xender

What about virtual cabins??

Recommended Posts

Hi guys!

Now that we have a 64 bits simulator and vas is not an issue anymore, can you maybe consider modelling some part of the virtual cabin in your future aircrafts?? In the DC-6 cargo plane for example in the middle of the flight i wish to be able to walk back there to check if those chickens are ok. Also in the 747F i wish to go to the crew rest area to make a coffee, or go downstairs to see if those ferraris are strapped :biggrin:.

Maybe not the entire cabin, maybe only some part of it. In some 747's maybe the first class cabin, or the crew rest area etc?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Juan, if they did any of that then they would get complaints about the chickens being too close to the foxes.  I'd prefer PMDG stick to making a flight simulator for pilots.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

Just because we're not limited to 4gb anymore doesn't mean we should fill it up just for the sake of it.

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people buying PMDG's planes are doing so for the detail in the systems and flight model and would rather the development time (and RAM/CPU) be focused on improving the detail and performance there.

I know personally if I wanted to experience a cramped passenger cabin I could get that for £9.99 from Ryanair rather than £100+ for PMDG :laugh:

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

Juan,

We were going in that direction until VAS became an issue. I remember working toilets in at least one plane. Like I said plenty of times before FS9 or even FS2002 should have been 64 bit; we'd be so much better off by now. Now that 64 bit has finally arrived, all kinds of innovation to immerse and approach reality will come. 

Don't worry, there will be detailed cabins whether people like them or not. Even being able to manually load luggage/cargo will come someday. The PMGD J41 has passengers, that feature will eventually return. DTG just added them to FSW (external view only). A2A Cub went there with success. 

Now that we have the head room, it IS going to fill up no matter what anybody says. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, pracines said:

Juan,

We were going in that direction until VAS became an issue. I remember working toilets in at least one plane. Like I said plenty of times before FS9 or even FS2002 should have been 64 bit; we'd be so much better off by now. Now that 64 bit has finally arrived, all kinds of innovation to immerse and approach reality will come. 

Don't worry, there will be detailed cabins whether people like them or not. Even being able to manually load luggage/cargo will come someday. The PMGD J41 has passengers, that feature will eventually return. DTG just added them to FSW (external view only). A2A Cub went there with success. 

Now that we have the head room, it IS going to fill up no matter what anybody says. 

Except we don't yet have that headroom.  Yes we have access to more RAM, but that is not going to magically make CPUs process faster, or graphics cards handle more complex models.  That is all some way off, even the top of the line CPUs and GPUs are only just providing acceptable framerates (and still struggling at large airports with traffic) with the level of detail being pushed in current products - so how do you expect all these things to produce anywhere near decent performance for those of you who don't have the money to buy the top tier equipment?

VAS was not the sole reason those things slipped out of fashion. Even given enough memory the performance just wasn't there when the VC models started to approach modern standards.  Sure, if we stayed at FS9 polygon counts you could have full cabins, but developers made the sensible decision to prioritise the things that matter during a flight, and that isn't likely to change until the majority of customers can maintain a smooth, high framerate with what is being modelled already on mid-range hardware.

Despite what you seem to think, 64 bit is not a magic bullet that means you can just throw as much as you want at the sim with no penalty, it's just one piece of a very large puzzle - we're still a long way away from where you think we are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quite frankly, I am upset PMDG modeled anything more than the inside of the cockpit. It's really impacting the performance, of what could be the awesome simulation. Then again, some folks prefer candy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, markdf said:

Except we don't yet have that headroom.  Yes we have access to more RAM, but that is not going to magically make CPUs process faster, or graphics cards handle more complex models.  That is all some way off, even the top of the line CPUs and GPUs are only just providing acceptable framerates (and still struggling at large airports with traffic) with the level of detail being pushed in current products - so how do you expect all these things to produce anywhere near decent performance for those of you who don't have the money to buy the top tier equipment?

VAS was not the sole reason those things slipped out of fashion. Even given enough memory the performance just wasn't there when the VC models started to approach modern standards.  Sure, if we stayed at FS9 polygon counts you could have full cabins, but developers made the sensible decision to prioritise the things that matter during a flight, and that isn't likely to change until the majority of customers can maintain a smooth, high framerate with what is being modelled already on mid-range hardware.

Despite what you seem to think, 64 bit is not a magic bullet that means you can just throw as much as you want at the sim with no penalty, it's just one piece of a very large puzzle - we're still a long way away from where you think we are.

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

-We don't need speed trees, but we now have them.

