Jump to content

ZachariasX

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    4475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2172 Excellent

About ZachariasX

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

2233 profile views
  1. What makes you think they do? It took a lot of hammering and a great deal of desperation for people to migrate from LM from FSX, something that was only raelly an option as addons were compatible. You could just copy them over. As of now, addons of P3D and FS2020 are not compatible in a meaningful way anymore. i seriously doubt that a significant number of multitudes that bought FS2020 had used P3D before. Especially when you are reading LM's or A2A's forum, people are rather reluctant to change, as they put a lot of time and money in getting things working. Just buying FS2020 is no alternative, as there are none of the 3rd party modules they use or like. I'd say the ones that ditch P3D for FS2020 now are the ones that never really bought into P3D. Out of curiosity, are there any numbers? I mean P3D is not on Steam... for an - or THE - obvious reason. So there's no number from there.
  2. LM started in 2010, FSX was released in 2006, then it released MS Flight in 2012. Thus LM published well within the timeframe when MS was active in this market. Technically, Flight wa snot that different from FSX, but it had "the store". Even FS2020 retains some FSX code. LM *is* in fact enforcing their licensing strictly. That licensing is probably the most misunderstood thing in the entire fligh sim business. It is only about LM marketing P3D in the professional market and not in the gaming market. You will never see Lm advertise in PCGamer. It has no influence whatsoever on who may buy that sim once they find it. Everybody is allowed to buy it (you get a discount version for students), but LM is not allowed to advertise P3D in and gaming magazine. And they absolutely don't. Conversely, MS is not supposed to advertise FSX in the professional aviation market. LM also actively partitions the market by pricing. It is less notceable with the regular Flightsim, but in the one that has weapons etc., P3Dpro. That one is way closer to the entertainment industry by its very nature, being a CFS. It is hence deliberately priced outside the gamers makret at roughly 2k USD. LM is and was never shy of enforcing the licensing. If LM was in breach about their license with MS in any way, MS would have shut them down way before launching FS2020. It is just sad that those whole obscure contract schemes give so many P3D uses doubts whether they will or could be thrown in jail just because they are not certified pilots but dare to use that sim. Also, 3rd party licensing for part of there core tech is what they do. LM is licensing TrueSky for v5. If MS is being difficult about Bing!, the there's always Google.
  3. I wouldn't be surprised if P3Dv6 will feature terrain straming. They licensed the whole stuff from MS anyway for a different market. Why not licensing terrain streaming?.
  4. Impressive indeed. The sheer magnitude of Intels 10 nm disaster is showing in the sale of the SSD department to Hynix. In 2018, when the sheer mess of that node became apparent, Intel lost a 1 billion $ per year client for their flash business in 2018. The residual business does not make the flash department viable anymore. It just adds to the nice feeling you have when you are forced to buy Intel SSD on X299 platforms like myself... So it sold it out for 2 billion $, while forcing Hynix to buy Intels flash factory in Dalian as well for another 7 billion $, a factory that is rented back to Intel for the next couple of years until it has to be decommissioned, as fabs have limited operational time before they cannot be upgraded anymore economically. On the surface, this is probably a nice play to even out cratering business numbers such that they are not that evident. Hynix pays a lot (and is forced to buy an assembly shack) to get the enterprise segment along with the knowhow and the patents. Still, it might be a good way for Hynix to put the foot in the door that way. Intel surely has some dire times ahead. Will be interesting to see how the company will be morphing over the next one or two years before they will have cometitive parts out again. Until maybe a month ago, I though about upgrading to the 10980XE, but as things look now... by next spring it makes much more sense to change the whole rig for whatever AMD can offer. Maybe by then one can actually buy the recent GPU's...
  5. Lunatics. I always knew. But what would do without them... @AnPetrovich, great flying!!
