We are looking for two additional A330 pilots to join our advisory team.  We will ask for credentials (sorry for that), but if you are willing to assist contact us on mathijs.kok@aerosoft.com

Jump to content

Prepar3d2 support - once more


pmb

Recommended Posts

gdscei wrote in a locked thread posted Yesterday , 19:38:

I know this thread has existed before - but it has been over a year ago. Is there any more news from Aerosoft regarding this? Is Maurizio interested in adjusting Vistamare for P3D? Or is Aerosoft creating their own "Vistamare"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opabst replied Yesterday , 19:59:

When there is a thread, us it, I don't want to explain everything again. There are infos in the releasenote, we search for a way to keep P3D compatible with the code, even when LM change there code often, that is the main problem. It makes no sense to have a special version for P3D, therefore the market is to small.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver, would you mind me to disagree?
1. First, this thread a year ago cannot refer to Prepar3d2.2 which was only relased at the end of 2013. While it may be bad style by me to open a new topic on a locked one, it's also not good style to re-open a thread a year old and outdated..
2. I basically disagree that the Prepar3d market is small. A recent poll at ORBX gave a figure of FSX:Prepar3d2 of 60:40 among their forum users who voted. Certainly, this is the result of early and encouraged support by ORBX, so the general figures may be lower, but still I would not consider the market as "small". Perhaps, Aerosoft might make a similar poll among their users? In addition, a glance through several forums shows, more and more users are switching, thus expect the ratio to be very dynamic. (And, yes, I know there are still issues with Prepar3d, but, no, I'd never return to FSX.)
3. ORBX had similar issues with their object flow library. They worked hard with their contractor and invested quite some effort into getting it compatible, and they finally succeeded. When code changed from Prepar3d2.1 to 2.2 they had indeed to adapt it, and they did. It can be done - it's just a question of priorities.
Kind regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I find the mindset of "the market is too small" to be very counter-productive in the case of P3D; the reason the market (or at least the customer base) for P3D is smaller than FSX, is because of people like Oliver who have this mindset; if there were more of the addons that FSX has available, available for Prepar3D, I think most active FSX users would've moved by now to P3D.

Also, Oliver said that LM changes code too often: I would want clarification on this if possible: in terms of frequency of updates or in terms of the type of code changed? Because, if it's the first reason, I think this is quite a lame excuse to be honest, and the updates are not even that frequent. If it's the second one, I can understand that might be difficult to cope with.

If this is the case, maybe you should contact LM, and ask them for their plans to update the code which you are affected by. That way you can plan when to move AES to P3D (once LM decides their updates to the specific code is finished).

Furthermore, I know you are not obligated to do so, but a little more support for AES would be nice (especially regarding these types of things)... you have to invest quite a lot of money into AES (in terms of credits), and for that we get back very little support. Not necessarily saying that is your fault btw Oliver, since as far as I know, you are the only one working on it.

My main problem is not AES itself not being on P3D: I can just use the competitor's software if Aerosoft decides that they find the P3D market too small, BUT the main problem is, that I am promised to get Aerosoft airports compatible with P3D, but what I get in return is non-functional airport gates. This, as I explained in the locked thread, I find to be almost along the lines of lying; you say you provide Prepar3D support for your airports, but they are not completely supported?

That's why I would like clarifcation on this not just from Oliver, but from Aerosoft support in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emi, as gdscei states, the point is not only AES. I've invested quite an amount of money into Mega Airports, German Airports, German Airfields, and Regional Airports for Germany over the years. A lot of your customers did. Except BER, which I bought immediately, I am not able to use any of these in Prepar3d. They're sitting idle on my HD, and I am not into fiddling around with exchanging and modding files and getting CTDs finally. And no, I am not into going back to FSX and maintaining two systems in parallel.

There are continuing questions on this matter (and on the future of all kinds of German Airports in general) on your and other forums which no one in charge at Aerosoft dared to answer so far. This is bad customer support. I would be happy to be told Frankfurt, Leipzig, Dusseldorf and Munich to be Prepar3d ready by the end of this year - if this would be indeed the case. I am well willing to pay an upgrade fee for these, btw.

