Why this rush for v5? V4 is still amazing

[NorwegianAviator 60]

2 minutes ago, Avidean said:

Thanks for the advice but I've tried it and it doesn't meet my expectations re Flight Dynamics. I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it's too X-planey for my liking.😜

😅

[Oliver Ooi 85]

I heard that there will be major improvement to the Avatar mode in V5. The 3D character will auto change to swimming costume when he enters beach area. Really exited about this feature! P3Dv5, looking forward to it.

But I could be wrong. 🙂

 

[Nemo 1,305]

5 hours ago, Oliver Ooi said:

The 3D character will auto change to swimming costume when he enters beach area. Really exited about this feature! P3Dv5, looking forward to it.

That's what wee need urgently ... the simulation of flying an aircraft in a flight simulator is way too much overrated.😉

Edited June 25, 2018 by Nemo

[ErichB 3,642]

6 hours ago, Oliver Ooi said:

I heard that there will be major improvement to the Avatar mode in V5. The 3D character will auto change to swimming costume when he enters beach area. Really exited about this feature! P3Dv5, looking forward to it.

But I could be wrong. 🙂

 

Speedo's or trunks?  That's the question

 

[Christopher Low 5,352]

Why do I get the feeling that a feature like that would result in requests for more female avatars?

[Amon1973 1,421]

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

Speedo's or trunks?  That's the question

 

Budgie smugglers is the way forward. 

[ErichB 3,642]

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Why do I get the feeling that a feature like that would result in requests for more female avatars?

You're on thin ice Christopher.  Tread at your peril.:)

 

[LH340fan 54]

As soon as I can get a MD-11 @ 60fps without spending much on hardware and not having a lockheed martin prepar3d tweak edition I'm fine with v4. But maybe switching to v6 could be the next step.

[HighTowers 1,434]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:34 PM, FalconAF said:

As a real world pilot for over 45 years, I agree with everything you said in your post...but it goes out the window with your last paragraph quoted above.

The last paragraph says the issue is immersion for SIM HOBBYISTS.  Again...P3D is NOT DESIGNED as an entertainment platform.  All of your "issues" about P3D needing to increase immersion, crisp texture experience, etc, are NOT A REQUIREMENT in most training simulations.  I do NOT need 30 CM texture resolution for the scenery next to the runway I am attempting to teach a student pilot to land on safely.  I do not need 3D grass waving in the wind to teach a tank commander how to conduct a land based tank battle to destroy an enemy tank before it destroys my tank.  Heck, I don't even need to see clouds in a flight simulation to teach IFR flying.  I can just as easily display a one-color simulated "hood" view in the simulation that prevents me seeing out the front cockpit window, thus eliminating ALL need for my CPU or GPU to process ANY outside the cockpit scenery graphics until the very last moment when breaking out of the undercast at the Missed Approach Point.  And even then, the "scenery" I see out the front cockpit window does not have to be 30 CM resolution or display "crisp" or "clear" for an LOD Radius of 6 in front of my aircraft.

P3D works now as the "base" platform for "realism".  For a realistic training scenario for a particular aircraft or ground vehicle (tank, etc) or water vehicle (submarine or surface vessel), LM will most likely NOT be the developer of those simulator objects.  It will be an outside contractor developing them, such as something like PMDG creating a "study sim" Boeing aircraft.  And that will be what is really used for the "realism training" that will be done in a commercial or military training program.

Your last paragraph above are all the gripes and complaints of the "SIM HOBBYIST" community users of P3D.  None of the items you list would be "show stoppers" for commercial or military training providers training students on the operation of PLATFORMS (aircraft, ground vehicle, or water vehicles).  The training takes place for the student to learn how to use the PLATFORMS.  Not to teach the student what grass blowing in the wind or clouds look like in the "real world".  For commercial or military simulation training, it IS the "flight dynamics" of the aircraft that need to be "real".  Or the dynamics of the tank or submarine or surface vessel. Would YOU trust a training environment that said, "Well, our airplanes don't simulate what the real world airplane will really fly like, but our scenery graphics are outstanding!  You'll learn what grass and clouds REALLY look like!"

