Well, there was an issue, here's a post from Adam Breed; 

 

"All,

 

Thank you for identify and issue with one of our cloud nodes. Not everyone would have seen the issue, but certain users close to a specific location had an incorrectly cached download. The issue has been corrected and you should be able to download the Full installer.

 

Regardless, if you have a v3 installed, we recommend bypassing the Full installer and to simply use the Client for the 3.3.5 release.

 

Regards,

Adam"

 

So should be fixed now

Very good Sethos,  good result 

Not sure if you're implying I'm opposed to or reluctant to use the new z-bias GP tech, if so that is not the case. Let's put things into perspective though, the problem is the z-bias tech simply didn't work and we all had that figured out a month after v2.0 went public. Only in this very latest v3.3 release has it even become somewhat viable because up until last Wednesday shadows didn't work on z-bias GPs, remember the post on Orbx about KSQL's P3D-native GP being "fixed" by the v3.3 patch? We haven't "had 3 years to get onboard" with z-bias GPs, we've had a week and one day and it's still not up to speed with what we had in an FS2002 GP.

 

I understand LM is looking into the shortcomings and that's wonderful. You will see devs flock to this new tech in droves now because of the bump/spec/detail/precip opportunities that weren't possible in FS2002 style GPs. This notion the community seems to have about devs being lazy or reluctant to use the new tech because they can't use the same GP in FSX and P3D is complete nonsense, there isn't a dev on the planet that doesn't wanna do something cool with the bump/spec and it's really not that big a deal to export a GP for each sim once you've built the model, it's just that it hasn't worked up until a week ago. That said I think we're about to see some of the most amazing groundpolys that have ever been seen in a flight simulator.

 

Jim

Thanks for taking the time to tell us how things look from a "Dev's eye view". One of the largest "Bugs" that exist in P3D has yet to be made public and it is going to stop Prepar3d dead in it's tracks. It is called communications or really lack of it. Dev's that still come to this site almost never take time to explain a position or situation like you did above. As a user (and one who pays the freight) all I ever see of you guys is when something goes wrong or you (meaning all Dev's and not just you) have a new product widgit or something to sell. I think it would be safe to say that based on just general impressions of the tone and context one could very well believe that most if not all Dev's either hate or at least don't like Prepar3d very much and have been drug along kicking and screaming the whole way. I hope that is not the case but if it is then we are all wasting a lot of time and money. So just to be completely clear... This is not intended to bash or put down to any Dev. I am just trying to say that a bit of good news about what is positive and looking good for the future could go along way to change the tone of this forum.   

Shark and remoras.

 

 

That said I think we're about to see some of the most amazing groundpolys that have ever been seen in a flight simulator.

 

Sounds good Jim, thanks for supporting the platform ... I know many 3rd party content providers put in a lot of time for little reward, so appreciate your input ... this is a golden opportunity and it's going to get even more critical these next few months.

 

Cheers, Rob.

one could very well believe that most if not all Dev's either hate or at least don't like Prepar3d very much and have been drug along kicking and screaming the whole way. I hope that is not the case

I don't think so. P3D is an opportunity that appears to have been grasped with gratitude by most. It's a product that one must be aware is moving along, all the time advancing. A great deal of care is expended keeping as much as possible going of popular addons. Even so there's going to be bumps in the road.

 

this is a golden opportunity

Snap!

One of the largest "Bugs" that exist in P3D has yet to be made public and it is going to stop Prepar3d dead in it's tracks. It is called communications or really lack of it. Dev's that still come to this site almost never take time to explain a position or situation like you did above...

 

Three words Sam, "Non-Disclosure Agreement".

 

Likewise I appreciate you taking the time to read what I had to say. :smile:

I for one will support devs who push the boundaries with innovative new products with cold hard cash. Devs who stay stuck in the past, well, meh.... K

 

..this is a golden opportunity and it's going to get even more critical these next few months.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Another opaque tilt at new features to come.. Maybe inc x64??

did someone mention theres a new beta patch for asn ? I cant find the post..

 

edit... scrub that Ive found it...

 

heres to a hopefully peacefull non stressful, weekend.... 

http://www.hifisimtech.com/forums/showthread.php?6207-ASN-Open-Beta-5-P3D-3-3-5-support!