-We don't need object flow, but its very much wanted. 

-We don't need GSX, but its immensely popular.

-We Don't need FS2Crew, but it is currently missed sorely by P3Dv4 users.

I can go on and on and on...

Have you seen the popularity of Orbx airport sceneries with people walking around and grass?

How about the AI that actually load the cargo/luggage in GSX and the AI fuel trucks that actually have a working meter.

What about the dolphins and birds FSX has animated, is that so bad to have?

Well there will be an abundance of these things and much more, because we have developers that want to develop marvels far beyond what we have imagined. 

THINK BIG Mark, not small, but if you want perfect smooth no less than 60 or 120 FPS, fly in FS9.  :biggrin:

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yes! That's my point, just like @pracines says. If possible i want the entire plane modelled. Being able to climb the stairs and walk to that airplane, go inside and see the cargo pallets there.. that's magical. So much beauty in there.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pracines said:

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

-We don't need speed trees, but we now have them.

-We don't need object flow, but its very much wanted. 

-We don't need GSX, but its immensely popular.

-We Don't need FS2Crew, but it is currently missed sorely by P3Dv4 users.

I can go on and on and on...

Have you seen the popularity of Orbx airport sceneries with people walking around and grass?

How about the AI that actually load the cargo/luggage in GSX and the AI fuel trucks that actually have a working meter.

What about the dolphins and birds FSX has animated, is that so bad to have?

Well there will be an abundance of these things and much more, because we have developers that want to develop marvels far beyond what we have imagined. 

THINK BIG Mark, not small, but if you want perfect smooth no less than 60 or 120 FPS, fly in FS9.  :biggrin:

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

My point is that there is still a lot to be done to deliver acceptable performance on the things that actually matter, before they start reducing frame rates further.

64 bit clearly does not mean what you think it means, and I can assure you that when it comes to GPU and CPU development that flight simulation is barely a footnote on the budget - NOTHING PMDG do or don't add will have the slightest effect on how far Intel push their chips, or NVIDIA push their graphics card R&D, in fact those roadmaps are set YEARS ahead of time. This has got nothing to do with "sympathy", but everything to do with the fact that this is a business.  If your product runs badly, people won't buy it. If people don't buy it you don't get paid.  So what do you think they're going to focus on first, the core functionality of their product, or eye candy with no functional value to the product? Flight simulation is already a niche market, customer satisfaction matters.

In response to your examples:

ORBX - Do nothing but scenery, making pretty scenery is their only objective. Their only aircraft were not made in house.

FS2Crew again focus on one specific thing and doing that thing well.

GSX - Part of FSDreamTeam, who again focus solely on scenery and graphical touches.

All of those developers focus on the core of their main product and doing a good job of that. You don't see FS2Crew producing airports, or FSDreamTeam making sound packs. They survive and make profit by making their core product their only priority. I do think big, the only difference seems to be that I'm still in touch with the reality of the situation rather than just the hype.

But please, continue lecturing me about the nature of the industry I work in, I could use some more entertainment.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Some day, probably after I'm long dead, there will be a flight simulator for the home user that will be, first and foremost, an EARTH SIMULATOR with an aircraft moving about in it.  Realistic traffic, people, weather, air traffic control, physics, you name it....it would look so good visually you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the simulation and real film.  The passenger load would always be different and the people in the cabin would have real personalities you could interact with.  Maybe even a "disruption" slider you could adjust so you could have the privilege of occasionally returning to the base airport as some drunktard gets duck taped to his seat....the possibilities are endless.  We'll know we're there when the toilets in the plane swirl in the opposite direction South of the Equator.

The order of things that get modeled as we try to get there....is what we're really talking about.

For now, I'd say keeping frame rates high during landings is one of the most important aspects to me personally.

Mark Trainer

(Started on the Commodore 64 SubLogic II Simulator ~ 2 Frames Per Second)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest.... the "interior" of the exterior model (I am sure you know what I mean), which is present on the 737,747 and 777 (can't say about the DC-6, haven't got that yet, but I would be surprised if not) are just as good, if not better, than most virtual cabins in the FS2002/FS2004 days. One can easily roam within with something like chaseplane. So that's a start I would say, until developers find a less time consuming and more performance friendly way to get a more detailed Virtual Cabin attached to the Virtual Cockpit.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, OSJJ1985 said:

To be honest.... the "interior" of the exterior model (I am sure you know what I mean), which is present on the 737,747 and 777 (can't say about the DC-6, haven't got that yet, but I would be surprised if not) are just as good, if not better, than most virtual cabins in the FS2002/FS2004 days. One can easily roam within with something like chaseplane. So that's a start I would say, until developers find a less time consuming and more performance friendly way to get a more detailed Virtual Cabin attached to the Virtual Cockpit.

