announcement The future of quad installers

[pmb]

I am not going to persuade anyone. However, if in doubt, now might be certainly a good point in time. Prepar3d3 is stable, all ORBX scenery will be available soon, most of the other major makers made their addons Prepar3d fit (with a few exceptions, mostly planes, for free), and Prepar3d4, to be paid for again, is probably well into the future (at least based on previous upgrade plans more than a year). 

 

Kind regards, Michael

[Stewart Hobson]

"Different dog, different fleas"

 

Those "amazing screenshots" are not why I fly.

[John Venema]

Each to their own, I'm not here to tell you which sim to use, that's just going down a rabbit hole of a circular argument nobody wins.

 

I've shared some usage facts and answered some questions. Fly the sim you're happy with.

[FalconAF]

I think some people are missing the points in JV's posts.  

 

1.  Will 85% of ALL flight sim enthusiasts be using P3D by the end of the year?  Maybe...maybe not.  But from ORBX's and JV's perspective, 85% of all ORBX's CUSTOMERS probably will.  THAT is what he said, and it is based on (as he also said) ORBX's sales records and what platform ORBX customers seem to be indicating they are choosing (migrating to) as their flight sim platform. So it makes total sense from a business model perspective for ORBX to make decisions about "platform support" for their sales based on the information they have.  

 

2.  And it seems many people forget there are two different kinds of ORBX customers.  Recreational and commercial.  ORBX has a long-term (relatively, at least) commercial customer relationship with DTG in the commercial licensing of FTX Global for Flight School and the upcoming new DTG flight simulator.  So it makes sense for ORBX to develop compatible addons for that platform also.

 

Is it time for "everybody" to make the move to a new(er) flight sim platform?  Not necessarily...and nobody is flaming anybody who hasn't yet or isn't willing to for whatever reason, be it they feel they have too much money invested in an old(er) platform, or can't afford to spend "new" money for a new(er) platform.  That's OK.  But the writing is on the wall and has been for a while.  FSX from Microsoft is over 10 years old.  Heck...MS even "gave up" on it and quit selling and supporting it.  There will come a time when someone using it will get left behind as far as newer software technology emerges for flight simming. Is that time here yet?  Well...some people still use FS9 and are happy.  So it boils down "To each his own".  But no one should expect a developer to keep supporting 10 year old software applications.  That just isn't very reasonable from a business perspective.

 

Press on, JV.  Seems to me you are doing fine.   

[Matthew Kane]

I also agree with charging for installers on future releases as healthy margins for ORBX is in the best interest for all of us. Cash flow leads to new developments and also pays for developers time. I am not comfortable as a customer of ORBX when they are giving things away as that can be a strain on resources. I would prefer more development and development does cost money.

[Kilstorm]

Greatly appreciate these kinds of update/news post from you John.
 

[GrayRider]

John.

 

Currently I only have the FSX platform. Does or could your info in this thread mean, that sometime in 2017 FSX will be retired/terminated 100% as far as the ORBX products and support of the products are concerned?. I don't want to loose my investment of all the ORBX products I already have. The ORBX products are #1 in my book.

 

I am interested in P3D. I feel. If I did buy P3D it would be to complicated for me, installing it, setting it up, moving all my FSX planes/effects/guages and of course all my ORBX addons and other freeware addons into P3D. I'm just not, and never have been savvy with a lot of the ORBX addons in my current FSX platform, without having numerous issues at times. I'm always needing support here on the ORBX forums. I'm not even sure if my current machine specs would or could handle the P3D platform?. My FSX platform is currently on a 2TB SSD HD.

 

As far as P3D. What is the website that has the P3D product or where all the ORBX users buying P3D?. Can someone point me to it?.  Do they still offer current ORBX users a discount when buying P3D?. What is the latest version of P3D I would be buying?.

 

If I dump my FSX. I hope to get support here on the ORBX forums  getting P3D installed, and installing everything ORBX related to it. I'm asking this now, because I will need assistance.

 

Thanks for any reply's to my concerns about my FSX and moving to P3D.

 

GrayRider

 

  

 

 

[John Venema]

FSX support is not being terminated now, in 2017 or for the foreseeable future as long as people are buying our products for it. If the vast majority of our customers are no longer using FSX then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

What may happen is that we drop P3D1 from future installers since nobody is really using it anymore. I'm sure P3D2 is not far behind that.

