1 hour ago, B777ER said:

Please point to where I said P3D will die.

I wasn't talking about you, but if you look at some forums and even some people who regularly visit P3D forums, you will see that some are very enthusiastic about P3D dying and not being feasible for the future.

I'm fine about lack of new aircraft, but the developers started to stop supporting P3D so fast that they aren't even fixing their broken things. One example is Gaya ENCN, which still has massive scenery spikes and Gaya pretty much completely forgot about P3D.

2 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I wasn't talking about you, but if you look at some forums and even some people who regularly visit P3D forums, you will see that some are very enthusiastic about P3D dying and not being feasible for the future.

I'm fine about lack of new aircraft, but the developers started to stop supporting P3D so fast that they aren't even fixing their broken things. One example is Gaya ENCN, which still has massive scenery spikes and Gaya pretty much completely forgot about P3D.

I agree with what you said. It is out of our hands and we must make the best of it at this point.

6 hours ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

I wasn't talking about you, but if you look at some forums and even some people who regularly visit P3D forums, you will see that some are very enthusiastic about P3D dying and not being feasible for the future.

I'm fine about lack of new aircraft, but the developers started to stop supporting P3D so fast that they aren't even fixing their broken things. One example is Gaya ENCN, which still has massive scenery spikes and Gaya pretty much completely forgot about P3D.

I've some what stopped buying P3D products not because I don't want them but because I'm afraid DEV will stop supporting/improving/fixing after release.  I would love to see more payware airports for P3D but I don't want to buy it only to get no response when I need help with something.

On a different note, I was disappointed to see how few aircraft DEV (for any platform) were present/represented.  While I wasn't physically at the event, I didn't see some of the key players (who the community has supported over the years) make an appearance or be listed on the event website.  Kinda shocking.  Even if you don't have a new product to show off, being there listening to feedback, taking questions, and exchanging ideas is a key part of good relations in this community.  Besides, letting someone try your product might get you some extra buys.

 

  

14 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

I often toy with the idea of trying to obtain a copy of FS9 or reinstalling FSX just to get the A2A Stratocruiser and so I can use my LVLD 767. There is a plethora of classic aircraft both free and pay ware for those two sims.   

I've considered reinstalling FSX multiple times for similar reasons, I haven't flown the FSLabs Concorde since I moved to P3Dv4 in 2018 and am itching to get my hands on it again, now I have the hard-drive space I may well set up a basic installation so I can get to flying supersonically again - and I can finally learn that darned fuel-system!

Lack of support does not mean dead in my mind. My only concern with P3D as it ages is that as airport layouts change in the real world flying online will become more difficult assuming most 3rd party scenery devs don't update their products, but since I notice so many P3D users on this forum prefer to rely on AI traffic I don't see that being a dealbreaker for many and since I rarely fly online myself I can simply stick to airports that don't change as much. If FS9 still has users and some freeware development to this day then there sure will be for P3D as well.

Edited October 1, 20214 yr by SimeonWilbury

1 hour ago, SimeonWilbury said:

I haven't flown the FSLabs Concorde since I moved to P3Dv4 in 2018 and am itching to get my hands on it again, now I have the hard-drive space I may well set up a basic installation so I can get to flying supersonically again - and I can finally learn that darned fuel-system!

I still fly it in P3Dv3.4 and handle the fuel manually. Despite having 13 fuel tanks it's not as complicated as you might imagine. Three are used for getting CG right for take-off / landing; two are wing-tip tanks that are only used when 9 and 10 are empty. That leaves 8 and 4 are used as feeder tanks for the main engine tanks but only 2 at a time.

Once set for take-off they're not touched until Mach 0.7 is reached which is well after the busy period after take-off. You still need to be decent at arithmetic to work out when to start down. Lots of fun compared to Boeing / Airbus.

1 hour ago, SimeonWilbury said:

My only concern with P3D as it ages is that as airport layouts change in the real world flying online will become more difficult assuming most 3rd party scenery devs don't update their products,

I never fly online and the only airport I know the layout of is Manchester which no simulator has current accurate scenery for since the whole airport is being redesigned and rebuilt. For all the others the sim version is fine for me.

50 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

still fly it in P3Dv3.4 and handle the fuel manually. Despite having 13 fuel tanks it's not as complicated as you might imagine. Three are used for getting CG right for take-off / landing; two are wing-tip tanks that are only used when 9 and 10 are empty. That leaves 8 and 4 are used as feeder tanks for the main engine tanks but only 2 at a time.

Once set for take-off they're not touched until Mach 0.7 is reached which is well after the busy period after take-off. You still need to be decent at arithmetic to work out when to start down. Lots of fun compared to Boeing / Airbus.

Yes, I've read extensively about the fuel system (and aircraft in general) since I last flew it in the sim and have a much better understanding than I did before hand, so I think coming back it'll be more a case of learning the panels and practicing managing the workload with the rest of flying the aircraft (and getting a handle on the maths!), but it's a challenge I'm looking forward to!

I also flew the Aerosoft DC8 somewhat extensively last year which taught me some good lessons in flying 3-crew aircraft (with a simpler fuel system along with other oddities like no autothrottle). Since the Concorde was very much my first study-level sim aircraft, having had more experience with learning the fuel systems of other aircraft I should be a lot better equipped upon returning.

