Jackaroo05

What features would you like to see in P3Dv5?

Recommended Posts

Hello! What features would you like to see implemented in Preprar3D v5? For me, I have a few wishes. For one, I wish that you could change the color and transparency of the menu bar in sim. Another thing is that a few default airliners (like the ones from PMDG) in the game by default. Granted, this would raise the cost of the sim, but there should also be an option to buy it with just default planes- no airliners for a cheaper price. And finally, I wish to see backward compatibility with x32 planes in an x64 sim- this would give people that dumped a lot of money into FSX or earlier versions of P3D (before V4) use their planes in a better sim. Now, what would you like to see? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I wish a new engine 🤗

 

Which means that there will be No Backwards Comparibility ...

And I am fine with that 😎

  • Like 9
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

No backwards compatibility at all.  New tech all the way.  New terrain engine.  Even better lighting.  

Edited by ErichB
  • Like 10
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Better multicore utilization.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

No changes whatsoever, so that I can enjoy the stuff that I have already paid for :wink:

Edited by Christopher Low
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Christopher Low said:

No changes whatsoever, so that I can enjoy the stuff that I have already paid for over an extended period of time :wink:

If you stick to what you have you can do that anyway regardless of future changes, can't you?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

No changes whatsoever, so that I can enjoy the stuff that I have already paid for :wink:

Agreed as we all invested a ton of money into this, BUT at some point we would have to take the next step... while a painful thought, it may happen one day.

Share this post


Link to post

New engine, better handling of terrain loading; essentially something to remove the periodic pauses during flight.  Better multicore management would be great assuming that translates to better average FPS and stability.

Backward compatibility isn't significant for me.

Danny

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Dreamflight767 said:

I'm simple...updated airports.

In my opinion it is nothing they should waste ressources on. There will be an add-on that takes care of that. If it is important to you, you will be able to spend a few dollars on it. But if an airport is important to me, there is a 98% chance that someone updated it and uploaded it somewhere.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Dreamflight767 said:

I'm simple...updated airports.

If third parties can improve any useable visual features,  it is not likely to receive significant development time from LM.  Their valuable development time should be used to make it easier for others to enhance the platform, visually, or otherwise.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The irony of all of the new enhancements LM has already added to P3D4 is that developers are not utilising the full capabilities of the P3D SDK's.  Instead, many continue to take the easy route by wedging 15 year old FSX developments into new versions of P3D. 

For this reason, backward compatibility should be stopped.   This is one of the reasons XP seems to be blazing forward at lightning speed, relative to P3D - backward compatibility doesn't exist.

Edited by ErichB
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ErichB said:

The irony of all of the new enhancements LM have already added to P3D4 is that developers are not utilising the full capabilities of the P3D SDK's.  Instead, many continue to take the easy route by wedging 15 year old FSX developments into new versions of P3D. 

For this reason, backward compatibility should be stopped.   This is one of the reasons XP seems to be blazing forward at lightning speed at the moment, relative to P3D - backward compatibility doesn't exist.

You nailed it!

S.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

LM's focus is going to be on the core elements of the sim to allow the 3rd party 'specialists' to provide the 'eye candy' or more detailed simulation experience than LM could hope to achieve themselves.

I'd like to see better lighting from improved Rayleigh scattering, improved terrain rendering, sloped runways and an AI engine that can both deal with non-flat runways and can deal with STARS, SIDS, speed restrictions and can maintain separation, and most importantly changes to the game engine to enable more data to be processed and by more CPU cores.

What I've described is almost a new sim, but that's fine.
Prepar3D needs to let go of legacy compatibility (it won't though) to bring the brightest and best new features. Those calling for maintaining compatibility with earlier P3D versions and even FSX products  are guilty of cakeism.
FSX broke compatibility with FS9, didn't stop me continuing to use and enjoy it for several years. FS9 even got new products developed for it for a long time after FSX was on the scene.
You buy software to work at that specific date, having it work with future products is just a bonus.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

What I really would like to see is a real atmosphere... Get rid of texture based clouds.

Moisture, Haze, Fog, Clouds, changing lighting conditions all based on laws of physic.

Imagine beeing at FL400 and you have fully OVC conditions at around FL250 ish and you can realy "feel" the altitude... 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I understand everybody who wanna have a backward compatibility (I have also spend "some thousands" of bucks) BUT we can´t have the next 20 years a compatibility to an old and not really optimized product. even if the Lockheed M. can push this to the limits but it is the old MS Engine. It´s time for something new - new engine and for first time really really good weather engine and visualization and combined effects - of course beside other things that we know - but if you take XP11 with the visuals  and the speed at the same time (except the weather engine 😞 ) - LM MUST go a step forward - there are so many things:

better mesh + runway follow terrain contours  f. E.

shader generated snow and rain + accumulation - visuals on the runway and effects on the plane... f. E.