I already think that's too much. I hate everytime I switch to an exterior view that is the first thing I see while the rest of the model loads. 

Share this post


Link to post

The VAS limit has been essentially removed.

Do not forget, however, that rendering still takes time. So, to render an entire cabin, and all of the seats, and textures, and all of that lovely stuff is nice in theory, but for the vast majority of the time, entirely worthless, while still dragging down performance (yes, even when you're not looking at it).

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

The VAS limit has been essentially removed.

Do not forget, however, that rendering still takes time. So, to render an entire cabin, and all of the seats, and textures, and all of that lovely stuff is nice in theory, but for the vast majority of the time, entirely worthless, while still dragging down performance (yes, even when you're not looking at it).

Absolutely!

I held my tongue on this and a few other posts of this nature, which we knew would come along with the VAS limit breach.  It's just that a lot of folks aren't all that savvy on what it takes to perform all the calculations necessary for flight sim and to render graphics, so we'll be seeing these posts from now until eternity asking for all sorts of things.  Not their fault though, nor do I mean to imply they are somehow lesser flight simmers because they don't understand. They are just interested in turning on the computer and having it go.

Regarding the smaller aircraft mentioned above... yeah, because they're smaller aircraft (thus not as many polys, textures being laid, etc.

We have people who want to see cabins (although I have actually made an effort I just don't understand that, but each to his own) and those who don't.  I'm firmly in the latter camp as I run all large payware airports with high-end payware aircraft and I'd prefer not to have any of my system resources taken up by things I'm never going to look at. That said, I can also remove those textures if they exist, and it's not difficult for the developer to add a selection to the config file to turn them on or off - but then again what do we want devs working on?  New aircraft, systems and updates or features that a select few want?  Maybe a small addon for a small price to add cabins?  I dunno, According to my wife I'm wrong about everything, so I'm likely wrong about all this!  LOL!!!

Best wishs to everyone!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pracines said:

Mark I understand your position and,

I totally disagree with you, and I know you are wrong about most of what you claim to be true. Your idea of keeping things simple until hardware catches up is what will keep hardware slow. The software industry needs to drive the hardware industry or we stay at around 5ghz. But if we finally make 5Ghz old, and the software created requires 10Ghz, then 20Ghz will eventually come. Your way leads to or keeps us in stagnation. Innovation is the "magic", 64-bit makes that "magic" feasible. It is up to us individuals to keep up with the hardware required, if one cant keep up because of personal budgets, that is their problem. This is a technologically advanced industry and one must expect to keep up at least somewhat. The reason its ok to not have sympathy is because there is always older versions available to fly in.         

.....

For those who have old PC's and cannot afford new PC's, please do not make that anybody else's problem by promoting more stagnation for the whole flight sim industry.

64-Bit is here, PMDG developers are excited, we all should be excited.

we're stuck on 5 ghz because of the laws of physics, not because the hardware is not being pushed hard enough by the software.   operating a processor above 5 ghz generates enormous levels of heat, and it becomes impossible to cool effectively at a certain point, and the only currently available means of technological advancement, which is making the physical components of processors smaller in order to shorten the distances that the signals travel inside the processor only results in very small incremental improvements in speed, not the enormous ones we had before the wall was hit.  There is no magic.  this is science.  When we have working quantum computing, get back to me.

 

second point:  people not being able to afford monster pc's is the developers problem.  if most can't run the software, most won't buy the software, and if most won't buy the software, devs go out of business.  a few power rig guys can't keep the market going by themselves.

 

So, sure, we should push the envelope some.  but we need to do it for items that make a difference to what we are accomplishing.  a cabin would only be useful if there was some sort of multiplayer social feature where folks could be passengers on a flight flown by others (which would be cool, up to a point)  But if you have a choice between this and something that actually affected the pilot's job.. say precipitation effects of the windshield, we should go for those things first.

 

Shawn Gray

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, icemarkom said:

Quite frankly, I am upset PMDG modeled anything more than the inside of the cockpit. It's really impacting the performance, of what could be the awesome simulation. Then again, some folks prefer candy.

