New entry on p3d website - implied future actions?

[G-YMML1 553]

Probably this is the reason why MK has been dead silent about LIFR since April despite the fact that they had guaranteed Rome in P3Dv5 at 100%

[d.tsakiris 410]

21 minutes ago, Beerz said:

don't expect a new (built from the ground up) p3d version soon.  V6 will have the same textures like V5

P3D doesn't have to be “new built from ground up“ to have prettier scenery.

Edited October 21, 2022 by d.tsakiris

[spilok 1,091]

1 minute ago, d.tsakiris said:

P3D doesn't have to be “new built from ground up“ to have prettier scenery.

Agreed.  So much in the sim pleases me and others.  A "kicked up" scenery improvement using Google or similar software would give P3d a tremendous boost.  The ONLY reason I occasionally fly MSFS is because of the scenery, and I only fly VFR in that sim.  I fly P3d 90% of the time.

[G-YMML1 553]

2 minutes ago, spilok said:

Agreed.  So much in the sim pleases me and others.  A "kicked up" scenery improvement using Google or similar software would give P3d a tremendous boost.  The ONLY reason I occasionally fly MSFS is because of the scenery, and I only fly VFR in that sim.  I fly P3d 90% of the time.

Exaclty.

I have a plain vanilla MSFS installed to fly occasional VFR routes in Switzerland and Northern Italy. 

[G-RFRY 1,660]

I`m still sporting a 2080Ti GPU running P3Dv5 OK, while the other sim they are rushing to get their hands on a 4090 to get acceptable performance. 

[okupton 272]

I don’t want to sound negative, but I suggest managing expectations as best as possible for V6 to avoid setting ourselves up for disappointment.  I hope we do see major improvements to the sim, but I would be really surprised if LM dropped the cash to have google world data implemented. 

[David Mills 4,183]

45 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

I`m still sporting a 2080Ti GPU running P3Dv5 OK, while the other sim they are rushing to get their hands on a 4090 to get acceptable performance. 

I have an ancient 1070 with 8GB of video memory, and I get a solid and smooth 30fps (capped) on MSFS with settings mixed between High and Ultra at 2K. Any complaints about the performance of a 4090, regardless of the sim, are due to mismanagement on the part of the user.

[chapstick 2,667]

1 hour ago, okupton said:

I don’t want to sound negative, but I suggest managing expectations as best as possible for V6 to avoid setting ourselves up for disappointment.  I hope we do see major improvements to the sim, but I would be really surprised if LM dropped the cash to have google world data implemented. 

Yeah, that’s tens of millions per year if not more and for who? Commercial customers will just add the scenery they need, if that’s even the case. 

30 minutes ago, David Mills said:

I have an ancient 1070 with 8GB of video memory, and I get a solid and smooth 30fps (capped) on MSFS with settings mixed between High and Ultra at 2K. Any complaints about the performance of a 4090, regardless of the sim, are due to mismanagement on the part of the user.

You mentioned MSFS by name, now prepare to feel the Wrath of Ray 😂

[GCBraun 2,335]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

I`m still sporting a 2080Ti GPU running P3Dv5 OK, while the other sim they are rushing to get their hands on a 4090 to get acceptable performance. 

Not because of TAA performance, but rather due to DLSS3, as this seems to be a very promising tech for Flight-Sims (as seen here). 
 

Hopefully DLSS3 is also made available on P3D v6. 

[psolk 2,989]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

I`m still sporting a 2080Ti GPU running P3Dv5 OK, while the other sim they are rushing to get their hands on a 4090 to get acceptable performance. 

False... 

The other sim was used as a flagship demo for DLSS3 demonstrated by Nvidia and it can have massive performance gains but that does not imply it is required for acceptable performance.  People want a 4090 because it is the latest and greatest and smashes the 3 series at a lower price point than what a 3090 "was" selling for but there are optimized enhancements in the other sim to take advantage of that card.  

I want a 4090 for P3D too though, even 5.3 🙂  

Edited October 21, 2022 by psolk

[rka 916]

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

I`m still sporting a 2080Ti GPU running P3Dv5 OK, while the other sim they are rushing to get their hands on a 4090 to get acceptable performance. 

I'm still sporting a 2080 that drives MSFS in 4K and in VR OK. With DLSS now even very OK.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,544]

This topic is nothing to do with graphics card performance in MSFS. Get back on topic please.

[seamaster55 74]

I think  one should ask oneself is - what kind of improvements would the military like to see in a new version of p3d?

Because its primarily supposed to be a military training aid isn't it?

The USAF use it.

How about.....showing the names of streets or placenames on the terrain....y'know, just press a key combination, and the terrain textures will change to a map texture?

Think the military might like something similar to the sim that cannot be named, and have decent satellite terrain imagery on the terrain, to help pilots have a better awareness of their locale they are interacting with.

