Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jcomm

Interesting Youtube channel with P3dV6 content...

Recommended Posts

I am hoping I have a back up of them somewhere on an old hard drive.

Edited by anzac1977

Share this post


Link to post

Real Air Lancair Legacy 😍


12400F - 32GB DDR4 - RTX4070 - 1440p G-Sync UltraWide - Sennheiser GSX 1000 - O11 Air Mini - 1TB NVMe + 2TB SSD - Windows 11 Pro - Prepar3D 5.4 and MSFS

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, jcomm said:

P3Dv6 is gaining Momentum!

Where? Just yesterday JustFlight said things with XP12 (commercially) are bad but not P3D bad.......

  • Like 3

5800X3D. 32 GB RAM. 1TB SATA SSD. 3TB HDD. RTX 3070 Ti.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Krakin said:

Where? Just yesterday JustFlight said things with XP12 (commercially) are bad but not P3D bad.......

It's gaining Momentum in me ;-), at least... 

I don't like the status quo... never liked "status quos"  ... I prefer diversity - after all, Evolution comes from Diversity... 

How Philosophical I am today, ain't it ?

Edited by jcomm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Juliet Alpha said:

Why so worried about that?

I don't understand. It's Adam's opinion and it is up to the developers to respond.

Because if we use the same logic and conspiracy theories as Adam, then LM is paying some developers to stay with P3D version 6, such as HiFi and Active Sky.  This is my opinion and it's up to the P3D developers to respond.

See how that works?  It's absurd and silly.

FYI, I don't believe LM is paying any developers to stay with P3D version 6, just as I don't think Microsoft is paying any developers to move to MSFS (and for sure, I don't believe LM is paying HiFi, HiFi is making their own rational business decision to port Active Sky to P3D version 6). 

I will also say, I don't respect anyone who believes in silly conspiracy theories like this.  Even if they were an MSFS streamer, and they came out with such silly conspiracy theories about LM paying developers to stay with P3D version 6, I would lose respect for such an MSFS streamer. It's best not to go down the road of these conspiracy theories unless there is valid proof (and here, there is no valid proof).

Edited by abrams_tank
  • Like 8

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe no one else has thought of that all these years (now they may be afraid to speak out after your reactions).

But let's leave it there.


12400F - 32GB DDR4 - RTX4070 - 1440p G-Sync UltraWide - Sennheiser GSX 1000 - O11 Air Mini - 1TB NVMe + 2TB SSD - Windows 11 Pro - Prepar3D 5.4 and MSFS

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, jcomm said:

It's gaining Momentum in me ;-), at least...

In me too, but I need to see things happen (support and such).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

12400F - 32GB DDR4 - RTX4070 - 1440p G-Sync UltraWide - Sennheiser GSX 1000 - O11 Air Mini - 1TB NVMe + 2TB SSD - Windows 11 Pro - Prepar3D 5.4 and MSFS

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Because if we use the same logic and conspiracy theories as Adam, then LM is paying some developers to stay with P3D version 6, such as HiFi and Active Sky.  This is my opinion and it's up to the P3D developers to respond.

See how that works?  It's absurd and silly.

FYI, I don't believe LM is paying any developers to stay with P3D version 6, just as I don't think Microsoft is paying any developers to move to MSFS (and for sure, I don't believe LM is paying HiFi, HiFi is making their own rational business decision to port Active Sky to P3D version 6). 

I will also say, I don't respect anyone who believes in silly conspiracy theories like this.  Even if they were an MSFS streamer, and they came out with such silly conspiracy theories about LM paying developers to stay with P3D version 6, I would lose respect for such an MSFS streamer. It's best not to go down the road of these conspiracy theories unless there is valid proof (and here, there is no valid proof).

the proof is in the behaviour of what is happening in the flight sim community. I am not a raving mad man spouting conspiracies like Alec Jones

 

Why was the Xplane 11 version of inibuilds A310 REMOVED from sale after it appeared in MFS and never got the move to Xplane12 like the A300 did? 

Why is Chaseplane being developed for MFS suddenly and not being supported for current P3D now ? 

Why do the Aerosoft Series of Airbus SUDDENLY no longer work in P3Dv5 after years of working fine and why did Aerosoft even drop the SUPPORT in their forum for these products as well as development for new ones? 

Why has EVERY developer who entered the Partner Program for MFS suddenly stopped development on P3D and literally did a 180 on their company history by always supporting those products, now they wont?

 

Money and resources are not a valid point sorry, when the money is being made for the company by whatever sim, the resources of hiring more staff is there to continue to give to the community who is there and wanting their continued support, literally with money in hand to buy their products, so there is no reason a dev could give to excuse the fact that they CANT develop for P3D anymore as Aerosoft actually stated on their website, that they couldnt continue with P3D, not that they did not want too, but couldnt. As in, not allowed too.  Why would you want to run a business by NOT giving your customers the products they want, that they have had in the past with regular updates or paid up ports? 

