MILIVZ to Cease P3D Development

[Bradburger]

Apparently this is due too a huge drop in sales for P3D products - existing products are now half price, but with no official support.

This and more stuff about the future of the company in the video below : -

(It is hinted that they might reconsider in the future if a future version of P3D gets a big graphical update to bring it on par with MSFS).

Cheers

Paul

 

[YoYo]

Im not surprised, all in all, Indiafoxtecho made free models, it would be good for other developers to lower the prices as much as possible, it would popularize P3D a little, I think.

 

[thunderstreak]

Disappointing that so many developers are choosing to no longer support P3D.
IMHO P3D is working better than it ever has.
LM is so far providing regular updates and good support.

I guess I’ve been using this platform for so long that I’m comfortable with it and proficient in all aspects of using it, updating it, adding to it and modifying it that I am reluctant to move on.
I’ve made a sizeable investment in add-ons as well.

Staying put for now…..

 

[centuryseries]

I like P3D, it's smoother than FSX at much higher settings, I guess that's the 64bit. I've tried MSFS but perhaps its too great a change to get used to the fancy UI, not to mention the massive time consuming updates. Graphics are amazing, but there's just something not right. Maybe I'm just getting old

I'm still developing for P3D and probably FSX so long as platforms are similar.

 

[Spad54]

I like P3D, it's smoother than FSX at much higher settings, I guess that's the 64bit. I've tried MSFS but perhaps its too great a change to get used to the fancy UI, not to mention the massive time consuming updates. Graphics are amazing, but there's just something not right. Maybe I'm just getting old

I'm still developing for P3D and probably FSX so long as platforms are similar.

So are we. With that said will begin to develop some Blender skills in order to take advantage of the material properties and textures now available.

 

[YoYo]

I like P3D, it's smoother than FSX at much higher settings, I guess that's the 64bit. I've tried MSFS but perhaps its too great a change to get used to the fancy UI, not to mention the massive time consuming updates. Graphics are amazing, but there's just something not right. Maybe I'm just getting old

I'm still developing for P3D and probably FSX so long as platforms are similar.

It will not be popular what I write.
P3Dv5 is a LOOOOT better platform for simulations of many aspects than MSFS, but (most) people fly for graphics primarily (sorry), and not for systems and quality of simulations, which unfortunately is poor. Unfortunately it's the truth. P3D offers a lot better reality than MSFS but the graphic wins.
It is also not the fault of the developers, they go where there is more money. ;>

 

[thunderstreak]

Eye candy is nice but realistic systems and fight model is very important to me, hence my loyalty to P3D.
The visuals get better with every update!
Glad to see some supporters remain!
I have and enjoy some of Spad54’s vintage machines!

I would love a SR-71 and B-58 for P3DV5! Are either of those compatible?

 

[Manschy]

Deleted because of not reasonable answer. Sorry.

 

[icycle]

Milviz have to look to bottom line, so understand and have to respect that.

MSFS 2020 (feels 2 years old now??) still does not inspire me much, at the moment. Too much is "inoperative", and maybe its just me, but does not feel like "flying" - or even "simming" (feels like a lot of neither). If I ever want to get dis-enchanted with flight sim, I can stare at the MSFS 2020 screens for a few and say "naw, maybe I'll do something else now" & get up and walk away.

Realize big $$$, and effort have been dumped into it, but for what? Enjoying flying around in my world in P3d. If I want to make it the 1960's or 70's, and add a bunch of Military feel, i always can, sliding some files around, and turning things off / on.

MSFS MAY be THE "future" (or more correctly, "A" future). But for me, that future ain't TODAY.

Best
Bill

 

[BendyFlyer]

I will keep my comment simple vis a vis P3D and MSFS.

There were two plus decades of work went into the ESP engine that drives the sim model behaviour. At the core of that engine or software were two basic components - correctly understood aerodynamic physics and then the means by which the programming for that physics would do things in train with the operating system and its core components (Graphics and Processors). Asobo chose to reinvent the wheel hence the incomplete SDK and all the issues with respect to model behaviour. LM chose to work with what worked and fixed up the rest - i.e rewrote all the code for 64 bit processors then rebuilt the architecture to interface with a wide variety of other programs such as HTML, XML, C+ etc. LM also then threaded into this system Enhanced Atmospherics and True Sky and NVIDIA wave motion. These are all mathematically based algorithim driven programs that have taken years and years to develop (and not by LM they are smart enough to recognise and use it). ASOBO went down a different path and while they have done amazing things with graphics and I give them a lot of praise for that they failed to understand the physics of flight - case in point TAILDRAGGERS. Taildraggers are simple structures with complex behaviour ground behaviour because of the relationship between longitudinal stability and the centre of gravity which in turn on the ground is determined by weight and speed you then get added physic issues if it is a high wing or low wing or mid wing which all affects the relationship between the centre of pressure of a lift foil and the centre of gravity where the forces of gravity work. This is before we consider the effects of torque and slipstream from an engine which is producing thrust and torque reactions. So what is the outcome, taildraggers in the MSFS sim, nose over, won't stay straight and generally behave in peculiar ways. That is before you deal with the other issues of gauges that don't work, propellers that cannot be controlled properly (prop theory is yet another dimension of physics again) and erratic engine behaviour (turbine and piston). That in a nutshell is the MSFS problem - not the graphics not the beautiful scenery not the marvellous texture rendering it is the inability to develop a workable software program that can do what the old ESP engine did translate aerodynamics into a computerised flight model.

