NZFF

... which is: what, exactly?
What it is definitely not, is software that has terns like OOM and VAS attaching.
For me, that cuts out all MS FS versions and derivatives (=P3D, FSX/Steam FSX, and Dovetail) after FS2004, no discussion.
I am totally over messing with the software, it is there to serve me, not annoy me.
I thought 64 bit should also be a requirement, since we live in the 21st century.

XPlane briefly crossed my mind, but I thought I'd like to start afresh with some cutting edge stuff, possibly still in development.

Aerofly FS2 fits the bill, and so I had a play with it.
Pretty graphics, good light rendering, and very smooth visually.
But you can fly VFR around San Francisco or the Swiss Alps for just so long...



What I like is the 64 bit pipe and what doors it will open.
I have found a guy on Trademe who will rent you an Oculus Rift, and I will have a looksee.
Maybe that will be refreshing enough to shut me up for a bit.
Or so I thought, until I came across this:



Marty has shown us a whole variety of warplanes, maybe that will be the answer with a little 6DOF motion sickness and VR.

Don't commit just yet. The release of P3D4 is not far off. OOMs and VAS should be things of the past...plus you should be able to use all your scenery..oh that's right you are doing the BIG leap from FS9., so scratch that.
Still most scenery should work with it and ORBX will upgrade theirs at no cost.
The only potential show stoppers with the 64 bit deal is FSUIPC wont work with it and Pete Dowson seems reluctant to modify the 32 bit code and some of the more complex add ons wont run on it without modification from the vendors. Some will, some wont and the defunct add ons, like Real Air etc, will never be upgraded unless the code is released for others to modify.
I'm loving P3D and will be first in the queue for V4. I bypassed FSX altogether as it is just too cartoon like to take seriously.

Time will tell... I'm just dipping a toe.
With a new sim it's easy to limit your exposure...
And particularly painless as it is Steam-driven. It just updates the feed without fuss.
What caught my eye was ORBX is producing scenery already, so that's a reasonable vote of confidence.

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/ ... simulator/

cowpatz wrote:Don't commit just yet. The release of P3D4 is not far off. OOMs and VAS should be things of the past...plus you should be able to use all your scenery..oh that's right you are doing the BIG leap from FS9., so scratch that.
Still most scenery should work with it and ORBX will upgrade theirs at no cost.
The only potential show stoppers with the 64 bit deal is FSUIPC wont work with it and Pete Dowson seems reluctant to modify the 32 bit code and some of the more complex add ons wont run on it without modification from the vendors. Some will, some wont and the defunct add ons, like Real Air etc, will never be upgraded unless the code is released for others to modify.
I'm loving P3D and will be first in the queue for V4. I bypassed FSX altogether as it is just too cartoon like to take seriously.

How does p3d compare to your big boy sims?

What do you use p3d for? GA, commercial. Proficiency?? I guess it's a bit of a testament to the sim considering your day job.

Rumour has it, that indeed the release of P3D4 x64 bit code, is not all that far away given that Flight Sim Con 2017 is only a few weeks away in June. It's likely an official announcement might possibly be made at Flight Sim Con 2017 or shortly afterwards as members of the Lockheed Martin Team are attending the conference.

Lockheed Martin have began uploading assets for Prepar3D v4 to their website.

https://fselite.net/news/prepar3d-v4-lo ... l-website/

NZ255 wrote:

cowpatz wrote:How does p3d compare to your big boy sims?

What do you use p3d for? GA, commercial. Proficiency?? I guess it's a bit of a testament to the sim considering your day job.

I use P3D mainly for the heavy tin but occasionally the odd bit of GA VFR stuff too. If there is a good scenery package then you need to tool around VFR to really enjoy it.
I will also use P3D for checking out arrivals and departures out of various places we operate to so as to see how well they work and where they go....VHHH, KSFO and KIAH etc. Good for checking out new SIDs' STARs and approaches.
The visuals are much better quality in P3D than the real sim but of course you can't beat having motion . I used P3D and the PMDG 777 when I was doing my conversion from the 767 to the 777.
It was very helpful in finding switches and getting used to the systems and and autopilot/MCP/FMC and how they interact with each other. The only issue was that the electronic checklist is different and there is no EFB or OPT.
The PMDG 777 is very well represented although PMDG do need to look at implementing FANS into the FMC. It is the way forward and I would like to see something looked at between the major developers and VATSIM/IVAO with respect to developing a standard. Hoppies ACARs is good but needs to be refined and tweeked for use in a vendors FMC.

