This is a great thread but, also, we need to have a list we can maintain...e.g. aggregated and marked as fixed when they are.

 

 

That's one of the reasons why I started to use almost purely P3Dv3 compatible addons since my switch over from FSX, I was somehow expecting this was going to happen sooner or later.

 

Stating P3Dv3 compatibility does not guarantee 3.3 compatibility though, I have many V3 compatible sceneries that apparently no longer work in 3.3

No point in buying any more sceneries if point releases are going to break them, especially with 64bit on the horizon when we will most likely have to buy them all over again.

 

3.2 is fine anyway.

Hi again.

 

This statement from Aerosoft isn't customerfriendly.

I am willing to pay 10 dollars more per airport and scenery if aerosoft keep them up to date.

But now i have bought many scenerys from aerosoft, that i can't use anymore? And this wasn't the first time. I have scenerys from P3D V2 wich doesen't work in V.3.

What do you think, will i buy in the future? Aerosoft? I don't think so.

What will they do, if other customers think like me? Quality and service (this includes updates) should be a attribute of a company like Aerosoft.

When they could't offer this then shouldn't they stop to develop for P3D.

 

LM said long before that they don't provide the legacy developement tool anymore.

Hi again.

 

This statement from Aerosoft isn't customerfriendly.

I am willing to pay 10 dollars more per airport and scenery if aerosoft keep them up to date.

But now i have bought for many scenerys from aerosoft, that i can't use anymore? And this wasn't the first time. I have scenerys from P3D V2 wich doesen't work in V.3.

What do you think, will i buy in the future? Aerosoft? I don't think so.

 

The problem of AS is not the statements they give regarding "older" sceneries where not even v3 compatibility is written on the box, the problem is what is stated a little bit lower in this AS thread. For me, this is not at all surprising and simply is in line with all other ridiculous support behaviours over at the AS forums. Those guys are always right, never to blame and actually don't really care about their customers. Statements like this are driving me furious...

 

"If you bought a V3 Product since the release of P3D V3.3 and this does not work, we are more then happy to find a solution for you, but only if you bought it after the release of V3.3 with the Product Information say P3DV3."

 

This is just illustrative of how AS always tries to dodge responsability, unbelievable...

Its a new dynamic for some of the older Devs to adjust to - In years past the FSX franchise was frozen for a very long, long time (after SP2/Acceleration release in 2007) and so they appear stubborn to adjust to a new era of Flight Sim where LM are actively improving their product. 

 

Devs such as AS - It will be to their detriment in the near future to stone-wall customers in the present. There are plenty of smaller developers with ambition who will take the business. 

Aerosoft made a very good statement in regard of the loss of compatibility with recent v3.3, and I am 100% conform with that:

 

Mathijs Kok: "What is clear however is that P3D will be a less attractive platform for many developers. Making these updates on an existing product could easily eat up the profit on a product. And you run the same risk in three months."

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/112689-info-regarding-the-problems-with-p3d-33/#comment-758919

 

If they (and others) would have strictly followed P3D requirements (P3D SDK) there would be less problems now and in future.

If they (and others) would have strictly followed P3D requirements (P3D SDK) there would be less problems now and in future.

 

Interesting statement.

If PMDG, ASN, GSX, FS2Crew, A2A, ORBX, SODE and a dozen of other - innovative - companies followed JUST the FSX or P3D SDKs, you wouldn't have any of their products. Neither in the past nor today.

Interesting statement.

If PMDG, ASN, GSX, FS2Crew, A2A, ORBX, SODE and a dozen of other - innovative - companies followed JUST the FSX or P3D SDKs, you wouldn't have any of their products. Neither in the past nor today.

 

Second interesting statement... Funny enough that PMDG, ASN, GSX, FS2Crew, A2A, ORBX and SODE all work with Prepar3d v3.3. The statement of nemo is obviously only regarding the development of sceneries, no? And just read Gary Summons explanation why his UK2000 sceneries are incompatible, this is quiet enlighting. But of course, you will never ever hear such a honest statement from those ridiculous guys over at Aerosoft. They continue to blame others when one of their products is not working. It was always like this and will always be like this.

