I know we all think there will be a V3 within running distance, but what is the consensus on the likelihood of a V2 - 2.6 first?

I recently read an article from Flight International (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7qLB3u5J9DcJ:www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-simulator-manufacturers-fight-for-advantage-in-crowded-400004/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=at (Google Cache so you don't need to register)

 

That leaves at best 24 simulator sales to be divided up among Berkshire Hathaway-owned FlightSafety International, Frasca International, Spain’s Indra, L-3 Link Simulation & Training, Lockheed Martin’s Sim-Industries, Rockwell Collins, Textron Aviation and other aspiring entrants.

 

CAE and FlightSafety introduced new FSTD brands this spring. Both feature 64-bit computing architectures, electric motion systems and a ‘docking station’ design in which the ‘mothership’ motion and visual platform base is common to all level D simulators, accommodating the type-specific aircraft cockpit with on board instructor station as a plug-in module.

 

I'll just leave that here for the 'experts' in this thread...

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.

 

Why then pray tell, did LM put so much effort towards this sort of stuff into P3D?  It seems when you remove HDR & shadowing and non popping autogen...and better frame rates w/ autogen & vegetation, there's not much new in P3D over FSX.   I guess the eye candy is to impress young wannabes since very clearly according to all the expert testimony here none of their commercial users care about these features.

 

 

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. 

 

If that is true it's just a matter of time before they'll have to go 64 bit.  Hopefully they already are well on their way and I would imagine mum's the word especially for their content developing partners.  Once the cat's out on 64 bit that will be the end of 32 bit add ons especially to the degree 64 bit P3D implies the end of backwards compatibility, at least w/o purchasing the upgraded versions.

PMDG already said that the purchase price of the P3D versions of the 777 and the NGX included upgrading to 64bit and V3 of P3D if and when that happens. When PMDG release the P3D V3 64bit verions, I don't expect to pay a penny for the Compatible version of the T7 and NGX when they are released.

PMDG already said that the purchase price of the P3D versions of the 777 and the NGX included upgrading to 64bit and V3 of P3D if and when that happens. When PMDG release the P3D V3 64bit verions, I don't expect to pay a penny for the Compatible version of the T7 and NGX when they are released.

Yes I remember that now.  I think devs in it for the long haul who are committing to move forward if they have to w/ 64 bit will likely announce a similar upgrade incentive else that will be the end of sales as I say when 64 bit release is more confirmed.

Perhaps there is more to be had w/ caching terrain in all of that vast VAS associated w/ 64-bit and my 32GB's of physical ram, or other sorts of ways to exploit the now very inexpensive physical ram which again sits on the sidelines waiting for a creative approach to access.

 

You can have that now, use a RAMDrive and move some of the most-wanted folders to it, symlinking from their original position.

If in the situation I just described, static at the gate at KSFO in the QW757 and you are seeing all of your cores 'fully utilized', then that is the odd part and I'd like to see it because its anathema to what I've heard and seen.   What I described is typical because until you are moving thru terrain the non-main thread cores will typically be sitting rather idle.  Once you're moving thru terrain at a decent clip then the texture loaders will be utilized at least in part while the main thread remains pegged at 100%.  This is normal behavior and I've never heard of any other manifestation.

 

Also, there is no 'flame' here.  I just commented on the fact the 32 bit VAS limit prevents P3D from being able to grabble w/ complex add ons and while the easy way out on that one to simply avoid running complex add ons, we'll all note P3D likes to tout its compatibility w/ all sorts of content developers.

 

Ah, OK, now I understand. Yes, this is the case, as long as I remain motionless, only one core is used. But as I'm using TrackIR this is never for long, once I move my head all cores spring to life. I always figured, that is because only one core is needed at that time. CPU utilization figures can be misleading - you never know if the program does actually need all the power there is, what its internal architecture is. If things need to be this way, there is no changing it. Funny enough, all the (4) major sims perform about the same (OK, 3 of them are practically identical anyway), and one of them is already a 64 bit application.

I know we all think there will be a V3 within running distance, but what is the consensus on the likelihood of a V2 - 2.6 first?

The likelihood of 2.6 is zero. V3.0 will be designed to run under Win 10 and will use DX12.

 

 

V3.0 will be designed to run under Win 10 and will use DX12.

 

You know that, or you are just guessing?

Prepar3d is so much more than a "Flight Simulator" LM does not get involved in a project like this so you and I can play Pilot and Airplane. It and the related development is for Flight, Subs, Lunar landers, Mars landers, Emergency response preparedness, Tanks and on and on. Thinking back to my 21 years in the Air Force, I remember that Pilots hated to be scheduled for the Sim. They would rather do about anything other than that. It only makes sense that a Sim with some scenery and one that looks more like the real world has it benefits. If a tank crew or pilot or what ever can become more involved in the Sim period then they will be much more likely to learn more. It is like real world war games, the more realistic they can be made while not hurting folks the  more effective  the training. You will never understand Prepare3D if you only see it as Flight Sim focused.

I have heard of many software projects that where ambitious attempts to replace an already matured and massive piece of software. The logic is that the old huge piece of software is so dated as to not be able to deal effectively with new demands placed on it, so the best approuch is to just scrap that old software and start again from scratch. On the surface that seems to make sense except its not the case that the software is 30 years old, its the case that it took 30 years to make.