 

 

Hey you make really good points, and I would agree, except this interpretation would seem to refer more to a few years back. Hardware is getting to be more powerful, thus the abilities to have crisper textures  and visual display with more immersion, is all that more feasible.  Furthermore, if LM really didnt care about all these 'extras', then there would be no interest on their part in working with 3PDs and listening to their needs with a strong SDK to further create this extra visual immersion.  It just adds more valuable to the base product and gives options to those who do want to add that extra immersion visuals. Sure we can place a blindfold with zero visuals and just look at instruments for IFR training, but how much better to be in the soup visually in thick clouds, rain, TS. It now becomes alot more psychological in how we are going to handle the situation rather than just looking at instruments. 

As far as flight dynamics, ....well im not a real world pilot but Ive been in level D simulators.  The biggest thing that they have that will never be in our desktop simulators, is 3D motion. The forces that you really feel on yourself and on the aircraft handling. Impossible to simulate this without a full hydraulic pneumatic setup. So when we say flight dynamics in our sims, its extremely limited and relative in my opinion.  Sure there is lots that can be done to mitigate it such that you dont want a B747 feeling like a Cessna 172 in handling and ground movements. 

Im just grateful that LM has been so open to the community and to working with devs so closely , and that was very evident at the recent expo from the interviews ive seen and comments from devs themselves. So no, they are not all about military and corporate training. They do help the simmer community because it incites new people to get into all avenues of aviation and keeps the dreams alive to those of us who were not able to get into aviation for whatever reason but still love to virtually fly. They just dont openly advertise it, but clearly they dont condone it. 

[MarkW 1,491]

On 6/22/2018 at 4:28 AM, JoeFackel said:

#metoo

Never landed on an default Airport since years *snobish ahem* 

I love default airports for landings....great framerates, no stutters and the runway looks the same....after that I agree its awful but hey at least the approach and landing was enjoyable.  I just with REX would release Airport Enhancement for P3D.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MarkW said:

I just with REX would release Airport Enhancement for P3D.

Yeah not sure what happened there?  I'd love to see a "light" airport pack by "region" ... just some of the basics to make the airport unique but lower quality textures and less polygons/building.  At 44,000 or so airports world wide, plenty to keep one busy creating and selling ... kinda surprised someone hasn't attempted this already.

Cheers, Rob.

[FalconAF 213]

4 hours ago, HighTowers said:

As far as flight dynamics, ....well im not a real world pilot but Ive been in level D simulators.  The biggest thing that they have that will never be in our desktop simulators, is 3D motion. The forces that you really feel on yourself and on the aircraft handling. Impossible to simulate this without a full hydraulic pneumatic setup. So when we say flight dynamics in our sims, its extremely limited and relative in my opinion.  Sure there is lots that can be done to mitigate it such that you dont want a B747 feeling like a Cessna 172 in handling and ground movements. 

I agree totally, but evidently my post didn't indicate the same thing.  "Flight dynamics" includes the "platform" the trainee is using, such as a full motion hydraulic real-as-it-gets level D cockpit environment.  The "platform" is what needs to be SPECIFIC AND ACCURATE to what the trainee is being trained and evaluated on.  As you imply, using a "joystick" to simulate flying a B747 would never be realistic to the real world B747 flying experience.  Even for already certified pilots or tank commanders or tugboat operators, etc.  A United Airlines 737 captain is not placed in a level D 777 simulated cockpit (or worse...an Airbus cockpit that uses a "sidestick" instead of a yoke) for the 6 month "refresher" training...they are put in a 737 cockpit simulator.  The PLATFORM is what is needed to be accurate, not the "look out the cockpit window scenery" provided by the base software application (like P3D) that is displaying graphics OUTSIDE the platform.  The same thing applies to a tugboat operator vs 1300-foot long oil tanker captain.  They will need to use totally different platforms for realistic "dynamics" and training.

