Midnight Music

Valuable P3D advice, must read.

Recommended Posts

We'll get there eventually, I think most content providers understand that they'll have to drop some platforms (i.e. FSX/FSX-SE, V2, V3) in order to survive and help end users understand why they want to use V4 and not FSX/FSX-SE, V2, and V3.  There will be some choppy waters ahead, but it's time, for the greater good and we need to drop the ball and chain.  Developers will be fully aware that means losing some customers, but the reduction in support costs can easily outweigh the loss of customers.

Are any developers gonna go back and redo ALL their FSX, V2 or V3 airports and make them 100% compiled with V4 SDK?,  NO, there is NO money in that unless they charge customers for it ... it's not just a matter of re-compile using the V4 SDK and call it done, they'll need to revisit 3DSMax and plug-in for it and do some re-working just to get to an "existing" working state, then they'll need to think about using the new features of the P3D V4 SDK to enhance their content.

I think the more likely scenario is they'll continue working on their new list of products and hopefully compile them with the V4 SDK and utilize V4 features, then (big maybe) they'll revisit older products and maybe release (for small update cost) a V2 (or V3 or V4 or rebooted or ...).  For some of the much older stuff, the source may not even be available and long gone and we'll just have to live without or hope another developer picks it up.

But to be clear, the workflow for doing V4 content IS different (in a positive way).

Cheers, Rob.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

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

I'm just wanting to take a bit of exception to the characterization of the "need" to drop the "ball and chain" and everyone move to v4 "for the greater good."  I don't think there need be any choppy waters.  

As an end user, I have no interest in v4.  It is certainly reasonable for developers to stop developing or supporting FSX products, since that platform is dead.  But to drop support for v3 seems a bit drastic.  If you're only meaning to suggest that new products developed for v4 may not be backwards compatible, then, sure.  That's understandable too.  But I'm not going to buy v4, and no amount of developer "help" is going to get me to.  I certainly want and expect continued support for the v3 products I have bought.

Share this post

Link to post
14 hours ago, Griphos said:

 I don't think there need be any choppy waters.

Turbulent Designs are committing to V4 and XP11 (0:20 min to 0:45 in video below) only  ... it's my understanding from other sources this is going to be a common approach for many 3rd party content providers moving forward.  V3 projects already started will get completed, but future projects will be V4 or XP11.  Yes, there will be some fallout from this and content providers are well aware of that.  Of course, this doesn't mean ALL content providers ... just have to wait and see how many follow suit. 

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61O1IhxLq5o

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post

Link to post

Turbulent and flytampa (and others if the whispers are true) are clearly deciding that new products will be developed on v4 and / xp11. 

Of course, v3 products will still get support but new products will be for the two platforms mentioned.

its upto the user to decide which sim and product availability they are comfortable with. It's all very well saying "I have no need for v4" well, that's fine as long as you are comfortable with what v3 has available going forward 

Share this post

Link to post

Well, since I'm pretty much solely a XP11 user lately, I'm fine with this development too.  :-)

And I'm completely comfortable with what I have in v3.  More than I need, that's for sure.  Plenty to entertain me whenever I crank it up again.  

Share this post

Link to post
On 6/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Henry Street said:

As it has been said "Ignorance is bliss".

Yees Ignorance is bliss.

P3DV3 is a 32 bit program strangely it does run on a 64  bit Windows operating system. 32 bit programs can run on 64 bit.

Most of the xplane 32 bit programs  changed over with little problem when it changed to 64 bit.




Share this post

Link to post

meh,  most of the scaremongering about this is over the top, honestly.  By all means, if you want to accept what was written in the original article without question,  have fun flying over your default scenery for the next few years   oh, wait, the majority of the default scenery wasn't compiled p3d4 native either...   I personally think that Mr. Randazzo's team does an excellent job obviously at developing the best Boeing sims in the business without peer, and other than the outrageous upgrade pricing on the rollout of the p3d the other year, I've never had a beef with them.  I also keep my AA settings down and I haven't had terrible issues with dynamic lighting at any airport, and I don't own any that have been compiled with p3dv4 to my knowledge.

