Jump to content

MS Flight / Prepar3d topic


Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]

Recommended Posts

Snave: I don't think it's early adoption by any means. Whatever interest they're getting right now is because they've improved on the FSX core. It's really a matter of how often you want the updates and if you are willing to pay 4x retail price to get them. I think for me the fact they address my issues and needs is far more important than the relative cost of the two platforms. One way to look at it is 100% of FSX users don't buy any addons, so we are the 5% margin of error that does. I seriously don't think we're even on the MS radar, the PC as a gaming platform itself is barely on Microsoft's radar. If Flight fails they'll find a game that does provide the revenues on investment. LM will need it's own Flight Simulator and/or training products indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what justification is there to say "They've improved on the FSX core"? Has it been empirically tested by scientists? Has it been thoroughly reviewed by the trusted FS sites?

No. What we have here are some unfounded claims and individual experiences, and given that in the last 20 years L-M have NEVER brought a project in on-time and under-budget, my assessment that anyone `playing` with this platform IS an early-adopter, and given that there is some jiggery-pokery already about the license and its use I don't intend risking my hard-earned on ANY project in development until it reaches some way past the development cycle (which is where P3D is at the moment) and into the commercial world.

For me, that means peer review, platform-shift by developers, separate and engaged forums and a widening user base. None of those criterion are currently met, so anyone dipping a toe in the water is, by implication, an early adopter.

I watch with interest, but from a long way off.

Same will go for X-Plane 10 at Christmas, same will go for MS Flight, whenever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to take my word or OrbX's word for it don't . But so far the only nay sayers are the ones on the side line. No one who has purchased it and said they didn't see a performance improvement or see much less stutters. No one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, watching what add-on developers have been doing over the last 6 months and the potential target marketing and pricing for Prepar3d and its add-ons. I definitiely agree with Snave on the fact that it's all still in its early days yet as far as telling us if it's going to be the direction that's worth sinking a lot of money into for the long run. I don't think I could really sell any kind of convincing argument to anyone at this stage of the game that any one of these upcoming products, be it MS Flight, Prepar3d, X-Plane, are going to be the definitive replacement for our current offerings on a users perspective. That's going to take definite time, probably another year even before we start to know for sure.

It's just a game of time, staff and cost benefits. Just think how long some of these developers have current project timelines backed up on just existing FSX projects alone. Let alone choosing if they want to devote time and resources, and how much of it, to development and support for either Prepar3d, X-Plane or MS Flight. I'd dare say many are sitting and waiting just as we are to see exactly what we're asking, which is going to be the next best horse to back.

The best value of it all at the moment though is definitely for the tinkerers and BETA testers. The guys like those in the automotive field who love spending their weekends doing things such as adding turbochargers, raplcing extractors, changing your shocks etc on their cars, for no other reason than to see if it makes things perform better for what they want to do, or simply if they can. I think if you enjoy messing with something new like this and consider the time spent venturing into areas of seeing if you can tinker and tweak add-ons to make them work with it all, and actually benchmark any improvements yourself on your own rig, then you're going to find that the money spent on things like Prepar3d is probably still worth it, if for nothing else but the experience along the way.

However if you're in the market for a zero effort out of the box solution as the next replacement for FSX, but really need to know every dollar is providing a measurable return, then it's probably not the best time for you to jump onto the wagon at this stage. There's simply just no such gaurantees at point in time. Most of what people are buying into at the moment is the chance to be part of something new and un-explored, to start tinkering, with merely the hope that maybe the ride's eventually going end up taking them to a stage where we do have stuff like full DirectX 11 support and a 64-bit code base which will be likely to give us the benefits we crave.

Trying to get value out of it as being the definite replacement for FSX and worth sinking money into on that reason alone at this point in time is probably a little akin to going to the horse races and needing a gauranteed win to enjoy yourself for the day. It's just going to be a sad and sorry day if that's the only criteria for happiness. If however you're the type of character to enjoy the buzz of just being there either way, win or not, then maybe it's for you, and even if it goes nowhere in the end the fun of just being part of messing around with something new and what you've learnt along the way will be worth the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine certainly isn't. I personally think the option of being able to have access to a product such as Prepar3d for $10 per month is a pretty good deal. But I'm a bit of a tinkerer and enjoy working with things as they evolve, even if there's no gauranteed list of reasons why it's better than FSX and that we'll still have access to it at that price in the long run, and that all add-on developers will be happy to price the software within consumer realms.

