Updated 3ds Max Tools Posted - NEW 1.2 BETA

High Iron · Post by **High Iron** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:54 am

I do not believe the opinions of Jim and Craig reflect that of L.M.. The move to DX11 would be pointless unless the intent was to improve performance and graphic fidelity of the platform. If Craig's statements were true in 10 out of 10 situations P3D would still look like FS98. The fact that some "missions" today require higher poly count models, means the "tool" must be suitable, or the tool fails the mission.

I also disagree that a VC is not necessary or irrelevant. In fact for some commercial clients the opposite is true. Some of the primary factors is portability of the whole platform and the reduced costs to maintain the system. Hardware based systems are great when training occurs at a single point, not so when it needs to move around.

Third party developers can be very useful to a commercial product. Why should my company waste capital and time to develop material that has already been developed by a third party at a level required by the client? I have no intentions of wasting time and money re-inventing the wheel. As a developer, I'm quite satisfied letting third party developers do what they are good at, allowing us to focus on what we are good at.

I'm sure the plugin will eventually get fixed. I believe at the moment most of the development teams efforts are being directed at a timely release of version 2.0. I can understand if L.M. is not willing to delay the update for the purpose of fixing issues such as this. Would any of us pull manpower off a soon to be released product to fix or tweak an older one? I tend to believe not. I'm sure after the release of version 2.0 problems such as this will receive the attention they need. I suppose it's all in the perspective of which side of the problem you're on

Cheers,

Thad

lkalam · Post by **lkalam** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:19 am

I have at least three commercial entities per month contact me in regards to the upcoming A320 product release. These entities are interested in allowing their students a virtual view of the aircraft before the Level D sim and they are requesting as high-fidelity simulation for that view as possible - all buttons, levers, dis-and-dats of the aircraft simulated. That includes circuit breakers, one even asked if the rope can be thrown out the window (!).

We would be much better equipped to sell them a complete turnkey solution with P3D once those issues were resolved.

Trust us, guys at LM, we're not asking for updated tools because we don't like the older ones. We are asking because ultimately, what sells more product for us will sell more product for you.

Lefteris Kalamaras

Flight Sim Labs, Ltd.

Timghetta · Post by **Timghetta** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:29 am

Hello LM,

I agree with allowing larger poly models need to be produced.

I understand LM's position on lower poly, for sim performance, but isn't that what LOD is for? Of course the exteriors always look good to have more detail and performance is not on poly count but tends to stick with draw call as the killer. Then there is always LOD for ensure performance of multiple player and theater of operations ability, cause really how close will you get to the friend/enemy during an engagement or exercise.

My views are with my fellow 3D developers, concerning detail. you just can not make a cockpit with out so many polygons. My friends here know it, and I know. I am the gentleman who modeled the Aerosoft F-16, the (new) Iris F-15E, and other titles. First I want to say hello Lefteris and Umberto, I hope all is well, remember we met in seattle 2007? It is good to see you here. As for the others I don't know you but I am sure we can always be friends.

Now back to the Tools not working. We need to export higher polygon models, it is simple, one word, the VC, Now P3D is new platform to commercial use it allows the user/client to run a simulator on a desktop instead of starting a million dollar simulator at an obscure location somewhere. So the user/client will not have the ability to sit in an interactive cockpit. That is why us developers need more polys to export so you can give your user/client that ability to interact not with a physical model, but a virtual one.

Tim

George-Flytampa · Post by **George-Flytampa** » Mon May 28, 2012 6:15 pm

It's now been almost a year, so I'm politely asking if this Max 2012 plugin problem is ever likely to be addressed?

I just just tried the lastest SDK & it's still cursed with a severe memory leak which renders it useless for any significant project.

WBard · Post by **WBard** » Tue May 29, 2012 1:58 pm

Hey Guys,

Beau provided some great technical details on a previous post. Rest assured, if this was easily doable, we would already have done it for you. We'll look back into it in the future, but we can't promise when we could have a resolution. We love the developers, and the content you all create, and marvel at it every time a new addon is released.

I also just read through this entire thread and saw some arguments going on. These forums are not the place for arguments. These forums are for technical support for the Prepar3D core platform.

adamjedgar · Post by **adamjedgar** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:46 pm

Why can't you guys at LM just put the sdk source code out into the open market and let it be fixed by enthusiasts? Its quite obvious LM does not have the resources to fix the problem! This stuffing around has gone on for so long I'm sure there are many who are turning away having given up on prepar3d!

WarpD · Post by **WarpD** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:59 pm

I think someone needs to relax a bit. Being offensive and insulting in your posts when interacting with a company is foolish at best.

WarpD · Post by **WarpD** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:38 pm

Well, for them it really hasn't been "so loooong". They also make no income from dealing with the issue so it's not easy to put it on a list of priorities when the 'bean counters' point that out. It would be a good idea to remember that while Lockheed-Martin wants Prepar3D to succeed as a commercial entity, that desire for success doesn't make it so they're available for all of our little issues. They have a vision, and goals. If they can fit our desires and needs in there... it's bonus. However, it's not their corporate priority and it's unrealistic to think it should be.

WBard · Post by **WBard** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:14 pm

The discussion here that this thread has evolved into is one that is not what these support forums are here to serve.