Charl wrote:I am totally over messing with the software, it is there to serve me, not annoy me.

Gotta say, I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.
Although I have to say I did very little with P3Dv3 in the way of fiddling ... basically I just 'put up' with the 'defaults' with very little change ... likely it could be made better, but it was good enough for me and my style / use-case.

FS2 has certainly had a better reception than anything else 'new' or just updated. It seems that people like the way it looks, and plays -- which has nothing to do with what simmers have been screaming for, they just like it:) I did mention the Orbx FS2 screenshots, to me these are the only 'wow' factor shots of any of the new sims. It is probably the closest thing to a computer game, but looks the least like a computer game. That appeals to me, and obviously others as well. I'd love to see NZ photoscenery in FS2, and I'd love to do it myself.

I have been mulling over what it would take to make a successful flight simulator. Really, in the past we've been spoilt, as MSFS was always part personal project for Bill Gates, so it didn't really have to survive on sales alone -- although it did perform ok, it wasn't ever going to impress investors. Without Bill, it needed to make a financial splash, hence the MS Flight concept -- which didn't work, too little too late. Could be that it didn't work because it is really, really difficult to make a successful simulator which can support itself. It doesn't help that the things which we probably need to make a success are the very things which most folks complain about -- including the FSW business model.

So Aerofly has as good a chance as any, in that it doesn't suffer too much from previous incarnations, and labels. Success depends on finding something which makes enough money to warrant ongoing development, and whether or not this is going to grab hard-core simmers is kind of irrelevant. By the way, Lockheed Martin are in a similar position to MS, in that the driving force isn't to make money from home users. If they did, then we'd probably see a quick lock-down of the market, similar to MS Flight and Dovetail FSW.

Plenty of comments in the other forums using words like 'greedy', but the reality is that you need investors to make a successful product, you need to sell enough to make it worthwhile to those investors, and you need to sell shed-loads to make it worthwhile developing long term. I don't think we've ever seen that working properly for flight simulation.

Perhaps (and that is my hope) Aerofly will pursue a different aspect of the FS genre for the nextgen sim.
VR is a possibility which as mentioned I will look at. There are things you can do...

I don't think we've ever seen that working properly for flight simulation.

I do wonder how a crowd like Aerosoft make a living, because despite what they say, they do.
As to Lockheed Martin: I cannot fathom what they are doing in the home PC Sim market.
They are a giant corporation purveying weaponry, and P3D would occupy an infinitesimal spot in their kind of budgeting.
I revert to conspiracy theory... after all, they are In Your Computer.

Charl wrote:As to Lockheed Martin: I cannot fathom what they are doing in the home PC Sim market.

It's simple.....we're the beta testers. And we pay them for the pleasure.

NZ255 wrote:

Charl wrote:As to Lockheed Martin: I cannot fathom what they are doing in the home PC Sim market.

It's simple.....we're the beta testers. And we pay them for the pleasure.

FS2 looks nice but is limited in coverage. Can it be scaled to Global and does it cover all the seasons?

I made the switch from P3D to FS2 about 2 months ago. I'll never go back. As I wrote in my review about it, this is the perfect thing for busy people with kids that don't have time for continuous tweaking, installation, configuration, troubleshooting, etc. Sure, it's a bit "empty" at the moment but there are big things coming. They announced partnership with ORBX and also created some sort of a next-gen scenery tool to create large photoreal areas in 15-20 minutes. Lionheart Simulation is already working on aircraft for it and their SDK enables anyone to do so. They're also working on ATC, in-depth system modelling, and an update on turbo-prop behavior. I like the flight model, the smoothness, and the fact that in just 20 seconds I can start flying. It's what I would call a "light weight" simulator but for me that doesn't take away from the enjoyment. Continuous 80+ FPS is awesome.