[Stewart Hobson]

53 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

I think some people are missing the points in JV's posts.  

 

1.  Will 85% of ALL flight sim enthusiasts be using P3D by the end of the year?  Maybe...maybe not.  But from ORBX's and JV's perspective, 85% of all ORBX's CUSTOMERS probably will.  THAT is what he said, and it is based on (as he also said) ORBX's sales records and what platform ORBX customers seem to be indicating they are choosing (migrating to) as their flight sim platform. So it makes total sense from a business model perspective for ORBX to make decisions about "platform support" for their sales based on the information they have.  

 

2.  And it seems many people forget there are two different kinds of ORBX customers.  Recreational and commercial.  ORBX has a long-term (relatively, at least) commercial customer relationship with DTG in the commercial licensing of FTX Global for Flight School and the upcoming new DTG flight simulator.  So it makes sense for ORBX to develop compatible addons for that platform also.

 

Is it time for "everybody" to make the move to a new(er) flight sim platform?  Not necessarily...and nobody is flaming anybody who hasn't yet or isn't willing to for whatever reason, be it they feel they have too much money invested in an old(er) platform, or can't afford to spend "new" money for a new(er) platform.  That's OK.  But the writing is on the wall and has been for a while.  FSX from Microsoft is over 10 years old.  Heck...MS even "gave up" on it and quit selling and supporting it.  There will come a time when someone using it will get left behind as far as newer software technology emerges for flight simming. Is that time here yet?  Well...some people still use FS9 and are happy.  So it boils down "To each his own".  But no one should expect a developer to keep supporting 10 year old software applications.  That just isn't very reasonable from a business perspective.

 

Press on, JV.  Seems to me you are doing fine.   

When It comes time for the train to leave the station, a 64-bit flight sim, for example, you can bet I won't choose to be left behind.  But that time hasn't arrived yet and in the meantime, I'll fly my airplanes in FSX, old as it is.  Why?  Because I still can.  As I said above, amazing screenies are not the reason I fly a flight simulator.  Realistic scenery which does not interfere with the flight sim experience is another story, which is why I prefer Orbx scenery to any other, and not because Ian or whoever posts pretty screenshots of upcoming releases.  For example, I haven't seen a screenshot of OpenLC NA US/Mexico yet, and I won't need to in order to purchase it very soon after it has been released.  Just sayin'--pretty pictures produced by P3Dv.x aren't the reason I would buy the scenery, and they don't constitute a good enough reason to buy the latest version of P3D, which everyone knows is still a 32-bit flight sim.

[Stillwater]

24 minutes ago, Stewart Hobson said:

When It comes time for the train to leave the station, a 64-bit flight sim, for example, you can bet I won't choose to be left behind.  But that time hasn't arrived yet and in the meantime, I'll fly my airplanes in FSX, old as it is.  Why?  Because I still can.  As I said above, amazing screenies are not the reason I fly a flight simulator.  Realistic scenery which does not interfere with the flight sim experience is another story, which is why I prefer Orbx scenery to any other, and not because Ian or whoever posts pretty screenshots of upcoming releases.  For example, I haven't seen a screenshot of OpenLC NA US/Mexico yet, and I won't need to in order to purchase it very soon after it has been released.  Just sayin'--pretty pictures produced by P3Dv.x aren't the reason I would buy the scenery, and they don't constitute a good enough reason to buy the latest version of P3D, which everyone knows is still a 32-bit flight sim.

 

I can agree to every word here. A 64 bit sim would be a game changer for me (and probably reason for lots of discussion with my "boss"), but I have all my scenery & (more important) planes running in FSX - and I want to enjoy them as long as there is not more than a slight difference.

However, I enjoy to invest in Orbx scenery which is open for future. That makes spendings much easier than, say, the example of add-on planes which you would have to buy a 2nd time when changing to P3D.

[Vora]

3 minutes ago, Stillwater said:

 

I can agree to every word here. A 64 bit sim would be a game changer for me (and probably reason for lots of discussion with my "boss"), but I have all my scenery & (more important) planes running in FSX - and I want to enjoy them as long as there is not more than a slight difference.

