43 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If it's running like word not allowed, don't blame the simulator...

 

P3D performance is awful compared to MSFS. This aircraft is clearly pushing the limits of what is possible in that tired platform. 

55 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If it's running like word not allowed, don't blame the simulator...

 

Let's be real, base simulator is also part of blame here. P3D is a woolly old hector that starts to chug even on the very latest hardware, the second you start introducing anything complex into the equation. Hard to really push the envelope as a developer, if the engine you're working on is early Mesozoic era.

But in this case, reading about the Concorde's obscene RAM usage, sounds like FSL hasn't really bothered focusing on optimization or working within any sort of strict constraints.

19 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

P3D performance is awful compared to MSFS. This aircraft is clearly pushing the limits of what is possible in that tired platform. 

Maybe ( if this App ever comes some time to MSFS ) it happens the same to MSFS ?

I do not hope but who knows..

cheers 😉

It puzzles me why companies waste time pushing software for commercially dead platforms. Ok so they had it pretty much advanced already, but that happens all the time in software development (i am a software architect, i deal with this all the time), but there's a turning point where you make a decision whether the effort will be worth anytrhing. I honestly doubt anyone will remember the x64 concorde once it makes it into MSFS and honestly doubt they will make any good profit from this.

Puzzled, but happy for whoever still manages to enjoy it.

32 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

It puzzles me why companies waste time pushing software for commercially dead platforms. Ok so they had it pretty much advanced already, but that happens all the time in software development (i am a software architect, i deal with this all the time), but there's a turning point where you make a decision whether the effort will be worth anytrhing. I honestly doubt anyone will remember the x64 concorde once it makes it into MSFS and honestly doubt they will make any good profit from this.

Puzzled, but happy for whoever still manages to enjoy it.

Think that's a two part explanation;

1) They wanted to do right by the platform that established them as a brand and company, by releasing something they've teased for years. The very product that made FSL originally. It doesn't look good, reputation wise, when you pull the rug on a project that people are looking forward, especially not in small niche communities where reputation can mean a lot.

2) The work isn't wasted. You can transfer and port a lot of work over, as the MSFS SDK is built and evolved from the ESP SDK. So they aren't saving a lot of time, money or effort by simply killing the project.

Though inherently I do agree. P3D is absolutely going dodo for the entertainment market so it's puzzling when someone still invests so much energy into it, at this stage.

50 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

It puzzles me why companies waste time pushing software for commercially dead platforms.

Sunk cost fallacy. It's a common problem for businesses.

While P3D is certainly not 'commercially dead' (when you think who the target customers are), releasing an historical airliner for home users 3 years after that market has moved is very questionable.

 

@Sethos

Quote

It doesn't look good, reputation wise, when you pull the rug on a project that people are looking forward,

I dunno. I can think of at least two aircraft developers that have pulled the plug on projects and haven't suffered much reputation-wise.

So long as a desirable aircraft follows, very few people remember or seem to care.

 

As for graphics, FSL artwork is generally accepted as being below the standards we would expect. I imagine part of that is because 4K or 8K textures would have really tanked performance in P3D. That said, they will need to really step up with regards to graphics for their MSFS products if they want to compete.

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by F737MAX

6 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

@Sethos

I dunno. I can think of at least two aircraft developers that have pulled the plug on projects and haven't suffered much reputation-wise.

So long as a desirable aircraft follows, very few people remember or seem to care.

Think that's a muddy area, as negative reputation isn't a binary thing and something that builds and festers within the community. FSL already had a few mishaps over the years and their reputation ain't exactly stellar. Just look at PMDG, they also pulled the plug on updates for P3D along with other shenanigans they have going and their reputation seems to be at an all-time low in the community. Not a single thread on Avsim without a lot of animosity towards them. Especially why FSL has to be careful, people will absolutely remember them pulling a project they've teased for years and be added on top of their other blunders. You just can't have too many of those. So I think that's a bigger picture thing. Plus, there's probably also a personal pride sort-of thing going on, getting the bird out.

