On 2/6/2025 at 10:49 AM, CO2Neutral said:

If P3D V7 uses streaming scenery for the entire globe, where would they source it?  Would it cost extra?  Would it be optional?  Would LM want or allow bandwidth from their own servers that already house very high resolutions geo data?  Now that Blackshark.ai is open to all, would LM use that to build the globe?

Lockheed Martin is a “commercial” company that happens to have a lot of Military contracts.  Is there anything preventing LM from having an entertainment version, a training version, a military version, and a full commercial version of P3D V7?  Everyone seems to assume LM can’t make a product for entertainment based on a very old agreement with Microsoft going decades back to ESP.  

How much software development legally absolves them from any agreement with Microsoft?  Will P3D V7 be based on anything related to ESP?

Perhaps an entirely new code base?

Does P3D V7 even need to compete in the entertainment arena?  

I’m hoping the following:

1.  Scenery streaming option with ability to permanently cache to local storage.

2. Much more content in the “out of box” experience to entice users to use and stay.

3. An SDK/PDK that greatly reduces development time to get content into the P3D V7 (provide for complex ATC add-on)

4. A light system that makes no compromises (no compatibility with existing products).

5. Provide users with a much easier ability to adjust flight physics both globally (how weather interacts) and local (aircraft).

6. Ability to bring current top tier hardware to it’s knees (makes for good marketing screenshots) 😉

 

Heck, I'd settle for just real-time weather, which IMHO is rather important for "serious" simulation.

And for addons beyond Majestic and VRS to be supported, because what LM include with the sim are simply abysmal by today's standards.

On 2/6/2025 at 7:05 PM, dave2013 said:

Good idea to have the option to store the scenery data locally.

I wonder what the storage capacity would need to be for hi-res satellite imagery for the whole world?

Dave

Well, Orbx TrueEarth needs about half a terabyte just for Great Britain and the US West Coast.

I've heard it on good authority that storing hi-res imagery of the entire globe runs about 2,000 terabytes... 😉

 

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I've been flightsimming since 1984, and the FSX/P3D flight models are pretty darned good, so good, in fact, that the military uses it for training.

 

The military don't use P3D because of it's "flight model" (though they do insist on representative performance). In fact, the P3D aircraft addon's that are most highly regarded for their "flight model" use external aero engines and bypass much of P3D's FM.

The .mil uses P3D because it supports large scale multi-"player" exercises, and the "players" don't need to be piloting aircraft, they can be driving a tank, manning a ship or submersible, or "just" doing ATC stuff.

14 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I'm pretty sure YOU were a big part of the diversion, no...? Bragging (incorrectly) about P3D's inherent "certification" as a flight sim, etc.

No, you’re the diversion.  You seem to falsely believe that you can plug in any flight simulation software so long as you have money and hardware and get it FAA certified.  FAA Certification doesn’t work like that … the simulator software has to be able to perform specific features:

1.  Must be able to sustain 60 FPS/ 60Hz in all scenarios

2. Must be able to be controlled/manipulated by an external training station

3.  Must have accurate weather visibility settings

4.  Must be able to communicate with a variety of controlling/input hardware

5.  And more …

MSFS “software” doesn’t meet ALL of the above and hence will not and could not be certified as an FAA approved trainer.  Are we done yet, or you just wanna keep going around in circles?  Suggest you just “disagree” and move on.

Edited February 8, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral

14 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The military don't use P3D because of it's "flight model"

You do know what USAF stands for right?  Do you need a hint?

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

No, you’re the diversion.  You seem to falsely believe that you can plug in any flight simulation software so long as you have money and hardware and get it FAA certified.  FAA Certification doesn’t work like that … the simulator software has to be able to perform specific features:

1.  Must be able to sustain 60 FPS/ 60Hz in all scenarios

2. Must be able to be controlled/manipulated by an external training station

3.  Must have accurate weather visibility settings

4.  Must be able to communicate with a variety of controlling/input hardware

 Could you point us to the FAA documentation that lists these requirements ?

I've gone though a few of the documents (not all) from the FAA official website but I have not seen any requirement regaring the FPS (and 60 is very easy to achieve in MSFS, by the way, I'm not sure where you saw the contrary...).

I've seen some requirements for basic controls by an instructor station but there were no precise list about what should be controllable, so I'm not sure if the tools that exist to control MSFS would be enough or not.

The requirement documents I've seen are especially insisting on two things: an aircraft that reproduce the orignal aircraft as closely as possible, and a system that allows to read the flight data externally (for P3D and MSFS, it's going to be SimConnect anyways).

Regarding the hardware, the requirements are pretty clear: the minimum you need is a unique set of joystick, throttle and pedals, and eventually something to control the instruments, because the cabin of the original aircraft (one aircraft, no more) should be reproduced as nicely as possible. There is no need to support "multiple hardware" at all. You just need to support any basic hardware, as long as it allows to control the plane in a reliable mode.

Regarding the weather, I have not seen yet any precise description of what's needed. It might be needed to reproduce conditions for visual or instrument approach, but I have not seen yet  any precise requirement that say "should be able to draw differently each mile of visibility", nor did I see anything about being able to draw this or that cloud type (other than overcast or not overcast, and even this is not really sure...).

But I'm sure the FAA website has a link to a precise listing. I've only saw the documents in here: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac but I haven't found the time or motivation to read them all. But it seems you did so please point us to the correct one 🙂

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

5.  And more …

What more ?

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

MSFS “software” doesn’t meet ALL of the above and hence will not and could not be certified as an FAA approved trainer.  Are we done yet, or you just wanna keep going around in circles?  Suggest you just “disagree” and move on.

Sorry but MSFS can achieve 60 FPS quite easilly (including over major airports and cities, unlike P3D up to v4 included...).