However, I enjoy to invest in Orbx scenery which is open for future. That makes spendings much easier than, say, the example of add-on planes which you would have to buy a 2nd time when changing to P3D.

 

Why do you all think that 64bit is such a game changer? It just removes a bottleneck with the adress space (which personally never concerned me). The other major bottleneck, FPS, is not touched by this. Since the CPUs haven't got any faster this decade I cannot see any headroom to dream of so much more potential. DX10 and DX11 helped by shifting more load to the GPU but this passage has been utilized to the fullest now (DX12 does not help in this regard anymore). What's the use of so much memory when your CPU cannot handle it? Have I missed something, like 8 GHz processors?

[Stewart Hobson]

@Vora:  I would direct your attention to post #46 from JV in this thread which may answer your question about 64-bit being a game changer.

[Sammy H]

A spectacular overview of things to come from ORBX and there partners in the near and distant future.  We truly have a lot to look forward to in 2016, TEX was released yesterday and it is nothing short of AMAZING!  Fantastic stuff!

[Benny]

I understand John but not everyone can afford a new or more powerful rig each 2-3 years. in 2010 my rig cost me a lot and still run FSX like a champ OC at 4.4 or so. It look like P3D V3 is more demanding so this is why I'm waiting ( I have nothing against P3D), I wish I had chosen a 1 terabyte in 2010 but the where expensive a bit.

 

My rig is a dedicated one for FSX, and shame on you (he he), it's full of your stuff at 70%. If I get thing right, I would have to install P3D V3 on the C drive so it's impossible for me to do so with 90 gig remaining, now 85 with Telluride and the new Lib.

 

And I bet you that the number of FSX user will still be at around 40% at the end of the year.

 

Now back filming in Telluride... Amazing by the way!

 

Cheers, Ben

[FalconAF]

Heh - heh!  I didn't figure JV was saying he was planning on not providing installers for FSX in the near future.  My FSX example was just using the "oldest" of the platforms many of us use yet.  But dropping P3D1 and P3D2 makes total sense, the same way not including FS9 installers does because there is already an FSX that replaced FS9.  

 

And I agree with Stewart about something in his post.  I don't buy ORBX products based on any of the screen shots posted in the forums.  I'm NOT accusing anyone individually, but "photoshopped" pictures are a dime a dozen on the Internet.  I don't believe any of the ORBX pre-release photos posted are altered, but obviously some of the user ones are. (PLEASE note...I said "SOME".  I don't believe a majority of them are, nor that there is any kind of conspiracy taking place to promote ORBX products).

 

BTW, I use FSX Steam yet.  It does what I want my flight simulator to do.  I was not interested in going through 3 or 4 revisions of P3D and all the "changes" to it as the "core" program for my flight simulator.  It has always been a "work in progress" even at the CORE level of the program. That will change.  I just haven't decide yet if I want MY change to be to the current P3D3 or wait for P3D4 now.  And even that may change depending on the "reviews" I see about the new 64-bit DTG release.

 

Decisions, decisions...... ;-)    

[Vora]

3 hours ago, Stewart Hobson said:

@Vora:  I would direct your attention to post #46 from JV in this thread which may answer your question about 64-bit being a game changer.

 

I have read what JV wrote there, and that exactly raised the question for me what CPU/GPU could handle a landscape made of 4096 textures. Many people are already at the limit FPS-wise when it comes to airplane textures of that resolution. Sure, no memory problem if you have enough VRAM, but what about the frames?

 

[Triplane]

I agree Vora. The coming of 64-bit capabilities will, indeed, be a game changer....someday. But, for the vast majority of us that day will be a longer time coming than some of us have left to live. While GPU capabilities have seen significant improvements in the last 2-3 years the CPU hasn't done so well. We've just about reached the physical/economic limit with CPU cycles and until the entire underlying flightsim engine is totally revamped there isn't a lot to be gained by increased eye-candy possibilities. But, I was wrong once back in '47 and all mileage is variable.....

Doug

[jordancollins]

OK the big question->

When are we getting Previews of OpenLC USA/Mexico?

 

Signed,
  Everyone

[pmb]

5 hours ago, Vora said:

 

I have read what JV wrote there, and that exactly raised the question for me what CPU/GPU could handle a landscape made of 4096 textures. Many people are already at the limit FPS-wise when it comes to airplane textures of that resolution. Sure, no memory problem if you have enough VRAM, but what about the frames?