For those though that seem to be more under the impression that Prepar3d is the replacement for FSX, then it seems to be a point of confusion and the general consensus seems that they feel $10 per month is too much. Which I think tends to demonstrate the divide there, and the lack of understanding of what it really is at this point in time.

Those that are really into it all and know what's behind the sim, and what shackles should rightly be shaken in order to make it better, see $10 per month as a minimal expendature to have the chance to start trying to make things better. Though those who want it to run better, but need it now and don't want to have to deal with the usual BETA type things of aspects breaking for a while after a version iteration, see it all as a waste of their money and time.

Horses for course at this stage I think. Though it's much the same with add-ons isn't it. Some people want to BETA test and discover the envelope on new products and help ensure things head in good directions, while some people just want it stable and staright to the point in operation and explanation.

The fact as well though, is that it's not something that has to replace FSX is it, the same with X-Plane, so we can quite safely run the both side by side, in fact we'll need to in order to use ORBX products with it at the SBSL pricing scheme. Which makes it a pretty tempting item to even just buy for a month or so if you're not sure what is it and give it a try. Most folk would probably pay $10 to get a magazine with it on a disc stuck to the front if it was available that way, so it really is an animal that if unsure, don't fight and complain about it, sign up and give it a try and find the answers for yourself. It's been out long enough now that it does have a lot of forums now devoted to it, so you don't have to be the expert anymore, you can find a lot of help even if you're half adventurous.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in addition. I think some of the confusion and contention about the adoption of Prepar3d probably comes from the fact that FSX has developed into somewhat more of an underlying base which is only then completed by the add-ons around it for many users. So when looking at Prepar3d this is the criteria which gets applied to it as well.

I imagine there'd probably be quite a few serious simmers out there that wouldn't be really happy or satisfied about using even FSX vanilla by itself anymore, as it's the suite of add-ons on top of it which has really made it what it is now for them, and at present this is the bit that's missing from Prepar3d for most them.

I'd say by the sounds of the posts for us, the fun of testing and trying to make it all work sounds like it's par for the course, but on the other side of the fence paying $10 per month for something which may or may not run better for them at this point in time, and may not work with a lot of their add-ons that are very centric to their flying, is something I can find understandable and a fair reasoning enough for others to consider even the $10 per month too much, if you simply just want to fly and enjoy a solid and stable offering of add-ons to provide this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine you can have another game by Microsoft that is full of eye candy and simply won't run on your machine. Thats been the experience for the last 20 years so enjoy it ;) As far as I'm concerned I'd rather spend the $60 on new scenery to use on a stable visual platform. Because as far as the "sim" itself, holding on to a 98 flight model when everyone wants to move past that is strange. Having to pay so 13 years old can say they know how to fly an airplane. priceless that is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being far from an expert I would think if the '98 flight model was that bad PMDG, A2A (and others) would not waste years developing their simulations, would they? And P3D is the same flight model as FSX is it not?

bC, all you're doing is arguing your corner. Nothing wrong with that but Graeme (and others) are reminding us that the picture is more nuanced than a simple "go with P3D, period." And these various points of view are all well within the scope of just the forum-reading fs community - a niche within a niche within a...

In my opinion, and having launched P3D a few times now, my immediate comment would be that LM are totally hopeless at anything resembling presentation. You are thrown straight into a flight, god knows where, and into an aircraft that looks like it would be at home in 2004. Yuk! The ever important first impression is not a good one. But, ok, I can get over that. However, testing things and re-starting is tedious and the P3D environment is not, in my opinion, ready for this kind of mass tinkering. In all honesty I am yet to decide whether I will renew my subscription. Life is simply too short to put up with the time it takes to try things out to any meaningful degree in P3D. And I'll bet I am not the only one with these kinds of thoughts.

None of this is to take away from the code advancements that have indeed been made with P3D. Increased stability and more consistent fps is great. Just not great enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Graeme,

I am impressed by the balanced way you describe the current situation with FSX/P3D/XP, and it reflects exactly my feelings after fiddling a bit with P3D.

