby the full screen mode doesn't work if one has 2 monitors set up with different resolutions (the task bar won't disappear). There is an easy workaround using the third party "PseudoFullScreen" app, but it would be nice if P3D could fix for 2.3. I don't know if you have a way of testing that? Perhaps just set one of your monitors to a different resolution and see if full screen removes the task bar? I think this should be an easy fix for LM, but no one other than me seems to have pointed it out to them.