Mild complaint about the P3D platform

[windshearDK 52]

I have and still enjoy using P3D, it lifted the simulation platform to new heights, with DX11 and 64 bit.

But unfortunately progression has been very slow. And evidently it appears that LM are placing the task of expanding and innovating the platform, squarely on the various addon publishers.

As P3D runs on my computer at the moment, I have 2 shader addons, 3 weather/weather texture addons, numerous landclass/Mesh/Night lighting/city expansions in my sim, countless airport addons, tons of AI and custom AFCADs installed.

This is all good, but it is astonishing just how much help this sim needs to run at a height that captures my imagination and attention.

I think also that the production is prolonged for addon producers that need to find ways to hack, bypass or manipulate the basic platform, in order to run or display properly.

 

LM work at a tiresomely slow pace on major issues. It took LM 6 months or more to correct the simconnect window issue.

I am getting very disapointed with the slow progress we are seeing in P3D. 64 bit was a big thing, but the AI/ATC engine is from FS2002, same goes for much of the ultra rigidity of the AFCAD systems in use.

In an interview with FSElite LM representatives talked in positive communication style and stated that they left many improvements up to the "community" because they are so good at it.

The problem as I see it is, that many developers have to invent hacks and tricks to work around limitations in the systems, because LM does not improve the platform. I think LM should do more to raise the bar. A raised bar would create a whole new vantage point for developers to work from, taking the platform to even higher heights.

Edited August 8, 2018 by windshearDK

[ErichB 3,638]

19 minutes ago, windshearDK said:

I have and still enjoy using P3D, it lifted the simulation platform to new heights, with DX11 and 64 bit.

But unfortunately progression has been very slow. And evidently it appears that LM are placing the task of expanding and innovating the platform, squarely on the various addon publishers.

As P3D runs on my computer at the moment, I have 2 shader addons, 3 weather/weather texture addons, numerous landclass/Mesh/Night lighting/city expansions in my sim, countless airport addons, tons of AI and custom AFCADs installed.

This is all good, but it is astonishing just how much help this sim needs to run at a height that captures my imagination and attention.

I think also that the production is prolonged for addon producers that need to find ways to hack, bypass or manipulate the basic platform, in order to run or display properly.

 

LM work at a tiresomely slow pace on major issues. It took LM 6 months or more to correct the simconnect window issue.

I am getting very disapointed with the slow progress we are seeing in P3D. 64 bit was a big thing, but the AI/ATC engine is from FS2002, same goes for much of the ultra rigidity of the AFCAD systems in use.

In an interview with FSElite LM representatives talked in positive communication style and stated that they left many improvements up to the "community" because they are so good at it.

The problem as I see it is, that many developers have to invent hacks and tricks to work around limitations in the systems, because LM does not improve the platform. I think LM should do more to raise the bar. A raised bar would create a whole new vantage point for developers to work from, taking the platform to even higher heights.

Every simulator platform relies on third party development for its success. The key is to create a stable base platform with the tools necessary  to allow third party development to do its thing. 

 

[Chock 17,769]

Gotta bear in mind the purpose of P3D as far as Lockheed Martin is concerned, which is basically as a mission simulator for practicing military scenarios. If someone is, for example, practicing vectoring some F-16s to intercept an incoming bomber or some such, working jetways at Birmingham Airport, super accurate AI IFR clearances and beautiful reflections on a Boeing 737 have no bearing on its ability to do that.

Now it's true that more fidelity of its simulator world would, theoretically at least, make it a more believable training environment for any scenario one wanted to practice or plan, military or otherwise, and anything which makes a training tool more realistic would be no bad thing, but they'll certainly be lower on the priority list of things they'd wish to place development resources on than its ability to simulate the flight envelope of an air to air missile and that sort of thing.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Chock

[chapstick 2,757]

1 hour ago, windshearDK said:

 

LM work at a tiresomely slow pace on major issues. It took LM 6 months or more to correct the simconnect window issue.