Once more: Most scenery Add-on makers started much earlier and are much more advanced with Prepar3d support today. ORBX, FSdreamteam, Flightbeam, FlyTampa, to name only a few of them.

Kind regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emi, as gdscei states, the point is not only AES. I've invested quite an amount of money into Mega Airports, German Airports, German Airfields, and Regional Airports for Germany over the years. A lot of your customers did. Except BER, which I bought immediately, I am not able to use any of these in Prepar3d. They're sitting idle on my HD, and I am not into fiddling around with exchanging and modding files and getting CTDs finally. And no, I am not into going back to FSX and maintaining two systems in parallel.

There are continuing questions on this matter (and on the future of all kinds of German Airports in general) on your and other forums which no one in charge at Aerosoft dared to answer so far. This is bad customer support. I would be happy to be told Frankfurt, Leipzig, Dusseldorf and Munich to be Prepar3d ready by the end of this year - if this would be indeed the case. I am well willing to pay an upgrade fee for these, btw.

Once more: Most scenery Add-on makers started much earlier and are much more advanced with Prepar3d support today. ORBX, FSdreamteam, Flightbeam, FlyTampa, to name only a few of them.

Kind regards, Michael

Yes, exactly. This is actually my bigger problem with Aerosoft's work - or lack thereof - on P3D, that I can't fly airports that I have paid for on a product that was said to support P3D. To be honest, it was strange for me alltogether that I needed to pay credits for AES too to actually get a functional airport in FSX - I expect to buy a product, and then be able to use that product, without needing to purchase a different product. But besides that, it would be nice if Aerosoft were to find a way to make the airports work without Vistamare - if the gates would need to be simplified in order for them to work until Vistamare (or a product alike) comes along for P3D, I would be totally fine with that.

But currently I cannot use a product I paid for. And I find that the worst part about this.

I understand Aerosoft can't tell us everything that goes on behind the scenes, but a view from Emi or other Aerosoft staff regarding the aiports would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Emi, as gdscei states, the point is not only AES. I've invested quite an amount of money into Mega Airports, German Airports, German Airfields, and Regional Airports for Germany over the years. A lot of your customers did. Except BER, which I bought immediately, I am not able to use any of these in Prepar3d. They're sitting idle on my HD, and I am not into fiddling around with exchanging and modding files and getting CTDs finally. And no, I am not into going back to FSX and maintaining two systems in parallel.

There are continuing questions on this matter (and on the future of all kinds of German Airports in general) on your and other forums which no one in charge at Aerosoft dared to answer so far. This is bad customer support. I would be happy to be told Frankfurt, Leipzig, Dusseldorf and Munich to be Prepar3d ready by the end of this year - if this would be indeed the case. I am well willing to pay an upgrade fee for these, btw.

Once more: Most scenery Add-on makers started much earlier and are much more advanced with Prepar3d support today. ORBX, FSdreamteam, Flightbeam, FlyTampa, to name only a few of them.

Kind regards, Michael

Of cause you can use most of our airports in P3Dv2. In your signature you're saying your are a P3D Professional. I wonder why they don't work for you then... most install just fine using the Migration tool.

We have given a clear statement on our position on them. There hasn't been a change in our policy since.

We are trying to be as open as possible, but I really see no reasons why we should read through all the different forums on the internet and then asnwer the same question over and over again. Just take a look into our forum and you will find your answers.

I will say it once again for you here:

We are awaiting LM to fix some issues before we will start making our products compatible and the reason for this is simple:

Why should we make our products compatible now if we would have to edit hundrets of products while LM only has to edit one?

Also, we never sold you these products as P3Dv2 compatible, so why demand them to work now and say we are doing bad support simply because they don't work on a plattofrm we never claimed them to work in?

And yes I konw, if we update them for P3Dv2 you would demand the update to come for free, because in your mind P3Dv2 is FSX. It simply isn't and reworking all products would take so much time and manhours that these updates would simply not come for free.