 

Vora's argument certainly has something. Consider X-Plane (if that's allowed here). This one went - rather unspectularly - from 32 bits to 64 bits ~3 years ago. This certainly was not a game change, neither regarding user base nor spectacular new features. It's just avoiding memory issues, but this is it. Maybe, it will pay off in the far future (when I'll be under the earth), but I don't see it anytime soon.

 

Triplane is certainly right in that CPU development seems to have reached a restricting limit. Isn't it a real shame I can still run P3D3 on my 2012 made i7-2600/3.4 GHz CPU very well?

 

Kind regards, Michael

[B777LR]

I have to agree with JV here. I'm still on FSX, but, the only reason I am is due to my old computer which needs a serious upgrade and I still have not researched if my hardware such as my JetMax throttle set and tiller and Precision Flight Controls yoke and rudder pedals are compatible with P3D v3. I will get around to it and expect by fall 2016 to be converted over.

[Ken Hall]

From a developers point of view, I am very excited and motivated to see all the activity within the flight sim community. I long for the day flight sims catch up with the latest game engines. I have pre ordered the new Dovetail flight school, I am curious to see how it performs, and as a developer my flight training, even though I have had a recreational pilots licence, needs improving. 

The real purpose of flight school is not to convert the already addicted flight simmers but to engage the younger generation and those that have not tried flight simming by making an attractive immersive platform with easy to follow flying lessons. Hopefully this will expand the user base, at the moment flight sims are not as popular as all those shooters war sims etc. Dovetail has a strategy to improve those numbers and if they succeed then we all benefit. At the moment developers are few due to the fact that making a living is a tad on the lower end, most devs are doing it because they love what there doing. Increased sales means more companies, more developers will invest their time in flight sims. It's a win win for all.

I love my flying and gladly support any developer trying to improve our world, I don't see that we restrict ourselves to just one simulator, I will use all of them, as time passes and each sim grows I may prefer just one. I have many add ons which I have well and truely got my monies worth from. For me software is always being improved and always will be, so many previous purchases have long been discarded. I embrace change and can't wait to see how the occulous rift and VR cockpits evolve, to reach out inside a virtual cockpit and touch all those switches etc, 3D, head tracking etc. How immersive can it get, and flight sims are perfect candidates to embrace all of this, it's never been a more exciting time to be in flight simulation.

cheers

Ken

[Endyamon]

On 12. 4. 2016 at 10:53 PM, Vora said:

 

Why do you all think that 64bit is such a game changer? It just removes a bottleneck with the adress space (which personally never concerned me). The other major bottleneck, FPS, is not touched by this. Since the CPUs haven't got any faster this decade I cannot see any headroom to dream of so much more potential. DX10 and DX11 helped by shifting more load to the GPU but this passage has been utilized to the fullest now (DX12 does not help in this regard anymore). What's the use of so much memory when your CPU cannot handle it? Have I missed something, like 8 GHz processors?

 

exactly! I totally agree

 

people expect that with the advent 64bit p3d will be move all sliders on right side .. ok .. move .. without ooms and enjoy simulation with 15fps or less .. I never had a problem with ooms .. I use new good optimalizing addons no 6years or more old scenery ... Yes, I can get ooms right now without problems,all I need to, for example, uhm . New York city from  Drzewiecki desing , and I have ooms within a few seconds this is very "good" scenery. New York city+64bit ? yea and all sliders on max .. and with 5fps is good solution .... for all orbx scenery, new aerosoft, flytampa, taxi2gate ..... completely enough 32bit .

[bonchie]

On 4/13/2016 at 9:58 PM, jordancollins said:

OK the big question->

When are we getting Previews of OpenLC USA/Mexico?

 

Signed,
  Everyone

 

Second the question...eager to see some shots now that it's in beta officially.

[TheSidewinder]

I'm late to the party (and a search didn't produce an answer), but.... is this an open Beta in which we can participate? 