Also I won't advocate anybody doing anything they feel uncomfortable with.  I LIKE the challenge of making my stuff work on the new sim, I am quite happy to break my installation and fix it again, it's part of the fun for me, I like to tinker.  you CAN screw up your install if you don't know what you are doing, and cause yourself some hassles, so if that doesn't sound like fun to you, don't do it.  Also the post in question makes some other great points and should be required reading, although I have personally violated every one of his rules, and the only time in 2 weeks with p3dv4 I had a crash was when I installed a product that I knew wasn't going to work, just to see what it did.  The only thing that actually needs changed with 64bit are exe files and .dlls.   Scenery bgl's, textures and models are just data, and data can be read by either 32 or 64 bit executables.  so, unless it's a plane with non-xml guages, an extension of the functionality of the sim, or contains anti-piracy DRM code.  most of this stuff is just going to work like it did before.

But let's address one elephant in the room,  dynamic lighting is a performance intensive feature, and if you want to use PMDG's aircraft, you can't turn it off.  (I mean you CAN, but then you have no lights) they do not provide non dynamic lighting for the landing or taxi lights.  Every other plane in my arsenal does. (and dynamic lights look good for planes that were never designed for it too!)  I'm not sure the reason for this. I think their support guys in the forum are saying it's not possible,  which I doubt, but it may very well be not possible to now provide decent looking non-dynamic lights, so fair enough.  It may be in fact very cynical of me, but I'm not sure the motive of this was to help simmers with their future installation problems, I'm pretty sure it was to offload some of the support requests that were going to be coming from the switch to dynamic lighting only.

This article was published, and now every scenery developer under the sun is being hounded by simmers over their sdk usage.  These are guys who know their craft every bit as well as PMDG know theirs, and now there is impression, created by someone who isn't a scenery developer, that nothing other than pure p3dv4 should be allowed on their installs.  this isn't true.  this has been fairly handily debunked by the best developers already, particularly with respect to the dynamic lighting issues, and even with the newest techniques you are going to have frames dropping if dynamic lights have to illuminate a very high detail airport with lots of high polygon objects and terrain in it.  it's just computing reality.  It should be noted, after a good natured exchange with Mir of flightbeam, Mr. Randazzo clarified his position a bit for simmers just to use their heads, and choose products from quality developers who know what they are doing.  sage advice, and reasonable.  but it is on page 9 of the original thread, not at the top, where it still says only 100% sdk compliance is acceptable.   So, yes.  maybe don't install that dodgy scenery, and maybe don't run every installer you own through the migration tool,  but perhaps instead of badgering Fly Tampa, fsdt, flightbeam, orbx and imaginesim and the other good scenery developers why they have bgls compiled in fs2004 (there are some, and there's a reason) maybe try to find the settings that allow your sim to look decent, and maintain performance in the new environment.  like we've had to do for every version of the sim before this one.

At least we don't have OOM's any more!


  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post

My initial plan was to get rid of FSX:SE once I got my hands on P3Dv4. Out with the old, In with the new. After reading this article on PMDG's forum I decided not to do so and hold onto old faithful for a few more months(maybe one more year). As great as the new platform is, at the moment a lot is unclear and for people like me who aren't as well versed with the intricacies of a flight sim, best not to mess around with files and what not. P3Dv4 is my first version of P3D so I have no plans of breaking it on the first weekend.  

So far I have a few add-on airports and one aircraft which I have had to uninstall moments after I installed it (at least it was a simple task). Many add-on devs need to be a bit clearer with their customers when releasing "v4" updates for their products and let us know if this is a truly v4 ready product following official installation guidelines or just a quick fix so it will work in the new sim platform. I have said this before...this industry needs to take simplicity seriously if we want to see more people take an interest in flight simulation. One developer has posted a bunch of zip folder for its customers to add to their install then you have to go find the installed product and delete a bunch of files from a folder inside the product you just installed (Oh I forgot, you might have to activate certain options in a config library thingy before deleting files). That is NOT simplicity and think of what it may look like to a potential new simmer. Another dev of some very popular add-ons simply posted on there Facebook page that there most recent release "works just fine." No instructions as to how to get it to work and no word on there official website or forums explaining to customers if they even have a plan for v4. It's all very confusing and it will probably get worse after a few updates from Lockheed Martin and stuff we thought was v4 ready start causing problems inside the sim.

Luckily a few devs have followed proper protocol and have released products that are actually v4 ready. Some are even kind enough to write articles such as the one featured in this thread to help the community get a better, less stressful experience from the new sim platform. To ALL the developers who decided to do things the proper way and make life "simpler" for their customer...THANK YOU. ☺

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