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 : -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtc8c0hxZBw

(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 :dizzy:

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

http://www.glowingheat.co.uk/screenshots/sr-71/974 with new burner 2.jpg

http://www.glowingheat.co.uk/screenshots/sr-71/sr cockpit.jpg

[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 :dizzy:

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 :dizzy:

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 :dizzy:

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. :encouragement:
:ernaehrung004:

[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!

[bazzar]

It really doesn't matter what the arguments are. Simply, if there a little to no sales for commercial product in P3D/FSX, it's madness for a commercial developer to continue developing product. End of.:engel016:

[BendyFlyer]

Bazaar - No argument about that issue way the world is and always has been. Short aircraft never made any money from building splendid aeroplanes but they sure raked in it making buses and fire engines!

[Scorch00]

I see this being a "thing" for a lot of developers lately. Although, I personally believe their supposed focus being MSFS is misplaced. Military aircraft sales may rise slightly for the new sim, but overall I venture there wont be much market explosion really. Unfortunately, the sim community as a whole has lost a lot of military high and full fidelity interested military aircraft users from P3D and MSFS sims to DCS. Especially as DCS has started making leaps and bounds from where it once started. Which is where most of the allure is for combat aircraft flying. Since either MSFS and P3D don't offer the systems in those aircraft largely. Granted very limited things can be done with additional purchased peripheral programs for P3D and MSFS. But it's part of DCS' core already. Civilian aircraft wise, MSFS and P3D can however mimic those systems just fine. Just different based sims really. I started out in the MS based sims and moved to P3D, then DCS after a few years. P3D and MSFS are just too limited for me and a lot of other user's tastes. The only thing I do in P3D anymore is aerial firefighting stuff, which in reality is closer to tactical military flying when you really get down to it. Overall, I see the market moving to a MSFS based focus. But the numbers likely aren't going to be as high as they once were. But I really hope developers don't get discouraged despite this. Because really, you have to start somewhere. DCS is pretty intimidating if you're just getting into flight simulation in general. The other sims are much more user friendly and don't have such a steep learning curve.

[BendyFlyer]

MILVIZ, AH, AEROSOFT, plus numerous small commercial and enthusiast developers are actually in my humble view part of and in fact mirror the wider picture of the real world - Aerospace and Aviation. I think it is easy to lose sight of these currents and changes in the close up focus on a computerised flight simulation program (All of which started out in life on basic personal computers and with limited graphical capability). I spent a life time in the real world of aviation as a pilot and instructor and I have been closely involved in all forms of training systems and simulators so allow me the privilege of saying I know the aviation industry and aviation history well, I have been involved in it at many levels for a long time. So here is the simulator predicament and it is that of aviation more broadly it is what is referred to as a mature industry or tertiary, that is the major innovation, experimentation and development is mostly historical now. The General Aviation industry started to die in the mid 1980s so by the time we arrive in this century small aeroplanes, piston engined aeroplanes and personal transportation or even hobbiest aviation enthusiasts had begun to fall away and fall away significantly. In the broader commercial hull market airframe designers and manufacturers consolidated and then consolidated some more and focused more and more on fewer and fewer new aircraft as development costs soared and sales diminished. Reality is that we are at the boundaries of the laws of physics with respect to flight, their has been some tinkering with materials and thermal efficiency design for powerplants - but since about 2008 new or new design commercial aircraft development has basically stopped. COVID and market turmoil has decimated the aviation industry across the world further adding to these woes. I saw the plummeting numbers of both new student pilots, new PPL holders and aircraft owners first hand two decades ago and it has been all downhill since.

So what is there to develop for a flight simulation program in a world where interest in aviation is reduced to but a few where mass transport and modern transport is narrowed to effectively one or two aeroplanes with a whole bunch of older airframes filing the gaps. A younger generation or now several generations for whom aviation and air travel is not a mystery or an adventure but merely part of the landscape. Even the military is in the same mess, not much new happening there either is there - except say electronics and missiles!

So it is neither MSFS or P3D or XPlane that is the issue really it is the reality that these systems can only reproduce what is, as a form of either entertainment or as a private hobby and a few as an adjunct to training and education. What do we expect the developers to develop - yet another version of the same old WW2 fighters or Cold War Jets, yet another version of an 1970s piston light twin? Or all fight it out making the best version of a Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320?

When COVID busted me out of the industry for good I kept up my interest in flight simulators but I can say well I saw the golden years, it was a great ride but it is over - its the way it is. In a modern world of entertainment and digital media and short attention spans not to mention serious economic and environmental woes the world of flight rates very low on everyone's radar not just simulation. We cannot keep remodelling the past nor is there much to go with for the future.