[European Mountain Man]

Thanks John for the update on new products that are going to released  this coming year I look forward  to great scenery fsx or p3d orbx  has made these sims 100% better

so thanks again for wonderful scenery .

and I do not mind paying a little bit extra for the quad installer I know a lot of work goes into  making them quad installers

so thanks again for wonderful scenery regards Stewart

[Stewart Hobson]

34 minutes ago, TheSidewinder said:

I'm late to the party (and a search didn't produce an answer), but.... is this an open Beta in which we can participate? 

No.  Orbx doesn't sponsor open Betas.

[Sundog]

FWIW, I'll be making the jump to P3D as soon as I can afford a new rig. I think that's two years out, but JV's post makes complete sense to me. BTW, I'll need one year to save up the money for the new rig and HOTAS system (My X45's are getting very worn out as are my pedals) and I'll need a year to figure out what system to buy/build.

[wizzards]

surely if DTG produce a 64 bit sim that is designed specifically from day one for the enthusiast simmer,and the fact that they have a clean sheet,they can include anything to make the sim the best out there,why would we want to stop with P3d which has always stated it has a different target market,as far as I understand not a lot of add ons will work straight off with a 64 bit program,as i have read most will need to be altered/rewritten to work with a 64 bit program and  will therefor need to be repurchased or an upgrade fee paid,so apart from saving a few pounds what is the advantage of staying with P3D over DTG,could DTG kill P3d?lets face it who will run two 64 bit sims that well may be very similar in the end

Peter

[gjpollitt]

On 12/04/2016 at 6:38 PM, tangjuice81 said:

Thanks for the update again John. However, is it worth upgrading from FSX to Prepared 3d for an avid user of FSX? 

 

If you have a spare HD it would be worth you installing onto that to try. That way you won't mess up the existing FSX install if you switch back.

Or you can use an image program such as Ghost or Acronis if using the same HD.

 

A lot of the Devs have released P3D v3 compatible installers for the existing FSX products. Some for free, some for a nominal amount, some full price.

If you have favourite sceney or aircraft you're better off looking at their websites to see if they can be used in P3D.

 

I have FSX-SE and P3D 3.2 on 2 separate SSD so I can boot between the 2 of them as I have NGX and Concorde in FSX-SE which I don't want to buy again just yet for P3D.

However, as John V has mentioned, P3D is definitely the way forward. Eventually I will remove the FSX-SE install completely (maybe another year from now!)

 

Give it a try if you can. I began the moving over process when v3 was released and am really looking forward to each new version as it just gets better.

[aero-3fsx]

On 13/04/2016 at 2:01 PM, B777LR said:

I have to agree with JV here. I'm still on FSX, but, the only reason I am is due to my old computer which needs a serious upgrade and I still have not researched if my hardware such as my JetMax throttle set and tiller and Precision Flight Controls yoke and rudder pedals are compatible with P3D v3. I will get around to it and expect by fall 2016 to be converted over.

 When you upgrade your hardware take Virtual Reality into account. Go to the VR subforum and see what JV has to say there. He calls it a real game changer and I totally agree as I have been using VR for over a year and will not fly with a flat screen again.

[JimmiG]

On 2016-04-12 at 10:53 PM, Vora said:

 

Why do you all think that 64bit is such a game changer? It just removes a bottleneck with the adress space (which personally never concerned me). The other major bottleneck, FPS, is not touched by this. Since the CPUs haven't got any faster this decade I cannot see any headroom to dream of so much more potential. DX10 and DX11 helped by shifting more load to the GPU but this passage has been utilized to the fullest now (DX12 does not help in this regard anymore). What's the use of so much memory when your CPU cannot handle it? Have I missed something, like 8 GHz processors?

 

64-bit opens up the possibility to pre-load and pre-compute a lot of scenery compositing that happens in realtime now. This would improve performance and reduce CPU dependency, at the cost of higher memory usage. Higher memory usage does not necessarily equal higher CPU usage - it can actually be quite the opposite, depending on how the application is written. Simply loading a large chunk of data uses less CPU than performing complex calculations on a smaller amount of data.

However simply re-compiling the existing code for 64-bit would obviously provide very few benefits except increased virtual address space. The scenery engine needs a complete rewrite, which would be an enormous undertaking and which would break backwards compatibility completely. Maybe in P3D v5...