And one more thing: Your so claimed "most scenery addon makers" have exactly how many products to make compatible? Most of them not even 10% of the amount of addons we sell! Who shall pay for the work required to make them compatible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Yes, exactly. This is actually my bigger problem with Aerosoft's work - or lack thereof - on P3D, that I can't fly airports that I have paid for on a product that was said to support P3D. To be honest, it was strange for me alltogether that I needed to pay credits for AES too to actually get a functional airport in FSX - I expect to buy a product, and then be able to use that product, without needing to purchase a different product. But besides that, it would be nice if Aerosoft were to find a way to make the airports work without Vistamare - if the gates would need to be simplified in order for them to work until Vistamare (or a product alike) comes along for P3D, I would be totally fine with that.

But currently I cannot use a product I paid for. And I find that the worst part about this.

I understand Aerosoft can't tell us everything that goes on behind the scenes, but a view from Emi or other Aerosoft staff regarding the aiports would be nice.

Well, all our products we claim to be P3D compatible are P3D compatible. It's not our fault if LM gives such a confusing name to their new simulator.

The difference between P3D and P3Dv2 is about the same as FS9 and FSX. If P3Dv2 was just an update to P3D, why would you have to pay the full price again for it then if you already own P3D?

If we claim a product is Prepar3D compatible than it is exactly this! The name of the product it is compatible with is Prepar3D and on Prepar3D they will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emi, on 05 Jun 2014 - 16:34, said:

Of cause you can use most of our airports in P3Dv2. In your signature you're saying your are a P3D Professional. I wonder why they don't work for you then... most install just fine using the Migration tool.

We have given a clear statement on our position on them. There hasn't been a change in our policy since.

This is a bit unfair, EMI, isn't it? I would never call myself a Prepar3d Professional, there are others who are. Please read my signature carefully. I am USING the PROFESSIONAL version of Prepar3d v2. I already changed my signature some time ago to make this more clear - what else can I do?

I own the Estonian Migration tool. I tried migrating all Aerosoft (and Flylogic) airports into Prepar3d 2.0 and 2.1. The results were continuous CTDs, supposedly by incompatible dlls (but this is just my conjecture). I was not tempted to try this again in Prepar3d2.2 again, and I am free of CTDs so far.

Kind regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

A solution to those should be in our Support for Prepar3Dv2 subforum. You simply need to remove the ViMacore.dll from the dll.xml file and the crashes will no longer occure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all our products we claim to be P3D compatible are P3D compatible. It's not our fault if LM gives such a confusing name to their new simulator.

The difference between P3D and P3Dv2 is about the same as FS9 and FSX. If P3Dv2 was just an update to P3D, why would you have to pay the full price again for it then if you already own P3D?

If we claim a product is Prepar3D compatible than it is exactly this! The name of the product it is compatible with is Prepar3D and on Prepar3D they will work.

Hello Emi,

Ok, this makes more sense to me. With saying P3D is supported on your airports, I would've thought P3Dv2 would fall under that - but apparentely not. That makes things a lot more understandable for me.

For me by the way, main problem I have with the airports is the non-functional gates because of AES not working on P3Dv2, I haven't had CTDs myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gdscei, on 05 Jun 2014 - 17:39, said:

For me by the way, main problem I have with the airports is the non-functional gates because of AES not working on P3Dv2, I haven't had CTDs myself.

Not sure, but I think the most recent version of the Estonian Migration Tool prevents some CTD-causing modules to be installed. Former versions did not have this feature.

Kind Regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure, but I think the most recent version of the Estonian Migration Tool prevents some CTD-causing modules to be installed. Former versions did not have this feature.

Kind Regards, Michael

AES installed fine for me, but it just refuses to connect to P3Dv2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it kind of ironic that Aerosoft brought P3Dv1 into the community as 'the next big thing', like they did with XP10 a couple of years ago.

But you are currently falling behind (and the community has to deal with it), because so many of your product features are build on the AES framework and depend on it:

- Animated jetways & Refusing to implement Inverse Kinematic jetways.
- Animated apron traffic & Refusing to use native Simconnect-based solutions.
- Custom runway lighting using 'simulator engine hacks' & Refusing to adapt native SDK solutions.