This is my biggest complaint re: the consequences of their slow process. It's not unusual for new patches to introduce bugs. But zero hotfixes for a major issue like this? It was incredibly frustrating. 

[NorwegianAviator 60]

I totally agree with you windshearDK. I've been criticizing the platform previously regarding the slow progress and tons of other big and long standing issues from back in the FSX days, that has still not been fixed or improved. I received mostly negative feedback from most users here, defending LM and the platform heavily. So it will be interesting to see how this thread will turn out. If we look at the progress that other flight sims have, it's quite impressive compared to P3D. Eg. DCS World, XP etc.

This is the reason I'm personally moving more and more over to XP. It will be very interesting to see what v5 will bring us. Personally I don't have any high expectations. But I do hope I'm wrong.

If you like more information about what I think about the platform, you can see my thread here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/529774-major-simulation-flaws-in-p3dv4/

 

[pracines 823]

But if one has a VR headset, progress (performance increase) is being made in P3D. 

Slow and steady, but so much better than going backwards or staying stagnant. 

I wonder what V5 will bring and what 3rd parties are developing behind the scenes that we still don't know about.

When are we going to see 6 or 7 GHz breached? Or SSD's with 20TB+ capacity?

We need the hardware to progress too or faster development of P3D wont really matter much.  

 

 

[Bobsk8 12,586]

54 minutes ago, JanReidar said:

I totally agree with you windshearDK. I've been criticizing the platform previously regarding the slow progress and tons of other big and long standing issues from back in the FSX days, that has still not been fixed or improved. I received mostly negative feedback from most users here, defending LM and the platform heavily. So it will be interesting to see how this thread will turn out. If we look at the progress that other flight sims have, it's quite impressive compared to P3D. Eg. DCS World, XP etc.

This is the reason I'm personally moving more and more over to XP. It will be very interesting to see what v5 will bring us. Personally I don't have any high expectations. But I do hope I'm wrong.

If you like more information about what I think about the platform, you can see my thread here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/529774-major-simulation-flaws-in-p3dv4/

 

XP has a long way to even catch up to P3D. Still doesn't even have seasons, flying in December in Canada with green grass growing, no thanks. 

[NorwegianAviator 60]

3 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

XP has a long way to even catch up to P3D. Still doesn't even have seasons, flying in December in Canada with green grass growing, no thanks. 

It's catching up quickly. Lack of seasons is one of XP's issues, but can be fixed with addons. Hope this will be introduced in v12. While flight dynamics are not perfect in XP, they're still superior to P3D in most aspects. The platform is at least progressing rapidly, along with the addon market. I also really like P3D, and I hope this will be a kick in the b*** to LM to start innovation and taking the platform forward at a much quicker pace than before.

[ricka47 611]

I did switch 100% to X-Plane before P3D went to 64-bit and thought that I would never come back.  But, when the 64-bit version of P3D became available, the lack of seasons, decent ATC options and other missing things in X-Plane brought me back.  After making that switch a few times (I did it once before), I don't plan to do it again.

However, while P3D is a nice improvement over FSX, too much of the FSX platform (as noted above) and the issues that goes with that still remains.  Bottom-line, FSX is dead, XP11 isn't quite there yet (for me at least) - so here I stay.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by ricka47

[virtuali 4,419]

1 hour ago, windshearDK said:

 The problem as I see it is, that many developers have to invent hacks and tricks to work around limitations in the systems, because LM does not improve the platform. I think LM should do more to raise the bar.

The P3D4 SDK (and lots of it was already improved in previous versions) is SO MUCH better and powerful than the FSX ever been so, LM has made a very good job improving it.

The issue is, until today, the most we saw from 3DP developers was:

- Just recompile some scenery with the P3D4 SDK, to get rid of obvious rendering problems when using the ancient FS8 ground polygons, which was basically mandatory in order to keep selling airports in P3D4. 

- Support the new installation methods, but only because users finally realized how much better is for them, especially when updating the sim. And still not every developer is using it. We can only hope (and you can be sure we'll do our best to lobby in favor of this), that LM would entirely block the legacy installations method in future versions.

