New Entry on p3d main site.

[Christopher Low 5,368]

Have I missed something? I do not see any arguments here.

[charliearon 3,026]

48 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Have I missed something? I do not see any arguments here.

Hello!  Those posts have been removed!  Move along!

[DChockey08 299]

Well you can’t really have a conversation about a P3D update without looking at another sim and how that may affect the ecosystem. To me, there’s three options for v6:

1. Upgrades/tweaks that make the sim better but similar to the upgrade from 4 to 5. Doesn’t dramatically change the sim but makes it worth the upgrade and more importantly breaks no add-on compatibility. 

2. Significant tweaks that change the underlying core of the sim, breaking add-on compatibility. The changes are great, but not so great that the P3D user base grows significantly. Barely any add-on developers consider upgrading their assets to be used in P3dv6.

3. Huge changes that break addon compatibility but also make the sim so good that the user base grows again (even the entertainment side) and the addons who has left P3D now develop in parallel with MSFS. 
 

Number 2 would obviously be the worst case scenario. Number 3 vs Number 1 is debatable as to which is best, but I think based on what we’ve read from LM we can expect #1.  

The only question is: how significant we can expect the changes to be if they don’t do anything to affect addons. 

[Bob Scott 7,722]

2 hours ago, DChockey08 said:

Well you can’t really have a conversation about a P3D update without looking at another sim and how that may affect the ecosystem. To me, there’s three options for v6:

1. Upgrades/tweaks that make the sim better but similar to the upgrade from 4 to 5. Doesn’t dramatically change the sim but makes it worth the upgrade and more importantly breaks no add-on compatibility. 

2. Significant tweaks that change the underlying core of the sim, breaking add-on compatibility. The changes are great, but not so great that the P3D user base grows significantly. Barely any add-on developers consider upgrading their assets to be used in P3dv6.

3. Huge changes that break addon compatibility but also make the sim so good that the user base grows again (even the entertainment side) and the addons who has left P3D now develop in parallel with MSFS. 
 

Number 2 would obviously be the worst case scenario. Number 3 vs Number 1 is debatable as to which is best, but I think based on what we’ve read from LM we can expect #1.  

The only question is: how significant we can expect the changes to be if they don’t do anything to affect addons. 

I think it's a faulty and improperly-constrained assumption that any major P3D upgrade--for example in the graphics engine--necessarily must break backwards compatibility in wholesale fashion.

There has been a stream of significant improvements in the ESP platform since Microsoft abandoned FSX in 2009, e.g. 32-to-64 bit platform conversion, graphics engine upgrades from DX9 to DX11 to DX12, major improvements to multi-threading, etc.  The move from 32 to 64-bit probably was the hardest hit to compatibility, but even still the continuity through all those changes has been somewhat remarkable.  And regardless of what might happen w/r/t backwards compatibility, when it comes to P3D, moving to the next version is always a decision left to the user--nobody is forced to upgrade to a new version that breaks things that are important to them, or to a system that depends on unreliable server or network infrastructure.  If you like your sim, you can keep your sim.  There's still something good to be said about that.  Some of us still place high value on stability.

I think there's still a reasonable opportunity for P3D to grow and improve in its space.  I'm still happy in that space (but not exclusively) and looking forward to what LM might come up with next.

[GCBraun 2,392]

Offline usage is currently possible in all major sims, but who wants that? I would assume that P3D fans would not enjoy flying without proper weather generation and/or add-ons that require connectivity for license checks. I would take mandatory online usage over FS98 DLL dependencies any day...don't even remember the last time I could not fly due to connectivity issues. 

As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back. This is the relevant market for 99.5% of flight sim users and winning that crowd is essential to lure add-on developers. MSFS did not have any major third-party support in the initial months, but that did not stop the massive market transition to occur.

13 hours ago, DChockey08 said:

3. Huge changes that break addon compatibility but also make the sim so good that the user base grows again (even the entertainment side) and the addons who has left P3D now develop in parallel with MSFS. 

 

[FrankSalo 272]

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back.

Microsoft only gave LM the Pro ESP license. They later gave Dovetail Games the home/FSX license to make FSX Steam Edition,  Flight School and Flight Sim World. They then took back the License from Dovetail and later revealed the new MSFS. So Microsoft will not give that right out to anyone anytime soon. Also with P3D, LM also gets to sell hardware and training bundles to commercial and government clients rather than just P3D itself to the enthusiast crowd. 

[GCBraun 2,392]

32 minutes ago, FrankSalo said:

Microsoft only gave LM the Pro ESP license. They later gave Dovetail Games the home/FSX license to make FSX Steam Edition,  Flight School and Flight Sim World. They then took back the License from Dovetail and later revealed the new MSFS. So Microsoft will not give that right out to anyone anytime soon. Also with P3D, LM also gets to sell hardware and training bundles to commercial and government clients rather than just P3D itself to the enthusiast crowd. 

