Hey guys I am in the process of doing a tweaked comparison of FSX and P3D. I haven't installed any serious add-ons for P3D, except for some airports and photo scenery, and have performance running as good as I can get it. I am not going to run a comparison via FSX (fresh install) with exactly the same add-ons. What I will be looking for is:

 

1. Smoothness

2. Stability

3. Visual Quality

 

I will let you know my findings once I get everything installed and run.

Roby, if you are interested, you might take a look here.

 

The performance boost in P3D is considerable when compared with 3PD. Smoothness is same. Visual quality is much much better. Way clearer textures.

Roby, if you are interested, you might take a look here.

 

The performance boost in P3D is considerable when compared with 3PD. Smoothness is same. Visual quality is much much better. Way clearer textures.

 

I just took a look and you have already done a super job! Nice work. I guess I won't bother!

Here I thought all that hard work was gone for good....nice job!!!!

Roby, if you are interested, you might take a look here.

 

The performance boost in P3D is considerable when compared with 3PD. Smoothness is same. Visual quality is much much better. Way clearer textures.

 

Word Not Allowed,

 

I just wanted to thank you for your analysis between FSX and P3D. I always find your guides/analysis's/reviews insightful.

 

You've convinced me! Even though I've only really just got my FSX running the way I want it too, once I have a spare $49.95 I'll be grabbing P3D. Which while $49.95 is not much, when you have a wife and 2 kids to look after you have to watch your pennies! lol

Thank you for your hard work.This is impressive indeed and I know it takes time to do such comparison.

 

On the method itself, most of your pics (except th VC shot which is the most telling for me), the aircraft is quite far from the camera, the pic is taken with a wide angle and besides aiport buildings, I don't see much autogen. Comparison would be interesting for a "nightmare" scenario, i.e. loosely framing a high poly aircraft like the RA Lancair (or a PMDG beauty more your stuff hey :smile: !) for instance with the camera closer to it, over a densely populated city (buildings, cars) and forest (trees), with clouds. The gap might be much narrower then as ther're more calculations to do. Just a hunch.

Dominique - you can trust me on this one, there was no difference. Zooming out actually put more strain on the system as it had to render more. I tested high autogen areas, also with high poly cockpits like NGX and had awesome results. No matter where I went, I had much higher FPS. But I didn't post all the pictures, I chose those.

Thanks for the clarification . Your experiments make one think...

Word Not Allowed.... come on, 85%?!? I know you are one of the most reliable sources for objective reviews but I would think if simmers were getting that kind of performance boost with P3D it would be plastered all over the front pages of every major FS website. I was not even hoping for that good of FPS for when P3D v2 came out. But I can get it now? Are you truly now soley a P3D flyer.... you have wiped FSX off your hard disk?

 

Funny thing is our systems are almost identical with the exception you are on water and I am on air, different MB (I am using an Asus SabertoothP67), and I did just install yesterday a 2nd 580. So I guess I should see at least as good as results as you?

 

I take it you are using their new 1.4 version? Two things I also noticed - you had 0% for AI traffic. I would think most people like to run at least some traffic. 2nd, no reports on running at dawn or dusk which can really test a system. Now that I think about it I also wonder since I just went Surround how that will play with P3D?

 

Always lot's of questions rumbling in my head and really the best way to answer them is to pick up a copy for myself. I keep telling myself to wait for v2.0 but if I can really get that kind of performance now... why wait? (yet another question, ha!)

 

Great reporting Word Not Allowed. You really look out for us simmers.

 

Clutch

Okay I did some comparison tests. I loaded up a minimal configuration for FSX and P3D, which included:

 

1. Tweaked CFG's

2. Photo Real Scenery

3. No Traffic

4. REX Textures

5. No Weather

6. Carenado Mooney

7. No GEX

9. No UTX

10. Shader 3 installed in FSX

 

Word Not Allowed, I have no idea how you are getting the performance gap you are seeing. I am seeing even performance at best, with FSX being far more stable. I am also getting stutters in P3D that I am unable to smooth out, no matter how much I mess around with the CFG file. I will say that the visuals are better in P3D, but not so much better that it offsets the other negatives.