But all of these are both very easy to do and, other than fixing bugs and offering more convenience to users, are not really offering anything NEW to the simulation experience.

But there's a whole lot more in the SDK, which almost nobody has ever tried to exploit it so far:

The very powerful PDK, with is a lower level version of Simconnect, so it's more efficient (no client-server model, no communication pipes which can be clobbered by too many apps running together), and it allows things not possible before without relying on very dangerous hacks, like the new Render To Texture features, a whole new Camera API (no hacks to control the camera), an improved weather API, the ability to *draw* things like objects, lines, lights, in the 3d scenery, using fast C++ code.

There's a whole new API called the ISimobject SDK, which allows creation of new "native" object types, with custom behaviors, custom variables, custom events, etc. It's even possible to entirely rewrite the flight model, from the ground up, without resorting to strange hacks. 

Human animations are far more powerful and could use more detailed skeleton models (going up from 22 to 64 bones per character), which are more compatible with industry-standard animation packages, motion capture systems, etc.

So, why we haven't see much of these new features, if they are so good ? My theories are:

1) Developers are still not entirely confident to move away from FSX or other 32 bit sims, and create a REAL 64-only product, not just something "larger" that won't OOM, but something *different*, that couldn't even be made for FSX, even if it FSX could hypothetically be ported to 64 and not having any memory problems.

User CAN do something to change this situation though, and make quite clear with their preferred developers, they won't buy anything which is not 100% P3D4-compliant, and won't buy an FSX product if it's released first, with only a "promise" to an eventual P3D4 update.

2) Most of these new features require C++, which is hard to learn and this probably cuts out most of the freeware developers, or the freeware-turned-commercial, which is a very common breed.

3) Even if a developer is fully proficient with C++, implementing these things still takes time. A lot. As an example, LM started to introduce Render to Texture feature since P3D2 and, of course, as soon it appeared, I jumped over it, and was probably the one giving the most feedback to them across all these years. By the time it was finally usable, P3D4 came out so, it took a least 4 years before someone did something with it. Our upcoming GSX Level 2 expansion and Chicago O'Hare V2 will start to use such features, but it wasn't easy to get to the level we are confident of their usage. The issue is, if there aren't enough developers using it, it's even difficult for LM to TEST it in the first place, and such testing is quite complex, because with the complete freedom to draw stuff in DirectX 11, also comes with the inherent difficulty of DX11 programming, which is even HARDER than plain C++. There IS a reason why, in the gaming industry, almost everybody use full game engines like Unreal or Unity: nobody wants to write DX11 code or write their own shaders, which what you are supposed to do when writing a PDK Render To Texture plugin.

In the end, I'm confident the good stuff will arrive, given enough time, and the approach used so far by LM is the right one, which is consistent with a professionally-oriented simulator: constantly improve it, without trashing the old stuff all at the same time.

[SierraHotel 976]

6 minutes ago, virtuali said:

The P3D4 SDK (and lots of it was already improved in previous versions) is SO MUCH better and powerful than the FSX ever been so, LM has made a very good job improving it.

The issue is, until today, the most we saw from 3DP developers was:

- Just recompile some scenery with the P3D4 SDK, to get rid of obvious rendering problems when using the ancient FS8 ground polygons, which was basically mandatory in order to keep selling airports in P3D4. 

- Support the new installation methods, but only because users finally realized how much better is for them, especially when updating the sim. And still not every developer is using it. We can only hope (and you can be sure we'll do our best to lobby in favor of this), that LM would entirely block the legacy installations method in future versions.

But all of these are both very easy to do and, other than fixing bugs and offering more convenience to users, are not really offering anything NEW to the simulation experience.

But there's a whole lot more in the SDK, which almost nobody has ever tried to exploit it so far:

The very powerful PDK, with is a lower level version of Simconnect, so it's more efficient (no client-server model, no communication pipes which can be clobbered by too many apps running together), and it allows things not possible before without relying on very dangerous hacks, like the new Render To Texture features, a whole new Camera API (no hacks to control the camera), an improved weather API, the ability to *draw* things like objects, lines, lights, in the 3d scenery, using fast C++ code.