 

 

Three words Sam, "Non-Disclosure Agreement".

Sure....understand that can be a problem. Many of these things if not most are kelp under raps but even short post after the fact helps us understand a bit of the background and more importantly it lets us know that you guys are all talking to one another. I guess it just makes us feel a bit more like we are in a small way part of the process. In the long haul, I think you would realize a lot more support from many more of us users when the trolls show up. LOL Thanks for the reply.

 

The difference to exploit NEW aspects of P3D SDK/PDK is another matter and not required, but I hope it will happen some day.  For example PMDG 777 could be using a very different process for their rear view cameras but elected to go with what they could make work even if it forces 15-16 FPS (locked) when used ... there are P3D exclusive alternatives that could solve that problem, but it would require some additional re-work in the rear camera code/implementation.  PMDG elected to not do that work and I agree with their decision, that was most likely a financial consideration as the payback to recover that work just isn't there ... and that could be the case of many 3rd party developers.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Are you talking about a render to texture gauge? Are they not doing that in the p3d version? I only have the fsx one and haven't looked at it for a while

Hi,

 

Just to reply to one of last Rob's answer, who ask "what want developers as functionnalities ?".

 

In the past, "ground poly" FS2002 method can be used with Gmax. With the last opus of P3D SDK [v2.x to v3.3.5], you can not do anything if you don't use 3DS max .... why ? You can answer that Gmax is no more supported but I think i should be possible to make somethings.

A friend of mine, develop a tutorial in order to use P3D SDK with Gmax:

- https://sites.google.com/site/patdebarrsimus/home/tutos

- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4M0_rBrbLnfRi1tV21keS1oMnM/view?usp=sharing

but at now all features are not functionnal: new feature Z-bias include in FSXMaterial.ms or FSXMaterialIO.ms script don't appear !

 

All theses arguments to ask that "little developers" like me wanted to use Z-Bias technic ... are in the obligation to pay a 3DS Licence in order to realized freeware !

 

I ask just a question: why the support of Gmax has been abandonned? In the SDK of P3D, 32bits tools are present SDK_P3Dv3\Modeling SDK\3DSM7 ...  so I think it should still be possible to support Gmax in future P3D's SDKs and permit to more people to use news technic for sceneries.

 

I have tried to post this question on LM forum but it has'nt be undestand and my post has been closed:

- http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6306&t=119697&p=137621#p137621

 

Thanks for your answer.

My understanding is it's not LM that stands in the way of a gmax gamepack, Autodesk simply won't allow it. If you have the FSX MS gamepack though and you can export an FSX-native .mdl from gmax, MCX can add the z-bias material setting and export a compliant z-bias GP using the P3D SDK-supplied compilers.

 

Jim

After reading this thread, I just went and googled the Level D 757 - haven't done that for a year or two or three, you never know they might have posted another screenshot or something. No luck there - but I did find this from Daryl from four years back:

 

http://www.leveldsim.com/forums/future-of-level-d-757_topic24453.html

 

"Oh, how the PMDG forum can stir things up...

 

Yes. Some of you are overly passionate about this niche hobby.

 

We (and by that I mean me) have stated many times that the 757 will be produced, and that there will be no updates about the status of the project, other than the 757 is coming.

 

I recognize that some of you - the hardcore users - don't like this answer, and are apparently concerned about what is happening, want an update, and have begun a poll over at the PMDG forum to get PMDG to produce a 757/767.

 

PMDG can produce whatever they want. There is NOTHING preventing them from producing any airplane they want. They want the 757, why don't they produce it? You want a 757 from PMDG, ask away...

 

...

 

I have removed posts about the 757, because - quite frankly - I am tired of repeating myself time and again.

 

The 757 is coming.

 

If that doesn't please, then have at PMDG to create a 757... ;-)"

 

------------------------------

 

So hey - PMDG? Level D's suggested methodology if we want a 757 is to have a chat to you folk. I'd echo the comments of some of the preivous posters - I would love a 757.

 

I'm a big fan of the Level D 767, or certainly was back in the day. But it shows its age now, and lacks P3D compatibility.

 

So add my vote to the growing number asking you to consider a 757/767 release at some stage in the future,

 

Cheers!

 

Rob