Yes, that's exactly why simulators continue to evolve into their future versions... :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I fully understand that there are always "current limits" to innovation, but surly we all understand that somebody will think of something to do what must be done to accomplish what seems to be impossible. But in the nature of the OP, to dream big is not a sin, and we will only get to 20Ghz and beyond by pressing on, not by saying "we can't". Ok, 20Ghz is not here today, but is it ok to press toward 20Ghz or even 99Ghz? Look at 3-D printing - who would have thought that possible 20 or even 10 years ago? Liquid nitrogen cooling may be a norm for graphics cards for all we know. 

While innovation sneaks up and storms the world in many other industries, we tend to stifle it (so-to-speak) here for the sake of FPS and backward compatibility....I hope this tendency has come to an end now that we have finally crossed that 64-bit "milestone". Yes it is a big deal, more of a big deal than we currently are aware of.   

Just look at what PMDG has done with the 747-400 and how they have crammed so much into this product since it was on the drawing table. Now at version 3, and it seems not much else can be thought of w/o bringing the latest PC's to a crawl. So, does this mean PMDG ends development? May it never be! I wonder what the 737 will look like in 10 years.  

I know PMDG will push the limits because they always have, they are not alone. Also, Intel and NVidia will once again begin to pay attention to the flight sim industry because the flight sim industry is back in business. :happy:

Lets not be a community that silences people who think/dream big, this is the driving force of humanity, and its so natural in flight simulation too. :biggrin: 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody is silencing anybody, we're just trying to point out that 64 bit doesn't mean that there's an infinite amount of resources suddenly available.

Those of us who can afford to buy the top end gear each generation aren't the ones who set the pace, it's the mid-tier users that make up the largest part of the customers - and that means that there's a reasonable limit to what can be pushed out at any given time, and given that PMDG have to make rational decisions about how best to use those resources to please the maximum amount of people (and therefore make the largest amount of profit.)  Eye candy is therefore always going to take a back seat to improving the performance and making the simulation more accurate - that doesn't mean that no time should get spent on adding more prettiness, only that the the eye candy shouldn't hold back the simulation side of things (or move it out of the reach of a large portion of the end users)

The stifling you say is in the name of FPS and backwards compatibility is more accurately described as "making sure your customers can actually use your product."  Again, you really over estimate what 64-bit actually means. (and believe me, I'd wager I'm substantially more aware of what it means from the programming side)  It removes OOM as a concern but actually does very little for actual performance, save for maybe a couple of percent due to the removal of the WoW64 layer - the underlying engine is still the same one, with all the same performance and optimisation issues, and if you won't take that from me - then take it from Kyle several posts above this one.

Of course, if you actually think that even now Intel or NVIDIA factor this genre into anything then you're seriously deluding yourself. Even if you bundle the customers of EVERY current flight simulation platform together, they still account for an insignificant percentage of their customers. For starters we go directly against Intel's current product strategy of pushing higher core counts rather than higher clock speeds - in their eyes, we're likely to buy less chips, not more due to our reliance on single threaded performance.

Simulation is an area in which PMDG can innovate on their own very well, whereas graphical upgrades and rendering performance is dependant not only on hardware manufacturers, but also on Lockheed Martin to actually improve the renderer and implement thing such as better multi-core support in order to make the things you want possible.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering the simmers I see around here are usually well off financially and spend heaps on very capable PCs and also having rebuild their entire simulation experience around P3D, which easily costs hundreds to thousands of any given currency, I think more eye candy is not a problem of computing power available. 

Let's be honest in saying that FSX and P3D as well are ages behind on the visual fidelity scale. While the CPU is still choking on limited multi-threading support even as we approach the 5 GHz mark, GPUs are for the most part still not anywhere near their maximum capacity, even with DX11 support. There are nearly no advanced rendering techniques being used. Everything is more or less basic.

The real limiting factors are: a) simulation engine and b) developer work hours.

PMDG aircraft take long enough from inception to release as it is. With a fleshed out cabin and a host of Vanity Fair-level flight attendents in the back, it would take even longer. I would rather not have to endure the additional waiting time and added complexity for very little real gain. 

This is an area where I see 3rd party devs stepping in. If the simulator and the aircraft modelling are modular enough, maybe someone else could develop a "passenger simulator" for those who want it. 

What I would support is more crew/passenger interaction on the flight deck. Something along the lines of FS2Crew, but less static and a real crew moving around the cockpit. Something that actually happens while sitting in the left seat in an airliner. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Mark, I apologize if I'm seeing your response to Juan the wrong way, and I ask you to bare with my inability to comprehend what your response to Juan was trying to accomplish. But nobody said this has to happen by next month. I don't see anything in Juan's post or mine about how fast this needs to happen. So why would you insinuate that Juan or I think that this must suddenly happen? 

