Been away for a couple years.. whats the latest and greatest

[newtie 533]

5 hours ago, rocketlaunch said:

I don't think LM really care to be honest.

It's not they don't care. P3D was never designed to be retailed and never designed as a 'we need to keep up with the other guys' app. However, the P3D story is far from being completed.Stay tuned.

[spilok 1,136]

8 hours ago, dbw1 said:

V6 Comments......

Actually if you fly V6 in Canada between FC Scenery and SimAdOns coast to coast airports plus ASN V6 works quite nicely in Canada. FlightBeam airports install and work just fine worldwide. The only aircraft I use at the moment with a V6 installer is the Majestic.....hoping that more make their arrival eventually. I do miss FSL and the MadDog and a few others.

I dreaming of a V7 that kicks MSFS's butt!

[newtie 533]

We can always hope.😄

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 541]

2 hours ago, spilok said:

I dreaming of a V7 that kicks MSFS's butt!

I don't see that happening.

Apart from having to surpass MSFS graphically, it would need to bring the developers back, and I doubt they'd want to do so...

[sdirand 247]

9 hours ago, spilok said:

I dreaming of a V7 that kicks MSFS's butt!

Well, it would have been already be nice if V6 would have kicked V5's butt. Seems we are far from it.

[Daube 354]

7 hours ago, Juliett Alfa Romeo said:

I don't see that happening.

Apart from having to surpass MSFS graphically, it would need to bring the developers back, and I doubt they'd want to do so...

Graphically would be too difficult for them, I think.

However, it would be different if they would focus on features. Some of us here said many times in the past that *maybe* P3D should try to fight against DCS instead of fighting against MSFS (to expand their marketshare, I mean). But that would require them to include and/or implement some more serious military related features into the base version of P3D, which will most likely never occur. They prefer to keep these in the most expensive (prohibitive) version, and I'm not even sure how good these features are in that. For example, refuelling: does it exist in the pro-plus version in a realistic way, or is it still the ridiculous gimmick inherited from FSX Acceleration ?

 

[jcomm 5,939]

2 hours ago, Daube said:

Graphically would be too difficult for them, I think.

However, it would be different if they would focus on features. Some of us here said many times in the past that *maybe* P3D should try to fight against DCS instead of fighting against MSFS (to expand their marketshare, I mean). But that would require them to include and/or implement some more serious military related features into the base version of P3D, which will most likely never occur. They prefer to keep these in the most expensive (prohibitive) version, and I'm not even sure how good these features are in that. For example, refuelling: does it exist in the pro-plus version in a realistic way, or is it still the ridiculous gimmick inherited from FSX Acceleration ?

 

The problem would be "flight dynamics", which is far from comparable between P3D and DCS World ...

[Daube 354]

Well, you are right... but I think the flight dynamics would be "easier" (with very big double quotes) and more beneficial to improve for LM, compared to the graphics.

[Rogen 1,092]

I think everyone is forgetting P3D is primarily a licensed commercially available training aid, noting the entertainement and enthusiast market are not their target market, even though LM does benefit from usage by such brackets of the market.

For LM's purposes they develop and sell P3D, as well as develop, sell and support complete packaged systems, e.g. there is custom development, custom graphics (via the Common Image Generator Interface (CIGI)), multichannel support, a networked instructor operating station for managing the training senarios in realtime, they've introduced the PDK which functions similarly to SimConnect but is tied into Prepar3D at a lower level for improved performance and more direct integration and probably much more that we, as basic end users, don't see.

A basic user level software license often doesn't show the real and deep capabilites of said software.

A truely professionally built training aid will likely incorporate all aspects, along with ground gfx that look nothing like those LM provides as a default.

Also there is ongoing P3D 3rd party development, e.g. contracted for development and support of P3D systems, Blackbird and A2A are both development houses where they have said they develop P3D for the military and there would be others as well.

So this is where there is a break between the enthusiast, who is the driver of a software house's non-contracted development (via the public's purchases), and contracted, which is not public and might also include an ongoing software maintenance charge for support.

Here is a thread on the P3D forum where the P3D crew talk briefly about such a contracted example.

https://prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150205

That LM sells P3D directly to the public means org's producing semi-mass market training aids can just throw on P3D with a custom developed aircraft and have a relatively cheap and effective training aid for the target aircraft.

Of course LM needs a robust 3rd party array of developers to develop for, and support their particular sales model, and while they held a fairly captive audience what with the original demise of FSX, they have basically lost the 3rd parties who were developing enthusiast products, unfortunately it's just a fact of life that devs who relied upon on direct sales to enthusiasts "need" to go where they will make income, and that's precisly because LM have lost their captive audience.

P3D itself will go on advancing in one form or another and maybe eventually migrate to the Unreal engine.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/gaming-technology-the-future-of-training.html

As to improved ground surface graphics, LM could provide such an option if they really wanted to.

An example of such availablity.
https://www.maxar.com/press-releases/maxar-launches-high-performance-synth3d-digital-twin-for-metaverse-simulation-and-virtual-reality-applications

https://www.maxar.com/products/synth3d

A couple of example training aids.

https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/air/f-35-full-mission-simulator

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/f35/news-and-features/10-ways-the-f35-simulator-is-changing-pilot-training.html

And a pic of one.

Cheers

Edited January 11 by Rogen
spelling

[newtie 533]

LM is a company that’s long and deep. They’re responsible for a third of the DODs procurement. Their P3D’s training systems revenue is a tiny fraction of that figure. That said, whether we flight simmers like or dislike their flight simulation program is nothing more than a coincidence. Anyway, I think, like Rogen, LM ain’t done with this rodeo. 😁

[MonkeyWings 12]

With reading every single changelog since V1.0, I'm quite impressed with what LM has done with the platform over the years.

https://prepar3d.com/SDKv6/LearningCenter.php

The additions of advanced lighting/shading/shadowing, 64-bit, PBR, advanced atmospherics, and cpu vs gpu load distribution, along with other performance and rendering optimizations have kept this sim nearly timeless. Most of us are using only a fraction of this sim (mostly v6) capabilities. It is totally unfair when many folks call the FSX 2.0 or 3.0.

JMTS

[jcomm 5,939]

9 minutes ago, MonkeyWings said:

It is totally unfair when many folks call the FSX 2.0 or 3.0.

JMTS

They don't even guess what they're saying...

[Daube 354]

2 hours ago, MonkeyWings said:

With reading every single changelog since V1.0, I'm quite impressed with what LM has done with the platform over the years.

https://prepar3d.com/SDKv6/LearningCenter.php

The additions of advanced lighting/shading/shadowing, 64-bit, PBR, advanced atmospherics, and cpu vs gpu load distribution, along with other performance and rendering optimizations have kept this sim nearly timeless. Most of us are using only a fraction of this sim (mostly v6) capabilities. It is totally unfair when many folks call the FSX 2.0 or 3.0.

JMTS

Agreed.

3.1, minimum.

[chapstick 2,758]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:00 PM, Rogen said:

I think everyone is forgetting P3D is primarily a licensed commercially available training aid

I feel like this is pretty much known by 99.99% of the users who are left on this forum. I'm not sure why we needed the essay to remind us. 

[Rogen 1,092]

8 hours ago, chapstick said:

I feel like this is pretty much known by 99.99% of the users who are left on this forum. I'm not sure why we needed the essay to remind us. 

And the contribution of your comment is ???

Apart from being derisive that is...

Cheers

Edited January 13 by Rogen