Flytampa, Flightbeam, FSDT and 29Palms future products to be P3D4 only

[DylanC 181]

Behind you 100%!

[Manny 1,293]

YES YES YES YES! I want not just airport, I want the entire airport eco system, autogens and crowded action sceneries around the airport....Cities etc...  No more black textures when I look away and come back.

The DD's New York is fantastic but totally messed up with textures going black.. I am guessing they are trying to save VAS here ? Not sure... 

 

:P 

[pmb 5,137]

A great decision. I've been on Prepar3d since 2012 (version 1.2) and always seen it as the future, despite it's been plagued by the diseases named above. 

Given these have been cured now - and adding the huge success Prepar3d4 seems to be from a glance through fora -  I am completely happy with this decision.

Moreover, I am happy to see there is potential for understanding between developers.

Kind regards, Michael

 

[anden145 2,285]

+1 for this decision. 

[Dillon 2,197]

Time for a new era to finally begin.

[Johnny19 344]

+1 also

comes after the painters of AI planes finally stopped painting AI planes for FS9. 

[Psybear 23]

Good decision. And yes, it is indeed wise to see at least some developers working toward mutual understanding and hopefully helping one another,

Clayton

 

[Captain Kevin 586]

2 hours ago, SaenchaySor said:

That souds surprising, because on my medium rig (i5 7400 with a geforce 1060 and 16 GB Ram) v4 acutally runs noticably smoother as v3. Same planes, same airports and even added visual settings. Until now this is what i thought is that others experienced too, from "listening" into the discussions in the community. Maybe i just understand wrong what you meant, sorry :-)

I'm not surprised since you don't really know the setup I have at all. At the present time, all I have is a laptop running an i7-6700HQ, GeForce GTX 960M with 16 gigabytes of RAM and a 1 terabyte hard drive. With that laptop having everything I own, including pictures, documents, and videos, and considering the fact that I shoot a lot of videos, there isn't really a whole lot of hard drive space left, and short of me using an external hard drive, there's no hope for me to get any additional hard drive space. Considering that I take this laptop everywhere I go, with the physical space I have available at my job, getting an external hard drive is not exactly convenient. I would prefer to be running P3D off a powerful desktop, which I would be leaving at home.

[markdf 84]

11 hours ago, Luis_KMIA said:

Makes sense.  Best wishes.  I also look forward to more clarifications, maybe sticky posts, listing which of your products have been updated and compiled with the 64-bit P3Dv4 SDK, versus just having updated installers.  

You realise that none of the base scenery provided by Lockheed Martin is compiled with anything newer than the FSX SDK (with *very* few exceptions), right?

These "v4 SDK" posts really don't mean much at all when it comes to graphical assets. A texture or model is neither 32 or 64 bit, and the actual decision of which tools are best to produce those assets isn't always that simple (which is why end users repeatedly asking about it isn't helpful to anyone)

It's possible to compile a model with the latest tools that runs like garbage in v4, and it's equally possible to have a model compiled with the FSX tools that runs flawlessly in v4.  How's about we just leave it to the experts to do their jobs rather than second guessing them?

[Sartanius 399]

I am thrilled to hear this!  Change is good!  My wife and I were talking tonight about how much music and media that carried it has changed in our lifetimes, from 8-track cartridges, to cassettes, to CDs and thumb drives, and now infinite streaming of every musical track ever made to our phones for micro-pennies on the dollar.  Amazing.

So, hitching a ride on Prepar3D is a wise choice, but it will still be bittersweet considering all FSX has meant to this crowd since 2006.  But, no looking back, onward and upward.  Thanks for laying the groundwork for others to follow!

[YukonPete 586]

Excellent! I hope other developers also leave the dead behind them

[madfred 5]

I don't think what is left behind will be "dead". Look at how many simmers are still enjoying FS2004!!

I do understand the decision made, and am pleased to see it being made by multiple developers in one statement.

We will all be going through similar experiences when FS2004 was followed up by FSX.
So I am sure FSX will still be used for years to come, (not everyone has the funds to purchase P3Dv4 or update their hardware to be able to run this new simulator.

Now I need to look in to finding funds to get P3Dv4 myself. (and FSUIPC to program my switches)

[Piotr007 164]

Bravo!

[anden145 2,285]

12 minutes ago, madfred said:

So I am sure FSX will still be used for years to come, (not everyone has the funds to purchase P3Dv4 or update their hardware to be able to run this new simulator.

I'm not sure I agree with you...