You respond to Juan and me as if we are demanding this NOW and you have no basis for that. On the other hand:

PMGD does "eye candy" whether anybody likes it or not, just look at the automated 1:30 turnaround process built into the 747v3. So what Juan asked is not totally off base. Some 3rd party will eventually get around to it, and the performance hit will be negligible, all the while, it will be an option for those who wish to implement such detail.

Concerning things that matter, yes performance matters, but PMDG and other developers can multitask, this is proven over and over. Your response to Juan could have been something like 'as long as performance levels are taken into consideration' or 'hopefully the next generation of CPU's can accommodate the many new feature requests to come' 

In other words lets welcome bigger and better. Realism is the concept, and it thrives in the flight sim industry. Being a pilot is much more than just flying the plane. The sense of responsibility and the sense of being there matters in a simulation. If these things do not matter to some, there is always older versions available.

I maintain that 64-bit in our community (specifically and currently P3Dv4) is much bigger than you think it is. Hardware will keep up, software will continue to be customized (sliders/settings/options), and developers will continue to push the boundaries. 

Come on, lets encourage PMDG and others to press on to the point of simulating the "meeting with a dispatcher" point of the flight....its coming whether we like it or not.:biggrin:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, pracines said:

Mark, I apologize if I'm seeing your response to Juan the wrong way, and I ask you to bare with my inability to comprehend what your response to Juan was trying to accomplish. But nobody said this has to happen by next month. I don't see anything in Juan's post or mine about how fast this needs to happen. So why would you insinuate that Juan or I think that this must suddenly happen? 

You respond to Juan and me as if we are demanding this NOW and you have no basis for that. On the other hand:

PMGD does "eye candy" whether anybody likes it or not, just look at the automated 1:30 turnaround process built into the 747v3. So what Juan asked is not totally off base. Some 3rd party will eventually get around to it, and the performance hit will be negligible, all the while, it will be an option for those who wish to implement such detail.

Concerning things that matter, yes performance matters, but PMDG and other developers can multitask, this is proven over and over. Your response to Juan could have been something like 'as long as performance levels are taken into consideration' or 'hopefully the next generation of CPU's can accommodate the many new feature requests to come' 

In other words lets welcome bigger and better. Realism is the concept, and it thrives in the flight sim industry. Being a pilot is much more than just flying the plane. The sense of responsibility and the sense of being there matters in a simulation. If these things do not matter to some, there is always older versions available.

I maintain that 64-bit in our community (specifically and currently P3Dv4) is much bigger than you think it is. Hardware will keep up, software will continue to be customized (sliders/settings/options), and developers will continue to push the boundaries. 

Come on, lets encourage PMDG and others to press on to the point of simulating the "meeting with a dispatcher" point of the flight....its coming whether we like it or not.:biggrin:

I'm saying it's not feasible in the foreseeable future unless you're willing to sacrifice depth of simulation - as Kyle himself has also said, and if you won't take it from him then this is probably a pretty pointless debate. We are still very much CPU bound, and nothing on Intel's current (public) roadmap shows anything to support the conclusion that we're going to see a big performance boost anytime soon (for our use case.)

As for PMDG multitasking - Think how long their development process already takes from conception to release, what are you willing to sacrifice in order to implement these extras? Or how much more are you willing to pay to cover their extra development time? You're repeatedly going on about moving forward even if people can't keep up, but you still seem oblivious to how little sense that makes to a business - any customer who stays behind on an older version is a customer not earning you any revenue, therefore any company that plans on staying in business will target their products to be usable by the maximum number of people at the time of release.

If you'd rather have extra eye candy rather than that time being spent on the actual product accuracy/performance then I can think of several other developers that you might be better suited for. Features = time = money

You keep telling me that I don't understand how big and important 64 bit is - perhaps you'd like to share your background in software development and provide some basis for that claim? Otherwise as I said at the beginning of this post, Kyle (a PMDG staff member) has given the exact same response about it not being worth the performance hit - and I can assure you he knows exactly what he's talking about.(Whether you like it or not, as you're so fond of saying)

 

It's not PMDG that need encouraging. Lockheed Martin would need to make serious engine improvements to make it ever work acceptably

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, markdf said:

My point is that there is still a lot to be done to deliver acceptable performance on the things that actually matter, before they start reducing frame rates further.

