Is it worth it?

[alpha12125 213]

@Parrafin:

 

I'm not against what you're saying as I use both sims, but you just described so much "hope" and cobbling things together that it just still is a long ways from being the "product" that the FSX/P3D sim offers people

 

Also, can we *please* stop talking about free everything being good?  If free was good, XPX would have dominated the world by now and LM wouldn't be making mobile apps to make money.

 

I think the problem with free is that people people have to put their own effort in to make it work and that they cant necessarily expect support for it. Alot of people pay money want to press an installer and then ###### on a forum if it isnt working. Which is legitimate but not something that works for freeware. Its the reason we dont have Simhaven Photoscenery anymore, for me one of the greatest donation ware resources available. Because people expected full service and ######ed about it. So free is good its very good, but its a mindset of open source that some (alot) of people dont get.

[codechris 9]

Yes P3D is a compelling product but i still dont see it nesecarily as the future. I know this has been discussed forever but i see it as LM entry into the professional training market, we reap the benefits but for instance 64bit is not something that they necessarily need. They want a simulator to train their military equipment not fly 8h over the atlantic. I think it was on the OrbX or some other forum where a add on developer vented some frustration of LM's hesitation to go 64bit. Because in reality you dont run out of memory if you train for one hour a specific scenario.

 

 

You make a very good point there, and while 64 bit would help with memory to a certain degree, there are actually bigger issues FSX has in terms of multi-core usage which is a whole different kettle of fish from a development perspective. But the scenry is a good thing to state. Few years ago I was invited to go a full motion 777 simulator at Heathrow, one used to train pilots. They cost millions; One of these

 

 

 

They are very impressive and hard to see anything being more real without actually flying the thing. However, what made me laugh was the graphics on the projector. It was FS98 default kind of graphics. I didn't ruin the immersion of it, but when you compare against home simulators, just as Norwegian737Project, which has up to date graphics and some lovely scenery, it was, for lack of a better word, ******. That doesn't matter though. We did hand flying zero visibility landings, crosswind landings, basic plane flying and the thing you need from these, is that they work, as much as they possibly can. Stability is the key. We did a few touch and go's, but that was the longest we flew without resetting the simulator to a different scenario

[Anxu00 176]

 

 

Stability is the key. We did a few touch and go's, but that was the longest we flew without resetting the simulator to a different scenario

Damn right that's stability is the key.  After all the OP is here because he, like all of us wants a sim that works: good performance, allowing us to complete a flight without OOM, CTD etc.  There is way to accomplish this:  if you fly GA only, gorge yourself on scenery, but as soon as you use complex tube liner, disable all of that (leaving on may only the best scenery from developer that know what they are doing).  We are our worst enemy here, we overloaded our sims and wonder why it has problem.  XPX suffers from the same problem, pretty soon you will turn of global shadows, reduce this and that etc.  The bottom line is that there is no one sim, unless you choose one and make it so.  Chasing after promises will just ends with disappointment.

[alulekk 3]

If X-Plane had better addons (scenery, weather, ATC, study-level planes), it would likely mean increase in sales as not only veteran MSFS simmers purchase XP, but also new sales.

 

SUCH a great point and something LM could really benefit from also.

Playthroughs, walkthroughs and just general product tours are tearing up YouTube these days and a HUGE source of new information about products.

 

I *always* check there on new games, or mods for games (and physical products) to see what we might be getting (or not) and/or a review, etc.

 

 

Damn right that's stability is the key.

 

Very important indeed

 

Also I feel that everyone needs both installed to keep up on what's going on.

 

I'm really impressed with how much better P3D keeps getting.

On 2.5, I'm running 4k with very high settings and staying locked @ 30fps and the stutters have somehow been mostly all remedied for me...

 

Here's the kicker - 

...that's on a GTX 970!!

 

 

So free is good its very good, but its a mindset of open source that some (alot) of people dont get.

