What about virtual cabins??

[Raven9000 272]

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... 

[pracines 823]

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.

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.  

[markdf 84]

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.

[MorsAbAlto 19]

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. 

[pracines 823]

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.

[markdf 84]

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.

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

[vc10man 732]

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.

[pracines 823]

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? 

[anden145 2,285]

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' "... 

[markdf 84]

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.

[PMDG777 231]

I'm going to get chastised for this but... knock it off guys. Kyle and Dave have explained why it's not happening.

[vc10man 732]

1 hour ago, PMDG777 said:

knock it off guys

Best thing I've read so far!

[Chock 17,769]

Actually with regard to realism and it being of interest to simulator crews, there is plenty of reason to model more than the cockpit, particularly the the cargo deck of freighters, but also with passenger craft. With the majority of 747-400s probably finding themselves as freighters soon, this will mean one of the main PMDG aeroplanes will be primarily a cargo aeroplane in the real world.

One only has to look at the horrific dashboard camera footage of National Airlines Flight 102, which shows the 747-400 pitching up out of control, stalling and then bellying into the ground in a massive fireball just after having taken off from Bagram. Incorrectly strapped military vehicles in the cargo hold broke loose on the take off roll, slammed into the rear bulkhead, damaging the controls and causing a massive GoG shift. This could have been spotted prior to take-off by an adequately trained crew.

Most passenger aeroplanes have a couple of markers in the cabin (black triangles above certain windows to the fore and aft of the wings) to indicate to the crew the correct windows to look out of when inspecting the wings in flight if there is a problem with the slats or flaps, or to see how bad icing is. Just this week a Saudi airlines B787 spent several hours circling over Manchester airport, owing to a flaps failure, before eventually landing. Having a six hour fuel reserve at the time, it was burning off some fuel to reduce the weight, and waiting for the runway to dry off a bit too, before landing at a higher speed with no landing flap setting selected.

So there's two genuine operational reasons for the cabin of an airliner to be modeled if going for total realism with regard to crew operations.

[Captain Kevin 586]

5 hours ago, MorsAbAlto said:

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. 

Some of them, but certainly not everyone. I'm still running FSX off a laptop, as I don't have the money available at the present time to get a desktop in order to run P3D. I certainly don't have the hard drive space available on this laptop to run it, and getting an external isn't a feasible option, given my situation.

[vc10man 732]

24 minutes ago, Chock said:

So there's two genuine operational reasons for the cabin of an airliner to be modeled if going for total realism with regard to crew operations

And where would the line be drawn for the coding that such 'realism eye-candy' would require v/s saleability price of the final product?