64 bit clearly does not mean what you think it means, and I can assure you that when it comes to GPU and CPU development that flight simulation is barely a footnote on the budget - NOTHING PMDG do or don't add will have the slightest effect on how far Intel push their chips, or NVIDIA push their graphics card R&D, in fact those roadmaps are set YEARS ahead of time. This has got nothing to do with "sympathy", but everything to do with the fact that this is a business.  If your product runs badly, people won't buy it. If people don't buy it you don't get paid.  So what do you think they're going to focus on first, the core functionality of their product, or eye candy with no functional value to the product? Flight simulation is already a niche market, customer satisfaction matters.

In response to your examples:

ORBX - Do nothing but scenery, making pretty scenery is their only objective. Their only aircraft were not made in house.

FS2Crew again focus on one specific thing and doing that thing well.

GSX - Part of FSDreamTeam, who again focus solely on scenery and graphical touches.

All of those developers focus on the core of their main product and doing a good job of that. You don't see FS2Crew producing airports, or FSDreamTeam making sound packs. They survive and make profit by making their core product their only priority. I do think big, the only difference seems to be that I'm still in touch with the reality of the situation rather than just the hype.

But please, continue lecturing me about the nature of the industry I work in, I could use some more entertainment.

++++1, Mark.

Share this post


Link to post

Mark, your putting a lot of words in Kyles mouth - Kyle was responding to Sean's issue with exterior rendering and how PMDG deals with it. Why are you trying to make Kyle go against me, do you need help?

Mark, your putting more words in my mouth, when did I say "I would rather"?

Mark, this is the PMDG forum not the LM forum. It is good to encourage PMDG's 747 eye candy features despite the length of time it took. 

Mark, you do not understand how important 64-bit is, because you keep speaking against 64-bit. I have never heard PMDG speak against 64-bit - they know more than you do.

Mark, you know nothing about the foreseeable future, or do you claim to know the future?

Mark, features= time, money, and added realism - what is new here? 

Mark, I understand your point of view, you are not going to change my mind.

Mark, Juan put a suggestion in the suggestion box, and I'm just seconding the motion, is that ok? 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pracines said:

Mark, your putting a lot of words in Kyles mouth - Kyle was responding to Sean's issue with exterior rendering and how PMDG deals with it. Why are you trying to make Kyle go against me, do you need help?

Mark, your putting more words in my mouth, when did I say "I would rather"?

Mark, this is the PMDG forum not the LM forum. It is good to encourage PMDG's 747 eye candy features despite the length of time it took. 

Mark, you do not understand how important 64-bit is, because you keep speaking against 64-bit. I have never heard PMDG speak against 64-bit - they know more than you do.

Mark, you know nothing about the foreseeable future, or do you claim to know the future?

Mark, features= time, money, and added realism - what is new here? 

Mark, I understand your point of view, you are not going to change my mind.

Mark, Juan put a suggestion in the suggestion box, and I'm just seconding the motion, is that ok? 

Damn...

"On your 'Marks' "... 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, pracines said:

Mark, your putting a lot of words in Kyles mouth - Kyle was responding to Sean's issue with exterior rendering and how PMDG deals with it. Why are you trying to make Kyle go against me, do you need help?

Mark, your putting more words in my mouth, when did I say "I would rather"?

Mark, this is the PMDG forum not the LM forum. It is good to encourage PMDG's 747 eye candy features despite the length of time it took. 

Mark, you do not understand how important 64-bit is, because you keep speaking against 64-bit. I have never heard PMDG speak against 64-bit - they know more than you do.

Mark, you know nothing about the foreseeable future, or do you claim to know the future?

Mark, features= time, money, and added realism - what is new here? 

Mark, I understand your point of view, you are not going to change my mind.

Mark, Juan put a suggestion in the suggestion box, and I'm just seconding the motion, is that ok? 

Wow, would you like to type my name any more?

You've pretty clearly demonstrated that you have a vast misunderstanding of what something being 64-bit actually means, repeatedly told me that I don't grasp it (never mind that writing software is pretty much all I do on a day to day basis) and yet you've provided nothing to substantiate it. I've never "gone against" 64 bit, I'm just realistic about what it does and doesn't mean in terms of performance.

As for the comment of "do you need help?" I'd suggest maybe reacquainting yourself with the rules, you're overstepping the line between debate and abusive behaviour. Therefore I'm simply going to choose not to interact with you further, have a good day.

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