:bow_down2_s:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And coming back to X-Plane 10. In a [semi] word: meh

We're approx. 2 months away from launch and we have some shots of a suburb and a video of the defaut 747 (work in progress no less). I am sure there are more tidbits scattered throughout various forums but I just cannot find the motivation to hunt them down. Just like I could not ever find the motivation to purchase XP9. I know we all hope that XPlane 10 will be different but does anyone actually believe it to be so?

The more one looks at recent events the more Scott Gentile's (A2A Simulations) comments about P3D start to make sense. He said and I quote: "it seems it's [P3D's] presence is only adding more weight to FSX's long term outlook which gives a great bang for the buck for fsx addons. We'll see where the flow goes, but regardless, it's all good for FSX."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being far from an expert I would think if the '98 flight model was that bad PMDG, A2A (and others) would not waste years developing their simulations, would they? And P3D is the same flight model as FSX is it not?

The PMDG NGX uses it's own physics engine and so does A2A Accusim. The difference between the FSX and P3D implemetation is that P3D gives you full control of the sim, FSX you actually have to literally "fight the sim".

The only problem with XP10 is that it's mac focussed and the userbase refuses to buy anything. So my prediction there is that its just as big a failure as XP9, not because of its userbase but because the engine can't push as many pixel period and the lighting is terrible. That's not going to change until they hire Phil Taylor, but good luck getting him to go against MS/LM.

As for Flight.. It'll be in the ages 3+ category... and the addons will most likely be made in P3D and ported over with special/additional software requirements.

It's a small world my friend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When A2A and PMDG natively develop and support P3D, let me know.

A2A currently have no such plans. I haven't checked with PMDG but can't see why they'd be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well does it really matter? It's not like P3D is going to close the TCP/IP and local ports from SimConnect anytime soon. So as long as there is no new EULA issued a lot of products are completely usable as is. Aerosoft products simply need you to manually add them to the scenery database.

And why does it even matter? ESP has been out forever now and P3D is well over a year old. Just because they build a better engine doesn't mean everyones policy changes. And if does do I really want to deal with that vendor? Fact is you can code against it.. and no one has chosen to do so in four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it matter? Because one offers native support and the other offers no support at all. And if I've paid for sophistication I want sophistication in my support.

FACT: P3D is NOT FSX. After that, until it's better than FSX, consistently and irrefutably, and supported by the Major aftermarket developers, it's nothing more than an experiment, for which the user pays to be a beta tester.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more than enough room at even this small table for all approaches. Sit back and watch or be a subscribed beta tester (where have I heard that before?). It's up to the individual. In fact I doubt we would get far with P3D if not for the latter group - someone, somewhere has to stir the soup... For now I am happy to continue to be a subscribed beta tester if for no other reason than I know it sends LM the message that people are indeed interested.

I will also add that the momentum of P3D going forward is largely up to LM. If, and only if, LM are able/willing to add to the P3D feature set on a more or less regular basis can we hope to see P3D one day become the next prosumer sim of choice with a thriving addon ecosystem. For now LM seems to have a similar agenda and the talk of DX11, not to menion 64bit, remains enough of a carrot. Just don't dangle it too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think the potential Prepar3d has is undoubtably good. The main concern I do have for the longer term future of it completely replacing what we have at present with FSX (particularly those of us who really focus pretty seriously on realistic stuff in the league of PMDG, A2A, Dodosim) will be the stability and direction of the project as far as where Lockheed Martin sees it going.

Ironically, the greatest success of add-ons for FSX has probably come most from the fact that although the engine is obviously not the most optimised, it's a rare product which the MS corporate monster decided the leave alone and not continually mess with. Thus it has meant that the code base has remained 100% frozen and stable (stable in development release terms) for a very long time and studios such as A2A, PMDG, Dodosim, and also recents such as Aerosoft's Huey X have made use of this to develop additional libraries and alternative layers of interface to construct a very technical layer of realistic behaviour and interaction within the underlying simulator. This has allowed for a lot more gamble to be made by these developers with little risk of loss, and far greater winnings for us, since the developers can know for sure that once they get it working and fix any bugs, they know it will remain that way.

