Future products to be P3D4 only!

TuFun

TuFun

Charter Member
[h=1]Flytampa, Flightbeam, FSDT and 29Palms future products to be P3D4 only.[/h]
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.

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


More info: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/...-and-29palms-future-products-to-be-p3d4-only/
 
Sounds good to me.

Haven't run anything else since P3Dv4 released and FSX been gone for over a year now. Looking forward to what comes next.
 
That step seemed inevitable, and I don't fault them one bit. I'd love to help them make it work, but scenery designers have left my lowly 1060 in the dust.
 
The decision is entirely understandable, and I'm sure the developers have put significant thought into this decision. They understand their current market share, and most certainly evaluated their upside and downside factors in making the move.

The full article gives a more in depth perspective on the decision to specialize. The evolution of the simulator has reached a point where it will be necessary for developers to determine where their long term plans will be implemented. Obviously, concentrating on expanding their product to function without the "restrictor plate" of the 32bit container is a logical decision.

From one perspective, this decision can be viewed as a opportunity. The existing FSX and P3D 32b community will remain vibrant and active, seeking developers that will continue to create products for that platform. Even with its memory limitations, FSX and P3D 32b can perform extremely well with existing technology and available products.

I don't see this decision as a negative. I've been wrestling with this decision myself as I move closer and closer to my own pay ware products. I've always developed with 64bit as the favored platform, but have accommodated 32bit by creating parallel products that will function well in the 32b environment. It is, at the end of the day, twice as much work and a tough call. It will come down to cost/benefit.

IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top