And you (Aerosoft in general) are now suffering from the limitations posed by development-time constraints of the people involved and the lack of the requires in-depth engine knowledge. Therefore, you are currently unable to offer key features of a modern scenery addon on all the platforms you claim to support. This issue in false advertisement was only recently addressed after I made Mathijs aware of this communication error. But some extra words on a product page won't fix the fundamental problems when it comes to P3D and the AES framework.

I don't know how contracts from Aerosoft with developers work and if they contain clauses that prohibit the use of IK jetways and Simconnect animations. It could as well be the independent choice of the developers, I don't know. Some information on this matter would be appreciated.

My personal suggestion would be to work with LM, which is possible for the first time since the MS age, and incorporate some kind of flexible, expandable and comprehensive low-level interface module (API?) into the P3D engine with backwards code compatibility with Simconnect and VistaMare. But that my only be a dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Sorry, but i close this thread again, because it gets out of a AES topic and some poeple try to start a discussion far away from the knowlage of the technique behind the issue. I have made clear statements, that i am not happy with the P3D situation, but before the KLM of the world starts to use this thread of topic, i close it for the night. I will try to explain it again this weekend, but i don't think, this will help.

And, KLM737, not Aerosoft, not I have ever limited anyone to not make KI (not IK) jetways in his scenery. Point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Developer

So,

let me try to explain the technological backrounds a littlebit deeper, so that it is easier to understand, way it is not easy
to transfer AES or AESlite/Runway ... staff to P3D:

History

Before we cn discuss the actual issue, it's important to understand the history on Flightsim technologie and why we can be happy to be there, where we are now.

I got my first FS, when I bought my first IBM PC in 1984, the Microsoft FS1. Everybody who has seen this simulation knows, that the simulation was simple, only some B/W lines on the screen, all the rest must be handle in your brain. No nice HD Textures Sceneries, no high system deep aircraft. Only the feeling, you fly, that was it.

Later in the beginning of 1990th the FS4 as available and Bruce Artwicks Sublogic company provides the first tool, the Scenery and Aircraft Designer, where it was possible to build your own aircraft 3D models and enhance the world with colored polys and color Boxes simulate buildings around. Simple, but much better then before.

As an IT Consultant, I was interested to understand, how this tool works and to enhance my simulator with aircraft and the airports I prever to fly too. So I start to develop my own addons. Internet was not available that time, but Miguel Blaufuks, the founder and owner of Simflight/Simmarket today, had already established a BBS, where you can dial in via Modem and upload and download files for the Flightsim and share it with other people, having the same interests. The beginning of the Flightsim community. Here I start to upload my first Airbus fleet developed with this new tools, very simple, but better then nothing. And, I got back several scenery addons done by other developers, so the Simulator base grows fast and I had much fun to fly.

But, the code of the Scenery base was very simple and limited. The Scenery files called ".SC1" Files and was simple tables with data to handle the polys and building "boxed", VORs and so on, limited to a size of 65kb!!! and only one file could be loaded in the memory at the same time. So tools was needed, to handle the new set of addons scenery, so that you can fly without interuption of loading over Europe. This tool was my first code I wrote for the FS to enhance the functional limit the FS had this time. It was never publish as Bruce Artwick has released the FS95 that time, where all the codebase changed.

With the FS95, the scenery code changed to BGL Files, this was needed to make it possible to handle Polygone based flexible 3D objects with textures, Landclasses and more complex Aircraft Models. And Bruce Artwicks technologie was very genius here.
BGL stands for "Bruce Artwick Graphical Language". And yes, it was not only a simple set of discription to build the code for 3D objects, it was more are less a programming language, near to ASM (Assembler), a very effectiv CPU near code, fast, but hard to code. The BGL language is based on Opcodes with parameter or data tables, which makes it possible to define, where a Object is to be placed in the world, which visibility range it is shown and you had same opcodes "controll" the display, like a IF-Opcode to display objects different based on a season Token, the FS provides.

