http://simmerhead.wo...-prepar3d-v1-2/

Interesting. Did you turn off the underwater bathymetry? I understand that is quite resource intensive.

Fair enough. I agree with everything except your last point. PMDG is not the be all and end all of addon developers. They currently ride high, but I am not going to have my platform of choice dictated by where they decide to go. (and yes, I love the aircraft they make)If P3D becomes a 'simmers' choice, then PMDG will have to go that route, just like they ended up supporting FS when they used to be an Xplane developer. They saw the light then and they probably will again if it comes to it.Flight is clearly a no so that leaves P3D or XPlane 10.

OK, that sounds a less hostile than your previous responses to my posts.For the record: I'm not an X-Plane ######. I didn't even purchase XP10 yet.In fact, I'd love to see P3D become the next mainstream sim, for purely selfish reasons:

• it would save me a lot of money by being able to resuse my old addons
• addon development for P3D would be a lot faster because current FSX devs don't need to relearn everything

But I'm trying to be realistic by saying that as long as PMDG are uneasy with LM's current licensing scheme, P3D is not going to reach the critical mass in its user base to take off. I think you and I have to agree to disagree in this respect.But the moment Robert Randazzo announces that they will offer a B777 for educational efforts at undergrad or below level, I'll stand here waving with my credit card.Peace! :(

I dare say that as soon as P3D 2.0 or 64bit comes out, breaking backwards-compatibility with FSX, the amount of addons published for this platform will plummet or at least be reduced to those addons that also carry a professional-grade price tag.

It's already been stated at the P3D forums that they intend to maintain maximum compatibility with FSX. Based on the fact that I made a specific feature request and it was implemented in 1.3 and what I know about their team, I'd be willing to place some weight on what they have to say.

P3D could be the wave of the future:

• $49 license for home "academic" use (I am a student of the world, does that count? )
• Addition of menu options like a LOD slider that surpasses 4.5!!!!!
• Addition of Wide Screen Aspect option!!!!
• Addition of Max Resolution slider that goes up to HD resolution of 4096x4096!!!!
• Menu option to keep sound from being muted with P3D losing focus to another window or program
• Bugfixes
• Continued performance and FS Code enhancements, v2.0 will support DX11!!!!
• Continual announcements such as patch/upgrade contents and honest estimates for timelines for new releases

The above was posted in another thread but if holds true these are quite some important improvements. I think if they can manage with taking this to multi-core and employs today's GPU integration, that could be the turning point. I would gladly pay $49, $199, or even $500 if that happens.Clutch

The notion that PMDG are somehow the arbiters of whether P3D will be the software that dedicated simmers will go for, is at best unlikely, nor I imagine, would PMDG ever claim it to be otherwise. Their decision is merely one of business expediency for them at present.Like most people who frequent Avsim, I appreciate PMDG's output and admire it greatly, having bought much of it over the years, and I will doubtless continue to do so. But there is no way they are the only serious flight sim add-on developers, nor even the undisputed leaders in developing FS add-ons either. There are many FS developers whose products can stand alongside PMDG's with no deference at all: A2A, FSL, Vertical Reality, Lotus, IRIS, Aivlasoft, REX, HiFi Simulations, to name but a few off the top of my head, and there are many more which occur to me even as I type this, so those examples are in no way a definitive list. But none of these developers would be at the cutting edge if they stuck with FSX whilst there was another iteration of FS that was maybe DX11 and 64 bit capable, as P3D may well turn out to be.As new operating systems come out, and as will doubtless happen eventually, MS support for FSX falls by the wayside, P3D could be one of the few iterations of Flight Simulator that is able to remain a viable piece of software on modern equipment. Austin Meyer is already circling FSX waiting to really pounce on it, and he must have looked upon the arrival of MS Flight with glee in considering that it can only be another nail in the coffin of FSX where Microsoft's support for FSX is concerned. Others, including Aerosoft, have also made overtures of this nature, and really, the only potential fly in that particular ointment, is P3D, which could take us to a 64 bit iteration of what was the Flight Simulator franchise. Let's not forget that Flight Simulator has already survived one change of ownership in its history and gone on to bigger and better things, and now with P3D and Lockheed Martin, it has changed hands twice and has another big bucks company bankrolling it.Any developer's declared support for FSX under those circumstances, either PMDG or otherwise, would not stem the tide of history, in which FSX remains frozen, and we know this is true because we have seen PMDG curtail developments for FS9 with not a teardrop having fallen. Many complained, but there can be no sentiment in business, you have to go with what is viable and lucrative. PMDG certainly will, and if the way to do that is to make stuff for P3D because that is the one people are going for, then that is what will happen.The ball is in our court, not PMDG's. If the hard core simmers go for P3D, PMDG and indeed other developers will react to that, since it would be the sensible business decision for them to make.Al