And here is the other crunch - in my extended household I am the only desktop PC user - everyone else from 6 to 60 is online using their phones or an IPAD (or an XBOX or its copycat bretheren) for all their entertainment and communication needs. I watch my grand daughters and their friends play some computer game online, all talking to their friends with headset and others via the TV set, the phone and a hand controller - all this a technological challenge that PC flight simulation is completely unsuited! So that is the other reality!

Look and I will be brutally honest, thanks to P3D and thanks to a decade plus of wonderful work by payware developers and hobbiest's alike I have amassed a wonderful collection of aircraft and scenery for my flight simulator program. I have a marvellous collection of aviation history on my desktop and at my finger tips and the capacity to explore virtually or try out virtually any aeroplane I can think of or would want to. But here is the Catch 22 I already bought from MILVIZ, Aeroplane Heaven, Aerosoft, PMDG, RAZBAM, VIRTAVIA and all the others all the aeroplanes I wanted (and some I didn't really but still thought it would be fun to look at) You already sold me a Spitfire or a Lancaster or Douglas DC-3 or a Boeing 737 so i am not a repeat sale candidate and I am not going to do it all again in MSFS when I have a perfectly good sim system in P3D. So developers have lost their repeat business in P3D and whether they can get new buyers in MSFS well I wish them the best of luck but alas it will not be me!

[Spad54]

It really doesn't matter what the arguments are. Simply, if there a little to no sales for commercial product in P3D/FSX, it's madness for a commercial developer to continue developing product. End of.:engel016:

We consider the amount of sales irrelevant to continued development for flight simulation and don’t consider ourselves mad for doing so.

[Thomas J Wood]

Absolutely~

I will add, after 22 years in the digital software industry if you think flight sim is the only software venture Cr1 dose, then your delusional and out to lunch.
Another thing, where ever did we the mad ones ever say we were not building for Msfs??

[bazzar]

"We consider the amount of sales irrelevant to continued development for flight simulation and don’t consider ourselves mad for doing so."


If you are not running a business for profit, then of course you are not mad for continuing to build for the sim. We wish we had the time and resources to do this stuff just for fun. We are not that fortunate.:engel016:

[gray eagle]

I did not find any discount (50% off) of any P3D products.

[YoYo]

I did not find any discount (50% off) of any P3D products.

Its a plan (what I know). This 50% reduction is not yet operational.

[Spad54]

"We consider the amount of sales irrelevant to continued development for flight simulation and don’t consider ourselves mad for doing so."


If you are not running a business for profit, then of course you are not mad for continuing to build for the sim. We wish we had the time and resources to do this stuff just for fun. We are not that fortunate.:engel016:

Understood. Not ruling out future MSFS development but not quite ready to endure Asobo's ongoing SU that break earlier versions of models developed. Good luck with your new direction

[DonMuskopf]

Its a plan (what I know). This 50% reduction is not yet operational.


The reduction is already reflected in the published price. The published prices are 50% lower than before, but you will not see any "50% off" language. e.g. DHC-3T Turbo Otter used to be priced at $40. It is now priced at $19.99.

FYI

Don

[chrissykes]

Shame as I was looking forward to their C-130J to replace the Captain Sim "J" look alike... But did mean a sale for the Skyraider

Trouble is most dev's didnt drop FSX at all or even drop Pd3 V1-3 as those sim's became old. Most continued with FSX as that was still popular but that shows what some of the market share goes for.

[bazzar]

There appears to be some confusion between how popular the sim is and how large the market for new add-ons is. I don't think anyone would argue that the sim is still extremely popular and for some, has a better flight model than MSFS. But whilst large numbers may well be still flying the sim, hardly anyone is buying for it. And that factor is the one that decides a developer on whether to keep building or transfer that energy and resource to a healthier marketplace.:engel016:

[gastonj]

As a result, for the new models, there are only amateurs left who develop freeware (lol)!
JMC

[FrankPilot]

A couple of thoughts after scanning all the above.
Flight model and eye candy are equally important to me - I am hoping, and expecting, that just as with eye candy, MSFS will soon equal of exceed the other sims in flight modelling.
MILIVZ might have even more sales if they enabled the sim’s “turn off engine damage” feature to be able to be used, as the developers of the Spitfire have done - sometimes you just want to fly for fun or whatever without having to get all the settings/controls right to be able to fly (sorry, a bit off topic).
Cheers.