The big problem was: No SDK, no discription how the code works. But there where people out there in the community, who had the knowhow to debug codes to look into the programm and to analyse the function in it. One of this was Manfred Moldenhauer, who developes maybe the most important tool every available for the FS: SCASM (www.scasm.de), a compiler for BGL Code, which a description of all important opcode used in BGL Files. And one person supporting Manfred by his way was Maurizio Gavioli, who maybe knows the code in the FS better then the most developers of the FS itself :)

All scenery addons developed this time for FS95 until FS2002/2004 was mostly based on SCASM compiled code. With FS98 Microsoft provides the first SDK, so it was easier to understand the code behind the BGL's, the BGLC Compiler provided with the SDK and his codeset not so easy to handle, that's way SCASM was still the tool of the day.

The begining of AES:

That time, FS98/2000/2002, my view of Flightsimulation was to not only fly from A to B, starting the flight at the runway and end it after touchdown. When I had the time to use the Flightsim, I want to fly complete turnarounds, FRA-HAM-FRA-MUC-FRA and so an, so as it was in real for the pilots. By the way, this style of flying gave me the feedback, that it was good, not to make the desition to get a pilot in my real life ;)

But my problem was, that the Aircrafts and Scenery was nice already this time in FS98, but after reaching the parking position, that airports was dead and empty, nothing happens anymore until I can start my next leg one hour later. That was boring.

That was the beginning to look deeper into the SDK and the SCASM documentation to understand how the BGL Codes works. At this time there as the "Dynamic Scenery Code" implemted, designed to add movable objectes into the scenery. Very simple, not realy possible to make a AES like tool, but the only available code part, which makes it possible to handle interactions with the user. With a tricky use of the opcodes in this codebase, it was possible to controll the Objects via COM/NAV Frequences, this as the only "interface" available between user/cockpit and the "simple" scenery code engine.

Some of you will know my Bremen Scenery for FS2000-2004 still available at filghtsim and avsim, where the first time in FS, Jetways moves smooth, Followme guide you to the stand and Catering was handled. All this done based on the native BGL Opcodes, very tricky used, but native.
The problem was, that the coding of such features as very complex and time intensive, limited code size makes it impossible to handle all this staff at a large airport like Frankfurt. Bremen was small, 15 Gates only, but Frankfurt, no chance.

Intelliscene changed all Mathijs (at this time staff of Lago) saw my Bremen scenery and all the animations inside. He was planing a project, called EMMA Field, a fictive airport, where he and his team, Richard Goldstein was the Designer of the 3D object, some of you will know his nice small airports, near to Orbx today, want to be free to implement all what was possible at this time, not limited by a real airport. A nice idea and we know later, that it gets to one of the most liked addon every in the flightsim, inclusive a large community around.

My part at this project was the animations on the airfield, call it the first "people Flow", glider activities, gitare player at he barbequeplace and so on. But, the limit code base of the BGL language will make it not posible to handle such complex interaction, like glider start. The Code simple had no Opcodes to handle complex processes, so that the Objects can be "controlled" at runtime.

There was one member in the Lago team, Maurizio Gavioli, the guy already known more in deep of the FS in the early time of development to make SCASM possible. I got in contact with him and explained him the problem, that the op-codes in Bruce BGL Language are limited to code complex animations and processes.
At this time (2001/2002) the idea of Intelliscene (what you know as Vistamare Modules) was born. It is more or less only a op- code enhancment for the BGL ASM based Language the FS is using to display object that time. With the knowhow of Maurizio it was possible to implement this new codeset into the running engine of the FS. Intelliscen was designed to add opcode into the graphic engine, about which Bruce Artwick never has think about, because for simple static object not needed.

Keep in mind, that at this time no Simconnect was available and the FSUIPC Module, used to interact from outside to data inside of the FS had no interface to the graphical engine.

The benefit of Intelliscen was, that it's code as running every framecycle, so each time the FS run the code to display a
object, intelliscen could manipulate the form of the displayed object, can change the position or make desicions to display the object in a different form. This was the base for very smooth animations, because you can handle the animation each frame.