 

 

Second interesting statement... Funny enough that PMDG, ASN, GSX, FS2Crew, A2A, ORBX and SODE all work with Prepar3d v3.3. The statement of nemo is obviously only regarding the development of sceneries, no?

 

The original statement mentions the SDK.

So sceneries should strictly follow the SDK, whereas other products are allowed to use complementary methods?

BTW, some of the products you name are only compatible with 3.3 after an update.

Many sceneries will be updated too, but because of the huge quantity involved, it's a slightly different and much longer path...

Aerosoft made a very good statement in regard of the loss of compatibility with recent v3.3, and I am 100% conform with that:

 

Mathijs Kok: "What is clear however is that P3D will be a less attractive platform for many developers. Making these updates on an existing product could easily eat up the profit on a product. And you run the same risk in three months."

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/112689-info-regarding-the-problems-with-p3d-33/#comment-758919

 

Omg, just read the thread at aerosoft. Can't believe somebody is almost openly threatening to sue them !

Talking about legislation and regulation, call your lawyer, and all this BS !

Have to admit I lol'd.

What will happen when 64bit releases ? Do you think he will threatens them physically

I was thinking about this last night, and if I were developing a product for P3D, it ls like trying to take aim at a moving target.  Look at all the updates that developers have created in the last few months and they are probably counting on having to do this again when 3.4 comes in in a few months. 

 

Bob...I think you are correct in that P3D is now and will most likely always be a moving target. This whole situation really goes back to the age old question of are we dealing with a game or simulator. If you think about it, LM has never included the word game in a description of their product. That distinction is important now because it appears that LM is starting to slowly apply more pressure on Dev's to design products that are more code and SDK compliant. Remember they have been very open about that intention for a long time now.

 

If you look back to almost all of the Add ons released for P3D have been mostly developed for FSX of one kind or another and then modified to work with P3D. It just may be time for Dev's to start designing add on's for P3D Simulators and then try to make them work for the gamers after release. Note: the term game or simulator here is not intended to place one group above the other. Yes....to play in the Simulator world has been and will continue to be more expensive than the gamer world. This is where the moving target comes into play. In order for anything to develope and grow it has to be a moving target. Now it may be that Dev's are going to have to come up with some sort of new way of charging for the on going changes and growth. I don't know the answer but perhalps some sort of subscription based system is called for.

I think the answer is simple. There is nothing of note in v3.3 that is so Earth shatteringly important that you absolutely must upgrade. Therefore......don't.

The problem of AS is not the statements they give regarding "older" sceneries where not even v3 compatibility is written on the box, the problem is what is stated a little bit lower in this AS thread. For me, this is not at all surprising and simply is in line with all other ridiculous support behaviours over at the AS forums. Those guys are always right, never to blame and actually don't really care about their customers. Statements like this are driving me furious...

 

"If you bought a V3 Product since the release of P3D V3.3 and this does not work, we are more then happy to find a solution for you, but only if you bought it after the release of V3.3 with the Product Information say P3DV3."

 

This is just illustrative of how AS always tries to dodge responsability, unbelievable...

They are not dodging anything.

Before V3.3 those add-ons did work. They are under no obligation to make their add-ons work if the core software changes.

Before V3.3 those add-ons did work. They are under no obligation to make their add-ons work if the core software changes.

 

They are, because they included the rather silly text "compatible with Prepar3dv3" into their product description, and this sadly (for Aerosoft) includes all subvariants. They should have written "compatible with Prepare3dv3.0" to avoid those discussions arising now, even if they insist of being otherwise in their forums. Besides that, yes, I do understand that it is a silly situation for Aerosoft, but well, that's how you can learn from mistakes. After all, it is not 100 sceneries where it was written "compatible with Prepar3dv3" that do not work anymore, only a few, so I honestly do not understand why they now want to blame somebody else (again). They should show some balls, stand up and say: "well, our mistake, we will provide a solution" and not trying to start their classic "Aerosoft is not responsible for anything" ######.

Is it just me, but I notice that ORBX airports and FlyTampa all seem to be just fine in V3.3