mikkel

This against the PMDG EULA.

 

So the short answer is NO

 

I don't think his question was about licence policies... so the question has not been answered yet.

That's ok, but it was a bit disappointing, they didn't allow the text update one of the members here made.

 

Quite ironic as they base their business model on reverse engineering another product, and selling add-ons for it... and they don't tolerate a user giving away an update a users has made? The dubious ethics aside, I'm not sure if they have any juridistriction to do so, in fact, I'm pretty sure they don't.  

Maybe the MD-11 fans can make a formal request to PMDG to release the community to make some HD VC textures.  I know this has been done with the 747 but the person who did it was asked to stand down given that PMDG planned to continue development of the 747 V2.  With PMDG's stance on the MD-11 being that no further development will take place, perhaps they will be receptive to letting some of the talented people in the community take on the project as a purely freeware exercise.  It's worth a try.

 

 

PMDG can't stop you from making your own cockpit texture and sharing it, as long as you don't keep any of their work in it.... 

There is a world of difference between learning how to fly "for fun, personal reasons" using a desktop simulator and being enrolled in an actual aviation training program (i.e. Academic Institution).  Just because you are "learning" doesn't correlate to an Academic License.  I think the intent of the 'Academic License', as stated by Lockheed Martin, is pretty clear.  From the Prepar3D website:

 

I think Mathijs of Aerosoft, the biggest publisher and developer of flight sim content, put it quite nice, I can at least not find a better way of expressing it:

 

 

 

1. Lockheed sells the Academic license to anybody, no need to proof you are a student,
2. They are including add-ons made for the entertainment market in their base product
3. They invited us specifically to make our consumer products compatible (which you are NOT allowed to use for non hobby use btw)
4. We are talking to them regularly and they have never made any problem of us promoting the P3D to consumers in the hobby market. 
5. They link to companies like IRIS, Carenado etc on their webpages.

 

Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that P3Dv2 is a very good successor to P3D which was a step up from FSX. If you start using P3Dv2 it is hard to go back to FSX, even though a lot of stuff is still missing.

PMDG should start an MD-11 update kickstarter campaign Maybe they'll be surprised...

It seems to me those two goals are contradictory. In order to "break out of the FSX mold" will require -among other things- massive recoding to a full 64bit engine...

 

...which alone would result in completely gutting any "legacy FSX assets."

 

I see this argument being repeated on several forums, it's simply not true. An update to 64-bit architecture will not make the textures, polygon and vertices incompatible. There might be some work needing to be done, especially on how custom code interacts with the base program, but it won't become a entirely alien platform. Further, I would guess that a long over-due implementation of modern realtime shaders and high-res textures in the entire FS-world (normal, bump and specular mapped landscape textures for instance) will make it necessary to re-do sceneries and redraw textures completely, a process that will take  scenery-developers years. 

I think saying its EOL is a little much. They do still support it, they just aren't going to be developing new patches or packs or updates for it. I didn't fly this plane for a very long time (over 2 years) but have flown it a fair bit in the last month. What a wonderful, wonderful bird.

 

Yes, and compared to the Boeings I find it much more interesting to fly! The Boeings are like Wolksvagen, but flying the MD11 is like being in an exotic Citroën. 

An updated virtual cockpit and Prepar3d v2 support would be fantastic!

I think the problem for PMDG is that the MD-11 was not a commercial success like the NGX and 777 so they cannot justify putting any resources into it for P3D. 

 

...or maybe a slight vc update and Prepar3d compatibility would give some extra return on the investment already done? The systems, audio, simulations and external model are up to par... 

They said the legacy products will not be in p3dv2. It really just leaves the MD11 out unfortunatly. 

 

They also said they never were going to make their planes for Prepar3d, things can change... 

MD-11 and MD-10 are Boeing products as of 1997, they still make/convert MD-10's I think, and MD-11 seems popular with freight companies. I don't think there are any conflict there... However I do believe that PMDG could generate some extra income by doing a retouch of the VC and relaunch it as their first Prepar3d v2 product. 

 

I can only speak for myself. The only reason I bought PMDG MD-11 in the first place had to do with the fact that it was the only high-end jetliner for FSX at the time. I had no interest in the MD-11, but it turned out to be the most fun and interesting simulation I ever bought.

The audio, systems and external visual model is still top of the line. I know PMDG has said that the MD-11 is EOL, but everything changes, even Prepar3d support is coming for a few other models. A compability update to Prepar3d v2 and a touch-up of the virtual cockpit would be my biggest wish for the FS-scene. Although i'm not working with financials at PMDG, I think it could be an idea to make this the first PMDG Prepar3d product, to get some extra sales on this great simulation... Just my two cents.

I guess the answer to the question is that most simmers don't know how to fly a plane. It takes some practice to hand fly correctly, and 99,999% of all the landings you do, once you get it, should be correct, even in bad weather. I guess most "gamers" don't have the discipline to learn this. Doing the button pressing seems more realistic to them. It's quite delusional.

Root reason eh? That's why I used the word partly?

Perception modeling mentioned as root reason - winds aloft not even involved, probably not even semi-partly.

Congratulations on a bizarre and out of focus comparison. So you compare using 2D panels on your desktop to sit in the real deal, and somehow I would wish - due to my insistence on VC's - to replace the real car, with it? Then I guess you'll also gladly believe that I would trade a physical cockpit or flying a real 737 with a VC on a desktop simulator?

Most of the pilots i know flying at IVAO are still using the 2D Panels, cause there is nothing more ergonomic out there than the 2D view with an over 25 years tradition.

