New entry on p3d website - implied future actions?

[David Vega 348]

It's more likely that developers who could sell their addons to LM's primary clients will return (or perhaps they never left) than developers that sell addons to us. This second group is focusing their few resources on the larger customer base elsewhere (the kind that pauses their simulator by pressing the Menu button in their X-box controllers).

[abrams_tank 7,393]

4 hours ago, neilhewitt said:

Only if it will make them enough money to be worth spending the time on development.

Once upon a time, developers serving P3D would have clear expectations about the number of copies they could expect to sell, and decided if a particular product was worth the investment on that basis. Now, they have access to a platform where potentially (and I use that word advisedly), for roughly the same amount of work, they can sell orders of magnitude more copies, even if usually for a lower price. Which do you think they will pick? In an ideal world they would do both but in the real world people and time are expensive and there's little to no downside in terms of revenue or reputation in abandoning P3D, especially if they don't hang out in forums like this one to hear the complaints of the users they abandoned.

The developers are never coming back unless the mass market comes to P3D or the other sim closes down. That's (sadly) my opinion.

Very well said.  The 3rd party developers will go where the money is, if the development time is comparable.

One day, if there is a better flight simulator than MSFS (as perceived by the flight sim market), and the market flocks to this new flight simulator, watch the 3rd party developers quickly dump MSFS and jump ship to this new flight simulator.  They're just gonna go where the money is.

[dave2013 1,123]

Here's my wish list for P3Dv6:

1. Improved EA

2. Improved volumetric clouds

3. Improved weather and precipitation effects

4. Improved night lighting

5. Updated vector data for more remote parts of the world.  The lake and river elevations and coastlines in northern Canada are pretty bad, for example.

6. Improved performance overall

Dave

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

1 hour ago, Juliet Alpha said:

You are right. Sorry 😆

It’s alright. No apology needed. 😉

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

57 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

if there is a better flight simulator than MSFS (as perceived by the flight sim market),

Not playing Devil’s Advocate but aren’t the aircraft and the quality of the flight models in any sim just as important as the simulator itself? XP was long thought of as having the most accurate flight models. The PMDG and FS Labs aircraft are highly regarded in P3D and are probably the main reason why it still has its fans.

To take Concorde as an example it’s admitted by DCD that its version for MSFS is a cut-down one missing key elements but for the price is excellent value.

Having experienced the Colimata Concorde for XP I was disappointed with the lateral porpoising. The most accurate version I’ve used is the FS Labs 32-bit for FSX / P3Dv3.

The visuals are heavily compromised but the flight model is spot on. And that was created around 2010.

For me personally I’ll opt for the sim that has the most accurate flight models for the aircraft that are important to me.

[shivers9 1,174]

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not playing Devil’s Advocate but aren’t the aircraft and the quality of the flight models in any sim just as important as the simulator itself? XP was long thought of as having the most accurate flight models. The PMDG and FS Labs aircraft are highly regarded in P3D and are probably the main reason why it still has its fans.

To take Concorde as an example it’s admitted by DCD that its version for MSFS is a cut-down one missing key elements but for the price is excellent value.

Having experienced the Colimata Concorde for XP I was disappointed with the lateral porpoising. The most accurate version I’ve used is the FS Labs 32-bit for FSX / P3Dv3.

The visuals are heavily compromised but the flight model is spot on. And that was created around 2010.

For me personally I’ll opt for the sim that has the most accurate flight models for the aircraft that are important to me.

I agree Ray. I have no inside info at all but I do think that we may see a pretty good change in the direction of P3d V6 when it is released. I don't expect it to be earth shaking by any means. I would not be surprised to see for example, that LM has been working in the background with some of the better developers such as A2A, ORBX and others for projects that benefit both their military customers and if we are lucky us home users. We may even see a move toward and updated SDK that is more stream lined to make it faster and more feasible to work on P3D projects. If I get away from all the noise and the "my sim has a bigger rocket than you sim" talk, then it just does not make any sense that LM would continue to pretend to support our community. LM is a grown up company with grown up goals. If They wanted to dump you and I then they would do one press release and it would be over. At the same time, they are not stupid enough to continue wasting time with us unless there is a plan to move forward with better scenery and better flight models of all kinds. I am excited for V6 just to see if we might get a better idea of what happens next. I am pretty happy with 5.3 for now and I have been watching X-Pain V12 as a back up. 👽

[GCBraun 2,390]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not playing Devil’s Advocate but aren’t the aircraft and the quality of the flight models in any sim just as important as the simulator itself? XP was long thought of as having the most accurate flight models. The PMDG and FS Labs aircraft are highly regarded in P3D and are probably the main reason why it still has its fans.