 

Granted its not perfect but its no accident that it took 30 years to get i where it is today. I am quite sure that in principle a dreamteam could envision a better starting point for Flight Sim software today than the equivalent team 30 years ago. But even so the development of that from the ground up software to get to the point that Prepar3D i.e ESP or MSFS V1.0 is today in terms of its overall capabilities would take at least 10 years and would be doomed to fail because, so long as it cannot match the capabilities of the current tried and tested software it will not sell. Cite Outerra. I am not knocking it and I have financially supported and I wish the development team all the best but it will take a decade at least before it reaches the aviation simulation abilities of Prepar3D now and ten years from now the heart of Prepar3D will likely be more efficient than Otterra.

 

Someone posted that there are a few players in the Commercial Flight Simulation game. And it was stated that 64bit matters in that arena. So my prediction is that a 64bit Prepar3D is certainly being worked on and in fact probably being tested as we speak. I do think we will see a V3 before we see 64bit but no long before. 

 

There seems to be a lot of commercial flight simulator programs out there that we do not get to play with! Lockheed Martin is a monumentally large company that is not doubt employing the smartest of the smart. That they pursued the development of ESP should be quite telling and the fact that we mere mortals are allowed to play with it is a massive privilege. NOT A RIGHT! It could be taken away at any time. I love FS and I believe we have already entered a new golden age. Now for those of us who are old enough, we have waited 36 years and the original DNA is still in Prepar3D:

 

 

Once the cat's out on 64 bit that will be the end of 32 bit add ons especially to the degree 64 bit P3D implies the end of backwards compatibility, at least w/o purchasing the upgraded versions.

 

Unlikely, the migration from a 32bit product to a 64bit product will be long and slow (and painful for 3PDs) ... to this day 3PDs are still begging folks move off FS9 so they don't have to allocation resources to that older platform (watch the latest FlightSimCon 2015 videos).

 

 

 

I guess the eye candy is to impress young wannabes since very clearly according to all the expert testimony here none of their commercial users care about these features.

 

Odd, my instructors are constantly reminding me to not be instrument fixated (which ironically tends to be a bad habit I picked up from flight simulation) ... much of flying is entirely visual (be it GA, Commercial, or Military) ... if it was really all about systems and no need for visuals, then there would be no need for pilots ... even drone aircraft have pilots, they're just located a few thousand miles away.  Why develop a HUD for an aircraft if it's not visual?

 

Volumetric Fog, shadows, lighting, sun glare, power lines, birds, terrain obstacles, buildings, weather, other aircraft, etc. etc. are all visual elements that implement a sense of realism.

 

I would highly recommend you watch videos from real world pilots to get an insight of the "reality" of being a commercial pilot for a complex aircraft, you'll see see the "captain" doesn't know ALL the systems and exact operation of each system ... highly recommend this youtube channel "airline pilot guy": https://www.youtube.com/user/airlinepilotguy he's recently added folks to his podcasts/videos (including Cargo pilots).  It was an eye opening experience for me.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Odd, my instructors are constantly reminding me to not be instrument fixated (which ironically tends to be a bad habit I picked up from flight simulation) ... much of flying is entirely visual (be it GA, Commercial, or Military) ... if it was really all about systems and no need for visuals, then there would be no need for pilots ... even drone aircraft have pilots, they're just located a few thousand miles away.  Why develop a HUD for an aircraft if it's not visual?
 
Volumetric Fog, shadows, lighting, sun glare, power lines, birds, terrain obstacles, buildings, weather, other aircraft, etc. etc. are all visual elements that implement a sense of realism.
 
I would highly recommend you watch videos from real world pilots to get an insight of the "reality" of being a commercial pilot for a complex aircraft, you'll see see the "captain" doesn't know ALL the systems and exact operation of each system

 

 

Rob, you missed the TIC 'very clearly according to all the expert testimony here...'  I'm all on board w/ eye candy--you're cherry picking comments you can challenge, which I've noticed is often your MO.  Feel free to watch all the videos you wish--I'm in it for the eye candy and to 'play' w/ the simulation that is P3D for desktop users.  I have no desire to become a RW pilot, but I enjoy pretending, as most all desktop P3D users do.
 

Cheers back at ya

I have no desire to become a RW pilot---

Not for realistic operation/simulation, just appearance?

 

I'm all on board w/ eye candy----

Ah, no wonder you are demanding 64 bit software.

Not for realistic operation/simulation, just appearance?

 

Ah, no wonder you are demanding 64 bit software.

Yes, mostly appearance and some ritual.  I don't have an incessant desire to learn everything there is to pretend to be a pilot.  I enjoy FSCaptain and shoot for perfect scores there which is good 'nuf to keep my head in the game.  I enjoy doing that while having excellent visuals, as we all do.

 

Ah, yes no wonder.  But as you should know when you combine PMDG T7 in and out of the sorts of terminals it finds itself, with even modest scenery, well, you should know by now what happens.  Is the anti-obsession w/ 64-bit a function of maybe not wanting to have to port over Eaglesoft products?  

Is the anti-obsession w/ 64-bit a function of maybe not wanting to have to port over Eaglesoft products?

Actually it is presumption to think that we are in any way anti 64 bit anything.

At this point we cannot imagine a scenario where a 64 bit environment will cause difficulty with our products.