  6. That for sure. However, if you start out in a trimmed out horizontal flight, it shows you deviation that is *either* a roll or pitch departure from current attitude. If they had both, this would eventually show on the compass. But that might well be too late then. The pendulum is better than nothing, but really not much. They better have their chutes ready. If they have to pull back on the yoke to maintain speed, they have maybe one try to push it forward to „neutral“ position (muscle memory is such a great thing) and while the plane gets faster, they can check to which side the the pendulum is pointing, then try to correct for that, and then pull to get airspeed back to cruise. On the whole, the pendulum might have just been the difference between the crew facing their dim chances in outright panic or somewhat calmly. That difference is not to be underestimated.
  7. It‘s not all that bad.
  8. That‘s harsh. But it certainly does its best to destroy retailing.
  9. I still have a kits somewhere... from the dark ages. Have a photo of my great grandfather putting together a model as family past time on a sunday. Definitely before cordless screwdrivers. And doing that by hand was like... the whole point of it. I much prefer LEGOs. Although the small parts hurt equally like an M3 screw when you stand on them bare feet, building is much more rewarding. Making your kid tighten 1000 screws by hand on a crane model, that I consider borderline bad parenting. At least the very first Meccano kits were all steel. Yes, they got rusty, but with a good electric magnet the kid could tidy up his room with just putting on power. I‘d hate to build a new game rig without a cordless screwdriver. enough Meccano for me. Maybe next summer. I‘m sure DCS will continue to make good use of the latest hardware...
  10. It wasn‘t that. Pilots simply preferred having (for once!) great view ahead and were openly against having that bulky item installed.
  11. I think on the question „what is (too) complex“ context is key. At least to me, it is obvious that without the mission editor, you can‘t make much of DCS at all. Meaning you hurt just about everyone with difficulties found in that department. Hence, looking at world and their dog, the bar for „too complex“ is far lower than in this game, where the full mission editor is very optional, as you get plenty by doing just a few clicks in the simple mission editor, something absolutely lacking in DCS. The random mission generator is no compensation there, as it still throws you in the mission editor. Hence, everything in this game can be more complex while still being acceptable. My main concern is more that when trying to create a mission, you do things in a way one doesn’t expect and hence one looks in the wrong places. I felt the same trying blender after working with 3dsmax. The initial homework one has to to be productive is just too big to ever „just do a simple mission“. Consequently, most never start at all. And this initial homework does not correlate with the functionality of the thing, but with its usability. You know, Vi is a great editor. But.
  12. With that he is referring to is plain high altitude performance. If you cared to read further, he was comparing it to the regular Griffon powered PR Spitfire and specuated that the Ta152 probably matched that high altitude performance. And that is certainly a fair assessment. But he had to guess that as he didn‘t have the NOS injection system functional and didn’t reach that performance at all. As for someone who took the D9 as the pinnacle of German prop fighter design, he surely appreciated the added high altitude potential. That the Ta152 would be the diserable choice for a low altitude scrap is something a personal agenda might read such selected quotes.
  13. Great! Professionally, I work very closely with a leading research group that does work on altitude induced hypoxia. If you are interested, I can ask them what the latest whisdom on that is. I mean, if that professor is sending one student after another in the high alps, we might also get some fringe benefit from that, right? As I wasn‘t really expecting such an extensive overhaul of that part of the game, I never felt like pestering them about this specific topic. If I get data that could be useful to you, I‘d send it by PM if that is ok and you can make of it as you please.
  14. Awesome!! @AnPetrovich, what a great write-up! Clearly, your work keeps this game series top notch. Great that you have the opportunity to fly the Yak-52. Nothing better than a shot at the real thing for sanity checking what data (and opinion) leads one to believe. I am especially keen to see how the changes are reflected in FC, where g effects are suprisingly frequent with some aircraft, even at low altitude. But let me ask a question. In FC (or on planes without oxygen system in general) is there a variance of g tolerance with altitude? In your text, I didn‘t see a mention.
×
×
  • Create New...