Can you answer the following, kind sir?

 

I'm not Rob but yes, that's what that statement is referring to.

I hope I don't have to pay for all my stuff again (ie PMDG NGX)

If you read the PMDG forum they are doing upgrades through 3.xx for no cost. At least it is suppose to be.

If you read the PMDG forum they are doing upgrades through 3.xx for no cost. At least it is suppose to be.

Thanks I didn't know that

 

 

I am assuming we are getting 2.6 .7 .8 .9 before V3, right?

 

 

... affect Orbx's lack of ability to create v2 installers for previously developed high-altitude airports, like KJAC and KWYS? 

 

Really should take this question to Orbx if you haven't already ... sorry, yes I'm doing the side step shuffle shuffle.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Really should take this question to Orbx if you haven't already ... sorry, yes I'm doing the side step shuffle shuffle.

 

 

 

I understand your position, and updated an Orbx support topic I posted a while back. The official answer seems to be yes.

 

Thanks Rob.

HI Rob,

 

Can you mention to LM that in V3 it would be good to have more realistic Flight Modelling and Flight Physics a change from FSX Model. Also 64 Bit would be awesome.

 

Thanks

 

Duncan Odgers

The Flight modelling would hopefully bridge the gap (in terms of the "OTHER" sim)  and make P3D stronger.

Would be nice of LM to actually give some form of roadmap.

Another hare then      If P3D were to be rewritten as 64 bit, WITH flight modelling and physics changed - like  "the OTHER sim"  would it be no longer be ESP? - Not that I think it would be likely in any near future . . . but raises some interesting questions . . .

 

Then again if just called V3, makes it unlikely.

Another hare then If P3D were to be rewritten as 64 bit, WITH flight modelling and physics changed - like "the OTHER sim" would it be no longer be ESP? - Not that I think it would be likely in any near future . . . but raises some interesting questions . . .

 

Then again if just called V3, makes it unlikely.

Well yes I understand but LM are constantly updating and why should ESP not have the best and most desktop simulation it is supposed to be used for training after all.

 

Duncan Odgers

No reason at all - the point is that LM took over ESP from MS and as said on the site, Prepar3D is based on ESP.  The point is not whether it should or  will be updated, but at what point might it be considered a new engine and thus no longer ESP based.   If a new engine and redesigned/rewritten for 64 bit at that - rather than just a quick and dirty, should it be considered a new sim?  Changing P3D to a different FDM and physics would be a different /new sim and thus not under the MS constraints - with all the implications.  For us that ought to be a "good thing"

If LM do change it to that extent though, it sure won't be in V3 - it would be a total and fundamental redesign and build.

It would be good if LM did change FDE and physics.

 

Rob - Please could you suggest it to LM

 

Thanks

 

Duncan

You folks that want the physics changed, some things to think about such a request:

 

1.  High probability it will break any and all existing aircraft functionality except perhaps those 3PD that code their own physics (or partial physics, like A2A, Majestic, etc.)

2.  You'll need to be VERY specific about exactly what needs to be changed/added, a global "change it" will not hold much consideration

3.  CPU costs (in terms of processing cycles, as you increase physics accuracy you increase CPU processing demands)

 

LM certainly have a wealth of resources to draw from when it comes to flight physics so who knows what may come down the pike in the near future.

 

I think LM's stance with Physics is to provide whatever it is 3rd party need to do their own flight dynamics.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I think LM's stance with Physics is to provide whatever it is 3rd party need to do their own flight dynamics.

 

And that's the way it should be. Flight physics should be a feature of each aircraft and not the sim.

And that's the way it should be. Flight physics should be a feature of each aircraft and not the sim.

 

You're right. But there is something I don't understand. I see many posts comparing the flight dynamics for rotorcraft in X-Plane to P3D. It appears X Plane is preferred to P3D for helos as far as flight dynamics go. What is this about? Do helicopters behave more realistically in X Plane than P3D? Furthermore, is that something that needs to be addressed? Should there a separate set of settings for non-fixed wing aircraft? I am not competent enough to be able to objectively compare the two.

 

The above questions are not rhetorical. I would just like to understand if the flight dynamics in X Plane are superior to P3D, or just different.

 

I do quite agree with Rob's statement that changing the flight model in P3D would be fraught with danger for the sim and any aircraft that operates inside of it. But is it possible to expand the model without breaking the aircraft? 

 

Finally, what if LM were to say to aircraft developers, "either you use the SDK religiously, or you create your own flight model a la Majestic". Would that give us better behaving aircraft, or just put a bunch of developers under? These questions are a means for me to improve my understanding of the simulator. Any response would be appreciated.

 

Moderator: If you decide this post has strayed too far from the thread, please delete it.

 

Thanks

Exactly, that's the point. (Oh, Jay's)  The sim engine interprets the dynamics as set (in the case of P3D/ESP/FSX) by the aircraft .cfg and .air files - an aircraft feature. It's not beautiful, as we know, but it works.  No wish to get into the various fan-boys conflicts about which sim works better or is more "real" - this or the "other".  As Rob implies, changing how the sim interprets the dynamics, currently set in the .cfg and .air, would VERY likely change or break current aircraft.  Not having the "other" I couldn't say if it's better or worse way of doing it, seen the claims both ways.

Sorry if it's been misunderstood, but when i said "good thing" I meant a sim change unlinking P3D from MS (ESP) constraints, not only physically/dynamically, but commercially and . . .  

 

And as Lucy said in Calvin & Hobbes "while I'm wishing, I'd like a pony perfect sim"