12 hours ago, adam77 said:

They are. 

How can you say this?  Let me put it another way.  If what you are saying is happening (Complete Rebuild), then that means that prior scenery will also lose compatibility.  no?

Que sera sera!

Here is a clue for you all: 

Hell of a lot of VR. A Lot of multi player or multi user consoles (minimum here of 3 per lesson, students and instructor) VR Walkaround capacity. Good systems and cockpit fidelity lot of stop repeat or do it again capacity on the fly. Pretty scenery - not even mentioned. Its about fidelity, accuracy and proper simulation! 

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by coastaldriver

9 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

Que sera sera!

Here is a clue for you all: 

Hell of a lot of VR. A Lot of multi player or multi user consoles (minimum here of 3 per lesson, students and instructor) VR Walkaround capacity. Good systems and cockpit fidelity lot of stop repeat or do it again capacity on the fly. Pretty scenery - not even mentioned. Its about fidelity, accuracy and proper simulation! 

.....and yet the scenery being used there is definitely not P3D default.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

.....and yet the scenery being used there is definitely not P3D default.

Which timestamps in the video are you referring to?

Look at 4:30. That does not look like default P3D scenery to me. It looks like photoscenery.

34 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Look at 4:30. That does not look like default P3D scenery to me. It looks like photoscenery.

Well considering armed services around the globe build real replica cities of places they will be in combat I don't think it's a stretch they would be using custom scenery that reflects what they would see during a mission... It all depends what the training scenario for the day was.  If you are training for engine flame outs at 40k feet scenery may not be important.  If you are training for a targeting run on a certain locale I would imagine scenery would be incredibly important.  

To try and downplay realistic scenery is just silly.  P3D did the best it could at the time.  Others have since improved.  For years people strived for more realistic scenery in P3D and now that another sim has more realistic scenery all of a sudden it's not important to a flight simulation anymore. Then at the same time they hope V6 has Google Maps or Bing level scenery...  But it's not important 😉  

It is to me...  I'd love for P3D to have streaming satellite scenery... If scenery isn't important then you may as well just put yourself in a IFR training box and cover the windows altogether why bother with scenery at all when all you need is the sky and a runway right... 

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by psolk

41 minutes ago, psolk said:

If scenery isn't important then you may as well just put yourself in a IFR training box and cover the windows altogether why bother with scenery at all when all you need is the sky and a runway

It's the other way around (IFR doesn't require scenery), but...yeah, exactly. For most of us at home, it's a different story. I'd also like for P3D to have sat-based scenery (as long as it represents seasons correctly). But different use-cases have different requirements. For certain use-cases, P3D still seems to be the best bet - and they are what it's designed for.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Look at 4:30. That does not look like default P3D scenery to me. It looks like photoscenery.

Looks like it, yeah. But there are are other times where the scenery looks stock, like around 6:40. Could be they prefer the photo scenery for this promo video, but don't use it exclusively. It's hard to tell.

Edit: Also, there doesn't seem to be any anti-aliasing at all...

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by d.tsakiris

On 7/23/2022 at 12:53 PM, adam77 said:

They are. 

So what's the definition of "complete rebuild"?

You think that LM first buys a 20 year old codebase, spend several years and a lot of money trying to improve it, and then say "screw it, let's start from scratch". That would mean that the first beta would see the light of day in about 5 years or so.

No. That's not going to happen.

Please stop spreading BS like this. Some people are really desperate and will believe anything about P3D as long as it's something they want to hear. It's not nice to them to give them false hope.

I see default scenery though I'm not sure. We know that Randolph AFB was made by ORBX for P3D, but note that the towns around the base are not depicted, like Universal City just outside the main gate. Does it matter for this kind of pilot training? I don't think so. We would like it to be photo real because it's important for what we simulate. I think flight schools teaching pilots to fly VFR would also like a photo real landscape showing features like antennas, smokestacks, etc. around their practice area because that's important in VFR training. FSX and P3D make a fairly good attempt to show these ground features, but it's not exactly as some would prefer. Again, my bet is that LM will focus on what matters the most to their main customers. We're lucky we have had the option to use P3D since before other simulators came to market. 

On 7/24/2022 at 5:23 PM, Multisim said:

So what's the definition of "complete rebuild"?

You think that LM first buys a 20 year old codebase, spend several years and a lot of money trying to improve it, and then say "screw it, let's start from scratch". That would mean that the first beta would see the light of day in about 5 years or so.

No. That's not going to happen.

Please stop spreading BS like this. Some people are really desperate and will believe anything about P3D as long as it's something they want to hear. It's not nice to them to give them false hope.

While I do agree, it is technically possible they could have built someone alongside P3D, just used it as a holdover until they could get their own proprietary product built. LM is as multi-billion dollar, not out of the question completely for them to build a platform to serve their training and education needs. 

A quote from Multisim:

"Please stop spreading BS like this. Some people are really desperate and will believe anything about P3D as long as it's something they want to hear. It's not nice to them to give them false hope."

The same is true for MSFS2020, as long as some one wants to hear it they will believe it.

I shall specifically refrain from comparing the two products, only saying that this thread has become a useless rumor mill (for both products), and I would urge the moderators to place a moratorium on it.

Jorgen

50 minutes ago, jorgensandersen said:

I would urge the moderators to place a moratorium on it.

As the OP… no. This discussion is fine.

And as useful as the discussion on Lockheed Martin P3D Licensing.

On which a moratorium was placed.

Jorgen

3 hours ago, jorgensandersen said:

And as useful as the discussion on Lockheed Martin P3D Licensing.

On which a moratorium was placed.

Jorgen

I see no issue with speculating about the future of P3D. It's the natural consequence of LM not publicly communicating with their customers since FS Expo last September. And it's not like there's much else to discuss, like new add-on releases, since those have pretty much dried up. 

8 hours ago, Chapstick said:

I see no issue with speculating about the future of P3D. It's the natural consequence of LM not publicly communicating with their customers since FS Expo last September. And it's not like there's much else to discuss, like new add-on releases, since those have pretty much dried up. 

If an individual in your neighborhood were out of communication as long as the developers of P3D, neighbors would call the police to do a welfare check.