As for FSX:SE - http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/90621-fsx-steam-better-then-fsx-i-dont-think-so/

 

I agree that LM is in this for the long haul and that the sim community can go along for the ride. Hardware advances will only improve P3D and possibly X-Plane but the codebase isn't there in FSX and SE to take advantage of any major hardware changes.

 

We are in a good spot right now!

 

Vic

As for FSX:SE - http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/90621-fsx-steam-better-then-fsx-i-dont-think-so/

 

 

 

 

That's a meaningless test, and i am surprised he posted it even.

 

There is another topic here on avsim that clearly shows how the advantage FSX-SE gives is not fps wise, nor the VAS when you just load a plane. Most OOM appears after some time flying, perhaps reaching high density scenaries. The user that made the post here on avsim showed that he was able to complete a stressful flight between payware airports with sliders set on high WITHOUT the crashes he was experiencing on FSX.

 

 

Will a 64 Bit version increase fps?

 

64 bit itself is not really about performance but more about give more memory available to use.  It will take away the 4gb ceiling limit. So yes increasing your ram will help when that time comes. But i imagine that in the process of going to 64 bit , that everything else in the code becomes more efficient and it is this process that might give the extra fps.   

 

 

As for the prepar3d and LMs roadmap, i think they are doing it perfect. The main support will always be commercial. Corporate and commercial clients will be their bread and butter.  But we can also be really thankful, that LM has let us in as a community of enthusiasts who love aviation simulation. In order to setup clients into the future, you need to inspire you younger generation, whether that is with FSX SE or prepar3d, or even XPX, it invigorates us to fly more.   So if they want stable, then vanilla is easy. However adding all the eye candy of scenery, weather, and complex aircraft only adds to realism and so if it can be done then why not, just that its possibly at the cost of stability, so take your pick.

 

Come 64 bit, im all for a new file system if thats what it takes. BGLs  and other files are tired and cumbersome, and probably dont aid to efficiency  relative to today.  If not then it can only enhance, and add complexity to many addons.  Very detailed with all the memory that would be available. Would that hit on performance? maybe.  but so what. Thats why we have performance sliders. 

 

Rob says 8 people working on prepar3d. Who knows if that number changes, but I imagine these are very skilled people since getting through so much of FSXs quirks, and with a little luck and a few extra staff, it might get done faster than we think. Im sure all the major 3PDs are giving fantastic input as well as people like Rob who do such a great job of feedback and testing.  Just before prepar3d 2.0 hit, we were all down and debatable about our future in flight simulation on the desktop. 

Now a little over a year later and we have p3d 2.4 flying ahead to 2.5 and FSX SE  steaming ahead with numerous updates and inspiring a whole new generation of flight enthusiasts.  The future is bright!

 

 

This is an interesting topic. I am very much looking forward to the further development of P3D. I am concerned that, should FSX SE take off, it will impact LM's development direction. I realize this is reiterating an earler comment, but this is a business.

 

It is easy to understand your concern. Over the last few years there has been so much rumor and false information. Part of it is because of us and part is because companies and developers have to protect their trade secrets and futures in the business. To do that they some times flat out ....ready for this?? lie to us!!! LOL Yes darlings....it is true!!! That is kind of how it all works. Here is an example. It is almost imposiable to read more than five minutes of this forum without running into a statement about "this is a nich market" or their are "too few customers to make that possible" or something close to that. Is this a Lie?? not really but then again is is most likely not the complete truth. Now just thin about it....the very same folks who say there is not enough customers are the very ones who will be trying to sell you their Ver 200.70987 of the Cessna 150.....Begs the question ....If the market is so bad why keep building??? Not only that but we have now got 5,6 or 7 different flight sims being developed. LOL It is just business.

 

Why should you not worry about FSX-SE out doing LM's P3D? It is simple.....LM's monthly budget for coffee bars is larger than the entire yearly operating budget of the company marketing this rehash of fsx. There is a place for all the products. Just choose the one that fits your needs and budget and go for it.

 

 

That's a meaningless test, and i am surprised he posted it even.

Seems meaningful to most reasonable people.  He is an industry expert plus he presented his conclusions with data.

 

 

We are in a good spot right now!

Vic

 

Ditto Vic--progress may seem slowish but what we have today is quite nice to be able to enjoy.

I spend more time planning to avoid (or always keep an eye out to 'save' prior to) any possible OOMs en-route and at arrival than I do preparing for the flight itself (flight planning)

 

So 64-bit from LM is only a logical progression towards making this a fluid educational tool.

 

Also a realistic ATC interaction only makes sense since you MUST learn that too, and correctly, not like the mess it is now...

That's a meaningless test, and i am surprised he posted it even.

 

There is another topic here on avsim that clearly shows how the advantage FSX-SE gives is not fps wise, nor the VAS when you just load a plane. Most OOM appears after some time flying, perhaps reaching high density scenaries. The user that made the post here on avsim showed that he was able to complete a stressful flight between payware airports with sliders set on high WITHOUT the crashes he was experiencing on FSX.

And he showed that after flying in his setup on a CLEAN system, SE used MORE VAS than FSX.

 

Point is - SE is fine BUT it is not any big deal. It's being mainly set up for multiplayer.

 

Let's not hijack this thread with an argument about SE.

 

Currently, IMHO, P3D is the future.

 

Vic

Seems meaningful to most reasonable people.  He is an industry expert plus he presented his conclusions with data.

 

Right because he is an industry expert he shoudn't just jump in and try to claim something with a testing method that tries to prove something by using wrong parameters.

