Manuel is a 737 pilot and beta tester for PMDG 

 

Cool, a 15 minute video for a 2 minute trailer. 

Lets say that with the v6 trailer, P3D didn’t win me back… If v6 only has what is showed in it, it is a bit disappointing when one knows the enormous technological assets of Lockheed-Martin. Retro-compatibility is the little death.

On 6/25/2023 at 8:35 AM, chapstick said:

Cool, a 15 minute video for a 2 minute trailer. 

it's a good video. 737NG Driver isn't like most youtubers analyzing videos. He actually goes in-depth.
 

On 6/26/2023 at 1:42 AM, Dominique_K said:

Lets say that with the v6 trailer, P3D didn’t win me back… If v6 only has what is showed in it, it is a bit disappointing when one knows the enormous technological assets of Lockheed-Martin. Retro-compatibility is the little death.

Backward compatibility is the key when you have multi-million dollar clients that use your software for military training.  Remember the primary purpose of P3D.

33 minutes ago, jlohrenz said:

Backward compatibility is the key when you have multi-million dollar clients that use your software for military training.  Remember the primary purpose of P3D.

I doubt that a multi million dollar company train their personal with a $60 Ifly 737 or a fslabs A320 and use a $20 Mk-Studios or Aerosoft scenery.

Those clients use specific professional add-ons developped specificialy for them which don't cost $50. And you bet that for the price they probably pay for those add-ons, the developpers will provide updates to make them compatible with 6.0. The entertainment market is different.

 

16 minutes ago, sdirand said:

And you bet that for the price they probably pay for those add-ons, the developpers will provide updates to make them compatible with 6.0.

In my experience, they wouldn't be provided those updates for free, meaning: They would have to pay extra. Plus the hassle (time & more money) of testing updates before actually using them.

1 hour ago, jlohrenz said:

3DBackward compatibility is the key when you have multi-million dollar clients that use your software for military training.  Remember the primary purpose of P3D.

As I do not know the specifics of the  P3D contracts with the military (who buys, what do they buy and exactly for what), I would be prudent before affirming anything. Armed forces have indeed the inertia of large bureaucracies but also the need to find new approaches to operations.  After all, there was a time when USAF abandoned the Link Trainer 😉. 

I am somewhat surprised to see so little of Lockheed-Martin tech (GATR and many others) spill over to P3D. The trailer may not say the whole story but it looks yet another pimped up iteration of the ESP .  There might be good reasons but still it is disappointing. They don't move the goal posts.

On 6/28/2023 at 4:08 AM, sdirand said:

I doubt that a multi million dollar company train their personal with a $60 Ifly 737 or a fslabs A320 and use a $20 Mk-Studios or Aerosoft scenery.

Those clients use specific professional add-ons developped specificialy for them which don't cost $50. And you bet that for the price they probably pay for those add-ons, the developpers will provide updates to make them compatible with 6.0. The entertainment market is different.

 

Interestingly, MilViz did exactly that - their T-38C Talon was priced at $60-$80, IIRC, and it was so close to the code they sold to the USAF that they had to stop offering it for sale to the public!

The Majestic Q400, is about $50 for the consumer desktop version, and the full commercial version (with a bunch of additional relevant pro features) is relatively cheap at $300.

A2A is a "little" pricier, with their C182 ranging from $50 to $800!

The point is that "Professional Grade" addons aren't necessarily that much more complicated/capable than the desktop versions.

On 6/28/2023 at 5:31 AM, Dominique_K said:

As I do not know the specifics of the  P3D contracts with the military (who buys, what do they buy and exactly for what), I would be prudent before affirming anything. Armed forces have indeed the inertia of large bureaucracies but also the need to find new approaches to operations.  After all, there was a time when USAF abandoned the Link Trainer 😉. 

I am somewhat surprised to see so little of Lockheed-Martin tech (GATR and many others) spill over to P3D. The trailer may not say the whole story but it looks yet another pimped up iteration of the ESP .  There might be good reasons but still it is disappointing. They don't move the goal posts.

Backwards compatibility is also a prime reason civilian companies stick with a particular technology once they have it (MS Windows/Office being the prime example). The costs to switch platforms are astronomical - even IF everything goes perfectly...

LM are providing P3D as part of the Pilot Training Next Program for the US armed forces. A key advantage of that is the networked multi-player aspect. The USAF, for e.g., is having student pilots fly under control of student ATC, etc. This is in addition to the other "multi-domain" training that they provide, etc.