The Lockheed Martin P3D Team on Reddit

lol, it is an interesting read for sure. P3D_V4.1 out on October 10th., and we at LM will continue to improve on the overall development of P3D. I did not read the entire Q&A, but that seemed to be the basic tone of the session. Any questions related to adding functionalities that are already available from outside entities were politely sidestepped. . . . .(ATC, Navaids, Weather, etc.). The question about why there are still airports in P3D, carried over from the FSX days. . .that have been closed for years decayed into an "I know more than you" tit for tat about "Agile as opposed to Waterfall" production styles. . .ZZZZZZZzzzzz.

The one I would have wanted LM to address is the one function that is paramount to any Flight that has a "Departure and a Destination". . .ATC, yet it appears that they have no intention, currently, to address that at all. . .instead leaving it to outside developers. The current ATC is antiquated and laughable. If I contact ground to request taxi instructions for either VFR or IFR flights. . .it ultimately ignores it's own instructions and will allow the pilot to taxi anywhere he wishes and take off from any runway. Sierra Pro-Pilot99, released in 1998 had a more sophisticated ATC program than P3D (which was just carried over from FSX). In that sim, if you ventured onto the wrong taxiway, you were called out by Ground, wrong runway, same thing, you were re-routed to your correct runway and admonished by the controller. . .similar control for landings. Amazing that was already that good in 1998, yet all MFS could come up with is what we still have today.
 
The way LM is handling the development priorities of P3D is actually business savvy for them. They are, first and foremost, a military scenario training company. Easy for me to speculate that they contract a training product with a client (government, agency, etc.) then outsource any scenery, navaids, etc. FOR THAT SPECIFIC TRAINING PRODUCT to the existing development community (Orbx, Milviz, etc.).

By leveraging the existing development community, LM can focus its internal resources on the base sim engine. As you might have noticed from the AMA, internally they are more focused on performance and VR than scenery, vehicles, etc.

Full disclosure and my opinion only: I have no inside track to LM. I do have 20+ years in private sector contracting with US government agencies for technology related products. LM does not need the sim users except for a testing base. LM most certainly need the developers who also work with the sim users.
 
henrystreet said:
The way LM is handling the development priorities of P3D is actually business savvy for them. They are, first and foremost, a military scenario training company. Easy for me to speculate that they contract a training product with a client (government, agency, etc.) then outsource any scenery, navaids, etc. FOR THAT SPECIFIC TRAINING PRODUCT to the existing development community (Orbx, Milviz, etc.).

By leveraging the existing development community, LM can focus its internal resources on the base sim engine. As you might have noticed from the AMA, internally they are more focused on performance and VR than scenery, vehicles, etc.

Full disclosure and my opinion only: I have no inside track to LM. I do have 20+ years in private sector contracting with US government agencies for technology related products. LM does not need the sim users except for a testing base. LM most certainly need the developers who also work with the sim users.
Click to expand...
No argument here Henry. . .just an observation that having a Q&A with a Defense Contractor is an exercise in futility depending on what side of the "Usage Table" you happen to be sitting on. Needles to say, with one wave of the wand from LM and we wouldn't even have this Forum.
 
falcon409 said:
No argument here Henry. . .just an observation that having a Q&A with a Defense Contractor is an exercise in futility depending on what side of the "Usage Table" you happen to be sitting on. Needles to say, with one wave of the wand from LM and we wouldn't even have this Forum.
Click to expand...


LOL, Ed, after all my experience with contracting, it is an exercise in futility.
 
Since that Reddit thread seems on it's way to derail completely I'll better unstick this.

The AMA should have been moderated.

Cheers,
Mark
 
falcon409 said:
overall Sierra Pro-Pilot99, released in 1998 had a more sophisticated ATC program than P3D (which was just carried over from FSX). In that sim, if you ventured onto the wrong taxiway, you were called out by Ground, wrong runway, same thing, you were re-routed to your correct runway and admonished by the controller. . .similar control for landings. Amazing that was already that good in 1998, yet all MFS could come up with is what we still have today.
Click to expand...

I remember even if you didn't exactly keep the taxi way you'd get a not amused controller on the radio saying that " We appreciate you mowing the lawn for us but please let us take care of that and stay on the taxi way. Thank you " .. :cool:

( could've been with Flight Unlimited though.... i loved both these sims for quite a while but like all other atempts during those days it never came to a proper replacement for MSFS )
 
Javis said:
I remember even if you didn't exactly keep the taxi way you'd get a not amused controller on the radio saying that " we appreciate you mowing the lawn for us but please let us take care of that and stay on the taxi way. Thank you " .
Click to expand...
lol, yes. . . .I even tried to mess with the Tower once and deliberately overflew the airport despite Instructions for an ILS approach. The Tower continued to vector me back through a very cloudy day and when I dropped out of the clouds for Final Approach I was lined up perfectly with the runway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top