 

There's also absolutely more room to shift work to the GPU. All you need to do is compare P3D v3 to games like GTA 5 and other modenn game engines. Same as with 64-bit vs 32-bit, simply porting an application from DX9 to DX11/12 and adding a few new shader effects doesn't automatically shift all possible work to the GPU. Again, only a complete rewrite can take full advantage of new technology.

[Vora]

1 hour ago, JimmiG said:

 

64-bit opens up the possibility to pre-load and pre-compute a lot of scenery compositing that happens in realtime now. This would improve performance and reduce CPU dependency, at the cost of higher memory usage. Higher memory usage does not necessarily equal higher CPU usage - it can actually be quite the opposite, depending on how the application is written. Simply loading a large chunk of data uses less CPU than performing complex calculations on a smaller amount of data.

However simply re-compiling the existing code for 64-bit would obviously provide very few benefits except increased virtual address space. The scenery engine needs a complete rewrite, which would be an enormous undertaking and which would break backwards compatibility completely. Maybe in P3D v5...

 

There's also absolutely more room to shift work to the GPU. All you need to do is compare P3D v3 to games like GTA 5 and other modenn game engines. Same as with 64-bit vs 32-bit, simply porting an application from DX9 to DX11/12 and adding a few new shader effects doesn't automatically shift all possible work to the GPU. Again, only a complete rewrite can take full advantage of new technology.

 

You are mixing up some stuff here. The precomputed frames are held in the VRAM on the graphics card. The the size of the VAS (32/64bit) is only concerning the usage of the main RAM. The number of precomputed frames in the framebuffer has nothing to do with 64bit adresses. It depends on the size of the VRAM and the raw computing power of the CPU/GPU.

Also, LM has completely rewritten the render engine in P3Dv2 already when switching to DX11 (2.4?) which brought quite a speed boost. DTG will also rewrite the render engine for DX11 and introduce a PBR lighting model (instead of the Phong based model the others use). But again, that all has nothing to do with the VAS size.

A switch to a 64bit VAS will influence resource hogs like the PMDG birds and kill the antiquated memory management of FSX (the latter problem has already been eliminated in P3Dv3). All fine an dandy. But if you want to add any new shiny stuff you will need more raw computing power or your FPS will suffer greatly, be it 32 or 64 bit.

[John Venema]

Can we keep this discussion on topic please. 

 

To remind everyone, we're talking about future quad installers for P3D 4.x and beyond to incur an yet-undetermined upgrade fee -  not the merits, pros and cons of 64-bit versus 32-bit. Nobody knows what form P3D v4.x will take so it's not relevant to the discussion.

 

The primary intent of the post was to indicate that the era of free ports everyone has enjoyed for quite a number of years is coming to a close. The secondary intent was to share that P3Dv3.x is fast becoming the platform of choice for our customers.

[Airtrooper]

Excellent Announcement John and happy to pay a nominal fee for porting to v4 onwards. Well done and keep up the good work.

 

Andy

[andy1252]

John,

 

Thank you for the announcement and info on your future plans. I certainly won't have a problem paying for upgrades for any future P3D versions (in the moral sense, at least - we'll have to see financially <grin>).

 

I just want to say here that for me, the combination of P3D and Orbx is what primarily makes it a world I want to play in. If I'm honest, what I like most is the world simulation, and being in an aircraft is just the best way to actually travel round and see it all. I also happen to have been keen on planes since a boy, so it's also great to be able to 'fly' some of the beasts I've admired over the years, but I'm very much a Ctrl-E flyer and fantastically accurate flight dynamics are not what I'm into. I may get there someday (I'm already beginning to want to actually land at some of these places rather than just hit "esc") but for me it's mostly about the world I can see below me. And Orbx really does do that better than anything else I've seen, and at what I personally feel is a very fair price and with truly excellent customer care and support.

 

So please keep it up, and be assured that there are plenty of us out here who will keep on very happily buying your stuff (and while I'm here, how about super hi-res versions of Southend-on-Sea, and full PNW quality regions for China and India. Oh, and maybe South America. Oh, and don't forget Africa. DId I miss anywhere?)

 

Thank you

 

Andy

[tangjuice81]

On 4/16/2016 at 1:02 AM, gjpollitt said:

 

If you have a spare HD it would be worth you installing onto that to try. That way you won't mess up the existing FSX install if you switch back.

