1 hour ago, Anders Gron said:

Well... we'll see how big a deal it is to 'convert' addons from 32-bit to 64-bit.

 

well Carenado have managed to do it for FSW,

If they can do it I am sure all the other devs will be fine.

1 hour ago, KenG said:

Having been on the military procurement side and visiting LM I can assure you that they are fully capable of operating many, many projects at the same time. In fact, project teams don't even know what other teams are working on. I was asked to look at an aircraft, I asked about simulation training for the new aircraft and the aircraft team did not even know LM had a simulation branch. 

The ESP  code was purchased by LM to allow a jump-start into the lower end (non motion) of the military simulation market. By now, just based on my watching readily available YouTube  videos, I've concluded that LM has translated that technology into a variety of battlefield and other tactical simulators.

My point was not that LM can't  handle multiple  similar projects. Far from it. My point was that they have  more important  related projects that generate far more income. P3d is what we used to call a "hobby project". It is never going to be a big money maker, but the employees enjoy working on it and it also has good PR value. The latter factor is often worth a lot more to a big company than can be directly measured in profit.

22 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

P3d is what we used to call a "hobby project"

No,its an integral part of the product lineup, a 3D training environment..

29 minutes ago, Glynn said:

well Carenado have managed to do it for FSW,

If they can do it I am sure all the other devs will be fine.

True. But let's be honest. Carenado isn't the same league complexity wise as neither PMDG, FSLabs or Aerosoft. Besides, Carenado doesn't rely on external modules in order to function.

54 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The ESP  code was purchased by LM to allow a jump-start into the lower end (non motion) of the military simulation market. By now, just based on my watching readily available YouTube  videos, I've concluded that LM has translated that technology into a variety of battlefield and other tactical simulators.

My point was not that LM can't  handle multiple  similar projects. Far from it. My point was that they have  more important  related projects that generate far more income. P3d is what we used to call a "hobby project". It is never going to be a big money maker, but the employees enjoy working on it and it also has good PR value. The latter factor is often worth a lot more to a big company than can be directly measured in profit.

I can assure you that LM has far more sophisticated simulation projects that are in the nonmotion class for the military. I have seen and use them. I am not saying that P3D is not somehow related to these products or that these products may or may not be in the process or have already been improved with technology from P3D, but these products were around before LM got into the P3D business. If you somehow think that all of LM's nonmotion simulation is the P3D team you are misinformed. 

I like their approach. No false promises, no missed deadlines... it will indeed be there when it's there.

developers dont talk to each other now, let alone when this 64 bit comes out...

The fsl a320 was released with issues with activesky,

aerosoft dont bother to test their afcads with gsx

UK2000 scenery's didnt work with p3d 3.3  until 3.35 was brought out

Aerosoft Maderia wasnt tested properly with 3.35 and before so the taxiway signs dont work

PMDG havent fixed the 777 vas leak with the VHHH sids and stars but decided to work on the 744 v2

why do you think anything will change

2 hours ago, KenG said:

I can assure you that LM has far more sophisticated simulation projects that are in the nonmotion class for the military. I have seen and use them. I am not saying that P3D is not somehow related to these products or that these products may or may not be in the process or have already been improved with technology from P3D, but these products were around before LM got into the P3D business. If you somehow think that all of LM's nonmotion simulation is the P3D team you are misinformed. 

I can assure you that you didn't read my post carefully.

Here's what the FSC2017 site has to say about LM's presence:

FLIGHT SIMULATOR DEVELOPERS

Windsor Locks Ballroom

Panel Discussion

Join some of the flight simulation industry's most prominent developers for an interactive panel discussion on development priorities, future releases, and perspectives on where the at-home flight simulation industry will take us in the next few years.

Panelists include Stephen Hood and Aimee Sanjari of Dovetail Games, Rob McCarthy of Prepar3D, and Austin Meyer and Ben Supnik of X-Plane. The panel will be chaired by Nels Anderson of Flightsim.com.

 

Seems unlikely they wouldn't have something to say about v4 in a panel discussion about the future of simulation.

15 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

I also would like to know. Why even guess, we wont know till we know. I had hoped the website changes would have signaled an imminent release. 

These guys have been guessing for the past several years. Even if was true they would be in the same position as DTG (ALPHA) with lots of bugs.

8 hours ago, mwilk said:

Remember, if v4 is 64bit, most addons are going to have to be converted which will take some time.

I would hardly say most add-ons, don't see in fact any reason at all why scenery would require any type of conversion that has to do with 32/64 bits..

27 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

I would hardly say most add-ons, don't see in fact any reason at all why scenery would require any type of conversion that has to do with 32/64 bits..

I guess I was thinking in terms of weather, and aircraft addons. Even with incremental updates there is a lag time before patches come out to get everything working again.

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

No sense fixing something that isn't broken. 

With that reasoning the US Air Force would still be using P51 today.

1 hour ago, kakusso said:

With that reasoning the US Air Force would still be using P51 today.

Bad analogy, but nice try. 

 

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Bad analogy, but nice try. 

 

You give us a good one then