I dont buy into conspiracies and I research anything and fact check things. The fact remains that I dont see many developers coming out to say, I have never signed into an agreement with Asobo or MS to having my products into their store. Nor have I ever entered into a Partnership Program with them with my products that excludes any other flight sim. 

The FACTS remain that there is a Partner Program with MFS/Asobo and there are terms and conditions within it to have priority within the marketplace. 

The actions of the developers decisions and their very weak reasons for not making their products available in P3Dv6 is the very proof that they are deliberately NOT allowing their products to continue to be used in P3D like they have in the past. Now that is their decision and thats up to them. But the reasons they give are just not true as they could easily hire more staff to have the resources, like time and staff to update their products for P3Dv6 for the many customers waiting for them as seen in this forum and many of their own discords and forums. There are thousands of P3D users and sales have not dried up, devs addons have. 

So it follows, two reasons only could it be that they do not wish to continue development for P3D. Legal reasons or just plain laziness. 

Laziness in the fact that, their products are most likely made from either FSX or P3D1-3/4 and that alot of work would need to go into it, in order for it to be acceptable within v6 that doesnt lower their company standards of quality work, as the atmosphere has significantly changed to the point where new modelling, new textures and integrating more features would need to go in, they might as well build a more detailed initial model and start with a v6 version with 8K resolution planes coming out, instead of just porting up their existing line, which is what they have been used too for many years.

So which is it devs?

Is there a legal reason why you are announcing that your products will not be made available in P3D moving forwards or are you just plain lazy? 

Because saying there isnt the sales or enough resources is total BS to be fair when the money is there for the company to expand the staff from MFS sales in order to handle the work. There are enough people in P3D who have bought v6 to justify such development, because when devs are being contacted with FREE work to upgrade their products so they wont have to spend time and money from the company on v6 and the answer that comes back is "we are sticking with MFS only moving foward" then their argument that they are announcing does not hold any water sadly. 

I just cant stand it when people lie and then try and justify their lies with BS. 

I will not apologise for my passions, its who I am and as much upset I get about losing alot of quality addons and support because of one simulator who thinks they own the community, I also get excited and happy about this hobby, which I hope comes across in my videos/streams and the free help I offer to anyone who wants it. 

 

I wont speak again on t his topic, I just have to stand up for a community that I feel is getting poorly treated and surely, doing the honourable thing and standing up for what is right, is better than slamming someones beliefs because you disagree. 

I imagine there will be people who just disagree with me and thats fine, I respect that and I dont go calling people names or trying to deform their name because I disagree with them, so why is acceptable here to do it to me? 

I know people will tear what I say apart and take it out of context or try and defend MFS or devs, thats fine, freedom of speech. I thought thats exactly what this forum was for and about. 

Freedom of speech 

 

time now to lock off another convo on this website because of its users? LOL 

Edited by adam77
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

My suggestion, gentlemen, if you allow me !

Let P3D v6 grow in interest for it's own predicates, let some developers, even if just a few, find that they have good reasons to support this platform, like HiFi just did, and let's not worry about this or that being the reason for whatever.

MFS is a Great simulator. XP12 is a very interesting and promising platform too, and, LM's P3d v6 is here to stay, just as every previous version, and from what I see has made improvements in some areas that are interesting and give me motivation to invest in it.

That's about all this thread is about. The rest is useless discussion. I sincerely wish MFS, XP and P3D, and let's not forget! Aerofly FS a Bright Future! They all have their strong points, and I think we can all benefit from being able to opt for each one depending on the type of simulation session we're willing to have.

For me, regarding P3d v6, it's good to know it's development is not driven by budgets / results in sales for the consumer market. Hey, it's LM behind it... Good enough for me, specially because they were there since their first version to give continuity to what had been dropped from development. I was grateful back then, I am now too ...

Edited by jcomm
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post

@Adam, you are really passionate, kudo to this but your passion sometimes makes you blind.

If I understand it well, what you request is that developpers invest a part of their msfs income to hire more staff to develop to P3D even if their P3D sales won't cover their costs. Sadly it won't happend because no companies works this way. This is not a charity event, it's a business! Any clever C.E.O will invest his msfs money income into something even more lucrative to double his bet. Nobody will invest his money with no gain in sight and even worse, to lose it at the end.

And don't tell me that the potential is here right now for P3D. Raul told us last week that he made absolutely no sales of his P3D products during the last six months. I don't buy this conspiracy theory. Everybody likes to win money so if those companies would make any money with P3D, they would develop for this platform. Developping for msfs request a lot of work because customers wants more and more features, products are more and more sophisticated so require more time compare to what we knew with FSX or P3D. And the competition is fierce. Inibuilds was a big XP developper but they also realized that the msfs cake was like never seen before and the money they make with msfs is probably nothing comparable with what they made with XP.

As jcomm said, let P3D 6.0 grow, future will tell if this platform can come back on top or at least can keep enough market share to be profitable. If sales are good, maybe it will awake the interrest of some developers. And if one or two jump into the boat again, the others will follow. But you cannot force them to do it, market will be the only deciding factor.