I only use VC on IVAO, and I seem to be able to fly quite progressive and efficient. I handfly and make VFR short-cuts if allowed by the ATC during approaches, looking out the window in turns, making adjustments on the MCP - all in the same view. It lets me fly more like in the real world, with much more flexibility.

1. Why VC-users try to convince us that VC is better?

You get this sensation because the VC-users left the 2D panels behind because they saw progress and betterness in using a virtual photoreal cockpit.

If you re-read my post you will see I already noted the point about leaning back and inwards while looking at the overhead. Unfortunately FSX eyepoint slewing does not do this. Part of the problem is also the way zoom works. It moves the eyepoint too. If zoomed to a natural perspective the eyepoint seems too close to the panels. If you zoom out you notice the eyepoint moves back.

This is wrong. FSX nor any 3d-rendering/realtime engine I've heard of works this way. The eyepoint - when FOV (field of view) is changed - does not change. When you move and rotate the virtual camera along the different axis (X,Y and Z) in the VC, there are no distortion done. A real camera at the same position in the real cockpit would produce the same perspectives, using a lens reflecting the FOV in the FSX VC (I take it for granted that the PMDG 737 cockpit is accurate). Of course, human vision can sense about 180 degrees FOV, so using a zoom setting reproducing such a FOV will make a wide-angle distortion in the VC, comparable to an extreme wide-angel lens. But _even_ using a 2D panel does not make your FSX view and monitor into an 180 degree panorama on your desktop, unless you run multiple monitors. Anyways, using a zoom factor between 0.7 - 0.8 produce a more than satisfying FOV and panel overview on my 27" screen.

I think you need to cool down, it just a matter of opinion. Don't expect everyone to hold your's.

If there is a circle, and I insist its a straight line, that is not opinion. The 3D cockpit is a replica of the real deal, 2D panels are fictional representations made as compromises between usability and replication.

You should moderate your language in this community Sir.I hope I am clear enough.Thx!

Sorry, I just tried to make a joke about those obnoxious FS9 load mouths.

I wish we could move on from the idea that 3D is progress and somehow better than 2D.

That will be hard... As there is a reason why 2D panels came first, and a reason why most users have progressed to use 3D panels.

The VC does not replicate how the flightdeck panels appear in real life so I'll use 2D view as long as it's available.

Sorry?

this is like the fs9 vs fsx thread all over again :)

Yeah, I still remember those stubborn basterds that forced the developers to produce double-up add-ons for a while. Resulting in longer development times and more expensive add-ons. We could use a politburo in this community - to streamline things a little .)

Because we have the choice to use the best view we feel comfortable with. ...

Obviously - this discussion is about not having that choice any more or losing it. I still don't get what the huge difference is between a pre-rendered still image and realtime fixed view - of the same model the still image was rendered from. BTW: I love floppy disk, any hardware producer not respecting my life choice of using floppy's, will never get my money!

Why do you feel the need to "convert" 2D users to the wonders of 3D? What happened to choice? This kind of missionary zeal is rather like vegans trying to convert meat eaters, when meat eaters rarely try and convert vegans. I've never seen a post from a 2D user saying VC's should not exist, yet we often see VC enthusiasts saying "3D only" is the way forward.

There are many good reasons to stop eating meat, few good reasons to start eating meat - even though I love a good steak. Back to 2D panels: I guess less than a quarter of the users even open them or think about them at all. BTW: With the extreme well made r/t 3d-graphics, why don't you just use the fixed camera positions in the VC - if you are opposed to dynamic view changes?

To make the VC remotely usable you need to have a head tracking system like Track IR. The idea of turning my head one way then moving my eyes the other to see the panel makes me sick to think about it. I don't like the idea of having to wear a hat to use flight sim, Also I need varifocal glasses which means my best vision is in a very narrow angle straight ahead. My glasses will move with my head, meaning I'll be looking at the panel at a less than optimal angle. Perhaps you will suggest I should get laser surgery as well as Track IR so I can fly the 3D only PMDG T7.

You don't need a head tracking system if you just want to emulate the sensation of using the 2D panels.

Congratulations dear development and testing team. Just did a few VFR touch and go's at the airport where I'm a 737 passenger a few times a month. I'm very impressed! The performance is also quite good, a lot better than the impression from reading this forum. 20-30 fps on my i7 first generation 27" iMac.

Additionally with a 2D cockpit I never miss a knob/switch with the mouse because the 2D view doesn't move like the VC does with its simulated head movement. Even if you turn off VC head movement your seat position still moves in large banks and you have to reset.

It would be nice if the cursor in the 3D cockpit were "magnetically" linked to the surfaces you move it over, this would have eliminated the problem.

TrackIR

Sorry, Mike... But you couldn't be more wrong. Don't make such assumption! I didn't buy J41 and I'd love to have it. Same will occur with T7.

I guess you are one of the 5%, but maybe you could still be converted - let's see?

Nope... And I don't think PMDG approves of users adding panels to their creation and putting them up for download by anyone without consent.

I'm not speaking about users making panels, but a serious 3. party developer to make a niche product for "outputting the simulator" to home build cockpits.

WHO do you think that sets the "date of extinction"? OUR MONEY! Not you alone, but it's the mass. That's supply/demand concept.

Sometimes customers need some help to understand where the puck is headed. Cutting legacy features is a very efficient way of doing this. The moral is: 95% of the people who voice their desperate need of 2D panels, will still buy upcoming PMDGs products without 2D panels. Nobody believes this cliché: "then I will not buy it". Of-course you will, why would you miss out the best simulations available for your desktop? On homebuilder cockpits:I've heard that there will come an SDK for 737NGX and probably for future products, if there is a market a third party will sooner or later develop a homebuilder kit with all the 2d panels you need. Software cost is not an issue with home built cockpits.