Just now, ErichB said:

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.

The community never gave it a chance. They demanded everything yesterday, period. 

 

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

The community never gave it a chance. They demanded everything yesterday, period. 

 

This community isn't forgiving - and the business model killed it.

7 hours ago, 0Artur0 said:

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?

I am guessing like everyone else but I think they have had a plan all along to maybe not introduce a totaly new engine but a highly modified engine of some sort. The reason, if that is the case, is the desire to be better positioned to make use of VR for training in the sim.

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by shivers9

8 minutes ago, ErichB said:

This community isn't forgiving - and the business model killed it.

This already started during the ads campain when people asking for hard facts got a brainless trailer "Did you ever want to realize your dream to fly?". Dovetail went a similar path which just didn't pay off either. 

Just tell potential users honestly what to expect and what not, they'll find it sooner or later anyway.

And yes, while Flight! looked pretty cool indeed, the busines model was doomed from the very beginning.

Kind regards, Michael

14 hours ago, pmb said:

In this repect, there are at least 4 issues having been reported to LM on their forum over and over without virtually any (yes, any) improvement over the last years:

1. Blurry photoscenery, that's the one you name. I can take all sliders down in France VFR, switch off all autogen - the terrain remains blurry and does not even come close to crisp LC-based textures.
2. Textures snapping into place. The higher resolution the mesh the more ugly this looks. I was told (probably right) this comes from different mesh resolutions being loaded in order when approaching a hill etc. Good example: ORBX Norway fjords.
3. Chewing-gum like distorted textures on vertical faces like steep rocks.
4. Black buildings. Fly into Toronto from Lake Ontario. The city center will pop up at once -  and in black. Textures will appear a couple of seconds later.
5. Autogen loading late and in patches with any distance setting above medium. I even uploaded a Silicon Valley videoclip to the LM forum a year ago.

 

Number 2 is my favorite complaint also, along with the occasional scenery loading pause.

This is indeed a holdover from FSX and visually very distracting.

I am sure that LM is well aware, but if it was simple to fix (by blending in the change or some such technique) I would think they would have tried it by now..

Lets keep telling them and hope for the best

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by Bert Pieke

1 hour ago, pmb said:

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.

It applies to every major IT project. You don't just plod on, deciding what to do from one instance to the next. You have to plan how many resources you need way in avance, you can't just ramp up and kick out developers all the time, not if you need experienced veterans to drive the thing. The larger the company, the more strigent these rules get. P3D development will probably be on a fixed budget with a fixed staff. If they are smart, they are planning way ahead, so they know whom they need and when, and at which skill level - and every developer knows that it is actually worth it for him to dive deeply into the products in and outs. As opposed to for example a dialog developer who will just churn out pretty pictures and then go on to the next project. Or an architect who will only be in the project in the first phase. Etc. Which is another reason why a plan is needed - you need to know which skills will be required for which phase of the project, and you have to align them. You can't just have the graphics engine guys sitting around while the core team tries to finish a new AI logic. All of it must go hand in hand, you can't have "slack" - IT professionals are too expensive. But you can't just shove them around either, everyone needs time to find his/her way into the matter at hand. There is no software developer on this earth who, when thrown into a legacy software project, doesn't need a couple of weeks to get productive, and months if not years to get really good at what he does, to become a real asset. 

Best regards

20 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Number 2 is my favorite complaint also, along with the occasional scenery loading pause.

Indeed, I could go on by adding:

   6. Scenery loading pauses when approaching airports or big settlements. AeroflyFS2 doesn't even know such.

   7. Floating buildings. IMO these are the only ones of these "features" being clearly a result of system overload. Fortunately they are rather rare, I saw them myself perhaps a couple of times only.

Kind regards, Michael

1 hour 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.

I felt the same way with Flight Unlimited II & III.

The reason for FS9 & FSX's success is because they allowed devs to create great addons. That kept them going.

MS Flight reminded me of the FU series. Both are a distant memory when we compare them to how far we've come with P3d v4.

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

This community isn't forgiving - and the business model killed it.