Dan

Yep well said.
I am "out of flightsimming" momentarily, and FS2 exactly fits my need for a Quick Fly, with excellent performance and no drama.
I like where it's headed and the fact that it will be made easy for user addons of all kinds.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the "constant tweaking" criticism with respect to P3D.

FSX reminds me of the bad old 286/386/ DOS days when we worked hard to save 16k of RAM (remember QEMM??) - and jiggled IRQs around to get sound cards, modems and joysticks to behave. Certainly, my FSX needed a whole heap of TLC to make it run. Thankfully, I have it running quite well, so leave well alone.

On the other hand, all my iterations of P3D have needed almost no tweaks at all (performance-wise). Possible one or two .cfg edits (if any) and that's it. The only tweaking I do is to beef up the visuals (with PTA etc.). My P3D has just run "out of the box". Sure, I get OOMs because I have a gazillion add-ons and have all my sliders maxed out but then I know I can dial things back a bit and not get them.

For me, the change from FSX to P3D was pretty signficant: better performance and better stability (on the same PC) ... so ... I'm looking forward to the 64-bit P3Dv4 and think it will continue to gain ground and become the main platform. All the others, I hate to say, will probably last a month or two then fade away.

What I do find confusing, is that I've heard that the new XPlane 11 is the "study" sim (more systems/less eye-candy) - and that it should be the sim of choice if you actually want to learn how to fly. So why did LM choose to go down the "consumer/hobbyist" route instead?

Adam.

gojozoom wrote:Sure, it's a bit "empty" at the moment but there are big things coming. ............................... It's what I would call a "light weight" simulator but for me that doesn't take away from the enjoyment. Continuous 80+ FPS is awesome. Dan

I would suggest that the first 2 statements above are what is giving you the 80 fps and smoothness. Start loading it up with complex add ons and then see what happens.
A vanilla P3D with basic add ons is silky smooth as well with similar FPS. I don't want to sound too negative but we really need to compare apples with apples. Visually it is a different story.

I just hope that various add ons can be relatively easily ported between various sim platforms otherwise we run the risk of a very limited selection of add on options for our chosen platform.
What with FSX, Xplane, P3Dv3 and V4, FSW, AF2 it will be a tough ask of developers.

It's a valid point, but the reason I'm still optimistic about the AFS2 engine is the load-balancing between the GPU and the CPU. The FSX engine mostly relies on CPU (and virtual memory of course) making it a potential bottleneck. Also, that article from ORBX regarding how crazy IPACS is about keeping the performance smooth and their next-gen methods to achieve that sounds very promising. But then of course, only time will tell.

Dan

I hope you are right there Dan and that somehow ORBX, and others, find a way of incorporating those same gains in P3D.

As Dan says, AFS2 sets out to balance its resources, using 64 bit technology from the outset.

I'm not sure P3D can rid itself entirely of the FSX baggage it carries over from its (poorly coded) 32 bit roots.

I am ready for a clean-sheet approach, having as mentioned lost interest in making allowances for limitations in underlying code in a sim.
Even if AFS2 doesn't become a heavyweight sim, I'll follow it as a recreational game because it's "clean" in all respects.
And start saving now for an Oculus Rift v5
If that means I stop being a "flightsimmer" ...well, then it was just time to move on.

Charl wrote:I'm not sure P3D can rid itself entirely of the FSX baggage it carries over from its (poorly coded) 32 bit roots.

I totally agree with that. I've had a few dicussions with Yuri with respect to PTA modifying basic shaders code. He says some of that code dates back prior to FS9 - and is horrifically written.

My biggest criticisms of P3D are in its appalling clouds generation algorithms and awful water - yet the coding for both of these lies in a handful of (relatively) simple files.

If that's true of simple fx coding, then I shudder to think what other "baggage" is in there.

Adam.

They may have got the interns to write the shaders