There's a whole new API called the ISimobject SDK, which allows creation of new "native" object types, with custom behaviors, custom variables, custom events, etc. It's even possible to entirely rewrite the flight model, from the ground up, without resorting to strange hacks. 

Human animations are far more powerful and could use more detailed skeleton models (going up from 22 to 64 bones per character), which are more compatible with industry-standard animation packages, motion capture systems, etc.

So, why we haven't see much of these new features, if they are so good ? My theories are:

1) Developers are still not entirely confident to move away from FSX or other 32 bit sims, and create a REAL 64-only product, not just something "larger" that won't OOM, but something *different*, that couldn't even be made for FSX, even if it FSX could hypothetically be ported to 64 and not having any memory problems.

User CAN do something to change this situation though, and make quite clear with their preferred developers, they won't buy anything which is not 100% P3D4-compliant, and won't buy an FSX product if it's released first, with only a "promise" to an eventual P3D4 update.

2) Most of these new features require C++, which is hard to learn and this probably cuts out most of the freeware developers, or the freeware-turned-commercial, which is a very common breed.

3) Even if a developer is fully proficient with C++, implementing these things still takes time. A lot. As an example, LM started to introduce Render to Texture feature since P3D2 and, of course, as soon it appeared, I jumped over it, and was probably the one giving the most feedback to them across all these years. By the time it was finally usable, P3D4 came out so, it took a least 4 years before someone did something with it. Our upcoming GSX Level 2 expansion and Chicago O'Hare V2 will start to use such features, but it wasn't easy to get to the level we are confident of their usage. The issue is, if there aren't enough developers using it, it's even difficult for LM to TEST it in the first place, and such testing is quite complex, because with the complete freedom to draw stuff in DirectX 11, also comes with the inherent difficulty of DX11 programming, which is even HARDER than plain C++. There IS a reason why, in the gaming industry, almost everybody use full game engines like Unreal or Unity: nobody wants to write DX11 code or write their own shaders, which what you are supposed to do when writing a PDK Render To Texture plugin.

In the end, I'm confident the good stuff will arrive, given enough time, and the approach used so far by LM is the right one, which is consistent with a professionally-oriented simulator: constantly improve it, without trashing the old stuff all at the same time.

+1

[simbol 5,819]

34 minutes ago, virtuali said:

In the end, I'm confident the good stuff will arrive, given enough time, and the approach used so far by LM is the right one, which is consistent with a professionally-oriented simulator: constantly improve it, without trashing the old stuff all at the same time.

Well said Umberto, I totally agree with your post and it save me the time to write something back.. people have very bad perceptions of how long it takes to write software to create any type of Add-on content not only for P3D but also for any platform.

Best Regards,
Simbol

Edited August 8, 2018 by simbol

[windshearDK 52]

I heard LM Speak about their professional simming use and customers. But at least improve ground, lighting, atmospheric and aerodynamics then.

I also heard that they focused a lot on VR, which is great, for those who use VR, I don't I rely on my wonderful hardware to immerse myself, my 4K monitor also helps.

But what I don't like is that much of the hardproduct is dated back to the FSX platform. Slow progress has been made, no doubt! Otherwise I would not be pleased and using P3D almost daily.

Simming is great, but I am sometimes taken back, but just how much additional programs that could make P3D a bit shaky, is needed for optimal lighting etc.

PMDG also has grown slow in their development, being the most respected and reliable simulation at the moment, features are not being implemented that have been on other planes, its sad as the industry has gained so much momentum and are seeing more users than we ever saw in the history of simming.

I also have heard that developers see less interaction between them and LM.

 

XP looks great, but at the moments, there are more issues than benefits for me to move onto that platform. I mean seasons missing?! That's very crucial IMO. And again why should we need developers to create regional packages that could be months apart in development, until we can see snow in the winter.

