Sign in to follow this  
ErichB

P3D V4 speculation thread - may as well

Recommended Posts

So, generally accepted that V4 will be 64 bit, what else do you think would be a 'plausible' but significant change to the new platform?

 

Also, true or false:   64 bit will rid P3D of blurry textures?

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I suppose it depends to what extent LM change/improve the code when the 64-bit jump occurs.

 

If its just a direct switch then I'd imagine most of the issues relating to the ESP engine will still be present; to be honest I could happily live with that to be rid of OOM's.

 

From a consumer point of view the more they change the code the less backward compatability we will have with existing addons; but maybe to really go forward we need a clean slate with P3D v4.x?

 

From the discusions I've seen across various forums the general opinion is that the majority of scenery addons could be ported to 64-bit without too much work, but aircraft would be a different matter?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

From the discusions I've seen across various forums the general opinion is that the majority of scenery addons could be ported to 64-bit without too much work, but aircraft would be a different matter?

 

Then you have read the same threads that I have. :)

Share this post


Link to post

They could only migrate the scenery and leavle the FDM / Aircraft components in 32 bit, I believe. This would solve most compatibility issues.

 

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

probably fs2002 type ground polygons will be completely left behind this time as they almost did with 3.3 making many airports unusable. MCX is able to convert some of GPs to p3d type but it is not perfect as there is lot of flickering. Plus there are no seasons in p3d type ones from what I have read.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

i think not that 64 bit will help with blurry textures.

 

64 bit will help with OOM`s.  But blurry textures are usualy a sign of not enough processing power or too much data to process.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Be prepar3d for lots of performance issues when P3D goes 64 bit. Devs will go banas with high rez textures and what not and we'll all be back to square one :)

 

I imagine v4 won't be much different than v1, 2 and 3 in most areas. LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

jcomm, on 04 Jan 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine..

But what does that mean? There are some that would argue that the lookup table method used by p3d is no worse or better than blade-element theory or any other flight dynamics methodology employed to create flight models. It seems that the skill lies with the individual FDE designer for his/her aircraft which makes the model an A+ or F result

 

simmerhead, on 04 Jan 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

That's probably because they've been optimising, updating, fixing the platform for a much broader professional application that the home flightsim market. The changes may not be that massive visually, but it is (for me) a MUCH better sim than FSX was at the time of its demise.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

They could only migrate the scenery and leavle the FDM / Aircraft components in 32 bit, I believe. This would solve most compatibility issues.

 

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

 

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Only Kelly Johnson could have designed a better flight model... I'm more concerned about the scenery engine - that's were future improvement should be.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

 

I am a RW GA pilot also, have you tried to get a GA sim aircraft to spin? its not easy and if it does it doesnt spin like it would with 1 stalled wing. 

 

There are many issues with the sims flight dynamic envelope, especially atmospheric physics modelling, have a look at fsdeveloper to get more insight. I agree that generally a well developed airfile is able to mask these deficiencies but as p3d is now marketed as a training tool, these legacy microsoft bugs need ironing out. This will of course unfortunately break the old legacy airfiles

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'll be staying with 32 bit until most add ins like PMDG become 64 bit

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


There are many issues with the sims flight dynamic envelope, especially atmospheric physics modelling, have a look at fsdeveloper to get more insight. I agree that generally a well developed airfile is able to mask these deficiencies but as p3d is now marketed as a training tool, these legacy microsoft bugs need ironing out.

 

I believe this to be an issue with any flight dynamics engine taken to the edge - or outside of the flight envelope - even with Level D sims.

 

The A2A models spin very well, for a simulator.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Based on ORBX's somewhat cryptic announcement from a couple of weeks ago, it's more than likely this is 64-bit.  There will be growing pains, but OOMs being a thing of the past would be great.

 

How long popular add-on developers take to catch up will be interesting to see.

 

It would be nice to update airfield layouts since the platform borrows from 2006, and many major airports keep changing.

 

Having 64-bit P3D, DTG, and XP11 makes for great competition and ejoyment.

Share this post


Link to post

Be prepar3d for lots of performance issues when P3D goes 64 bit. Devs will go banas with high rez textures and what not and we'll all be back to square one :)

 

I imagine v4 won't be much different than v1, 2 and 3 in most areas. LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

 

Good point! It could well be that developers just do not care any more about texture size, resolution etc. because of 64bit. The overall performance (stutters, fps) could suffer because the hardware is just not ready to handle it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

 

No need for that...

The old flight dynamics engine is actually a masterpiece and is still way ahead of anything that one could find for the PC.