Interesting. Did you turn off the underwater bathymetry? I understand that is quite resource intensive.

Sure did. I went through every fsx.cfg and prepar3d.cfg entry to make sure they matched exactly. I haven't tested version 1.3 though and there might be improvements in performance over v1.2.

The notion that PMDG are somehow the arbiters of whether P3D will be the software that dedicated simmers will go for, is at best unlikely, nor I imagine, would PMDG ever claim it to be otherwise. Their decision is merely one of business expediency for them at present.....

That would be true, if PMDG's decision not to develop even to the point of locking out existing products from P3D use was purely a business decision. If however it was based on their legal teams advice for fear of liability, as they say, then I think other developers are going to look twice, and the ones that don't have a legal team like PMDG, may take it as fee legal advice. I don't think this will affect the scenery developers as much as the aircraft developers though! Time will tell if the other developers will follow suit!

From my own humble POV it makes business sense for any FS developer from here on out to make their add-on work in P3D (some already have).For a minimum of effort you have an additional market, especially if folks here take up P3D in significant numbers.Probably stating the obvious but hey. :)

As a hardcore simmer for 25 years I've never used a PMDG product, or flown a complex airliner (not since subLogics Flight Assignment: A.T.P.). I'm considering the iFly 737 for FS2004, but I just don't have the time to learn a new aircraft at the moment.The only real dealbraker for me is lack of native TrackIR support. TrackIR is essential for any kind of VFR flying unless you're on a 180 projected screen or something. Before I got TrackIR I never flew VFR. I only used Flight Sim for IFR training.

So, people have spend 100's of dollars on this thing. Now you can get it for 49.00> If Orbx or any other 3PD done something like that the whole sim world would be screaming bloody murder!I dont believe I care to start all over with an FSX clone. Its taken yrs to get it running perfect. Im not an angry at MS flight person dying for a new sim!

So, people have spend 100's of dollars on this thing. Now you can get it for 49.00> If Orbx or any other 3PD done something like that the whole sim world would be screaming bloody murder!I dont believe I care to start all over with an FSX clone. Its taken yrs to get it running perfect. Im not an angry at MS flight person dying for a new sim!

If you purchased Prepar3D in 2012 at the original price, we would like to offer you a price adjustment. Please send an email to [email protected] and include the invoice number, license ID and the purchaser’s first and last name. More information on refunds can be found in our refund policy .http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=830

Sure did. I went through every fsx.cfg and prepar3d.cfg entry to make sure they matched exactly.I haven't tested version 1.3 though and there might be improvements in performance over v1.2.

How did you take into account that P3D's highest settings employ a 4096x4096 texture resolution... which is twice the size of the maximum FSX texture resolution?

