P3Dv6 may usher to Unreal Engine based P3Dv7

[MonkeyWings 12]

I believe this v6 platform is close to reaching the ceiling of what the FSX based simulator can do. It did a whole lot, considering it's nearly 18 years old, which is very impressive. Even the longest running videogames barely hold up this well. LM is the best thing that ever happened for those of us who have been on since the early FSX days. This platform will still hold up well for the next 5-7 years, even if the updates stop, IMHO.

However, if LM decides to go with this new engine, it would be better for it to become a brand new platform, in which backwards compatibility is no longer offered. That would be fine, but if graphics are a big deal for some, X-plane is a great option, if you don't want MSFS. New add-ons using the latest technologies with P3D will keep the sim looking fresh, no matter what. JMTS

[sdirand 247]

The subject have been beaten to death a long time ago.

We almost all agree that P3D has no future if it keeps FSX/P3D curent compatibility. P3d 6.0 was a disapointment, abandoned by almost all developpers and nothing indicates it's gonna change soon. so why would LM follow the same path with 7.0? And btw, right now, nothing indicates that a 7.0 is in development for the consumer market. P3D 6.0 is not even 6 months old.

Now if LM release a 7.0 with a brand new engine, it will have to reach a new ceiling, throwing MSFS 2024 to the ropes. Easier said that done but It's the only way to bring back msfs users. Because yes, it will need more than the current P3D users switching to 7.0 to make it a success. If not, why would someone with an already nice library of add-ons, throw everything in the trash to start from scracht with P3D 7.0. It's not an impossible task, Microsft / Asobo was able to do it when they released msfs. But it has to be seen if LM has what it takes to push 7.0 the way Microsoft / Asobo did it with msfs. They have the money, no doubt about it but it need more than that: first the desire to invest into the consumer market, then the tools to do it. Right now, outside of the niche simulating market, P3D is a complete stranger for most people. The force of Microsoft / Asobo is that it is a brand known by everybody and with Bing, the Xbox market, etc, they already had the tools to reach a lot of players, leadin to the actual succes of msfs.

Edited November 27, 2023 by sdirand

[CO2Neutral 278]

MSFS and P3D are moving in very different directions and that's ok, both have their time and place.  Most FSX developers really only latched onto P3D because of it's compatibility and major 3rd party vendors like ORBX continued to use FS9 SDK/tools long into P3D development versions (if you had gone to any of the trade shows and talked to them you would know).  It's a case of lets keep the revenue to work effort viable/comfortable ... not saying they're lazy, that was not the case ... there just wasn't enough potential income to justify the work effort (BTW from what I'm seeing on Market Place deliverables, it's slowed as has the pace of development ... ROI probably still not where 3rd party would want it to be).

ORBX made it very clear back in P3D V2.x era that if P3D abandoned compatibility they would NOT develop for P3D.  3rd party developers resisted letting go of FS9/FSX all the way up to P3D V4.4+ (and probably still beyond that).  To this day I can still buy airports/scenery that are listed as compatible with P3D V6, but don't use PBR, don't use Dynamic Lights, don't use Dynamic Reflections, don't use curved runway support, don't use material scripting, don't use high resolution textures ... end result in an airport created in 2023 for P3D V6 that looks like an FSX airport of 2006.   A 3rd party airport "designed" for P3D V6 looks night and day different from a 3rd party airport "compatible" with V6.  Sadly, the issue now is ROI. 

3rd party developers created the perception "it's still FSX engine" which it is not and if anyone is familiar with 32bit vs. 64bit code and DX9 vs. Dx12, PBR, Dynamic Lighting, material scripting, dynamic reflections, etc. etc. can confirm the technologies are NOT the same.  Even Asobo admitted there was a lot of good technology in FSX that they brought forward.  Because 99% of the MSFS users are not software engineers, they don't understand code reuse but sadly seem to be experts on the "same engine" because 3rd party weren't utilizing all the new features and certainly did NOT retro fit all existing airports so it visually looked the same.

MSFS forced 3rd party to accept change, promises of a new era (read better ROI) ... heck Jorge had planned to do MSFS without any 3rd party support initially (and without a v1.0 SDK that's how it was released with a beta 0.1 SDK).

With that said, I would love to see P3D V7 be on a completely different code base or a UE5 platform.  The existing SDK/Tools to build onto that platform are very impressive, very efficient, very affordable, and will likely bring DLC content to market faster and higher ROIs.  Using UE5 would be a huge gain because much of the SDK is already there for 3rd party to use ... there will obviously be some additional libraries needed, but it would avoid having to build an SDK from scratch.

The only way to bring current MSFS users "back" is to provide an out of box experience that exceeds what MSFS provided (which is very good, except the horrible cloud rendering and lack of weather accuracy) and at the same lower the price point.  I think that would only succeed if the weather and visuals were significantly better than MSFS ... which if anyone has used UE5 that is indeed the case ... but time will tell.

 

 

[G-RFRY 1,712]

P3Dv4 the first in 64bit sim, FSX was saved by XBOX Game pass development they needed a studio to do this Asobo got the job. As for the next move that will cost Millions for both sims and years to develop, that`s why Asobo used the old FSX base code.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

The rush by third party Devs on MSFS is XBOX. You get MSFS free on game pass but not the addons and third party software tools. A protentional customer base more than 4 times the PC users or more.

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 541]

That's why no matter how good Prepar3D is, it's impossible to compete against a console and an ecosystem (Xbox and PC). On the other hand, perhaps the priority will shift to the gamepad instead of the joystick....

Edited December 2, 2023 by Juliett Alfa Romeo

[chapstick 2,758]

On 11/30/2023 at 3:47 PM, CO2Neutral said:

A 3rd party airport "designed" for P3D V6 looks night and day different from a 3rd party airport "compatible" with V6.

Has anyone released a V6-native airport yet? 

[newtie 533]

Imaginesim KATL. Free for previous buyers.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

More potential customers MS don`t spend 70 billion on buying one a game studio for nothing.

Microsoft Aims to Extend Xbox Game Pass to PlayStation and Nintendo Consoles (guru3d.com)

[FrankSalo 272]

12 hours ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

. On the other hand, perhaps the priority will shift to the gamepad instead of the joystick....

I know this was said in jest, with all the new Flightsim hardware that has been released that is Xbox compatible that simply isn't and won't be the case. 

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 541]

....or that the PC loses priority in relation to the console.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

3 hours ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

....or that the PC loses priority in relation to the console.

Plus PC`s are going to get a lot more expensive sales of desktop PC`s have been falling for some time.

[chapstick 2,758]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:39 AM, newtie said:

Imaginesim KATL. Free for previous buyers.

Yeah so looking at the screenshots, that's just a quick port-over. Not what I'd call "native." And it was already pretty bad in P3D 4/5. 

[essex 1]

?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bB99AZEQ_g

[fluffyflops 1,858]

On 12/2/2023 at 5:11 PM, G-RFRY said:

More potential customers MS don`t spend 70 billion on buying one a game studio for nothing.

Microsoft Aims to Extend Xbox Game Pass to PlayStation and Nintendo Consoles (guru3d.com)

They certainly don't spend it on servers