Even the 10-15 years old multimillion bucks Level-D simulators have less dynamic capabilities compared to this small old one.

 

Of course it only works well if a given aircraft is designed very well...

 

Potroh

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

For me an improvement in terrain loading and LOD would be nice. To extend to autogen radius and push out the tile loading be welcome as long as its able to scale to maintain performance, not that I expect this to happen with the move to 64bit, but it might make these changes more feasible. I don't suffer from OOM's as I only do short GA or bush flights, so the main benefit will be lost on me. Unless there are some amazing new features I will stick with the 32bit version to start with.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

 

Many things, starting with limitations imposed to prop effects, for instance... It all depends on what sort of aircraft you want to model.

 

For a C172 or a C182, it's probably as good as it get's, but users of this sims also want to model many other aircraft types, engine types, rotary wing, and so on... and in this area MSFS's default ( aged ) FDM is showing it's limitations already...

 

I didn't mention X-Plane, because I don't find it any better as a matter of fact....

 

If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I'll be jumping in with both feet. Can't wait to get rid of my 2 terrabytes of 32 bit addon baggae... I like the idea of starting fresh after 10 years using FSX in all its shapes and forms.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

 

What do you know in detail about DCS and IL2 flight dynamics engine?

Share this post


Link to post

Many things, starting with limitations imposed to prop effects, for instance... It all depends on what sort of aircraft you want to model.

 

For a C172 or a C182, it's probably as good as it get's, but users of this sims also want to model many other aircraft types, engine types, rotary wing, and so on... and in this area MSFS's default ( aged ) FDM is showing it's limitations already...

 

I didn't mention X-Plane, because I don't find it any better as a matter of fact....

 

If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

 

 

I have a few hundred hours in C 172s. I have the A2A 172 in P3D and I find it pretty close to real . I have flown two 172's in X plane, one a payware which is highly rated, on a friends PC ( who is a CFI) , and I find it was unstable and a chore to fly vesus my experience in a real  172. When you fly the real aircraft, and then fly a simulation, it doesn't take long to figure out if the sim is an accurate representation. 

Share this post


Link to post

I sincerely hope the 64-bit upgrade allows them to increase the terrain rendering area. That is my number one issue with the ESP-platform; the blurry terrain. If that could be fixed, along with the constant nagging at the back of your head that the game might OOM at any minute and I might consider coming back.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few hundred hours in C 172s. I have the A2A 172 in P3D and I find it pretty close to real . I have flown two 172's in X plane, one a payware which is highly rated, on a friends PC ( who is a CFI) , and I find it was unstable and a chore to fly vesus my experience in a real 172. When you fly the real aircraft, and then fly a simulation, it doesn't take long to figure out if the sim is an accurate representation.

 

To be fair, a large component of 'real feel' is also the hardware you are using. Flying an A2A C172 (or any other quality aicraft) using Saitek's crappy yoke vs flying the same aircraft with a Cirrus/PFC yoke is almost the same as flying two completely different aircraft models. Don't underestimate the significant difference that good hardware can have on your perception of a 'flight model' .

 

I know that is not quite what you were getting at Bob, but I thought I'd put that in there.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I expect to see a pretty clean break in backward compat. with Version 4. One reason is that LM has been quitely applying pressure and hinting to developers to use the new interfaces and the advantages of having more of the add ons work outside of P3d. Future aircraft are going to be more like we see from A2A and some of the others who have evolved with the tech. This expected progression may very well be one of the reasons that Real Air picked this time to pull the plug. 

 

Given the fact that we are not seeing much progress these days for faster processors like in recent years, this operating outside the main Prepar3d program may make a lot of sense. I would not be surprised to see future add ons being designed to run on a seperate computers and feeding data via the network as the norm for Prepar3d. Actually Flight 1 tech already uses that set up for their processional simulator. Home cockpit guys have been hacking this kid of stuff together for years. 

 

We may have reached the point that we have to stop trying to stuff 10 pounds of po-po into a 5 pound bag.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, a large component of 'real feel' is also the hardware you are using. Flying an A2A C172 (or any other quality aicraft) using Saitek's crappy yoke vs flying the same aircraft with a Cirrus/PFC yoke is almost the same as flying two completely different aircraft models. Don't underestimate the significant difference that good hardware can have on your perception of a 'flight model' .

 

I know that is not quite what you were getting at Bob, but I thought I'd put that in there.

 

My friend with X plane had a yoke that he paid around $400 ( way more than I have invested in my controller, which is pretty realistic) .$ 400  yoke should have been good enough. How much would one have to pay to make a 172 in X plane fly like a real 172, $1,000-, 2,000 or more...?  Just curious.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this