Games that are played in Nvidia surround will ALL have this stretched fisheye look on the side monitors when facing forward

That's wrong actually, it's just that P3D is missing some kind of "render each screen separately" option that for example many racing simulations have (iRacing comes to mind) in which case if well configured you don't have any distortion at all.

First I've heard of such a setting. Must be exclusive to this iracing game. FSX as far as I know doesn't have such a setting either and no game I have ever played in surround does either. Thanks for the clarification though. I have gotten used to the fish eye myself and it never really bothered me. In FPS games it's always been somewhat of an advantage since I can turn sideways and see far away if someone is there!

 

It also would seem to me that such a setting would greatly decrease frame rate if each screen is being rendered separately?

Forums are down, nothing else seems to be affected

 

Prepar3D web site is undergoing an update as are the P3D end user forums ... the user forums will be a more "traditional" (thank goodness) layout.  Sorry it's not V3.0 release.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Well I thought it was funny @GSalden

 

:dance: :dance:

Prepar3D web site is undergoing an update as are the P3D end user forums

 

Thanks for the update Rob. That is indeed great news!

It's one thing to use Wordpress as a CMS...but to use it for *everything*?....  :wink:

My only wish is that v3 would retain 2.5 compatibility with most add-ones.

Hard to have major changes for the better AND still have compatibility particularly when dealing with old code foundations of 10 years ago. While the cost and the trouble to get all addons installed is a negative, the only way we break free from the underlying code that is holding back performance and memory issues, is major change, and major change will break compatibility quite likely. After all many of us have killer hardware that would run alot of games without a hiccup yet FSX/P3D still struggle.  The question becomes to what extent and is there an easy fix for the developers to make changes and what cost to its users.

 While the cost and the trouble to get all addons installed is a negative, the only way we break free from the underlying code that is holding back performance and memory issues, is major change, and major change will break compatibility quite likely.

Agree. The changes from a 32b to 64b application is overdue.  I was just checking the price on a new 512GB SSD that I'll add to my chassis, and thinking about the migration path.  Going to keep v2.5  running and simply slip the v3.0 into a fast new home where I can make the migration from one to the other over time.

 

I suspect that underlying framework for the simulator, such as BGL files, may remain so perhaps the compatibility issue is not as bad as you would expect.  If all an installer has to do is move files around and edit a cfg file then maybe 32b installer will work for sceneries.  True, anything with a dll is going to need rework but some things can port from 32b to 64b fairly easy depending on how it was developed.

 

I don't think it will be catastrophic, just major but no earthquakes and floods.

Agree. The changes from a 32b to 64b application is overdue.

 

I don't expect 64bit in v3.0. Don't expect it even in 2016. 

Let's be sarcastic and cynical to break this enthousiasm 

 

v3's PMDG you gotta pay again for it too.

 

 

This one is a given. 

It's one thing to use Wordpress as a CMS...but to use it for *everything*?....  :wink:

 

so, i am not the only one who find this somewhat strange

It's one thing to use Wordpress as a CMS...but to use it for *everything*?....  :wink:

 

Agree!

 

 The question becomes to what extent and is there an easy fix for the developers to make changes and what cost to its users.

 

I think you'll find that how easy or difficult the migration from 32bit to 64bit on the 3rd party front will not be available to end users ... it will continue very much as it has in the past, undisclosed.  BUT, if you want to understand what might be actually be involved read the FSX SDK and the P3D SDK and make your own determination ... you might be surprised at how little of a difference you find

 

The conversion of FSX to P3D v2.x IMHO has been relatively minor ... certainly NOT in the realm of work hours needed to do a new product for a different platform.  Evidence is how quickly FSX product updates have been delivered for P3D.  However, with that said, it's easier to "sell" work on a new platform ... but if you compare development hours to update FSX to P3D vs. starting almost from scratch for new platforms then there is considerable difference in many orders of magnitude in development time.

 

As far as I can tell, 3rd party content providers did not factor in (aka price) changing platforms, they've been accustomed to a decade of non-changing FSX ... now that changes are happening they'll need to re-work that pricing process ... we can only hope 3rd party price according to development work required (which has not always been the case).

 

Cheers, Rob.

This one is a given. 

Nope. Sorry to dissappoint but PMDG stated in a post by RSR that B777/B737 P3D products will be upgraded at no cost to users for v3.0 which at the time was expected to be the update to 64b.... I have not seen anything to the contrary except by those unaware of PMDG's pricing policy.

Nope. Sorry to dissappoint but PMDG stated in a post by RSR that B777/B737 P3D products will be upgraded at no cost to users for v3.0 which at the time was expected to be the update to 64b.... I have not seen anything to the contrary except by those unaware of PMDG's pricing policy.

 

 

Uh oh. We'll see.

I will be very dissapointed if they have not improved the Anti aliasing with proper full screen support for v3 and pleeeaasee a transparent ATC window.

If we have to buy v3 can we run both ? As its a different product?