This is interesting that LM has decided to appease folks - hope it doesnt put a kink in progress - should be an eye opener for developers - hope they can offer P3D native products - would be in their best interest imo 

As indicated by Adam's message, it'll be just for V3.3 (FS2002 support will NOT be around long term) ... I can't say anything more ... but going forward it will almost certainly be two paths.  One or the other or both will be up to the 3rd party devs trying to earn some revenue for their hard work.

 

These things will eventually sort themselves out, they always do and have done in the past ... we'll look back on this and probably have a chuckle.

 

Cheers, Rob.

  Rob, back in the days of P3Dv2, LM commented on developing for v2 being continued up to v2.5. Have LM made any such comments towards how far they will carry P3Dv3?

 

  Cheers, Craig

This is interesting that LM has decided to appease folks - hope it doesnt put a kink in progress - should be an eye opener for developers - hope they can offer P3D native products - would be in their best interest imo

Exactly...just to appease folks. I can empathize with people not wanting to lose their airports. I have many of these sceneries too. But we have to move forward. There are always going to be people that want to hang on til the absolute end. If we keep appeasing folks, we will never fully progress. They should just make 3.2 available so users that don't want to lose them yet can go back and stay there instead.

 

 

They should just make 3.2 available so users that don't want to lose them yet can go back and stay there instead.

 

If we can continue to get the list of offending airports then it'll make it easier for people to migrate off of them.  The devs will just have to catch up.

 

 

Have LM made any such comments towards how far they will carry P3Dv3?

 

I don't believe the V3.x series and beyond is public knowledge yet.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Btw, good move from LM to issue a hotfix to solve the issue. Whether it's temporary or not, we'll see!. I guess it will not be! (look what Fly Tampa says in its forums).

Cheers, Ed

 

From Fly Tampa:

"Lockheed Martin are working on a hotfix for the issue. It would be very hard to fix our end as there isn't a real robust replacement for the older ASM groundwork."

 

 

"Lockheed Martin are working on a hotfix for the issue. It would be very hard to fix our end as there isn't a real robust replacement for the older ASM groundwork."

 

Do they say which airports this affects?

Do they say which airports this affects?

 

Apparently LOWW, Sydney, I'm not sure if there are more. Have not tested because I did not make the move (yet, waiting for the hotfix). Read that here at Avsim.

Cheers, Ed

Exactly...just to appease folks. I can empathize with people not wanting to lose their airports. I have many of these sceneries too. But we have to move forward. There are always going to be people that want to hang on til the absolute end. If we keep appeasing folks, we will never fully progress. They should just make 3.2 available so users that don't want to lose them yet can go back and stay there instead.

Well...they didn't even have to 'appease'.  Nope..

 

People could revert back to v3.2.3, and have everything running perfectly, with all their 'to date' 3rdP catalog.  That's all people had to do.

 

I've decided to stay with v3.2.3, (it works perfectly with everything) and just sit in the bush, and watch what plays out.

 

Of course as always, each to their own, as they see fit.

 

 

I don't believe the V3.x series and beyond is public knowledge yet.

 

  Thank-You, Rob. That is all I wanted to know. I appreciate your keeping us in the loop with regards to LM and their continuing development of P3D.

 

Cheers, Craig

From Fly Tampa:

"Lockheed Martin are working on a hotfix for the issue. It would be very hard to fix our end as there isn't a real robust replacement for the older ASM groundwork."

What about those sceneries that have no issues in the current v3.3...?

I make sceneries (mostly landclass for my own use) using SbuilderX wich generates a BGL-file. Will I not be able to use my sceneries in a future upgrade of P3D? Or does it apply to Airport sceneries only?

Everyone seems to assume that everything L-M does is progress forwards, and changes such as they made in this are bound to make things better. But this is not necessarily the case. The tech details in Gary Summons' thread (UK2000 forum) about the change and why he uses some methods originating in FS2002 show that there can be steps back in the ongoing design "improvements". Here's a salient section which I'm sure he won't mind me quoting (my emphasis though):

 

It's a bit more complex than my first few posts, one of the other reason for using FS2002 code  for ground tiles, it that is can switch seasons within the precedule code. FSX/P3D native code does not have this ability  for 'normal' polygons/objects
 

P3D can only have seasons  for Autogen and 'Terrain images' Terrain images are a lower visual quality than normal polygon tiles, and is the other reason why I stuck with FS2002 polygona. However the quality difference is not that big, and most will not notice,  so I will have to use it as the first layer of airport bases. This initial layer will have the grass and any green vegetation so it can change colour in autumn and Winter. The second layer is a photo of taxiways, runways and all hard surfaces that dont change their colour. This layer will use native P3D code with a transparent sections to allow the grass (first layer) to show through it. Then will come the third layer, again using P3D code which will be all the lines, bays, runway markings, holds ect.

 

Pete

Surely you jest with the BGL comment.  Perhaps you meant MDL? The former would destroy about every bit of add-on scenery available today.

 

;-(

 

Jim