I really don't know how much of a challenge it would be for these guys to develop the same such products in a profitable sense if there's no gaurantee that Lockheed Martin will maintain a focused support of this sector of the market, and a fairly transparent long term development road map. For example Lockheed Martin would be well within their rights to completely re-write the turbo-prop modelling within the ESP framework to better meet their needs, which would also obviously be beneficial for us in the long run, however it's quite likely this would break a lot of these existing code layers used from FSX to add such full realism in the add-ons mentioned, and how much cost and time will this cost these developers to re-engineer their products so that they continue to work. It obviously wouldn't be a well received by customers for them to tell us to just continue using for example Prepar3d 1.3 for the next six months while they work on fixing it. So it really will land hard on them in this regard if not designed to support their market.

That change is a fairly extreme example, however quite feasible within the items flagged as things which should be changed in FSX, but it seems that even small iterations at present are capable of causing enough issues as well. For example I'm pretty sure Pete Dowson has had to make a number of revisions to FSUIPC over the life of Prepar3d so far, in order to make it work with new iterations. Which doesn't seem like much, but it's all spanners in the works for development teams trying to focus on building new products if they have to yank staff from projects to work on bug fixes such as this.

Again, it all comes back to what are Lockheed Martin's goals are for this in the long term? We need to remember that by default the industry they are targeting works more around installed solutions which are developed to work as required and then installed, not in the same very fast progression and dynamic level of software updates we are used to receiving as a consumer market. If we're lucky Lockheed Martin will see some good value in embracing our consumer level market for the long term, and they'll be very focused on maintaining that stability in growth for add-on developers, however I don't think it could really be said that we have this gaurantee at the moment.

It will be the decision of developers such as Aerosoft, PMDG, A2A etc on whether the cost of developing and supporting the changing product which Prepar3d will be, is worth the profit received for this. ORBX has obviously decided that they see enough of a commercial market who will wish to purchase the software for thousands of dollars to use in flight training setups, that they are making the jump and the cost in additional support for this product will be covered by this commercial return, and we're just benefiting from this as consumers. However will products such as Huey X, 737 NGX, Spitfire, B377 etc be able to return enough profit to cover the additional support and development required to ensure they work under Prepar3d, given that they are probably unlikely to be used within authorised flight training aids such as scenery will, and thus not as open to the same level of income which ORBX is looking at gaining from Prepar3d.

Many development companies have a pretty long term road map for FSX at present though, in the realm of five years. Plus with hardware now finally catching up and able to drive FSX much better, along with add-ons poping up such as Shade and ENBSeries which kind of fill some of the void for the more advanced shader and bloom functionality we see in other more modern games, I think FSX is going to be pretty solid product for a while yet. The sheer managability of development and support for it as a product will probably ensure this as well, since it's a known quantity which once add-ons are made to work under it, will continue to work.

Again, horses for courses at the end of the day though. Always been the way with simulators though. I don't think I've ever sat in a full airline or airforce simulator where the scenery looked anything close to what you would consider great, and pilots have lived with this for years because the other benefits were an extremely accurate flight model. This same train of thought will be what will keep FSX rolling along for a while yet I'd say, for all of us who can't live without as close as it gets flight. Once one of the others establish themselves as the good stable contender for consumer level add-on developers to start using for their add-ons, we'll know which one to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odds are pretty good I'll be chugging along on FSX for a while yet :) Mind you given that Lockheed Martin here were still using Windows NT4 boxes to drive their Satellite tracking station last time I stuck my head in the door, the old horses for courses obviously works on both sides of the fence ;)

To be honest I don't hold too much hope in MS Flight. I've worked with MS in other channels of development and administration far too long to be anything less than skeptical about how things tend to go over there in Redmond. But I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised, so MS please, do surprise me!

However given the thousands of dollars I've invested thus far in software and hardware for my current FSX setup, and the level of realism I can now attain from many of the add-on products developed for FSX, I'll need to see Prepar3d get to a point where it's really capable of taking over all these aspects of wheather, aircraft, scenery etc, with no risk of LM pulling the rug out as well. Even if Prepar3d does perform somewhat better than FSX at the moment, the current level of hardware available now allows me to run my three monitor eyefinity setup with adequate enough frames for my satisfaction, and at the end of the day it's all about enjoyment and education for me. I'm not going to spend too much of the rare recreational time I do manage to get in a week doing anything which doesn't deliver me 100% satisfaction. So given that I can fire FSX up any time I like, fly some pretty darn realistic (Aerosoft, PMDG, A2A, Dodosim, VRX) aircraft along with wheater, IFR ATC, and real schedule traffic integration, all without any fuss, I'm going to be a bit of a sell out to that factor for a while to come I'd say.