And that is why I am sticking with P3D - it will take them a decade for them to get this done and they do not have the benefit of the old ACES team to sort it out! I was very dissappointed with MSFS for those reasons alone it does not work as a flight simulator.

 

[thunderstreak]

Well said sir, thank you for that!
Again, not trying to bash MSFS, obviously for a lot of people it’s great.

In the real world, I own and fly a tail dragger, I need those realistic physics in my sim!

 

[stansdds]

Guess we will see what these developers who abandon P3D in favor of MSFS do when the X-box gamers get tired of MSFS and stop buying and playing it.

 

[Manschy]

Guess we will see what these developers who abandon P3D in favor of MSFS do when the X-box gamers get tired of MSFS and stop buying and playing it.

Thank you so much for this statement - this is exactly what I am thinking about it! In Germany, there is a saying: "If everything is sold you will learn that you can't eat money!" In my opinion, gamer (and that's what MSFS seems to be ment for at moment...) are simply not interested to "waste" their time to expand their games - meant, they will be satisfied with flying in a fantastic virtual world, flying with great visual aircraft. But I am a firm believer that they are not interested in additional aircraft, special sceneries etc.
When the hype is done, Asobo and friends may have to remember the flightsimmer community - but at that stage, that's what I fear - they simply will cut the development or furthermore, the whole MSFS....only my 2 cents...

 

[centuryseries]

My existing SR-71 and B-58 both work in P3D V5, aerial refuelling doesn't, although I've not tested that in P3D V5 yet.

My screenshots above are of my current SR-71 project that is designed with P3D V5 in mind and has PBR textures etc.

 

[icycle]

My existing SR-71 and B-58 both work in P3D V5, aerial refuelling doesn't, although I've not tested that in P3D V5 yet.

My screenshots above are of my current SR-71 project that is designed with P3D V5 in mind and has PBR textures etc.

Can't wait for the new SR-71! Fly the old one & B-58 + A-12, and enjoy them both. Seem to work pretty reasonably in P3Dv5. Can't vouch for any refueling as I was never very good at that to begin with!

Best
Bill

 

[YoYo]

Deleted because of not reasonable answer. Sorry.

About Twinke? Yes - this version: Twinkie v2.210803 [P3DV5] (info on MV Forum).

 

[Manschy]

hihi - no, I just had a thought about aircraft inside MSFS but assumed I am not entitled to enjudicate on it when I don't own MSFS - that's all...

About Twinke? Yes - this version: Twinkie v2.210803 [P3DV5] (info on MV Forum).

 

[YoYo]

Ahh, I saw this question, sp dont remember where .

 

[fsafranek]

I like P3D, it's smoother than FSX at much higher settings, I guess that's the 64bit. I've tried MSFS but perhaps its too great a change to get used to the fancy UI, not to mention the massive time consuming updates. Graphics are amazing, but there's just something not right. Maybe I'm just getting old

I'm still developing for P3D and probably FSX so long as platforms are similar.

Good to hear. So are we at SDB Scenery. I'd like to figure out how to make MSFS an optional install for the Enterprise Yankee Station package though.

By the way, your SR-71 looks beautiful in those images. With milviz moving out of P3D your product is even more viable.

 

[Thomas J Wood]

We are going to stay in P3d primarily. In my books MSFS is fun and good looking but it is gravitating to Xbox more and more with every patch.
Thus this means it will never be a real simulator. P3d and Lockheed have a goal to build a world simulator.

1st they need to address the fundamental issues that held FSX back. That will take a number of releases.

The graphical beauty takes a back seat to realism as it will eventually be a real training sim.

By the way, https://youtu.be/4vP1c9JMbbY a lot of those are in p3d. I did it as an experiment. The p3d engine is robust and solid. It can handle what msfs has, and don't ever make the assumption Lockheed Martin cant do as well or better then Ms any time with "good looks".

The company is a military contractor, realism is more important to them then fluffy clouds and shiny perfect water. They-- or someone in the community will bring that along soon enough.

I hope you are all well!