I take it the NDA is lifted?

 

 All I do know is that my post in the Prepar3D for was promptly deleted when I referred to the Orbx post in this thread.

 

Make of it what you will.

Ohoh someone going to get a spanking lol

Looks like there are more Prepar3D V3 active threads on AVSIM than there are Prepar3D V2 active threads LOL!

The possibility of using half refresh rate in Nvidia settings.

^ What he said...

Maybe this "2.6" thing ain't that bad from the compatibility standpoint. If the architecture would be completely overhauled than the compatibility with addons would certainly be broken, now there's a chance we won't need to buy everything all over again. Or at least not for the full price. If there'd be no more VAS issues and true fullscreen, I don't care if it's called v3, v2.51 or whatever.

I'm concerned for developers regarding 3.0.

Think about all the work required to just make things compatible with each patch that 2.0 saw.

That work takes time and I can see time = money lost for devs, which will mean money out of customer's pockets because the devs have to charge for it.

It also means less fresh development of aircraft and scenery because simmer's are always crying for more updates for their fav plane/scenery to work in the latest sim

Edit: I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say I wanted the shiny Realair Legacy in P3D with GTN integration!

On a personal level I agree. However, these folks charge for their software. So, as a consumer, I expect them to give me value for my money.

 

Because flight sim addons is a cottage industry, I think we identify with the developers on a personal basis. Just read some posts (on various web sites) when an author either upgrades or brings out a new product. Oh the rapture. You'd think corn flakes had been reinvented.

 

I have zero concern (as a consumer) for individuals who charge me for a product or service. It is a business transaction. It is their right to charge me money. It is my right, once I have decided to spend that money, to expect that good or service to perform as expected.

 

I believe if we viewed it in that light, we might have fewer addons from fewer suppliers; that work as advertised.

 

On a human level I agree completely. Most of these guys have day jobs and developing addons for our use, means they don't get to have a life. I salute them.

 

This is off topic. However, our intrepid moderator (no sarcasm explicit or implied) recognized this thread was off the rails about 10000 posts ago:)

However, these folks charge for their software. So, as a consumer, I expect them to give me value for my money

 

But the item you are commenting on is about developers trying to keep up with changes to the platform. No developer is obliged to update his software to work with updates to the platform, whether it be a new version of FSX-SE, P3D or whatever, or simply a "hot fix", if it was sold to you on the basis of it working with the version it stated. The developer could simply not bother to keep updating his product and let it become incompatible, or alternatively update and charge an upgrade or new version amount.

 

If they do continually update their product(s) to handle platform changes for free, surely you can appreciate that this does go beyond your demand as a consumer for 'value for money'?

 

I've continually updated FSUIPC over many years, and the only new charge ever made was for the immense amount of work creating FSUIPC4 after the design of FSUIPC3 (built upon a version dating from FS98 days) proved inadequate.

 

Mind you, I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to continue this policy.

 

Regards

Pete

 

Mind you, I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to continue this policy.

 

 

 

And that would be more than understandable.

And that would be more than understandable.

+1

 

Vic

Maybe this "2.6" thing ain't that bad from the compatibility standpoint. If the architecture would be completely overhauled than the compatibility with addons would certainly be broken, now there's a chance we won't need to buy everything all over again. Or at least not for the full price. If there'd be no more VAS issues and true fullscreen, I don't care if it's called v3, v2.51 or whatever.

Unless they break tradition and decide otherwise, V3 upgrade will not be free and will most probably be full price unless you bought P3D for the first time a short while ago. We paid full boat for the FS versions, why not for P3D?

 

LM has always stated that "point" releases ( 2.3, 2.4 etc) are free upDATES but that major releases (2.0, 3.0 4.0) are paid upGRADES. Don't see why this should be any different.

 

Most developers have that period (30 - 60 days) wher, if you purchased new within that time you would get a discount but that is NOT a given.

 

Vic

+1

 

Vic

 

Unless they break tradition and decide otherwise, V3 upgrade will not be free and will most probably be full price unless you bought P3D for the first time a short while ago. We paid full boat for the FS versions, why not for P3D?

 

LM has always stated that "point" releases ( 2.3, 2.4 etc) are free upDATES but that major releases (2.0, 3.0 4.0) are paid upGRADES. Don't see why this should be any different.

 

Most developers have that period (30 - 60 days) wher, if you purchased new within that time you would get a discount but that is NOT a given.

 

Vic

I had addons in mind. Orbx provided triple installers for their products for free, some charged so called upgrade price and some full price. My point was if the architecture doesn't go full overhaul iv v3 than developers maybe won't charge full price for addons.

Folks,

 

 

N4gix Moderator confirms P3D v3.0 is not 64bit.

 

Find below his post:

 

1. I am one of many v3.0 beta testers.
2. Rob is quite correct to be "excited."
3. JV views v3.0 through his own particular filters, and is quite likely to not be focused on anything not related to scenery and folder/file management and how it impacts his company's products.
4. v3.0 is not 64bit

As for DX12, please everyone keep in mind that this would require a complete revamping of the minimum requirements for Prepar3D:

1. OS must be Win10
2. Video card must support DX12
3. Video drivers must support DX12

Item #1 is the major sticking point for the next few years at least.

 

Link:http://www.avsim.com/topic/475025-jon-venema-says-p3dv3-more-like-a-26/page-4

N4gix Moderator confirms P3D v3.0 is not 64bit.

Is there ANYONE in both these threads who REALLY expected V3.0 to be 64bit? 

 

Vic

Since n4gix has let the cat partially out of the bag, I can confirm that p3d 3.0 is also not DX12, but just like FSX has an "experimental" DX10 mode, the porting from DX11 to DX12 is not a big undertaking.

I'm breaking my NDA here but P3Dv3 is actually scaling back to DX6. Far more stable and consumes less VAS.

But the item you are commenting on is about developers trying to keep up with changes to the platform. No developer is obliged to update his software to work with updates to the platform, whether it be a new version of FSX-SE, P3D or whatever, or simply a "hot fix", if it was sold to you on the basis of it working with the version it stated. The developer could simply not bother to keep updating his product and let it become incompatible, or alternatively update and charge an upgrade or new version amount.

 

If they do continually update their product(s) to handle platform changes for free, surely you can appreciate that this does go beyond your demand as a consumer for 'value for money'?

 

I've continually updated FSUIPC over many years, and the only new charge ever made was for the immense amount of work creating FSUIPC4 after the design of FSUIPC3 (built upon a version dating from FS98 days) proved inadequate.

 

Mind you, I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to continue this policy.

 

Regards

Pete

Peter,

 

Thanks for your comments. I should have pointed out that I would have no objection to paying for major upgrades to a product; particularly if the update is to remain compliant with its host (P3D ,FSX, etc). Perhaps, like many things, the devil is in the details. What's major and what's not?

 

I suppose the customer could object to paying for any update, just as an author could make a minor change to their software, to remain complaint; and charge for that. I don't see this happening with any regularity, but the possibility is there.

 

At the end of the day, I would like the software I purchase to work as advertised. Yours does. I won't heap praise on you for that; but it is appreciated. The one compliment I will give you, is that I would have paid you several times over for the numerous upgrades to your product.