These platforms will most likely not be developed by LM as part of the P3D core software application the platforms will run on.  There is a REASON LM has a P3D SDK (just like Microsoft's FSX had).  It's a Software Developers Kit.  It sets the STANDARDS for outside developers to create their OWN training platforms for their specific training requirements. And the platform developed will have it's own programming requirements (included software to run the platform) to make the platform function the way the developer wants it to function.  The developer just has to abide by the SDK, the same way somebody like PMDG has to code their aircraft software to "play nice" with the core P3D application.

Many P3D "hobbyists" have ALREADY shown that P3D "as is" is totally capable of "realistically" simulating MANY of the "platform" requirements.  There are real-world airline captains in our forums using home built full replicas of B737 cockpits with all the switches, knobs, LED displays, etc they would use in the real airplane.  P3D already can be used that way.  What these home cockpits don't provide, as you said, is the motion part of the platform training experience.  But also interestingly, when using large screen displays like wrap around overhead projection systems in front of these home cockpits, the outside scenery graphics resolution displayed is NEVER (as of now) as "crisp" and "clear" as when being displayed on a 30" UHD 4K monitor someone was sitting in front of.  But that outside resolution when using a full home cockpit does NOT detract from the "immersion" of the TRAINING experience the PLATFORM (home cockpit) provides. Overkill "eye candy" that prevents the PLATFORM from operating properly would NEVER be tolerated in a commercial or military training simulator.

P3D "hobbyists" are complaining that LM needs to "fix" things in P3D that simply do NOT require fixing when P3D will be used for it's intended purpose...a scenario TRAINING simulator.  Yes, the ability for a platform developer to have crisp and clear graphics relating to the PLATFORM is essential.  But the ability to have the platform surrounded in a 10 mile radius of 30 CM per pixel outside graphics is not required. And I don't need to be able to count the number of blades of grass outside my tank either.  THESE are the "HOBBYIST" demands...not the commercial nor military scenario simulation training needs or demands (even today in almost all cases).  

When conducting TRAINING, there can be a HUGE difference between what someone may WANT to see, vs what they NEED to see, for a successful training session to occur.

Edited June 25, 2018 by FalconAF

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MarkW said:

I just with REX would release Airport Enhancement for P3D.

I think REX did their reputation a lot of harm with that one. A least with me they did. I bought REX Airports HD on sale based on their promise that it would be upgraded for Prepar3D V4. That was over a year ago. They have been regularly pushing back the release ever since then. No doubt 4.3 will further delay it. I half expect to never see it. I'm not that upset about it but reading post by others since Prepar3D V4 was released their are plenty of simmers who are. They would have been better of saying for now its only V3 Compatible and at some point we hope to make it V4 compatible. If you are on V4 wait till then to purchase.

[pmb 5,137]

5 minutes ago, Avidean said:

I think REX did their reputation a lot of harm with that one. A least with me they did. I bought REX Airports HD on sale based on their promise that it would be upgraded for Prepar3D V4.

I have given up on REX airports HD and use Zinertek HD Airport Graphics instead. This is much less known than REX (because they invest less than a per mille of the promotion budget of REX), but it is P3D4 compatible and works really well (if I decide to land on a default airport now and then at all).

Kind regards, Michael

[MarkW 1,491]

44 minutes ago, pmb said:

I have given up on REX airports HD and use Zinertek HD Airport Graphics instead. This is much less known than REX (because they invest less than a per mille of the promotion budget of REX), but it is P3D4 compatible and works really well (if I decide to land on a default airport now and then at all).

Kind regards, Michael

Hey thanks. I think I own this for FSX and will check if there is an upgrade path.