Edited by sdirand
  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am not here to "support" Adam because I don't agree with all he says... However I do think he is unfairly treated to be honest. Calling him a conspiracist, etc... no need. I am disturbed by the use of that word. Everybody is free to speak. It is fundamental.

Discredit him, slag him, silence him with such words as conspiracist or delusional, etc... is actually leading me to think that he might somehow be close to the truth and is disturbing the "established order". Food for thought...

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5

Visit my YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/Captain Nav

Follow me live on Twitch http://www.twitch.tv/captainnav

Share this post


Link to post

This is MS’s own statement regarding their partnership program:

“The Marketplace will operate under an Agency model, which means that you, as the content creator, will set the price for every piece of content you submit. Becoming a partner doesn’t alter your ability to sell your content on your own websites and storefronts. Just like with FSX, you can continue to sell your content outside of our Marketplace. Becoming a Microsoft Flight Simulator Marketplace Partner essentially unlocks another channel for you.”

The “partnership” program is for those developers who wish to have the option sell on the Marketplace in addition to any sales channels they may already have established. I do not believe there is any requirement in the partnership agreement that would require those in the program to exclusively create content for MSFS and drop support for any other sim platforms. In fact, I’m pretty sure it would be illegal for MS to impose such a restriction upon independent third-party developers under “restraint of trade” provisions of the Sherman antitrust act.

IniBuilds may be in a somewhat different position because they are supplying default content for the core sim (the A310) under contract with MS/Asobo. Perhaps they agreed to exclusively develop for MSFS going forward. 

Orbx is an MSFS official MSFS Marketplace partner, and yet they continue to supply content for P3D

Edited by JRBarrett
  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1

Jim Barrett

Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, Avionics, Electrical & Air Data Systems Specialist. Qualified on: Falcon 900, CRJ-200, Dornier 328-100, Hawker 850XP and 1000, Lear 35, 45, 55 and 60, Gulfstream IV and 550, Embraer 135, Beech Premiere and 400A, MD-80.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

IniBuilds may be in a somewhat different position because they are supplying default content for the core sim (the A310) under contract with MS/Asobo. Perhaps they agreed to exclusively develop for MSFS going forward.

Thanks @JRBarrett. Just a slight amendment to this. In May of 2023, the A300 and Beluga from iniBuilds were released for XP 12 in the iniBuilds store: https://www.thresholdx.net/news/inix12. Whatever deal iniBuilds made with Microsoft for the A310, it did not stop them from releasing the A300 and Beluga for XP 12.

Edited by abrams_tank
  • Like 2

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fnav77 said:

I am not here to "support" Adam because I don't agree with all he says... However I do think he is unfairly treated to be honest. Calling him a conspiracist, etc... no need. I am disturbed by the use of that word. Everybody is free to speak. It is fundamental.

Discredit him, slag him, silence him with such words as conspiracist or delusional, etc... is actually leading me to think that he might somehow be close to the truth and is disturbing the "established order". Food for thought...

What does "established order" even mean in this world of flight simming?? lol. Calling out unproven wild claims does not therefore make those claims "closer to the truth" 🙂

So Adam comes in and says this (exact quote): "I can see with what Ive said about MFS is controversial, but its the truth, not conspiracy theories or lies, the simple truth. We in P3D are losing certain addons for v6 because MFS are creating an exclusive contract for development with MFS in their Partnered program. That is really bad to treat a community like that.."

Ok let's avoid words like conspiracy and delusional, would you characterize the above as just opinion? If he is claiming such wild things as the "simple truth", then I'd say it's only fair that evidence be provided to back said wild claims right. Because otherwise, we have the actual truth of what *numerous* 3rd party devs have come out and explicitly said, and there's one person shouting that they are all liars, and making up theories as to what is supposedly really happening. And sorry, saying that these 3rd party devs didn't come out and explicitly deny this wild theory so therefore it's true.. well, that's laughable logic.

And I ask again what I asked before (and didn't see a response in the diatribe above).. just for amusement let's assume this wild theory is true and that MS is indeed making 3rd party devs get into binding contracts that force those devs to only make products for MSFS 🙄 ... now if the potential for sales on other sim platforms were also good, why on earth would these 3rd party devs shoot themselves in the foot and get into such contracts?? The could've easily said no thanks and kept developing for multiple platforms.

Here's a wild idea.. How about sim platform makers put out sim platforms that actually draw a sizeable amount of the simmer community to purchase and use those platforms, either exclusively or in combination with other platforms. *That* would draw the 3rd party devs to continue investing in developing for those platforms wouldn't it. Dunno, just a simple thought.
 

Edited by lwt1971
  • Like 8

Len
1980s: Sublogic FS II on C64 ---> 1990s: Flight Unlimited I/II, MSFS 95/98 ---> 2000s/2010s: FS/X, P3D, XP ---> 2020+: MSFS
Current system: i9 13900K, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5 4800 RAM, 4TB NVMe SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...