50 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I never fly online and the only airport I know the layout of is Manchester which no simulator has current accurate scenery for since the whole airport is being redesigned and rebuilt. For all the others the sim version is fine for me.

The same is largely true for me though I was more just thinking of it keeping in mind the overhaul that ORD went through recently and that LAX is apparently due for major rebuilding along with JFKs T7 supposedly going by 2024, it'll be more a concern for some airports than others - I imagine a lot of EU/NA airports bar some major hubs will be fine for the next decade on P3D though one region I can see falling behind very quickly is China, though I doubt even with active support it's easy to keep up with the sheer rate at which they build and expand their airports.

Edited October 1, 20214 yr by SimeonWilbury
quick addition

45 minutes ago, SimeonWilbury said:

Yes, I've read extensively about the fuel system (and aircraft in general) since I last flew it in the sim and have a much better understanding than I did before hand, so I think coming back it'll be more a case of learning the panels and practicing managing the workload with the rest of flying the aircraft (and getting a handle on the maths!), but it's a challenge I'm looking forward to!

Familiarity and regular flights help to keep my brain cells working for it given how different it is to other aircraft.

47 minutes ago, SimeonWilbury said:

along with JFKs T7 supposedly going by 2024,

Oh dear. That’s BA’s terminal where Concorde parked. I’ll need to find the new one once that scenery is updated for P3D assuming it will be.

I can't find anyone talking about the information which slipped through and I'm starting to wonder whether I heard correctly. During the P3D presentation a question was asked about future version support for streaming the terrain ala fs2020, and the presenter said they are considering this and are already talking with both Google and Bing. Did I understand correctly?

19 minutes ago, RXP said:

I can't find anyone talking about the information which slipped through and I'm starting to wonder whether I heard correctly. During the P3D presentation a question was asked about future version support for streaming the terrain ala fs2020, and the presenter said they are considering this and are already talking with both Google and Bing. Did I understand correctly?

One can only hope...

Nothing like a little competition to kickstart managment into gear.

Cheers

25 minutes ago, pgde said:

I find this hard to believe since he started the presentation by saying he can't discuss future plans, roadmaps or timeframes due to LM's policy. I do not remember hearing him say this.

You made me doubt so I double-checked!

Question starts at 25:15 of the presentation, and the answer was (just the main points):

"Our terrain needs works, we're looking into option whether we could utilize Bing maps, google maps, others, we have different talks with different companies, we are in the exploration stage at this point, but it is definitely a problem that we know we need to address. "

"we need to" instead of "we'd like to" makes it quite certain to me that they are going into this direction, unless I'm making an error in my interpretation of the English words, or how I understand the sentence construct (need to address terrain, or need to address terrain using Bing/Google/Etc.. maps)

Edited October 1, 20214 yr by RXP

1 minute ago, RXP said:

"we need to" instead of "we'd like to" makes it quite certain to me that they are going into this direction, unless I'm making an error in my interpretation of the English words ?!

No, you’re interpretation is correct. I would read that as something they intend to investigate. Doubt they’d get into bed with Bing but if they and Google worked out a deal that could cause the apple cart to be upset. They have the financial muscle. Just depends on whether the ESP engine can accommodate the changes. Backward compatibility would be important.

How does the saying go? He who laughs last, laughs longest. Hmmm. We live in interesting times.

When ever I think about the future of P3D I fancy the thought that if LM ever attempted to compete with MSFS  then they probably wouldn't need either Bing or Google. I fancy that LM may already have close ties with NASA who would have their own resource of terrain maps.

1 minute ago, Highmike said:

then they probably wouldn't need either Bing or Google. I fancy that LM may already have close ties with NASA who would have their own resource of terrain maps.

They do for sure, and if not they can do.

However the main problem they are having if I understood other parts of the presentation, is that the same data being used internally for stuff which is under tight "secret" level wraps, prevents them to releasing the same data (and even maybe an curated version of it) to the public use, because otherwise their is always the possibility that sensitive data slips through. They explained this for one aircraft for which they have all the accurate data but the one in the simulator is from a 3rd party, doing the LM aircraft... !

 

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How does the saying go? He who laughs last, laughs longest. Hmmm. We live in interesting times.

Definitely excited by these news, and the XP12 news!*

-
*before someone feels this is an outrageous comment in the P3D forum, please don't start a war here, diversity is good for our hobby and for your favorite 3rd party vendors, even if you don't use all of them.

Edited October 1, 20214 yr by RXP

28 minutes ago, RXP said:

You made me doubt so I double-checked!

Question starts at 25:15 of the presentation, and the answer was (just the main points):

"Our terrain needs works, we're looking into option whether we could utilize Bing maps, google maps, others, we have different talks with different companies, we are in the exploration stage at this point, but it is definitely a problem that we know we need to address. "

"we need to" instead of "we'd like to" makes it quite certain to me that they are going into this direction, unless I'm making an error in my interpretation of the English words, or how I understand the sentence construct (need to address terrain, or need to address terrain using Bing/Google/Etc.. maps)

I just did the same thing and will see if my post can be deleted. You are correct -- it was a comment made in passing and I didn't remember it. Will be interesting to see if the USAF wants to be locked into an online solution.

Have a great weekend!