Alright, I'll ask again without the part that clearly distracted you.

 

And I'll give my original answer.

Typos included?

Come on Ron, 64-bit software is a "pie in the sky" expectation?

Hmm, should have chosen less general language.

What should have been stated is that "demands" by users for certain features usually end up being ignored by the powers that be. MS:FSX is my example.

LM doesn't appear to be an entity that is easily moved by FS forum complainers.

Now back to enjoying stutter free, P3D 2.5.12946.0. B)

Typos included?

Yes. do they bother you - you are a typo geek?

If anyone in here works for a flight school - you can come very handy

 

We need that person to complain to LM stating that their Commerical Sim's are having VAS issues and need to be fixed asap.  

 

We probably wouldn't get very far. In all my years of flying, I have never seen a flight school or level-D carrier that uses a high fidelity scenery that in conducive with causing VAS issues. Remember that commercial level sims are primarily used for aviator competence and aircraft familiarity rather than VFR navigation practice. Ground shadows, HDR, cloud shadows, anti-aliasing, ground texture resolution, etc is all irrelevant in them. 

We probably wouldn't get very far. In all my years of flying, I have never seen a flight school or level-D carrier that uses a high fidelity scenery that in conducive with causing VAS issues. Remember that commercial level sims are primarily used for aviator competence and aircraft familiarity rather than VFR navigation practice. Ground shadows, HDR, cloud shadows, anti-aliasing, ground texture resolution, etc is all irrelevant in them. 

 

I have only seen sims on youtube.  Never seen a commercial sim in person (i want to, though), I figured all them want to make visuals as realistic as possible.   

I have only seen sims on youtube.  Never seen a commercial sim in person (i want to, though), I figured all them want to make visuals as realistic as possible.   

 

 I have 6 hours in a $27 million dollar 767-400 ER sim . Visuals are not a priority. more flight dynamics, and the feel of the aircraft which they spend millions of dollars on. They get the data from actual flights of the real aircraft and load it into the sim computers. When you take off, you actually get pushed back into the seat because of the full motion platform which costs a couple of million dollars alone. 

 

 

you actually get pushed back into the seat because of the full motion platform which costs a couple of million dollars alone.

 

That is insane and awesome.  I never expected commercial sims to create that feeling.

That is insane and awesome.  I never expected commercial sims to create that feeling.

 

 

I was cautioned to make sure my seatbelts were securely fastened prior to takeoff, because if you do a rejected takeoff, the force of the hydraulic platform the sim is on , will throw you right out of your seat into the front panel, if you are not buckled up. This is the one I flew in.  http://www.cae.com/civil-aviation/simulation-products/cae-7000-series-full-flight-simulator/

Ground shadows, HDR, cloud shadows, anti-aliasing, ground texture resolution, etc is all irrelevant in them.

 

I also imagine that many of Prepar3D's commercial customers aren't too bothered about them also. During  serious training purposes, students are not going to be spending their time gazing at the scenery - they will be too busy.

 

As an aside, I undertood that a FSX airport scenery developer modelled moving ventilation fans on the building roofs!

Eerm, Frasca sell a refurbished sim for $60 000.00! using P3D. Not full motion!!

It's the immersion factor that's important, as seen (on our 2x sims that are non motion), when real pilots flying our sims  brace themselves just before touchdown, & we are using FS9.

Eerm, Frasca sell a refurbished sim for $60 000.00! using P3D. Not full motion!!

It's the immersion factor that's important, as seen (on our 2x sims that are non motion), when real pilots flying our sims  brace themselves just before touchdown, & we are using FS9.

 

When I visited an airline training facility on a couple of occasions I was surprised to find that many of the simulators were not motion sims at all. They just had a cockpit setup sitting on the floor. It was only for aircraft like the 767 and 777 that they had full motion platforms, yet this is the way all their pilots were trained until they had their first check ride in the real aircraft. 

We are all customers that doesn't mean we know how to develop a flight simulator - any more than we know how to develop a car engine.

 

A multi billion dollar defense conglomerate will react to the needs of its commercial customers - not to the needs of a small simulation community

 

Is it really necessary for you to run to every P3D thread and make this point...over and over and over and over and over and over and over...so on and so forth. You've been almost wholly negative about P3D since the days of us arguing about 1.4 on here. Then there were the EULA arguments you loved to get into in nearly every thread. Now that those are forbidden, you run around telling everyone how LM doesn't care about them, won't do this and won't do that, blah blah blah. It's just a sly way to once again start arguments just like the EULA crap.

 

We get it already. This thread was actually interesting until it delved into yet another thread where people can't simply speak their wishes for the future and opinions without being shouted down about how LM would never do that and don't know they exist. 

 

If people want to dream about 64bit, what's it to you? What's with the need to run and give them a "reality check"(whatever that may be) every single time someone wants to speculate? 

 

There are a bunch of people, many of who don't post here anymore, who spent years telling us P3D would never even get to what it is in 2.5. That it'd be shut down by now, or they wouldn't care to keep backwards compatibility, that simmers would be forced out by the EULA, or they wouldn't care about graphics at all. All proven wrong. So far, those that have constantly come to give "reality checks" about P3D don't have a very good batting percentage. 

When I visited an airline training facility on a couple of occasions I was surprised to find that many of the simulators were not motion sims at all. They just had a cockpit setup sitting on the floor. It was only for aircraft like the 767 and 777 that they had full motion platforms, yet this is the way all their pilots were trained until they had their first check ride in the real aircraft. 

 

I trained in an ATC610 for my IFR.

 

A panel and a black wall. It's actually amazing what they were able to do back then.

 

 

Is it really necessary for you to run to every P3D thread and make this point...

 

I was agreeing with another poster.

 

 

 

Guess that's what happens when a small simulation community puts faith in a multi billion dollar defense conglomerate.

I have only seen sims on youtube.  Never seen a commercial sim in person (i want to, though), I figured all them want to make visuals as realistic as possible.   

 

Commercial sims are more about procedures. And when you get below the Level-D stuff, they are more about IFR procedures vs. the flight dynamics themselves. I never got in a sim to practice takeoffs. I was in there to fly an entire ILS approach (from takeoff, to IAF, to runway in sight) without ever seeing anything but a blank wall. 

 

But things are getting more graphically intense with the newer generation stuff. P3D is part of that. 

 

The very fact that P3D has focused so much on graphical fidelity shows there is a want and need for it among their customer base.