 I used to fly for a very busy VA, Delta, years ago ( I fly for another now that has more flexibility). Anyway, they had a nice feature, it was a report every month showing the simulators that were used by the VA pilots. in percentages. 

These are the percentages for the latest month, July 2018.

 

FSX  47%

P3D V3 and 4      32.7%

FS 2004                8.9 %

X Plane 10-11       11%

 

Other  0%

Now these are reports from a couple of thousands of  active pilots flying thousands of flights, many are pilots in real life. This tells me that FSX together with P3D has the overwhelming majority of serious simmers using those platforms. X Plane just managed to beat out FS9 recently. Anyway, with all teh complaints about FSX and P3D, I believe they are   still the choice for  almost all serious simmers. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by Bobsk8

1 hour ago, pmb said:

1. Blurry photoscenery, that's the one you name. I can take all sliders down in France VFR, switch off all autogen - the terrain remains blurry and does not even come close to crisp LC-based textures.
2. Textures snapping into place. The higher resolution the mesh the more ugly this looks. I was told (probably right) this comes from different mesh resolutions being loaded in order when approaching a hill etc. Good example: ORBX Norway fjords.
3. Chewing-gum like distorted textures on vertical faces like steep rocks.
4. Black buildings. Fly into Toronto from Lake Ontario. The city center will pop up at once -  and in black. Textures will appear a couple of seconds later.
5. Autogen loading late and in patches with any distance setting above medium. I even uploaded a Silicon Valley videoclip to the LM forum a year ago.

   6. Scenery loading pauses when approaching airports or big settlements. AeroflyFS2 doesn't even know such.

   7. Floating buildings. IMO these are the only ones of these "features" being clearly a result of system overload. Fortunately they are rather rare, I saw them myself perhaps a couple of times only.

 

I couldn't agree more on your list of long standing annoyances. I'd just add

8. disappearing cloudshadows depending on angle of view.

 

Btw you probably know that you can to some extent cure No. 4 by increasing TextureMaxLoad, e.g. to 30. But that will worsen No. 6.

I think No.7 is a result of No. 2. The buildings are rendered before the "final" mesh has been loaded.

 

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by RALF9636

10 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Anyway, with all teh complaints about FSX and P3D, I believe they are   still the choice for  almost all serious simmers. 

In the main,  I don't think that's under dispute, although sales figures from Aerosoft confirm much high concentrations for P3D and very low FSX numbers - dwindling to almost nothing.

 

18 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Btw you probably know that you can to some extent cure No. 4 by increasing TextureMaxLoad, e.g. to 30. But that will worsen No. 6.

As a sidenote, I tried this, but it didn't work for me. Frames unlimited, frames limited to 30 internally, it all didn't help.

But perhaps this isn't the proper place to go into more detail on this.

Kind reagards, Michael

 

26 minutes ago, ErichB said:

In the main,  I don't think that's under dispute, although sales figures from Aerosoft confirm much high concentrations for P3D and very low FSX numbers - dwindling to almost nothing.

 

That is because a lot of developers are stopping any development for FSX, eventually all those FSX users will need to jump the fence.. the question is were? I think it will be P3D.

S.

40 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I couldn't agree more on your list of long standing annoyances. I'd just add

8. disappearing cloudshadows depending on angle of view.

 

Btw you probably know that you can to some extent cure No. 4 by increasing TextureMaxLoad, e.g. to 30. But that will worsen No. 6.

I think No.7 is a result of No. 2. The buildings are rendered before the "final" mesh has been loaded.

 

No 7, the floating buildings is a weird one.. this is the first time I have heard a plausible explanation for how it comes about.  Unfortunately, the system does not correct it later, no matter how long you wait. Only a scenery reload fixes it.

To see what a newly engineered flight sim can do with photorealistic scenery, please just load from Steam (30 gb  - or more if you download all the free DLC) and do a 2 hour tryout (then return at no charge if desired) of Aerofly FS 2 - maybe a flight from KSFO to Reno. It does not show any blurry or popping scenery and the very high framerates are impressive.  If only P3D could manage to develop a similar graphics engine. It also works great in VR. Fly the Q400!

Edited August 9, 20187 yr by whitav8