For those as myself, running P3D, all this will make add-ons purchasing decisions very much complex in the future. I think in some way all of us were prepared (Prepar-ed) for this to happen some day, and, yes, it's happening now with v3.3. The point here is who can say if this situation will also include aircraft in v3.4?. From the marketing perspective, very but very badly managed by LM people!.

For the time being, I should recommend everybody to stay with v3.2 and see what happens next to decide when to go to v3.3+ or eventually a different simulator.

Cheers, Ed

Does your VA's data include how many of those FSX users are on FSX or FSX-SE ?

My guess is that Steam users who are running FSX-SE will buy the new DTG 64bit sim which will make it the dominant platform (by numbers) within a few weeks of release.

As I write this there are 2,190 players In-Game

 

It doesn't break down if it is FSX or SE, but since most of the pilots are flying PMDG or other Payware add ons, I doubt if they are going to make an immediate jump to DTG, just because it is 64 bit and lose everything they are using now with FSX, including ATC, weather, aircraft, AI, Acars,  etc.. The list goes on and on.  BTW, I think the steam stats are showing when an owner of a game is signed on, not when they are actually flying with that game. 

For those as myself, running P3D, all this will make add-ons purchasing decisions very much complex in the future. I think in some way all of us were prepared (Prepar-ed) for this to happen some day, and, yes, it's happening now with v3.3. The point here is who can say if this situation will also include aircraft in v3.4?. From the marketing perspective, very but very badly managed by LM people!.

For the time being, I should recommend everybody to stay with v3.2 and see what happens next to decide when to go to v3.3+ or eventually a different simulator.

Cheers, Ed

 

I think that these every few months updates, are beginning to get tedious , so I am going to keep 3.2 for awhile unless I see some "knock your socks off" improvement like twice the FPS, or something    .  I flew MSFS for years without many updates, and was never bothered by it. 

Unfortunately this breaks most of the UK for me! Back to 3.2.

Can someone name a commercial scenery available now that uses the new z-bias technique for it's groundpoly? I don't want to hear fifteen "my GP doesn't flicker, therefore my developer is on the bandwagon" replies from people that don't know where the GP .bgl is located, I want to hear from someone that has successfully built or can positively identify a GP in a commercial scenery compiled with the P3D SDK using the z-bias method for layer separation. I'd like to purchase the scenery and take a look please.

 

Thanks

I believe Orbx San Carlos is native P3D ground poly.  Was not working in P3Dv3.2 fixed in v3.3 with the new layering code.  See this post over at Orbx forums.

Thank you Jim, I happen to have that scenery but wasn't aware the GP used the new tech. Trying to fix a problem FS2002 GP in v3.3 that I built myself a few years back, have had no luck whatsoever with the new z-bias technique in about 24 hrs of fighting with it, the airplane always ends up submerged in the GP, lol. I'll install KSQL and check it out.

Thank you Jim, I happen to have that scenery but wasn't aware the GP used the new tech. Trying to fix a problem FS2002 GP in v3.3 that I built myself a few years back, have had no luck whatsoever with the new z-bias technique in about 24 hrs of fighting with it, the airplane always ends up submerged in the GP, lol. I'll install KSQL and check it out.

There are a few other's Jim, don't have the specifics off the top of my head, but I seem to recall it was one/some of the FB or FSDT airports (and there maybe many others, just trying to go by memory).

 

The z-bias technique isn't "new" was introduced a long long time ago (V2.x days) ... v3.3 is now just enforcing it's usage.  LM have indicated they'll look into it further but don't extrapolate that is meaning "their is a problem" or "there will be a solution from LM".

 

I've asked LM if it is possible to have a compatibility flag option for end users with the warning possible performance implications if the flag is set -- this would help end users know what is and isn't using the "new" technique.  

 

But contrary to popular belief I'm the one that actually got the dialog going with LM, and to be honest it's not really my place to do that, where were all the actual content providers, MIA?

 

Cheers, Rob.

I always find it interesting and somewhat depressing at times following the threads about Prepar3D here on AVSIM.  Like an abusive relationship I come back to see if things are different within the profession that I am part of and love, but no.  If I can just interject for a moment and say that the LM team are on your side.  They care deeply about the product and its success.  Many folks on the team are from the original Microsoft Flight Sim team, or worked with them during development.   Saying that, just remember that you are not their primary focus.  You are a key and integral part of the story, but you are a rounding error in terms of financial support to the product so don't use that as an argument.  Your influence comes in the form of passionate users and developers that have insight into where you would like the product to be.  The LM team gets that and no-one here can argue that they do not listen and act upon the information as best they can within the constraints they have.  The result you get is a supported product with regular improvements and new features coming out all the time.  Compare that to the past releases of MSFS.  There is always something that people here seem to latch on to as proof that LM aren't doing enough.  Whether it be SLI support, 64 bit, name a topic of the day.... I am constantly amazed that when one issue of the day is solved by the team, the next one crops up that means that someone is "sticking with FSX, Xplane, old version of choice..." <sigh>

 

It is depressing when I see comments in this thread calling the developers liars and trying to intimate that they do not care, or that there is a hidden agenda.  It is just plain wrong and hurtful.  Constant attacks wore me down for sure and there are some of you that don't realize the damage you do.