Also MSFS can be controlled by external programs, and does support multiple hardware. I'll grant you the weather depiction since MSFS cannot draw real world 2D clouds like P3D. 

But unfortunately, your assertion "MSFS doesn't meet ALL of the above" is one more fake news on this simulator. 

Edited February 8, 20251 yr by Daube

6 hours ago, Daube said:

 Could you point us to the FAA documentation that lists these requirements ?

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

6 hours ago, Daube said:

but I haven't found the time or motivation to read them all.

And yet you say it's "fake news"?  Do you want me to do your laundry and make your bed everyday?  If your really interested in make the effort. 

And the length of those documents listed in that link are nothing compared to reading FAR AIM 2024 ... 2017 rev was 1335 pages with tiny print.  Good luck.  Now, can you move on or are you OCD? 

I created this thread to discuss P3D V7 and not whether or not MSFS can get FAA certification ... the FACT remains MSFS has not been used in any FAA certified simulator, P3D has and is also be used by USAF.  Now, can you accept those facts and let this topic resume?  I would hit the ignore user button but that sadly doesn't seem to be an option anymore.

 

 

9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

You do know what USAF stands for right?  Do you need a hint?

I'm aware that the USAF uses P3D. And I fly the official .mil MilViz T-38C there. Y'know, the fancy glass cockpit version...? That they had to take down from public sale because the USAF felt it was too close to IRL...?

Yeah, THAT one.

Helluva dangerous aircraft yet quite satisfying to fly.

It has a custom external flight model not gend from P3D. Pretty nice.

But they care a LOT more about the systems and failures than they do the flight model. The care about teaching how to interop with other crews and flights and such. Because it's extremely rare to go solo IRL.

Flight model? Not so much since they fly the real thing in the same course.

The other USAF & mil aircraft for the sim are quite crappy, with the exception of the VRS Super Hornet. It's nice, but the addon is rather dated. Works well, though.

Why is it you believe that the way the USAF uses the Sim is the way WE use it...?

9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

No, you’re the diversion.  You seem to falsely believe that you can plug in any flight simulation software so long as you have money and hardware and get it FAA certified.  FAA Certification doesn’t work like that … the simulator software has to be able to perform specific features:

1.  Must be able to sustain 60 FPS/ 60Hz in all scenarios

2. Must be able to be controlled/manipulated by an external training station

3.  Must have accurate weather visibility settings

4.  Must be able to communicate with a variety of controlling/input hardware

5.  And more …

MSFS “software” doesn’t meet ALL of the above and hence will not and could not be certified as an FAA approved trainer.  Are we done yet, or you just wanna keep going around in circles?  Suggest you just “disagree” and move on.

This is rather silly. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

Once again, your statements that P3D is a certified flight simulator are patently untrue. And the features it has that can make it a component of a certified simulator are quite unrelated to desktop consumer use.

I re MsFS, which, surprised!.you've brought up again, it's quite clear that Asobo aren't aiming for certification. If they were,we'd have seen some of that by now.

Apparently they're satisfied with what they're doing now and aren't presently interested in certification

But if you believe MSFS is UNable to be upgraded for commuse, you're sorely mistaken

 

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

Yes thanks you, that's the link I provided already. The question was about: where in these documentation is written anything about minimum FPS requirement. You said it, you proove it.

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

And yet you say it's "fake news"? 

Yes, about your comments about MSFS that I had quoted above. But it seems you're having some trouble understanding English, which makes me wonder if you have really ever read these FAA docs, in fact 🙂

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

Do you want me to do your laundry and make your bed everyday?  If your really interested in make the effort. 

No thanks, I just want you to learn how to argue like us normal adults on this forum, and not like a brat 🙂

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

And the length of those documents listed in that link are nothing compared to reading FAR AIM 2024 ... 2017 rev was 1335 pages with tiny print.  Good luck.  Now, can you move on or are you OCD? 

I'm all fine but I guess I'm not the only one here who starts to worry about you 😕

2 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

I created this thread to discuss P3D V7 and not whether or not MSFS can get FAA certification ... the FACT remains MSFS has not been used in any FAA certified simulator, P3D has and is also be used by USAF.  Now, can you accept those facts and let this topic resume?  I would hit the ignore user button but that sadly doesn't seem to be an option anymore.

Who started commenting about FAA certification, and who started making comments about MSFS not being FAA certifiable because of a big list of fallacious points, most of which were proven wrong, and finally started listing some fantasy criteria for being FAA-certifiable ? Dude, if you say something, you're the one that should proove it and point to the source (and not a general link), not us. Grow up.

3 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

I created this thread to discuss P3D V7 and not whether or not MSFS can get FAA certification ...

Precisely. But discussion continues in a totally different direction.

Final warning to everyone. Stick to the topic title or it will be locked.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Precisely. But discussion continues in a totally different direction.

Final warning to everyone. Stick to the topic title or it will be locked.

Can you block "2020" "2024" and "msfs" in specific forums? 

🤔😉😎

45 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Can you block "2020" "2024" and "msfs" in specific forums? 

🤔😉😎

No. Plus there are occasions when other sims can be mentioned for legitimate reasons.

On 2/8/2025 at 8:22 AM, IanHarrison said:

Thank you for the biggest laugh of the year so far.

(Says he with LTE and a good day seeing 25-30Mbps)

So we might be pretty lucky here in France because most tiny village have fiber internet. And anyway, past 2030, copper wire internet network will be disabled everywhere int the country.  France invested a lot in the fiber internet ten years.

On 2/8/2025 at 1:54 AM, UrgentSiesta said:

The military don't use P3D because of it's "flight model" (though they do insist on representative performance).

And you know this how?  Do you have insider knowledge of LM's and the military's use of flight simulators?

Dave