This deep implementation into the graphical engine makes it possible to handle near all animation, only limited by the complex of the code you need to write for that. Remember, it is ASM, no Lib's not easy function you can call. When Microsoft takes over the development of Bruce Artwick (I think he left the team after FS2002), they start to change the handling of the 3D Object code and changed the source code to XML Based files and X-Files (compiled to MDLs) for the Poly staff. But, the transfer to the new codebase never was completed. It includes all you need to have a static 3D object in a much more complex form, it is nearer to DirectX and so the engine can display the object faster. The FSX/P3D code got enhancments to handle grafical effect better, like reflection. The code has also parts of animations included, in parts much better then in the BGL code, as you know can make "skinned Mesh" animation. But, the possibity to controll this code on runtime and the controll the animation in the scenery (not at the aircraft) was nearly gone totally. Good to make a rotating Radartower, good to place libobject somewhere in the scene, where object moving/warking around at a predefined path, but nothing you can controll on runtime within the engine.

The only possible way, and that was a very good enhancment in FSX, is the possiblity to place and controll "Simobject" from a DLL/EXE via Simconnect. This approach is used by GSX to "inject" object and to controll them. But Simconnect is not a "frame based" interface, it is asynchrone, more like a "network". You send a request, the FS will handle the rest. No possiblity to controll this object each frame. And, you can recalculate the animations in realtime. For excample the movement of vehicles.

Here the FSX itself handles the movement, you tell him via simconnect which object you want to "move", the FSX engine will handle the rest. Sounds nice an easy in the first view, but the FSX Engine is very "simple" here and you can't say, what and how he is handle you "move" request. And everybody who has take a look to the vehicles in FSX driveing around that why will know what I mean. Funny, but not always very realistic.

So, for me Intellscene is still the better option to make realistic animations. And Intellscene is used for more the moving Object around, like the full controllable Runway-/Approachlights done for several airports. Ok, there are other option to show runwaylights in FS even with the native Code the FS provides, but they are more or less "static" too. And the Mircosoft primary option to have runwaylight active in the AFX(AFCAD) file is also a "Runwaylight", but flat, you can't configure it the real situation, only a set of selectable option for the approachlights, nothing 3D, no simple and special Lights (like for Madeira). Other approaches, like use of effects, are more flexable, but not controllable based on the FS conditions, like Weather or frog and so on. They are on at night, of at day, that's it. Intelliscene based code can handle that.

Where is the problem in P3D

P3D based on the FSX code, so Intelliscen (Vistamare) can run same as in FSX, no limits in P3D here, only same minor problems with the BGLC code after LM has chanced the code to handle DX11, they miss some codes in BGLC based opcodes, like the problem, that the LightDot opcode used for the Runwaylights gone lost in P3D 2.0, this was fixed in V2.1, but there is still a problem in the code, so that the Lightdot don't follow the rotation/Transformation of the coordination system. This generates a wrong display of this parts. It is adressed to LM and will hopefully fix with the next version.

To get Intelliscene working in P3D, the Core part of the Vistamare modules (the ViMaCore.DLL) needs to be adapt to the graphical Modules of P3D, primary involed is he G3D.DLL, which handles the graphic engine. To get Intelliscen into the engine, you need to know the internal offsets used in the g3D.dll. They offset are totally different now in relation to FSX. Even in FSX they are diffenent, related which version is installed (SP2 native or ACC-Pack), as both used different version of G3D.DLLs I talked to Maurizio last year, how we get the Core Modules compatible to P3D (1.3 was it that time) and he starts to have a look into it. But the P3D changed to 1.4, a now compiled verison of the G3D.DLL included and all the offset changed again the complete work was gone and needed to be done again, to get the new offset, same with 2.0, 2.1 2.xxx.

You may get a impression, that this is not handable and not usefull even for the users outside. Everytime LM provides a Update, Hotfix or any recompile of the modules, Maurizio must start all the process again, until this is done, no Scenery will work. That is not an option we can use.

That's why we first need to talk to LM to explain our problem and maybe get the interesset of LM to see the benefit of a code enhancment like Intelliscen give us, so that we find a solution to make the implementation of Intelliscen (Vistamare) or how is called then, independent of the changes LM makes inside there code. So that a new verion/hotfix don't brake the functionality of the Vistamare modules.

And I hope you all understand now, that the pro's of Intellscene are there, so it makes no sense for me to think about a
redevelopment of AES based on Simconnect, because we don't need a second GSX and the limits I have then, will not make it possible to transfer all features to this stile of implementation.