To take Concorde as an example it’s admitted by DCD that its version for MSFS is a cut-down one missing key elements but for the price is excellent value.

Having experienced the Colimata Concorde for XP I was disappointed with the lateral porpoising. The most accurate version I’ve used is the FS Labs 32-bit for FSX / P3Dv3.

The visuals are heavily compromised but the flight model is spot on. And that was created around 2010.

For me personally I’ll opt for the sim that has the most accurate flight models for the aircraft that are important to me.

That makes total sense. Unfortunately there are no quality A340, MD-11, 737 classics, 727 and 747-200 on MSFS yet and that is why I am actively using XP12. 

The only plane I somewhat miss from P3D is the 777, but I know that it is in active development by PMDG. All the other ones that I used, including the 737NG and A320, are beautifully represented in MSFS, so there is no reason for me at the moment to have yet another sim installed.

The new FSLabs Concorde is also not exclusive to P3D. Looking forward to that one. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by GCBraun

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

21 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

The new FSLabs Concorde is also not exclusive to P3D. Looking forward to that one. 

You do know how long it takes for FSL to do conversions. 😉 I believe it’s been around 5 years for the 32-bit to 64-bit P3D version. There was a delay in that period to take stock after MSFS was released but it’s still a ruddy long time I’ve waited.

Maybe it will take less time for the MSFS version but the Airbuses will have to take priority. No earlier than 2024 for Concorde I reckon.

[Cognita 1,054]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

it’s still a ruddy long time I’ve waited.

Ray, I have to say I admire your commitment to the Concord, but even more I admire your patience. It has been a very long time. I really hope when FSL releases it that it is a real step ahead and worth the wait.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@Cognita, it’s only Concorde I would be so patient for. Coincidentally it was 19 years ago today the BA Concordes flew commercially for the last time. Here’s a BBC report of a sad day. A few famous faces…

https://fb.watch/gmHCQ0wOcu/

One of my first flights will be Paris to JFK - AF4590 that never made it on 25 July 2000.

[Joseph29 225]

For me I use P3D v5.3 right now. If v6 comes out and nothing from v5 works in the new sim, and developers will not be making anything for v6 I most likely will not be getting v6. What would be the point of a new sim and not having any high quality addons for it?

[pommy80 82]

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Here's my wish list for P3Dv6:

1. Improved EA

2. Improved volumetric clouds

3. Improved weather and precipitation effects

4. Improved night lighting

5. Updated vector data for more remote parts of the world.  The lake and river elevations and coastlines in northern Canada are pretty bad, for example.

6. Improved performance overall

Dave

 

Good list.

 

I hope they include and update the default airports to 2022 (Would be nice to have all the latest new airports, especially in China...)

[BlueStar 323]

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For me personally I’ll opt for the sim that has the most accurate flight models for the aircraft that are important to me.

Ray,

This is why I've gone to the Aerowinx PSX B744 and use P3dv5.3 as my scenery.  

[Boeingnut 72]

1 hour ago, BlueStar said:

Ray,

This is why I've gone to the Aerowinx PSX B744 and use P3dv5.3 as my scenery.  

Wow! Aerowinx really has transcended the ages. I remember first reading about the first version of this software when I bought FS 98.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

1 hour ago, BlueStar said:

Ray,

This is why I've gone to the Aerowinx PSX B744 and use P3dv5.3 as my scenery.  

Was this the 747 simulator that was totally procedural? No outside views. If so then that’s dedication for you. 👍