 

Former Principal Engineer, Lockheed Martin Prepar3D

:Whew: Are we done now, really, can the finger pointing LM and beta tester bashing stop finally. Reading these posts is like dealing with ex wives and children not getting their way.... Lets move on..... My rant is over....

 

 

Does your VA's data include how many of those FSX users are on FSX or FSX-SE ?

 

Not yet. The last 18 months or so have been quite a surprise in that we're seeing numerous revisions of sim platforms. I've finally started tracking sub-versions of P3D, FSX and FSX:SE, but until the users upgrade their ACARS clients the data is going to be incomplete. I should have a good picture in around 60-90 days.

 

Cheers!
 

Luke

It is depressing when I see comments in this thread calling the developers liars and trying to intimate that they do not care, or that there is a hidden agenda.

 

It's not with LM that most are disappointed with, it's with the 3rd party Devs that have that have been happy to sell P3Dv3 software that in all honesty (and they knew that) was not really v3 SDK compliant in order to save time and sell the same product for two different Sims, as customers we were duped by those Developers

 

Fair enough, but it will now come back to bite them as we all know now that that 32bit has a limited time left and cannot even be relied upon between point updates unless the scenery devs finally follow LM's SDK fully (which I doubt they will do) with the limited life expectancy of 32bit.

 

Really this would have been better left for a v4 release, but it is what it is, we have to suck it up and move on.

Two things that LM could take away from this is, Put the 3.2 D/L's back up as it is the last fully working version for a lot of customers and look at the possibility of having a stable release branch alongside a testing branch for those brave souls that enjoy living on the edge.

I believe Orbx San Carlos is native P3D ground poly.  Was not working in P3Dv3.2 fixed in v3.3 with the new layering code.  See this post over at Orbx forums.

 

Indeed KSQL's GP seems to work well. Guess I just needed some reassurance it could in fact be done. Looks like the trick might be using negative values for z-bias. Well that's a finger pointing in the right direction anyway I hope, lol.

 

I also noticed that some of the old, old style Orbx lights with the attached effects (think FTXLights_Day.exe, FTXLights_Night.exe era, lol) are suppressing autogen in v3.3. These are placed as autogen library objects, that method was obsoleted when the FTXG lights replaced them and they've apparently been removed from the default.xml now. One of these old style lights placed in the autogen wipes out an entire autogen cell in v3.3, I don't know if that's because of the attached .fx nature of the models or the fact that they're now missing from the default.xml but they do cut a nice 1.2 km swath in the autogen :smile: I deleted them all from the ,agn and everything came back. They just need to be replaced with FTXG lights - 2 years ago.

 

 

Because if you don't believe Beau telling us it was by design with his reasons for that, then the only other way for me to interpret your response was that you think Beau is a liar? You apparently believe Beau made a mistake and is now "covering up" for it? So yeah, that's pretty rude and on LM's forum I would cut that type of indirection off regardless of how politely it was worded. On AVSIM I've done nothing as such and you've expressed you opinion multiple times.

 

Hi Rob,

 

Although I've said my good-bye to you here, I write to you one last time.

I guess you have read Adam Breed's words "...While this change was not exactly intentional ..."

 

This is what I politely tried to tell you from the beginning.

I think that after threatening to "cut me off" - here and elsewhere, and after all of your fuming "liar" sentences, you own me an apology.

If you are the true general here, the true leader, you own me that much and to also those who did not really understood the delicacies of the problem, hence felt to be encouraged to continue bashing me and make fun of my humble and pragmatic sentences.

 

A true leader is always strong enough to admit it if the battle was lost.

 

I still admire your efforts towards the community, even if I sometimes do not agree with your points. I have no hard feelings towards you. I do hope it is mutual...

 

Potroh

Indeed KSQL's GP seems to work well.

 

I believe KBHB is also native and it works very well.  

 

 

I had actually recorded this video at 60Hz/60 FPS, but reduce it to 30 FPS for YouTube ... some very high graphics settings with overcast ASN weather and it was very smooth with a couple of stutters here and there, but the native ground poly seems to be working well for performance in P3D V3.3.  This is also using Orbx new lookup process which appears to be working VERY well also.

 

 

 

I think that after threatening to "cut me off" - here and elsewhere, and after all of your fuming "liar" sentences, you own me an apology.

 

Please stop the mis-information, I don't have time for it.  You know what you inferred, nothing has changed and you said what you said, you made assumptions and jumped to conclusions.  I took your concern on-board, and presented information as it became available. I'll take your comment as a "thank you" but you don't need to apologize to me as that is not something I seek nor did I take it personally and it was never a battle as I have no interest in battles, only solutions to problems and the desire to move forward not backward.  

 

With that said, I would still HIGHLY encourage 3rd party content providers to NOT use FS2002 SDK as using native P3D does appear to have better performance.  I'd happily pay a little more for native P3D if the developers feel the burden adds that much more to their work load.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

It is a bit sad to hear you say these things. I guess I have always hoped that the guys at LM were smart enough to know that most of the AVSIM crowd are grown from some pretty suspect Gene Pools.

 

Reported again, obviously to no avail.