 

And he showed that after flying in his setup on a CLEAN system, SE used MORE VAS than FSX.

 

Point is - SE is fine BUT it is not any big deal. It's being mainly set up for multiplayer.

 

Let's not hijack this thread with an argument about SE.

 

Currently, IMHO, P3D is the future.

 

Vic

 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458260-ms-fsx-vs-dt-fsx-se-the-conclusive-performance-benchmark/

 

 

People have issues with OOMs usually. You have out of memory errors AFTER you play the game for some time because more things are being loaded. 

fps in this scenario are meaningless. Testing the VAS when you start the game is meaningless as well.

 

 

That being said, P3D is of course the most advanced one, the problem is the license that isn't for enterteinment.

 

Either way, competition is always good.

For realistic ATC, now (actually 13 months ago) was/is the time for existing ATC developers/products to get their say in with LM for any "missing" features they would like to see.  LM are not that interested in doing a highly realistic ATC and would rather leave that to the 3rd party ... 3rd party have a big opportunity to reach out to LM for core code changes ... LM does listen so long as the core code changes don't introduce a high risk (read break a lot of compatibility) or implementation might be considerably time consuming.

 

To clarify, on developer count at LM ... I said "at least 8 devs" that I know of, there maybe more ... also LM is a huge company with it's fingers in many pies and can pull from in-house resources ... example of one of many: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/december/NGA-map-of-the-world-deployed-in-cloud-isgs-1282014.html

 

Weather you say ... hmmm ... http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/january/space-award.html

 

GPS you say ... http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/december/ss_12_17.html

 

If anyone is serious about flight simulation, I can't think of a better place than LM to provide that platform.  113,000 employees and wealth of resources of data.  In many ways, I would much rather have LM working on this platform than Microsoft.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: and ... http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/december/141202-mst-f-35-training-system-modeling-simulation-award.html

Right because he is an industry expert he shoudn't just jump in and try to claim something with a testing method that tries to prove something by using wrong parameters.

Great point franc89.  I would encourage you to go on Mathis' company's forum, register there and let him know he should not jump in and make such claims with the use of improper testing parameters.

 

 

the problem is the license that isn't for enterteinment.

 

Lets not take this down the EULA road yet again for the 100,000th time ... almost anyone can qualify for the licenses being offered by LM in every legal sense of the EULA.  

 

I'll remove posts that continue on the EULA theme.

 

Cheers, Rob.

If anyone is serious about flight simulation, I can't think of a better place than LM to provide that platform. 113,000 employees and wealth of resources of data. In many ways, I would much rather have LM working on this platform than Microsoft.

 

 

I am a P3D believer. I am particularly interested in ATC when flying tubes. I have to guess it would be one of the most challenging addons to get right. Otherwise there might be more offerings. If the fellow who is developing AI Controller gets that end of it right, I can imagine successful integration of the user aircraft into the scenario would produce one sweet piece of software. It will be interesting to see where Pro ATC/X, Vox, Pilot2ATC and AI Controller go in the next year.

 

64 bit P3D will certainly be welcome. I read with interest PMDG's comment that the conversion to 64 bit would not be the nightmare for addon makers that some are predicting. Would appreciate some insight on this.

 

I think while we're at it, we should give Ainscough his due. Not cheap with information. Doesn't blindly toe the LM line. Not afraid to experiment; even if the result is not as expected. Lets us speak our minds without allowing things to go off the rails. He is as much about support as moderation. Sláinte

 

PS: I just bought the Dell 34 inch ultra wide. Couldn't afford it. But staring at the pixels on my 32 inch 1080P TV, from 2 feet away, was giving me a headache :angry: Hope I made the right decision. I'll be gaining a great deal of horizontal viewing space, but losing about 4-5 inches vertically. The internet has opened up a world of purchase opportunities. But you can't touch the product through your monitor. I am not bragging...can't afford to. I only brought this up as a follow up to my rant in post number 105. This is off topic. Please delete if deemed inappropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

To clarify, on developer count at LM ... I said "at least 8 devs" that I know of, there maybe more ... also LM is a huge company with it's fingers in many pies and can pull from in-house resources ... example of one of many: http://www.lockheedm...gs-1282014.html



Weather you say ... hmmm ... http://www.lockheedm...pace-award.html



GPS you say ... http://www.lockheedm...tion-award.html

Thanks Rob.....very helpful information. Hopefully more people will be able to connect the dots and start to realize just how lucky we are to be able to ride on the coat tails of LM and P3D. I think some folks don't understand the dollar value of the feed back that our community provides to LM. Add in the suggestions and testing that smart folks like yourself provide and you start to realize that we are of some value to them also. Sure they can make it on their own with out us but they did not just invite us along for the ride because they are nice guys. There is probably a 15 year old member of AVSIM who will someday be the project head for the Prepar3D Mars manned lander Sim. LM is always thinking 10-15-20 years down the road.

And he showed that after flying in his setup on a CLEAN system, SE used MORE VAS than FSX.

 

Point is - SE is fine BUT it is not any big deal. It's being mainly set up for multiplayer.

 

Let's not hijack this thread with an argument about SE.

 

Currently, IMHO, P3D is the future.

 

Vic

 

Wow, for a common joe as myself (and 99% of us), trying to educate a master (or expert) in sim development products, as "meaningless" would be very, un-wise.  Yes, we can all make mistakes, but I would trust Matjhis more than any other person on every sim forum  there is.