1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Not for a long time. Hence why I’ll stay with v5.

Makes sense. But without CP it’s a non-starter for me.

If you remember Radar Contact John Dekker gave it away and destroyed the source code. That was a real pity.

But CP can’t tap into MSFS so surely adapting it for v6 and charging a modest upgrade fee would be a reasonable option.

It can't tap into it at the moment but that is a "never say never moment" - At the end of the day, they never promised to support P3D for every version.  I get why people are upset but sometimes companies do move on. 

17 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I posted more in frustration than expectation. I cannot imagine the code requires that much tweaking given the camera API hasn’t changed much if at all. We had the same response from PMDG and yet here we are with early adopters successfully flying their aircraft.

I can’t see myself moving to v6 until there’s a working CP. Concorde release is a few weeks away and navigation around the VC would be extremely difficult without CP.

If CP can't do it.  I am gonna place bets on OpusFSI (maybe that team can do it) or someone else is going to create it (provided the market demand is there).

I am preplexed with FSLabs P3Dv5 Concord.  Why not do it for v6.  Concord should be on the latest greatest P3D version (new features); for me to buy a new addon and the latest sim isn't supported, doesn't gel with me.  Now I am sure they had access to dev beta releases from LM.  

It is all about making sure we all leave Lockheed Martin. Surely you guys can see that after what’s happened over the last 24 hours.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you remember Radar Contact John Dekker gave it away and destroyed the source code. That was a real pity.

I don't know the specifics of that, but it doesn't surprise me.

Outside the walls of our little garden, the FS world is very, very small and the developer community appears to be equally small-minded. We don't get very far as a community because few developers think of the community.

The user base doesn't help matters by idolizing developers (looking at you PMDG) who don't interact with their customers much beyond soliciting praise and providing dubious updates on v6 compatibility - and they're the best. Then you get into sketchy worlds of QW or CaptainSim.

We only see far because we stand on the shoulders of others. It's why our community is so myopic.

2 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

It is all about making sure we all leave Lockheed Martin. Surely you guys can see that after what’s happened over the last 24 hours.

5.4 forever.

2 minutes ago, Juliet Alpha said:

5.4 forever.

Probably will be 5.4 I really would like to get version six working because I would prefer that weather. Assuming hi-fi doesn’t dump on us also.

6 minutes ago, Zangoose said:

It can't tap into it at the moment but that is a "never say never moment" - At the end of the day, they never promised to support P3D for every version.  I get why people are upset but sometimes companies do move on. 

If there were radical changes to v6 I’d understand. But a beta tester was feeding me info saying the core elements were not changing. That’s why it’s disappointing CP have come to such a quick decision. And with the monthly verify files check there’s no chance of getting around that.

8 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

I am preplexed with FSLabs P3Dv5 Concord.  Why not do it for v6. 

I suspect they spent an inordinate amount of time building it for v5 and v6 came too late. Believe me, if you’ve been running it in 32-bit P3D v3 the 64-bit version will blow you away.

Like Ray it's a no at this stage unless/until Chaseplane or a like-minded add-on comes along. Until then it's 5.4 with the odd VFR in MSFS.

Is ezdok an option? I've only ever heard of it, never used it.

 

39 minutes ago, chapstick said:

Yeah, if MSFS ever gets a camera API I doubt they'd want that code out there.

I remember the Developer saying they sent relevant documents to Asobo so lets hope.

5 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If there were radical changes to v6 I’d understand. But a beta tester was feeding me info saying the core elements were not changing. That’s why it’s disappointing CP have come to such a quick decision. And with the monthly verify files check there’s no chance of getting around that.

I suspect they spent an inordinate amount of time building it for v5 and v6 came too late. Believe me, if you’ve been running it in 32-bit P3D v3 the 64-bit version will blow you away.

VR will be better in v6 vs v5 (I will be testing it tonight...installing v6 as I write this post).

I hope they can release v6 with it.  They haven't released right now (so FSLabs can make an update to it, what if the changes are not bad as one imagined).

And does anyone know if the Maddog is version tied to v5? I hope they do v6.

For those using the aerosoft airbus series I forsure have the A318-A321 series working no problem. Haven't fired up the A330 yet. Not FSL but better than nothing. Interesting with the new lighting the exterior of the Aeosoft bus looks pretty good. Better than v5 forsure.

Edited July 4, 20232 yr by ywg256

6 minutes ago, ywg256 said:

For those using the aerosoft airbus series I forsure have the A318-A321 series working no problem. Haven't fired up the A330 yet. Not FSL but better than nothing. Interesting with the new lighting the exterior of the Aeosoft bus looks pretty good. Better than v5 forsure.

Two posting here already show that the A330 doesn't work. Not sure about the others. 

57 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

Boy, xplane looking better all the time.

I read the comment and thought about it. Hum...

At least consider whether it is feasible to migrate to XP12.

(sorry for the off-topic).

11 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

Two posting here already show that the A330 doesn't work. Not sure about the others. 

Other than the lighting being a bit dark in the cockpit which I have to figure out, it seems I have the A330 working.

TFDi says that its forthcoming MD-11 should be v6 compatible.