I'll tinker with things like Prepar3d and X-Plane as they progress, but just so I know where they're at and if they're at the stage of replacing my FSX set up. Still, it's worth $10 a month for me at the moment for tinkering and education value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you just going to spam this thread without actually contributing anything. How can you compare it to FSX when you haven't even tried P3D. Zero x All the knowledge in the world about FSX still is zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

are you just going to spam this thread without actually contributing anything. How can you compare it to FSX when you haven't even tried P3D. Zero x All the knowledge in the world about FSX still is zero.

Please relax a bit, and read carefully. Graeme's very last sentence says:

I'll tinker with things like Prepar3d and X-Plane as they progress, but just so I know where they're at and if they're at the stage of replacing my FSX set up. Still, it's worth $10 a month for me at the moment for tinkering and education value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric: Great and according to my formula his opinion will be worth a lot more exactly when he does do that :). You can knock it all you want I don't care, but at least try it first and not jump to any conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may, here is my take on Prepar3D, let me start by saying that I have not tried it yet but I have read all the post here and at Avsim from some of the product user, it seems to be a little more stable with better FPS and water compare to FSX depending on who you talk to, still you have some of the same problems found in FSX like popping autogen, a lot of software or hardware still don't work with it, as I can see it from my end getting on board right now is making peoples paying $10.00 a month to be beta tester and report back to LM by posting their finding so from there LM may look at it for future change in the sim, so the bottom line for me is this...if I have to pay to tweak or wait for more update I keep tweaking FSX and if Prepar3D become a sim. where I don't have to deal with the same proplems I have in FSX I'll give it a shot....

ESP (Prepar3D) was to be a commercial, enterprise solution (non-entertainment) but because of a loophole they are using it for entertainment (I have no problems with that, what ever LM want to do) but between you and me making changes in the simulator or in a file does not make everybody a developer.

On the other hand, peoples are expecting addons developers to make their already paid for or future addons compatible with Prepar3D......how fair is that to the developers, (unless they are getting some $$ back from LM) ...

How hard would it be for LM to put all the fixes together and relase them as a patch for FSX at a decent price....but I understand that $10.00 a month including feedback from their customers is a lot better revenue wise....I can't blame them.

I think I'll wait a little more, we can be surprise with Flight.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there's a lot wrong with the business model from the perspective of the consumer. There is also a definite question mark over the morals and ethics of the `de facto` developer. You don't make a commercial non-enterprise solution into a consumer product be re-branding the consumer, you do it by renegotiating the deal to re-write the T and C's...

As long as the derivative product doesn't have a formal approval from one of the most litigious organisations on Earth, there remains the risk the consumer will be left high'n'dry at any time, with no warning.

Developers likewise.

There have been NO statements of approval from MS for this apparent sleight of hand by L-M... they may not care now, but you could also picture the lawyers beavering away to serve a writ on Day One of Flight's release...

This isn't about paid beta testing, It's much more a concern about conspiracy - as in inveigling the consumer into a potentially damaging transaction as a co-conspirator.

Now, as the product defines itself further away from FSX (and that's what MS did with FS2002, 2004 and FSX which are fundamentally built on the same code) then it may become a safer environment in which to risk the hard-earned, but for me as with any software, it's how it pans out AFTER the initial buzz that will really dictate its position in the marketplace. Again, no reason to be an early-adopter as we aren't missing anything at the moment - even the smoothness and performance gains have NOT been independently verified, no matter how vehement bionicCrab tries to become.

For now, it shows potential. But so does a tile falling off a roof...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand anything about competition in a free market. Holding positions #1 and #2 is what MS wants. MS already failed miserably in the aerospace industry... probably because the word "crash" is frowned upon.

it's the same reason windows 8 got all that I-pad code. Bill gates owns #1 and #2 in that market as well.

Basic economics... not the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use