It is nice to have a FS which is still under development and we all hope LM will go forward here and no managment cost reduction will kill this project too, but sometimes a fixed unchanged platform has his benefits too, as you can learn to handle it and you can be save, that any changes don't bring you in the situation to rework all your stuff again. But that's life all things have pro's and cont's.

I hope this long text help's all to understand, that it cost only 1 minute to write a statment like "why you developers don't do this or that", but the technologie behind all the complex engines are not as easy as some forum users think and we all can be happy, that there was intelligent people out there about many year now, who not talking about FS, who invested much time to enhance the FS with all the nice staff we have now in this hobby, which is fare behond what Bruce Artwick or Microsoft every has think about, when they designed the platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thank you for the post Oliver, I hope you can work out the issues with LM. I can understand some of the technical challenges moving forward and I'm sure it may seem daunting and no rewards for major changes to something that worked in FSX. LM have been pretty responsive to many 3rd party content provider requests so my hope is they continue to work with you/Aerosoft on this.

Although a "static" platform is good for 3rd party content providers in some ways it is also not good for 3rd party content providers in other ways ... there are many that don't want another 7 years of static unchanging platform, in fact, we embrace the changes because they move us that much closer to reality and since flight is very much a visual medium that's core to progress. My hope is that 3rd party content providers are aware of the environments for which they target and how those changes may impact them ... I'm in the same boat for the development work I do (not Flight Sim related) and I'm constantly having to adjust to changes in OS, web, mobile targets ... so I do feel your pain/concern. But to have targets NOT CHANGE is frankly a luxury ... developers need to adapt, learn, adjust, and deploy.

I'll disagree on the "we don't need a second GSX" ... I've used the Virtuali based products before and it's been very problematic with continued issues around updates that frequently requires complete re-installs of their add-on manager -- it's been a major headache. I've stopped buying FlightBeam and FSDT products because they use Virtuali (no option to have the airport without Virtuali which is a shame because FB and FSDT airports look fantastic!). I feel there is a very good need for a "second GSX" product and like it or not SimConnect is going to be the process on which things will grow over time. SimConnect is now a managed part of P3D (not a separate install) allowing developers to use "managed" tools (.NET framework, VS 2010, VS2012, VS2013) products to work with SimConnect I think is a big plus for developers and the future of possibilities.

Your stance/opinion seems to be in contrast with Mathijs who I can quote in some of his threads that he feels the future of simulation is very much with P3D. Has this opinion changed?

Cheers, Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have a number of Airports that I purchased from Aerosoft for FSX however I am switching 100 % to P3D2.2.

This really means that my airports especially German Airfields 2 (EDHK) which has a very special meaning to me will ot be used in the future.

I am encouraged by the tone of the discussion suggesting that there may be a movement towards P3D as is already evidenced in some of the products.

I for one would have no problem paying for an upgrade. It is that important to me to continue using Aerosofts quality products in P3D v2.2.

I look forward to hearing from Aerosoft on their intended pathway with respect to P3Dv2.2

Thank you.

Rolf Spangenberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Good morning Oliver

I would like to ask you if you have any news for us regarding A Version for P3D.

The reason why I ask you is.. I will change next month from FS9 directly to P3D but without AES it's not the same.. I hope we can expected AES for P3D :)

Thanks

Regards from Zurich

Massimo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

No news yet, sorry. Until LM has finished their code (so no new updates are expected for P3D anymore) there is no sense making AES compatible for the reasons Oliver explained in his longer post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No news yet, sorry. Until LM has finished their code (so no new updates are expected for P3D anymore) there is no sense making AES compatible for the reasons Oliver explained in his longer post above.

So you mean when LM stops the development of P3D? In other words we shouldn't excpect AES for P3D in possibly for several years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

So you mean when LM stops the development of P3D? In other words we shouldn't excpect AES for P3D in possibly for several years?

No, but LM will at some point stop the development of P3Dv2 and move on on P3Dv3 (they too need to earn some money with their development). Until then compability with AES will be broken with every new P3D update LM releases. Since it requires seriously much work to get AES working in each new version we currently only have the option to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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