Quite frankly, I think the change will be more abrupt than the change from FS9 to FSX. Even more developers are following in these footsteps, since developing and not least supporting addons for ALL platforms, simply isn't feasible. Sticking with only 64-bit simulators, makes perfectly sense. All other simulators will get left behind quite quickly. Of course, there will always be people who enjoy FS95/FS98/FS200X and the legacy Prepar3D versions ... but all developers will not make new addons - and I think the change will happen very rapidly.

Of course there's addons which most likely won't be transfered to the new platform(s). One of these (of the top of my mind) is probably Aerosoft AES (AESLite got to work, but...)
So far, it haven't succeed the developer in making it work in Prepar3D - or even FSX:SE. As far as I know, there's some Vistamare module, which is developed by a person, who's abandoned the project or something like that... People who's depended (or has invested a substantial amount of $$$ in some addon, which is getting 'left behind' is most like not going to move to another platform. And IMO that's a fair choice... but it's a minority within a minority, and if they get left behind, that's their choice. It's a bit harsh, but that's reality we're dealing with...

Regarding hardware... a hardware upgrade to be able to run Prepar3D V4, isn't really necessary. If you are able to run FSX, then you will be able to run Prepar3D V4... Maybe not with all the bells and whistles, but there aren't such a large difference between them. The hardware need, isn't really a valid argument for not switching, IMO. 

I really, really hope, that more developers follow in the OP's footsteps and leave legacy 32-bit platforms behind very, very fast! Can't happen soon enough, in my personal opinion. I can really understand the frustration from the developers who's putting all their efforts in making a fantastic scenery or aircraft, only to have it stripped down, in order to make it fit into an old simulator. 
IMO we'll end up in two scenarios... either developers completely stop developing for legacy platforms and focus solely on the new and from there make addons which utilize all the new features which Prepar3D V4 has to offer. Or they continue to support and develop three or more platforms, each with their own SDK and process... That could only mean that addons would have to suffer in order to make portability between the platforms as easy for the developers as possible. 

I surely know, which scenario I hope for personally! 

Now - a disclaimer! The above and my posts, are purely my own and personal opinion! 

[zmak 331]

22 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

I'm not sure I agree with you...

Quite frankly, I think the change will be more abrupt than the change from FS9 to FSX. Even more developers are following in these footsteps, since developing and not least supporting addons for ALL platforms, simply isn't feasible. Sticking with only 64-bit simulators, makes perfectly sense. All other simulators will get left behind quite quickly. Of course, there will always be people who enjoy FS95/FS98/FS200X and the legacy Prepar3D versions ... but all developers will not make new addons - and I think the change will happen very rapidly.

Of course there's addons which most likely won't be transfered to the new platform(s). One of these (of the top of my mind) is probably Aerosoft AES (AESLite got to work, but...)
So far, it haven't succeed the developer in making it work in Prepar3D - or even FSX:SE. As far as I know, there's some Vistamare module, which is developed by a person, who's abandoned the project or something like that... People who's depended (or has invested a substantial amount of $$$ in some addon, which is getting 'left behind' is most like not going to move to another platform. And IMO that's a fair choice... but it's a minority within a minority, and if they get left behind, that's their choice. It's a bit harsh, but that's reality we're dealing with...

Regarding hardware... a hardware upgrade to be able to run Prepar3D V4, isn't really necessary. If you are able to run FSX, then you will be able to run Prepar3D V4... Maybe not with all the bells and whistles, but there aren't such a large difference between them. The hardware need, isn't really a valid argument for not switching, IMO. 

I really, really hope, that more developers follow in the OP's footsteps and leave legacy 32-bit platforms behind very, very fast! Can't happen soon enough, in my personal opinion. I can really understand the frustration from the developers who's putting all their efforts in making a fantastic scenery or aircraft, only to have it stripped down, in order to make it fit into an old simulator. 
IMO we'll end up in two scenarios... either developers completely stop developing for legacy platforms and focus solely on the new and from there make addons which utilize all the new features which Prepar3D V4 has to offer. Or they continue to support and develop three or more platforms, each with their own SDK and process... That could only mean that addons would have to suffer in order to make portability between the platforms as easy for the developers as possible. 

I surely know, which scenario I hope for personally! 

Now - a disclaimer! The above and my posts, are purely my own and personal opinion! 

It's going to come down to one thing for both developers and simmers and that's... MONEY 

No way can all developers have the funds to stop producing for fsx and the same can be said for  simmers who  don't have the funds to re purchase several hundred dollars of software and a pc upgrade to switch to v4

Can't say I agree with a non hardware upgrade. There are just way to many posts with guys on 1080 ti having problems with v4

The next 2 years will be very interesting and good to see flight simming is moving forward, for a while there a few years back it was looking pretty grim