Maybe more accurate aerodynamics?

Online weather?

Different Air Forces I'm sure would have put forward some suggestions for a better iteration of p3d, so they would be more willing to buy it in the future?😐

[coastaldriver 851]

2 hours ago, seamaster55 said:

I think  one should ask oneself is - what kind of improvements would the military like to see in a new version of p3d?

Because its primarily supposed to be a military training aid isn't it?

The USAF use it.

How about.....showing the names of streets or placenames on the terrain....y'know, just press a key combination, and the terrain textures will change to a map texture?

Think the military might like something similar to the sim that cannot be named, and have decent satellite terrain imagery on the terrain, to help pilots have a better awareness of their locale they are interacting with.

Maybe more accurate aerodynamics?

Online weather?

Different Air Forces I'm sure would have put forward some suggestions for a better iteration of p3d, so they would be more willing to buy it in the future?😐

Point well made! In thread after thread here about P3D and what it should be or what it needs to be improved the focus (naturally) is from a side of the house that is Academic not Professional or Commercial. To better understand this I have numerous times emphasised that LM took up a good sim (very good but computing wise - dated) that was desktop capable rebuilt it for 64 bit introduced leading edge graphic (DX12, EA and True Sky) while not disturbing much the core functionality and ESP engine done by MS (ACE). Now full motion simulators for aircraft operated by commercial and military folk has always set graphics (out the window scenery) as a low priority - that is if is basic enough to show a runway and a few hills, ocean etc that would do - why? The computing focus is on the workings of a full scale accurate cockpit of a particular type with full hydraulically provide motion. These simulators are a substitute for using a real aeroplane for type training, skill enhancement, refreshers and ratings renewal. The core focus is on procedures and systems both of the aircraft and those of conducting inflight emergencies, instrument approaches and a variety of other scenarios (unusual attitudes, ditching, instrument failures etc) You do not get to do this unless you are already a licensed pilot with experience and have passed a gruelling engineering ground course on the aeroplane and its systems. For this environment scenery and scenic flying is basically irrelevant! Yes you fly instrument approach after instrument approach in these sims and go through all the trials of failures problems etc but note it is exclusively an IFR environment. 

Now as the military have caught up with the type simulator world and have progressively introduced simulator training to cover basic or ab initio flight training, advanced flight training and tactical or operational training the need for both desktop simulators and integration with the ground simulators has gone hand in hand. LM were not the only people doing this but I have never had any doubt that they quite sensibly made P3D available to the general sim community for the very reason it was a significant knowledge resource they could tap both for bolt in models and PC programs and could get heaps or feedback and suggestions or debugging from making such a developed sim available. You can see this step by step progress in the very way P3D has developed been rebuilt and now currently stands. You can go to the LM site and find plenty of videos and articles illustrating P3D's use in military flight training. 

I would also like to restate that military and commercial users are not into stand alone systems but they have to be maintained and integrated into the general overall computing and networking environment of those organisations. You do not have one user alone at a desk but may have dozens of terminals or sims that all have to be linked and controlled by a supervisor and the computing department. I have noted in each update this system and network integration has gathered significant momentum and sophistication but it is the under the hood stuff that Academic or single PC users do not access or need or indeed even realise is there! This also helps the bolt on or addon approach to the P3D sim.

So that is what P3D does but now with very good graphics. There is no point in using MSFS as a yardstick for graphics or performance one is providing entertainment and gaming goodies (admittedly very nice) the other is a serious simulator that has to be - predictable, robust and dead accurate! 

So what we have to face up to if your using P3D now and in the future (but us Academic or Privateers) will part company with LM and P3D at some point in the future for the very reason the software and systems that run a large commercial organisation need very heavy computing resources to make happen. 

How far LM will take graphical development is problematic. The only time military training or even commercial training would need high quality scenery is limited to navigation training (low level) operational training (low level and targeting or weapons delivery) and this is limited by the very nature of the instructional program or syllabus to probably only 25 % of the schedule. The focus is on aircraft handling, attitude flying, high quality instrument flying skills and IFR navigation! So that is where it wil go!

I will also make clear that I am a very experienced real world instructor, check pilot and former military QFI so I have been involved and used sims throughout my flying career. So I know what they do, how they do it and what they need and are using. So at the moment P3D is fine for them and me now as a private amateur. And I am grateful that LM did it and I can use it. IF it gets better good! P3D ticks all my boxes at the moment and V5.3 is great actually (sure it has some bugs but overall I get accurate performance, accurate handling, reasonably realistic weather display and can fly procedurally and IFR until my head hurts if I want. 

 

 

[okupton 272]

I agree with the above.  I’ll be really happy if we get improved lighting, truesky advancements that HiFi simulations can really improve on, better water, and imrovements with EA.  If they improve on anything, those are the things that I want and anything else is a bonus.