Flytampa, Flightbeam, FSDT and 29Palms future products to be P3D4 only

Dear Flight Simmers,

 

For the past 11 years, FSX has been our simulator platform of choice. It served us well, and we saw amazing things being done with it by 3rd party developers, offering us very complex airplane simulations, very detailed sceneries, and clever utilities that extended the simulator’s capabilities far beyond what we thought to be possible years ago.

 

Lately we, developers, start feeling more and more restrained by the underlying platform limitations. While 4GB of maximum ram would seem adequate in 2006, when FSX was originally released, and no PC could handle the detail that consumed that amount of memory, in 2017 we have hardware far more capable, but we just cannot use it because of the software limitations.

 

The most aggravating problem is the 32bit memory limit, which no hardware can fix, since it’s a core software problem. This not only is the cause of OOMs, but it also forces developers to design a product taking into account this limitation. Some optimizations that might be good for fps, like LOD levels, have a side effect of taking more RAM, so we are often forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, either having a good frame rate and smoothness (risking OOMs), or losing fps and smoothness, trying to save up to the last byte of memory, to prevent crashes.

 

FSX was born with issues that, after the latest patch in 2007, nobody could have addressed, because the traditional cycle of a new sim every 2-3 years has been interrupted, so we had to live with it, and found ways to overcome it. We found very creative ways to bypass several underlying limitations of the sim, a common example of which is the complexity of creating convincing ground textures, by layering lots of different materials over the FSX round earth model, and other ‘hacks’ which wasted lots of our time in developing and offering support for, and that would have been surely better spent perfecting the art, instead of finding solutions to problems that shouldn’t exist. Airplane developers have been also very limited in their options, and many of them had to reverse-engineer the sim, to hack into it at the deepest level, for example to simply get a more realistic lighting of the cockpit.

 

But we got used to it, and made good products, which are loved by users.

 

Recently, the discontinuity between what the FSX engine can do, and what other game engines are capable of, has become a real burden, and it’s hampering our chances for future advancements.

 

In the past years, we have seen the rise of Prepar3D, which was initially based on the FSX graphic engine, but it has now evolved on its own path, while still maintaining a surprisingly high rate of backward compatibility with FSX.

 

Prepar3D has a lot more to offer to developers, and therefore to its users, than just backward compatibility. The native SDK is being constantly improved, and it has grown so much, that we are more and more frustrated by the FSX limitations.

 

But until today, Prepar3D was still a 32 bit application, which means it might have not been possible to look at the native SDK, because many of the things it has to offer, would likely not be possible due to memory limitations. Today, the release of Prepar3D 4 changes everything. Not only we might not be constrained by an SDK made in 2006, but the better features that Prepar3D always offered to us, become now really feasible, for the first time.

 

Take some of the examples below:

 

- No "hard" Memory limitations which might cause OOM errors.

 

- Dynamic Lighting

 

- Improved human Animations

 

- Creation of more advanced SimObjects

 

- Conditional display of objects/textures

 

- More realistic and reliable ground models

 

- Improved compatibility between different add-ons (and autogen), due to the new installation method.

Today, if you compare FSX with Prepar3D V4, you have the new sim which offers a solution to a problem (memory) that can only get worse as add-ons get more complex and the hardware more powerful to support them and you also get a generally smoother flying experience and better fps too. And if you buy more hardware, you will get your money’s worth of it, because buying a faster video card or adding more memory will actually be reflected on your sim’s performance.

 

We believe the platform that will stay for us as the main sim for the next years, is Prepar3D, so we decided to make public a decision that we have been considering for several months already, since the first time we got to see the new sim:

 

In the next months, we’ll all stop developing new products for FSX.

 

Some of our products that are already very close to release, such as Flightbeam KMSP or Fsdreameam KSDF, will still be offered for FSX too, and we’ll of course continue to support all our existing releases with bug fixes, but the new products we’ll work from now on, will be designed for Prepar3D 4 and future versions.

 

We all agree this is the best decision for the future of the community moving forward, and we can only hope that our stance would result in other developers considering the same move. But we also need you, the users, to make this work.

 

 

undersigned,

 

Umberto Colapicchioni - Fsdreamteam

Alessandro Cucinotta - Fsdreamteam

Amir Salehi - Flightbeam

Lars Pinkenburg - 29Palms

George Grimshaw - FlyTampa

Martin Brunken - FlyTampa

Emilios Gemenetzidis - FlyTampa

But we also need you, the users, to make this work.