Or you can use an image program such as Ghost or Acronis if using the same HD.

 

A lot of the Devs have released P3D v3 compatible installers for the existing FSX products. Some for free, some for a nominal amount, some full price.

If you have favourite sceney or aircraft you're better off looking at their websites to see if they can be used in P3D.

 

I have FSX-SE and P3D 3.2 on 2 separate SSD so I can boot between the 2 of them as I have NGX and Concorde in FSX-SE which I don't want to buy again just yet for P3D.

However, as John V has mentioned, P3D is definitely the way forward. Eventually I will remove the FSX-SE install completely (maybe another year from now!)

 

Give it a try if you can. I began the moving over process when v3 was released and am really looking forward to each new version as it just gets better.

 

I have been following P3D for quite some time now and I am a bit intrigued. I have been with FSX since it came out and I have so much put into FSX it's crazy. But thanks for the insight. I will definitely give it some more thought about transitioning to P3D. 

[fltsimguy]

On 2016-04-12 at 11:00 AM, John Venema said:

Well put it this way, P3Dv3 is what about 90%+ of the Orbx developers are using. They only have the other sim versions installed for compatibility testing. If you want the best visuals, lighting, stability, VAS management and performance then P3Dv3.2 is the current pinnacle.

 

You only have to look at FILOU's, John Lovell's and Iain Emms' amazing screenshots to see the potential.

 

My timing seems to be excellent.

I just had a new gaming PC build, very high end, waited 7 years for this. Similar to Iain's system but a bit more. 

I bought P3Dv1 years ago...and it went quickly into the trash.

I just bought P3Dv3 last week as you said John, now is the time for the move in my view...so I'm reinstalling an FSX and in parallel (to the extent that I can) a P3Dv3+.

 

I have no problem with and in fact totally support "fees" for new installers for a new sim, especially since there is a lot of background work that needs to be completed in doing so.

 

I am challenged though with developers who put together new installers, and most likely some new programming and then charge not only the full price but even more for the P3Dv3 version. Flight1's GTN 750 and 650 come to mind.  Perhaps someone can advise me if I'm out to lunch on this one.

 

Bravo to Orbx on the ongoing and rapid response to P3Dv3+ installers!

 

cheers

Bryan

[lthendrix]

JV Your honesty, integrity and willingness to reach out to the customer base are great examples of good business,

 I also respect how you ,in no uncertain terms,.... give us the truth..... Time to get p3d when v 4 comes about.  besides  I hardly think fsx will be able to install fresh in a new box much longer, thanks again for the info I for one really appreciate knowing where Orbx is going .

Btw was this covered in your pc pilot interview? 

[HAM447]

On 13/04/2016 at 1:01 PM, B777LR said:

I have to agree with JV here. I'm still on FSX, but, the only reason I am is due to my old computer which needs a serious upgrade and I still have not researched if my hardware such as my JetMax throttle set and tiller and Precision Flight Controls yoke and rudder pedals are compatible with P3D v3.

Any PC that can run FSX will run P3D with better results, although I can't speak for your hardware requirements.

 

I help run a large VA (we log around 4,000 flights per month). Our usage stats for January 2016 were:-

Sim       Flights     Percentage
FS9         407         9
FSX        2820        65
P3D        1002        23
XP10        125         3
==============================
Total      4356      100.0000

 

And for March 2016:-

Sim       Flights     Percentage
FS9         378         9
FSX        2325        56
P3D        1297        31
XP10        138         3
==============================
Total      4138      100.0000

 

which supports Orbx's thinking.

 

What should be noted is that we had a very vocal demand to support X-Plane but the actual take up is minimal - certainly not justifying the resource we committed to supporting it.

 

Cheers,

Dan.

[akmatov]

 

Quote

 

^{Here is how our customer base is split up:}

 

^{FSX       42.48%}

^{FSX-SE 12.22%}

^{P3Dv1     0.49%}

^{P3Dv2     6.83%}

^{P3Dv3    37.97%}

 

^{P3Dv3 is rapidly grabbing customer share at a rate of about 5% per month}

 

 

^{John posted this in the OP and I've been thinking, always a painful process.  Is this based on Orbx sales?  If not, how does Orbx know the FS used by it's customers?}