I think its time for LM to incoporate some of the many features that developers create as custom features, like the ground roll, engine fans spinning momentum in windy conditions and after engine shut down. Why not create better icing conditions, realistic damage, vapor and many other details that really are connected to having a proper physics engine in the sim.

In a debate about XP vs P3D a user told me that P3D's aerodynamics are not up to par with XP, and that is correct, however aircraft developers have created their products with the best aerodynamics they can simulate, despite the platform limitations.

 

This is very admirable, but if LM's focus is on professional use, why not start there? The most basic of environmental and physic elements.

I am not bashing P3D, I appreciate what we have, but with each version, its just apparant how much never changes. Clouds, water, landclass, physics, environment etc.

[regis9 4,005]

I too would love to see a new AI, ATC and AFCAD systems, or at minimum an ATC SDK so third party devs could really dive into ATC.  It’s important to remember though who the core customer base is for P3D, and what they likely see as a priority vs us.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) we’re just along for the ride.

[windshearDK 52]

44 minutes ago, virtuali said:

1) Developers are still not entirely confident to move away from FSX or other 32 bit sims, and create a REAL 64-only product, not just something "larger" that won't OOM, but something *different*, that couldn't even be made for FSX, even if it FSX could hypothetically be ported to 64 and not having any memory problems.

User CAN do something to change this situation though, and make quite clear with their preferred developers, they won't buy anything which is not 100% P3D4-compliant, and won't buy an FSX product if it's released first, with only a "promise" to an eventual P3D4 update.

2) Most of these new features require C++, which is hard to learn and this probably cuts out most of the freeware developers, or the freeware-turned-commercial, which is a very common breed.

3) Even if a developer is fully proficient with C++, implementing these things still takes time. A lot. As an example, LM started to introduce Render to Texture feature since P3D2 and, of course, as soon it appeared, I jumped over it, and was probably the one giving the most feedback to them across all these years. By the time it was finally usable, P3D4 came out so, it took a least 4 years before someone did something with it. Our upcoming GSX Level 2 expansion and Chicago O'Hare V2 will start to use such features, but it wasn't easy to get to the level we are confident of their usage. The issue is, if there aren't enough developers using it, it's even difficult for LM to TEST it in the first place, and such testing is quite complex, because with the complete freedom to draw stuff in DirectX 11, also comes with the inherent difficulty of DX11 programming, which is even HARDER than plain C++. There IS a reason why, in the gaming industry, almost everybody use full game engines like Unreal or Unity: nobody wants to write DX11 code or write their own shaders, which what you are supposed to do when writing a PDK Render To Texture plugin.

In the end, I'm confident the good stuff will arrive, given enough time, and the approach used so far by LM is the right one, which is consistent with a professionally-oriented simulator: constantly improve it, without trashing the old stuff all at the same time.

Great response, and I thank you for your contribution here and in the sim world!

I see many many simmers hammering FSX addicts on the head when they ask if the new product has FSX combatibility. I for one is ever eager to get P3D V4 exclusive content, BUT Flytampa for example has yet to fully update more than half of their airports, they do work, but there are immense limitations that are obvious to the V4 user... IE no dynamic lighting lighting in general ETC.

Taxi2Gate might be another developer that had to do a new learning curb. Having only released 3 of their many many and highly popular airports compatible with V4.

So progress is very slow, but at the same time, its because previously so much custom hacking was necessary to create a well performing good looking airport, that rebuilding them is almost necessary.

FSDT as you represent are only now about to release their first updated legacy product, ORD which frankly I am dying to get... But your inventory is packed with amazing airports, that are severely outdated.

 

I hope in the future that LM will continue to improve the many details that never improved, and I am happy that the new V4 platform is much better for developers to work with! So in time maybe the V4 is a good backward compatibility platform to work on, but V1-3 needs to get discarded entirely.

 

Exciting time ahead, just hope LM will elevate their product and make your job faster and easier to do.