 

...which we can only do at Lockheed-Martin's discretion - "and there's the rub" as they say.

...which we can only do at Lockheed-Martin's discretion - "and there's the rub" as they say.

 

Exactly. How many people running P3D are doing so under false pretenses.

which was initially based on the FSX graphic engine, but it has now evolved on its own path, while still maintaining a surprisingly high rate of backward compatibility with FSX.

 

Well yes, maybe because the engine isn't that much different after all.

Exactly. How many people running P3D are doing so under false pretenses.

 

Very close to every single one. I don't care what these developers do, although I have no intention of beginning again with a new platform at today's inflated prices, I do think they are making a bet that they will regret. I worked for LM for many years and am aware of how they feel about the civilian market and how very quickly that can result in product lines being dropped. At any rate - not my problem.

 

DJ

P3Dv4 and XP11 aren't the only 64-bit sims available - both Aerofly2 and Flight Sim World are 64-bit. As and when these sims are out of Beta, Flytampa, Flightbeam, FSDT and 29Palms will be in pole position to release compatible add-ons for them as well. I'd like to know what additional features can be included in scenery for P3Dv4 that we haven't seen before? If anyone remembers Emma Field for FS2004, it had just about everything you could think of and was fascinating to just sit and watch, but no other developer included similar features in their own sceneries for FS2004 and it was never updated for FSX. Cost is the ruling factor as always. 64-bit scenery is supposedly free of all the restrictions imposed by 32-bit game engines and theoretically simpler and quicker to produce. However, if 64-bit scenery is more expensive than 32-bit because of the extra features, next to nobody will buy it.

Very close to every single one. I don't care what these developers do, although I have no intention of beginning again with a new platform at today's inflated prices, I do think they are making a bet that they will regret. I worked for LM for many years and am aware of how they feel about the civilian market and how very quickly that can result in product lines being dropped. At any rate - not my problem.

 

DJ

 

What irony. We have a community where mention of hacks, cracks, and pirated software is taboo, even discussion of "No-CD patches" is frowned upon. Yet the vast majority of users of a certain product do so in violation of its EULA ...so you might say they are using that software illegally. Now some third party developers say their future offerings will target that market. So... we will have developers creating products for a group of people who are using the base software illegally.

 

Let's hope the winds of change are not blowing too strongly for this is a house of cards worthy of any sitcom.

Good grief. P3D IS NOT A GAME! According to their EULA. And Lockheed Martin can really put the foot down on users using P3D as a game. I for one won't be buying P3D because I'm not going to violate an EULA. This does a huge deserve to many that use FSX. It is asinine to think you can't develop an airport for FSX because it's 32 bit. You already have products for FSX! Yes, there are software constraints, and FSX is a piece of garbage, but what do you want? I can see you going X-Plane, but to go P3D is not only asinine, but is encouraging the use of P3D by those who will violate an EULA. I bet that Lockheed Martin puts the breaks to this right quick.

I bet that Lockheed Martin puts the breaks to this right quick.

 

I'll bet not.

What irony. We have a community where mention of hacks, cracks, and pirated software is taboo, even discussion of "No-CD patches" is frowned upon. Yet the vast majority of users of a certain product do so in violation of its EULA ...so you might say they are using that software illegally. Now some third party developers say their future offerings will target that market. So... we will have developers creating products for a group of people who are using the base software illegally.

 

Let's hope the winds of change are not blowing too strongly for this is a house of cards worthy of any sitcom.

 

I love people like you. They make me laugh. You just don't understand that the Eula was induced between Microsoft and LM and neither ever cared to worry about it. They both KNEW exactly who was going to buy the product. Now if you choose to stay in the stone age with your simulator then that is your business but please don't pull some high and mighty attitude with us. I run P3D and have a for few years. I am not a student. Now let's see how long before the software police show up.

 

I like how you use the line "A vast majority of users of a certain product".........LOL. Can you not even say the name? Will the software police show up and slap you on the wrist? Sorry to be kind of an A-Hole but I am really sick of seeing comments like yours like you have some kind of moral stand. I repeat, Neither Microsoft OR LM care about who is using their software. They see the money rolling in. Again if you don't want to use it that is fine. Nobody really cares.

Well well, I seem to have ruffled some feathers, given your condescending and disrespectful response. Interesting.

 

It was the irony of the situation to which I alluded. I couldn't care less if you run a hacked version of W10 on a stolen computer.