 

1 hour ago, Nuno Pinto said:

It puzzles me why companies waste time pushing software for commercially dead platforms.

Just Flight dipped their toes in XP 12:

 

It looks like it didn't work out for Just Flight in XP 12, they lost money on their portovers to XP 12. Needless to say, Just Flight is pretty smart, they are focusing on MSFS from now on, and probably won't start any new projects for XP 12.

6 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Just look at PMDG, they also pulled the plug on updates for P3D along with other shenanigans they have going and their reputation seems to be at an all-time low in the community.

Personally, I think that's due to the overpromising and underdelivering of updates, some regression issues, plus the RSR style of messaging.

Back on topic, I wonder what FSL will charge for their MSFS Concorde. Lots of criticism for $80+ price points from some developers, yet Concorde is a niche sim aircraft.

After reading all these replies:

Yeah well, there might be a target audience we're not aware of and that might make sense to them. P3D is "dead" for most simmers but there are indeed other customers and who knows if they make use of these products...

4 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

It puzzles me why companies waste time pushing software for commercially dead platforms. Ok so they had it pretty much advanced already, but that happens all the time in software development (i am a software architect, i deal with this all the time), but there's a turning point where you make a decision whether the effort will be worth anytrhing. I honestly doubt anyone will remember the x64 concorde once it makes it into MSFS and honestly doubt they will make any good profit from this.

Puzzled, but happy for whoever still manages to enjoy it.

Well, depends on where your focus is in terms of flight simulation.

Last week I bought a 1 month professional license of P3Dv5, installed 5.4 latest version, pushed my FSlabs A319 and 320 X as well as the PMDG 777 200 LR, Active Sky P3D, Aerosoft Madeira X extended and Orbx Global...

Flying the FSLabs A320 is so much better, in all aspects, than what I get with the Fenix A320 that I have seriously been considering buying a full P3Dv5 license, although I would rather prefer to go P3D v6.

Active Sky P3D also provides me a much more valid representation of weather.

Yes the simulator is outdated, and graphically it can't compete with MFS, but just as if I want to play flying a 744 I go Aerowinx PSX, for an Airbus I really prefer FSLabs ( even more than the alternatives in yet another platform I also use ).

I hope FSLabs can bring that same feel to MFS... That will make the difference, but I have my doubts, unless they make it fully external, like PROSIM. And yes, the Fenix uses PROSIM, but unfortunately when it comes to the flight dynamics, it is tied to MFS's core FDM, and it shows 😕

OTOH, I am about to go PSX.NET.MFS.WASM for a bridge allowing to use Aerowinx PSX with MFS for visuals, as well as for having a MapView with Navigraph, and there I am sure MFS will shine because all I want from it is scenery, and that it does very well !!!

Edited August 20, 20232 yr by jcomm

14 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well, depends on where your focus is in terms of flight simulation.

Last week I bought a 1 month professional license of P3Dv5, installed 5.4 latest version, pushed my FSlabs A319 and 320 X as well as the PMDG 777 200 LR, Active Sky P3D, Aerosoft Madeira X extended and Orbx Global...

 

I would rather watch a Ron Popiel Infomercial than go back to P3D. 😉

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

I would rather watch a Ron Popiel Infomercial than go back to P3D. 😉

Never say never !  😉

1 minute ago, jcomm said:

Never say never !  😉

I tried going back to P3D, when my new PC with MSFS needed a repair by the manufacturer. After two days of that, I just  stopped simming, until I got my PC back. 

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I tried going back to P3D, when my new PC with MSFS needed a repair by the manufacturer. After two days of that, I just  stopped simming, until I got my PC back. 

What really matters is that you feel OK and satisfied with what you have !

That makes me happy for you Bob, while at the same time, sad that I can never find that level of satisfaction with the flight simulators I use 😞  My problem in good part, I'm sure...