I really admire the sort of enthusiasm towards P3D, especially when it comes to the statements of what 2.0 may include.By the way, DX11 is not by design an element which enhances performance, but one that allows another approach on optics and e.g. LOD. For instance, my Crysis2 game doesn't run faster with it, but nicer. Just a HU on the DX11 related 'will boost performance' assumptions. Enthusiasm, as said. P3D 2.0 isn't there, so nobody can tell.Currently, there only is P3D 1.3 and a statement that 2.0 will not come for free. So as long as 1.3 is very much FSX in our end user views and as long as running addons either needs a new license, develops legal doubts or just refuses to work, there isn't much benefit in changing the sims front end.Same for the vague 'more stability' or even 'much smoother' posts. I can't couldn't see anything of that with the former P3D installation of mine, even being much leaner than my stable and smooth running FSX, due to the lack of supported addons. A personal experience of course.If P3D would give e. g. way more performance or would allow for some limitations to fade out, it would be worth a change. Currently, it pretty much looks like the straw the drowning man tries to grab as the FSX development has ended a while ago. P3D may already involve very professional features, but they don't affect much of the way you, as a home user, experience good ol' FSX. Again, personal viewpoint.If one is looking for a current sim engine, X-Plane may show a way. Their dev studios aren't closed, they are planning e.g. a 64bit structure (no extra money involved) and you can buy a nice and complete home user version since it was released. You very much see all modern elements of a sim engine being present already, with future items to come.The P3D story may continue nicely with 2.0 being there, offering more than subtle or even fictional benefits over legal concerns. In 1.3, I think that even 50 Dollars would be too much for no noticeable change.For example, any usage of the pure high resolution texture sizes in that testing area pretty much eats up your video RAM alive and the handling of clouds, introducing the major AA impact on the framerates, isn't changed at all over FSX. Same for the weather engine and its quirks, so I don't see where the large technical benefit over that old 2006 game may come from. As said, 2.0 may be a nice shot, but it currently isn't more than a planning state and will cost extra.

The notion that PMDG are somehow the arbiters of whether P3D will be the software that dedicated simmers will go for, is at best unlikely, nor I imagine, would PMDG ever claim it to be otherwise. Their decision is merely one of business expediency for them at present.Like most people who frequent Avsim, I appreciate PMDG's output and admire it greatly, having bought much of it over the years, and I will doubtless continue to do so. But there is no way they are the only serious flight sim add-on developers, nor even the undisputed leaders in developing FS add-ons either. There are many FS developers whose products can stand alongside PMDG's with no deference at all: A2A, FSL, Vertical Reality, Lotus, IRIS, Aivlasoft, REX, HiFi Simulations, to name but a few off the top of my head, and there are many more which occur to me even as I type this, so those examples are in no way a definitive list. But none of these developers would be at the cutting edge if they stuck with FSX whilst there was another iteration of FS that was maybe DX11 and 64 bit capable, as P3D may well turn out to be.As new operating systems come out, and as will doubtless happen eventually, MS support for FSX falls by the wayside, P3D could be one of the few iterations of Flight Simulator that is able to remain a viable piece of software on modern equipment. Austin Meyer is already circling FSX waiting to really pounce on it, and he must have looked upon the arrival of MS Flight with glee in considering that it can only be another nail in the coffin of FSX where Microsoft's support for FSX is concerned. Others, including Aerosoft, have also made overtures of this nature, and really, the only potential fly in that particular ointment, is P3D, which could take us to a 64 bit iteration of what was the Flight Simulator franchise. Let's not forget that Flight Simulator has already survived one change of ownership in its history and gone on to bigger and better things, and now with P3D and Lockheed Martin, it has changed hands twice and has another big bucks company bankrolling it.Any developer's declared support for FSX under those circumstances, either PMDG or otherwise, would not stem the tide of history, in which FSX remains frozen, and we know this is true because we have seen PMDG curtail developments for FS9 with not a teardrop having fallen. Many complained, but there can be no sentiment in business, you have to go with what is viable and lucrative. PMDG certainly will, and if the way to do that is to make stuff for P3D because that is the one people are going for, then that is what will happen.The ball is in our court, not PMDG's. If the hard core simmers go for P3D, PMDG and indeed other developers will react to that, since it would be the sensible business decision for them to make.Al

Al,+100Very well said.

How did you take into account that P3D's highest settings employ a 4096x4096 texture resolution... which is twice the size of the maximum FSX texture resolution?

You select resolution in the setup menu in P3D. I ran P3D with 1024 resolution which is the same as FSX.You could add the 4096 in FSX as well, but it only works if the actual textures are of that resolution. Most of the P3D textures are exactly the same as FSX (or ESP). LM has made a few small areas in high resolution, Central part of Norfolk Viriginia being one of them.