6 hours ago, pmb said:

I am afraid LM will surprise us in version 5 with a new RENDERING engine

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

I, on the other hand, very much doubt that. Why would they put so much effort (time and money) in bringing the current engine to 64bit? Wouldn't it be easier to make this big step with a new engine, instead of "repairing" the old one? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

The fact is this engine is ancient and most of the problems are direct result of that. The engine is the main reason the progress is so slow because there's probably not much more they can do with it. In 7 years, what did they add to it feature wise? Cloud shadows and dynamic lighting. It looks tiny bit better thanks to shaders but that' probably about it. But making a brand new one is like making a brand new sim. Is there a reason for LM to do that in the near future?

3 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

I, on the other hand, very much doubt that. Why would they put so much effort (time and money) in bringing the current engine to 64bit? Wouldn't it be easier to make this big step with a new engine, instead of "repairing" the old one? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

The fact is this engine is ancient and most of the problems are direct result of that. The engine is the main reason the progress is so slow because there's probably not much more they can do with it. In 7 years, what did they add to it feature wise? Cloud shadows and dynamic lighting. It looks tiny bit better thanks to shaders but that' probably about it. But making a brand new one is like making a brand new sim. Is there a reason for LM to do that in the near future?

If you listen to the interviews conducted with LM at FSEXpo, Adam Breed did refer to a new rendering engine being on the cards.  Vulkan was mentioned but nothing was confirmed.

37 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Do you base this opinion on some facts or is it just a hunch?

Yes, Erich is right. I refer to a couple of interviews by Adam Breed at FSEexpo (just google for them). They were quite vague (as always with LM interviews) but pointed into that direction.

Kind regards, Michael

Am I correct in thinking that Vulkan would only be compatible with Windows 10?

23 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Am I correct in thinking that Vulkan would only be compatible with Windows 10?

Yes correct

Just now, djbully said:

Yes correct

Really? I know DX12 will be Win10 exclusively, but shouldn't Vulcan work on 7 as well?

https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-driver

Kind regards, Michael

8 minutes ago, pmb said:

Really? I know DX12 will be Win10 exclusively, but shouldn't Vulcan work on 7 as well?

https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-driver

Kind regards, Michael

Sorry I misread the question! I missed the only part. You of course correct Vulkan is win7 & 10 compatible as well as Linux I believe. 

A new rendering engine is the next obvious step, and since they make much of its VR capabilities, and the resolution of VR is something which is inevitably going to go higher, it's pretty much going to be a necessity, as we know it really has been since FSX came out and processors stopped getting exponentially vastly quicker on an almost weekly basis. Had Bill stayed at the helm of MS, they doubtless would have done it since Bill, being a plane buff, didn't care about FS development expense being a goodwill loss leader for MS. Lockheed Martin's net income last year was over 2 Billion Dollars, so it's not like they really have to worry about the cost of it denting the bottom line too much.

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by Chock

I didn't ever use MS Flight,  but those who did, thought it was far superior to FSX.  How much ground has LM covered in closing the gap between the two sims - apart from 64 bit and new VR capabilities ?

Did MS Flight have a new terrain engine?  I would love to see the end of the terrain snap, crackle and popping effects

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, windshearDK said:

ts sad as the industry has gained so much momentum and are seeing more users than we ever saw in the history of simming.

You may be wrong there. From my persepective the FSX/P3D addon market has been in steady decline these last years, the last one of the "fat" years being 2013 - and for FSX at that. It not only seems like the hobby itself has lost its appeal, but the advent of other platforms made people wander off to new pastures, reducing the marketplace time and again.

Slow "progress" with addons usually has one main reason: the effort involved in making big changes cannot be backed by appropriate income. Either it is just too much work to make it feasible - or the income generated by sales is so low, that you can't hope to break even in an acceptable time frame (or in fact just to get a little compensation). Just look at how many successful developers have given up and how many more not-so-successful ones have disappeared silently. If you sell 1000 copies of anything these days, that is already considered a success. Of course there is a handful of really successful people - but they usually are a time limited minority.

I am just assuming that the P3D platform is being developed according to professional standards and best practices. So there will be a master plan, a backlog list of features that is constantly revised and checked against priority and feasibility. The platform progresses according to that plan, and if our wishes as simmers aren't addressed, they probably just aren't that important in the grand scheme. I am pretty sure that features that are requested by commercial and military customers are worked on with high priority, for example the recent CIGI and DIS implementations. Those probably took a lot of effort, so there was just nothing left for much else.

Best regards

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by Lorby_SI

10 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

I am just assuming that the P3D platform is being developed according to professional standards and best practices. So there will be a master plan, a backlog list of features that is constantly revised and checked against priority and feasibility. The platform progresses according to that plan, and if our wishes as simmers aren't addressed, they probably just aren't that important in the grand scheme. I am pretty sure that features that are requested by commercial and military customers are worked on with high priority, for example the recent CIGI and DIS implementations. Those probably took a lot of effort, so there was just nothing left for much else.

That's sad news, but matches my impression indeed. And, btw., from a glance over their forums, this master plan scheme doesn't seem to only apply to P3D only but to XP and Aerofly as well, notwithstanding military customers or not.

So I feel I should rather stop simming and start collecting stamps. One (heavily buying addons) simmer less, then.

Kind regards, Michael

4 hours ago, ErichB said:

I didn't ever use MS Flight,  but those who did, thought it was far superior to FSX.  How much ground has LM covered in closing the gap between the two sims - apart from 64 bit and new VR capabilities ?

Did MS Flight have a new terrain engine?  I would love to see the end of the terrain snap, crackle and popping effects

I flew MS Flight before they pulled the plug on it. When you flew with it, you really felt like you were flying. Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by Bobsk8

7 hours ago, ErichB said:

If you listen to the interviews conducted with LM at FSEXpo, Adam Breed did refer to a new rendering engine being on the cards.  Vulkan was mentioned but nothing was confirmed.

We can only hope so....fingers crossed!

Mike

15 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew MS Flight before they pulled the plug on it. When you flew with it, you really felt like you were flying. Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

Yes, oftentimes we appear to be our own worst enemies.

Mike

25 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Back then, the vast majority of the FS community bashed it continually because it did n't have every bell and whistle and bit of eye candy that FSX had, so MS said "the heck with this, and pulled the plug".  Sad. 

No, actually they pulled the plug on it because it launched with an awful business model  which no-one was interested in supporting - not surprisingly.  But it's a pity the tech that supported it wasn't picked up by LM