 

The reality about "free" is that if it's really time consuming to create, maintain, update, support, etc...

 

...I *want* that person charging money.  

They deserve it!  

It took a lot of work and I want them to hopefully do it again sometime.

 

Mobile gaming has taken us so close to the sewage drain in terms of people expecting things for basically free (or prices so low nothing is sustainable)

[jfri 42]

The only difference between the DVD and Steam version is that with the steam version you don't have access to the betas, you would have to wait until the final version is available.

 

Is there not one more thing ? With the DVD version you need to have the disc in the player or buy a USB dongle or has that changed?

[propsfan 52]

Is there not one more thing ? With the DVD version you need to have the disc in the player or buy a USB dongle or has that changed?

 

Make an .iso and mount it, problem solved.

[Bobsk8 12,489]

You make a very good point there, and while 64 bit would help with memory to a certain degree, there are actually bigger issues FSX has in terms of multi-core usage which is a whole different kettle of fish from a development perspective. But the scenry is a good thing to state. Few years ago I was invited to go a full motion 777 simulator at Heathrow, one used to train pilots. They cost millions; One of these

 

 

 

They are very impressive and hard to see anything being more real without actually flying the thing. However, what made me laugh was the graphics on the projector. It was FS98 default kind of graphics. I didn't ruin the immersion of it, but when you compare against home simulators, just as Norwegian737Project, which has up to date graphics and some lovely scenery, it was, for lack of a better word, ******. That doesn't matter though. We did hand flying zero visibility landings, crosswind landings, basic plane flying and the thing you need from these, is that they work, as much as they possibly can. Stability is the key. We did a few touch and go's, but that was the longest we flew without resetting the simulator to a different scenario

 

I have about 5 hours flying in a similar sim, the 767-400 ER at a Delta Training center. True there is very little scenery to speak of, but 95% of the flying done in these you are too busy flying the airplane, shooting approaches, tackling emergencies,  etc, to spend more than a moment looking out at the scenery you are flying over, which most of the time is obscured by clouds anyway so scenery for these type seems is not a focal point. . I enjoy IFR approaches in a home sim, but I sure wouldn't want to be restricted to seeing no scenery hour after hour of flying at my home, I want it to look more like what I see out the windscreen flying in real life. Apples and oranges. 

[mdavis 10]

Good point, @Bobsk8.  I had the fantastic opportunity to "fly" a CH-60 simulator that the Navy uses for pilot training.  It was on the usual hydraulic cage-platform.  The scenery was spread across (if I remember) three big screens and was oversized and blurred as a result - not very realistic compared to FSX or XP.  But in the cockpit, you don't have time to enjoy scenery, and the illusion was very real when landing or flying.

 

So it really depends on what type of flying you're doing - VFR low and slow looking for your dog in your own backyard, or shooting an ILS under CAT-III conditions in the dark.

[alulekk 3]

Good point, @Bobsk8. I had the fantastic opportunity to "fly" a CH-60 simulator that the Navy uses for pilot training. It was on the usual hydraulic cage-platform. The scenery was spread across (if I remember) three big screens and was oversized and blurred as a result - not very realistic compared to FSX or XP. But in the cockpit, you don't have time to enjoy scenery, and the illusion was very real when landing or flying.

 

So it really depends on what type of flying you're doing - VFR low and slow looking for your dog in your own backyard, or shooting an ILS under CAT-III conditions in the dark.

Sadly XPlane isn't even wonderful at shooting cat 3 approaches either as the weather engine is often making mistakes on exact breakout altitudes from the clouds (clouds not ending at right altitude).

 

Honestly the fact that the weather isn't a lot better is by far the most mysterious element of all of this to me since Austin is a pilot who you would think would care about that a lot for his own training realism scenarios.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Honestly the fact that the weather isn't a lot better is by far the most mysterious element of all of this to me since Austin is a pilot who you would think would care about that a lot for his own training realism scenarios.