OSM coverage + better implementation of the Ortho´s f. E.

better damage model +  f. E.

etc. etc. etc......the List would be very long !

To be honest the whole buch of the updates from P3D V3 - P3D V4 have had a value of completely new product - yes it would take more time to implement this things to the new engine but someday they should be a start "button" for this - it was the same with the X-Plane and there are already some incredible addons !

Cheers

 

 

Edited by AUA425
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I agree - backwards compatibility needs to have cutoff points. But I'm hesitant to get overly excited about an entirely new codebase. Joel Spolsky used to write a coding blog, and something he stressed that I tend to agree with is that blowing up the code to start fresh means you're also blowing up 20 years worth of bug fixes. New code = new bugs that have to be squashed, and that's resource intensive and can annoy customers.

So while I think a new codebase is needed, I also don't expect to like it at first. 😉

An advantage to a new codebase would be that they would no longer be subject to their agreement with Microsoft, and could market the thing to whoever they wanted. Only selling to the training market leaves a lot of money on the table as the "gamers" stick with FSX or go to Xplane to avoid non-compliance. I know LM doesn't care about the gaming market, but I bet if they were allowed, they wouldn't say no if the gamers threw money at them for a product they were making anyway. Opening up a new source of revenue without having to spend any more money than you were spending anyway means more money to sink into product development.

If they did go with a new codebase, most of us would probably dual-run the old and new for a long time. Just like I did when FS5 came out. 5 was really beautiful compared to 4, but for a long time there wasn't much to it as far as addons because it takes the 3rd parties time to catch up. That's patience-trying but it's also kinda good because it means we won't have to shell out tons of money at once to replace all the addons we have.

 

 

Edited by eslader
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For the moment the only things which are really annoying to me are: ATC and weather.

ATC is just plain word not allowed and basically the same we had 20 years ago and weather, well weather is still with the nice weather addons somehow basic. Unless there is a hurricane close by, landing with anything bigger than a Cessna is still like flying on rails.

Ah, and add a new engine to that. But that is utterly unrealistic and to be honest, it would upset me a little bit to throw away all addons I bought for P3Dv4 so far...

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure hoping the reason Rob has taken a hiatus from the forums is that he's now on the inside passing along our shared wishlists 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Ah, and add a new engine to that. But that is utterly unrealistic and to be honest, it would upset me a little bit to throw away all addons I bought for P3Dv4 so far..

You don't have to throw them away.  They could still be used with V4

Edited by ErichB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, but I know me. If there is a new P3D with a brand new engine, I wont go back to v4 with the old engine and all its flaws. I am a graphics fetish guy, the better looking a sim or a game, the more it attracts me. So yes, I would probably dump v4 the moment a P3D with a new engine is out and running...

But: it is anyway unrealistic and not coming soon...

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

My comment regarding "no changes whatsoever" was not intended to be taken too seriously. However, I would be somewhat annoyed if products that were designed to run in P3D v4 would not work properly in P3D v5. I would also not be impressed if P3D v4 compatibility was dropped as soon as P3D v5 is released.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

53674838_10213915307211897_3646390314765

Thank God Atari died!!!, otherwise ORBX TE GB would have run at about 1FPS on the simulator above and I can't even imagine how my AI Lights would have look like on the monochrome monitor:wink:

Regards,

S.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, simbol said:

You nailed it!

S.

Ditto ++!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, eslader said:

[...] blowing up the code to start fresh means you're also blowing up 20 years worth of bug fixes. New code = new bugs that have to be squashed, and that's resource intensive and can annoy customers.

[...]

If they did go with a new codebase, most of us would probably dual-run the old and new for a long time. Just like I did when FS5 came out. 5 was really beautiful compared to 4, but for a long time there wasn't much to it as far as addons because it takes the 3rd parties time to catch up.

I agree. This is why I think legacy compatibility will still exist in P3D v5.

Writing swathes of new code is time-consuming and doesn't come with the benefit of over a decade of customer bug reports to ensure a stable working base sim.

A lot of third party devs have gone through a costly process of making their products work in 64-bit. Some have charged, some haven't, who knows if they made healthy profits or not from that exercise. I can't see many of them willing to start from nearly scratch to make their current ranges ready for any new engines that have no backward compatibility, when maintaining the P3D status quo brings in a steady stream of income.
Also, how many simmers are ready to spend vast amounts on replacing what they have, twice in the space of 3 or so years? We see many simmers continue to complain about FSX add-on development drying up and others choosing to move to the 'cheaper' XP11 platform.
 

8 minutes ago, simbol said:

Thank God Atari died!!!, otherwise ORBX TE GB would have run at about 1FPS on the simulator above and I can't even imagine how my AI Lights would have look like on the monochrome monitor:wink:

Your strobes would have looked like this:
10101010 for Boeings
110110110 for Airbuses  😄

Edited by F737NG
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now