I know that, but there is an obvious loophole that allowed myself and almost everyone here to use P3D for 10 years without any intention of getting real world training. They could keep doing this and just offer an evolutionary update, but I'm afraid this won't bring many people back.

That is what I am suggesting that they should break with the ESP-shackles and offer something truly new that could rival with the competition. What we have today can't and the numbers don't lie.

[d.tsakiris 418]

2 hours ago, GCBraun said:

As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back. This is the relevant market for 99.5% of flight sim users and winning that crowd is essential to lure add-on developers.

I don't think LM and their primary customers care much about the add-on developers we're talking about - they have their own. I'd say they want the stability of a mature software that changes in increments, and only if they want it to.

[GCBraun 2,392]

9 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

I don't think LM and their primary customers care much about the add-on developers we're talking about - they have their own. I'd say they want the stability of a mature software that changes in increments, and only if they want it to.

Sure. That is not what the majority of simmers want, though. My posts are about P3D’s relevancy on the domestic flight simulation market.

[d.tsakiris 418]

3 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

That is not what the majority of simmers want, though. My posts are about P3D’s relevancy on the domestic flight simulation market.

I agree, but there is still a minority that has similar wishes as those of LM's primary customers. I expect development on P3d won't change much, with priority given to backward compatibility and stability, and a small trickle of new add-ons. That's fine with me.

[Daube 354]

It's doesn't matter if it's fine for us customers or not.

What matters is if it's fine with addon makers. If we get a new P3D but addon makers don't make any addons for it, then what would we do with it ?

[Bob Scott 7,722]

4 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Offline usage is currently possible in all major sims, but who wants that? I would assume that P3D fans would not enjoy flying without proper weather generation and/or add-ons that require connectivity for license checks. I would take mandatory online usage over FS98 DLL dependencies any day...don't even remember the last time I could not fly due to connectivity issues. 

As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back. This is the relevant market for 99.5% of flight sim users and winning that crowd is essential to lure add-on developers. MSFS did not have any major third-party support in the initial months, but that did not stop the massive market transition to occur.

 

Who wants offline usage?  Anyone not served by dependable wideband internet, for starters.  People that don't want sim sessions ruined by bandwidth warnings (even those with good wideband), and it doesn't take a lot of reading to observe that particular problem does exist.  And it's not an on/off binary choice between full real-time streaming and offline--one can certainly get weather and do license validation on a very low bandwidth, spotty connection, as many folks in rural and otherwise underserved areas experience.  I take a portable computer in my RV when we travel, and I have good experience with conducting a 3-hour P3D sim session on just a few MB of data via a cellular data connection.

FS98 DLL dependencies?  lmao 

 

[GCBraun 2,392]

22 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Who wants offline usage?  Anyone not served by dependable wideband internet, for starters.  People that don't want sim sessions ruined by bandwidth warnings (even those with good wideband), and it doesn't take a lot of reading to observe that particular problem does exist. 

 

If this issue would be as severe as you would say, the market situation would be completely different than what it is. The online functionalities introduced two and a half years ago were absolutely disruptive and the very reason why flight simulation came back to mainstream.

Just like 2D cockpits, landclass scenery, service packs and snail-pace updates every two years are a thing of the past and a robust server capability is the only practical way to offer a modern SaaS flight-sim.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by GCBraun

[d.tsakiris 418]

40 minutes ago, Daube said:

If we get a new P3D but addon makers don't make any addons for it, then what would we do with it ?

In this hypothetical: Use the existing add-ons, because they're still compatible.

[Bob Scott 7,722]

8 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

If this issue would be as severe as you would say, the market situation would be completely different than what it is. The online functionalities introduced two and a half years ago were absolutely disruptive and the very reason why flight simulation came back to mainstream.

Just like landclass scenery and 2D cockpits, service packs or snail-pace updates every two years are a thing of the past. 

I vehemently disagree.  There wouldn't be anyone here talking about any of this if what you say were some kind of universal truth.

For a good number of folks, the problems stemming from connectivity issues I describe are far *more* severe than I am characterizing them.  And for a good number of us, we'd actually prefer snail-pace optional updates to rapidly-fielded, poorly-tested forced updates that repeatedly break stuff we want/need working without giving us any choice in the matter.

Anyway, we're here in the P3D forum to discuss P3D, where landclass scenery, an optional update regimen at a measured pace, historical and accurately-repeatable weather configuration, and network-independent reliability still work for us.