 

I've wondered about that too, since weather is currently my main gripe with the sim. The only explanations I can think of are these:

 

1) As a software problem, weather is just an inherently tough thing to model realistically while preserving flyable frame rates on current hardware. This is especially true for discrete systems with vertical air movement like individual thunderstorms. The "horizontal layer cake" model we have now is way too simple to handle this, but it doesn't hurt frame rates too much. 

 

2) As a hobbyist GA pilot, Austin probably does most of his flying in fair weather, so maybe he just has no interest in realistic modeling for nastier weather conditions. You're just not supposed to intentionally fly in that stuff as a GA pilot. If he were a commercial airline pilot or bush pilot, routinely being forced to deal with bad weather as a part of the job, then it might be different. 

 

Maybe it's a little of both. 

[Bobsk8 12,489]

Sadly XPlane isn't even wonderful at shooting cat 3 approaches either as the weather engine is often making mistakes on exact breakout altitudes from the clouds (clouds not ending at right altitude).

 

Honestly the fact that the weather isn't a lot better is by far the most mysterious element of all of this to me since Austin is a pilot who you would think would care about that a lot for his own training realism scenarios.

 

True and in instrument procedures, the weather is critical. If the ceiling is 400 with 1/2 vis, and you find it is 1,000 ft and 1 mile, that ruins the entire experience. 

[mdavis 10]

Even commercial airlines will do their best to avoid bad weather and even request alternate altitudes to reduce a "bumpy ride" for passenger comfort.  In a recent flight that I was monitoring on Flightaware from KMDW to KDEN, the initial flight plan was to fly nearly due west and then south between two big cells, around the back of thunderstorms and come into KDEN from the southwest.  That added quite a few extra miles to the flight but it was interesting to note how far they will go to avoid turbulence.

 

So when I fly commercial flights in XP, I often check weather radar before creating a flightplan and try to avoid nasty weather.  If you want turbulence, grab a C130 and go fly into a hurricane. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

Even commercial airlines will do their best to avoid bad weather and even request alternate altitudes to reduce a "bumpy ride" for passenger comfort. 

 

Sure, but avoidance isn't always possible for bush pilots in fast-changing weather, Search & Rescue operations, or many other situations. And not every plane has weather radar or reliable local weather reports. Sometimes you have to see what's out there to avoid it. 

 

We should be able to see a huge anvil cloud in the distance and steer around it, or shoot for a gap between a string of storms. We can't do that now, because weather is modeled in a horizontal layer, 360 degrees around our plane at the center. When weather changes, it changes everywhere around us including behind the plane, which leads to unrealistic sudden changes. We should be able to fly into and out of bad weather gradually, instead of having it thrown on and off like a switch. That won't happen until the simplistic three-layer weather model is ditched for something better.

 

 

 

 

[mdavis 10]

Clouds are one of the worst framerate killers in any sim.  We must load scenery in 360° radius around our position so we can pan about our position.  But METAR reporting stations are randomly scattered, some very close, others distant or non-existant in some areas.  The amount of VRAM and CPU power needed to display multiple weather systems - which is essentially what it would be flying into or by a T-storm or weather front - would bring a desktop computer to its knees.  I suspect it's more a matter of hardware than coding.

[Mossyfly47 18]

Clouds are one of the worst framerate killers in any sim.  We must load scenery in 360° radius around our position so we can pan about our position.  But METAR reporting stations are randomly scattered, some very close, others distant or non-existant in some areas.  The amount of VRAM and CPU power needed to display multiple weather systems - which is essentially what it would be flying into or by a T-storm or weather front - would bring a desktop computer to its knees.  I suspect it's more a matter of hardware than coding.

HEHE thats why i have weather radar in PMDG 77 and 737 NGX . There is a frame hit when certain complex clouds appear with ASN. Can fly around the big red patches on the radar screen. flying into a hurricane (cyclone in Austrlaia) at low altitude well that would be interesting...