First Law of Flight Simming

 

As an online discussion on flight simulation grows longer, the probability of flogging the dead P3D EULA horse approaches 1.

 

;)

Now let's see how long before the software police show up ... like you have some kind of moral stand.

 

How can it not be a moral stand? Many people are using the software under self-admitted false pretenses, but claiming it's business as usual, when actually it's a radical change as to how flight sim hobbyists, especially the flightsim.com community, have viewed and respected software licenses, requirements, and restrictions.

 

As long as some say "it means whatever I want it to mean, so gimme, gimme" and others say "wait a minute, you're actually ignoring what the fine print clearly says", until Lockheed-Martin changes that fine print to include hobbyists, then the P3D sick horse isn't going to die anytime soon.

I run P3D and have a for few years. I am not a student. Now let's see how long before the software police show up.

 

Leaving this whole "entertainment business" aside for a moment, if you are not a student, you are definitely not permitted to use the academic license. I thus presume you own the $199.00 Professional version.

 

"The license is available to those that are training, instructing, simulating, or learning. Prepar3D can be used for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment."

 

So even if you are not a real world pilot or aspiring to be, you can still use P3D for "simulating", as long as you are not enjoying yourself! (Discussions like this do provide a lot of entertainment to non-P3D users, but that is implicitly allowed).

Default airplanes in P3Dv4 include the P-38 Lightning, the LO49 Constellation, and the Electra 10A. As we all know very common training aircraft in flight schools. Who in the world would want to fly them for entertainment only! :confused:

Default airplanes in P3Dv4 include the P-38 Lightning, the LO49 Constellation, and the Electra 10A.

 

All classic and world famous Lockheed aircraft, why shouldn't LM be proud of them?

They may also be there as samples of the developer's work, purely because they are the only Lockheed aircraft those developers have modelled so far to the standard required for P3D.

Once LM have gathered enough information (and cash) from their paying Beta-testers they can restrict access to Prepar3d to Military and Commercial Aviation customers only and put their selected 3rd party developers to work modelling their current and future aircraft and systems in private, or even in secret.;)

 

***stands back with fingers in ears***

So even if you are not a real world pilot or aspiring to be, you can still use P3D for "simulating", as long as you are not enjoying yourself!

 

Definition: Professional: relating to or connected with a profession; (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

Definition: Professional: relating to or connected with a profession; (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

 

Implying that even a real world but non-professional pilot wouldn't be allowed to use the professional version? Seriously?

Only the Academic version, and then only if a non-professional pilot is studying for multi-engine, instrument, night flying or some other rating. If not, no. It's that simple.

What irony. We have a community where mention of hacks, cracks, and pirated software is taboo, even discussion of "No-CD patches" is frowned upon. Yet the vast majority of users of a certain product do so in violation of its EULA ...so you might say they are using that software illegally. Now some third party developers say their future offerings will target that market. So... we will have developers creating products for a group of people who are using the base software illegally.

 

Let's hope the winds of change are not blowing too strongly for this is a house of cards worthy of any sitcom.

 

All true in every single detail. And you will get torn to bloody sharkbait on just about every Flightsim forum on earth for mentioning it.

 

Watching so many forums avoid the heck out of this glaring issue by simply declaring that discussion is forbidden, then closing their eyes, looking to the sky and whistling, has to rank as the single most egregious bit of group supported hypocrisy ever seen in Flight Simming.

 

It's not like I actually care or anything, but I do find it the whole situation worthy of satire.

 

By the way, I have called a priest to issue you last rites, and I myself have already been shriven.

I love people like you. They make me laugh. You just don't understand that the Eula was induced between Microsoft and LM and neither ever cared to worry about it. They both KNEW exactly who was going to buy the product. Now if you choose to stay in the stone age with your simulator then that is your business but please don't pull some high and mighty attitude with us. I run P3D and have a for few years. I am not a student. Now let's see how long before the software police show up.

 

Do you also condone software piracy? If you use software in violation of the EULA, the problem is that you and/or LM did not pay for the software to be used in that manner, and legally that is theft.

 

I'm going to guess that you have not met and discussed this issue with the legal staff at LM or MS, therefore I doubt you can possibly know whether they care or not. I'm going to guess they took the time to create the Eula for a reason, otherwise they could have just used this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

 

If you are violating the Eula (and I'm not saying that you are) and want to gamble on not being caught that's entirely up to you but I doubt you'll convince many people that stealing is a smart thing to do.