 

I also saw a lot more variation with FPS, but realistically FPS is not a critical factor. Smoothness is. But the big variations I am seeing may be leading to the lack of smoothness. On P3D, I ended up having to drop my FPS limiter to 24 to get it to smooth out, and that wasn't perfect. WIth FSX, 30 worked fine.

 

It could be that my 5850 1GB card cannot take advantage of the benefits of P3D. Or maybe my 4.0GHz CPU isn't really opening her up. Not sure. What I do know is stability has been a serious problem, and throwing in add-on issues, and the fact that I haven't even gotten to the weather and AI traffic yet, I can only conclude on my system that P3D is not the best choice.

 

I will re-evaluate when the next version comes out. Note, this could be my system. I have no doubt that Word Not Allowed's tests and numbers are good.

Are you truly now soley a P3D flyer.... you have wiped FSX off your hard disk?

 

Completely. FSX is here no more. I did couple of perfect flights already, doing 30fps at UK2000 Heathrow with the NGX VC. 30fps! I have *never* before been able to achieve 30fps stable in Heathrow, this is why it was so significant improvement for me. This is why I started tests in the first place - to confirm what was happening in Heathrow.

 

I take it you are using their new 1.4 version?

 

Yes.

 

I would think most people like to run at least some traffic.

 

I would guess that too. But I would also guess that performance in P3D is not going to suffer more than in FSX, so results would be comparable with the same amount of traffic. And since the traffic is placed randomly, it would be a bad variable to enter into the equation.

 

2nd, no reports on running at dawn or dusk which can really test a system.

 

Well, look, I didn't run the test on EVERY aspect of the sim. I alone really have no time to do that. Each person will have an opinion on what taxes the system as much and where P3D is better or not.

I know I fly mostly daylight, so I tested my favorite sceneries and aircraft. This already gives an idea.

 

I also wonder since I just went Surround how that will play with P3D?

 

That is certainly a good question. Care to test for us?

 

really the best way to answer them is to pick up a copy for myself.

 

Exactly! Besides, what is $50... seriously, I go out once and give that out.

 

Great reporting Word Not Allowed. You really look out for us simmers.

 

It is in my interest too. If you want to follow my tests on P3D, I can only suggest you follow my blog - an up to date tests are going to be there. Unfortunately I can't post it at AVSIM.

 

Word Not Allowed, I have no idea how you are getting the performance gap you are seeing.

 

Funny. I went probably 20times through all settings, up and down, shaders, reinstalling and all - couldn't find anything wrong on any side.

But I will give in - I will install FSX next week on this machine now. Alone the P3D. I will set the same settings and addons. And I will retest.

 

I saw no variation in FPS. It was stable as the FSX is.

 

I can't judge if you set the settings right or not. The fact is mine are controlled on the outside - screenies of settings are provided, Nvidia Inspector setting same settings in both sims, and all the same addons installed. The situations were saved in one sim, then ported to another. Smoothness tests were ran one sim, then the other, then the first, then again the 2nd... couple of times, to really determine what is smoother - I could not detect any differences here.

 

Since you do have other hardware, it might as well be that ATI behaves differently.

 

I would like hear back from the user using the same system like mine running my settings (with or without AI) and hear their opinion.

 

But there is this clever saying when it comes to all software: YMMV. ^_^

Hi,

 

I wonder if your running P3D at 4096 and FSX at 1024?. The Bufferpools / usepools=0 will not play nice with a 1gb video card, at least not on my setup when I was running a 1gb card.

 

I also wonder about your overclock, your running your Intel 875 (2.93 GHz) @ 4GHz, that's a big jump, have you tested the stability of your overclock?. What about your systems RAM, what's the timming / CL?.

Granted, I do have a state-of-the-art system. But P3D is far superior to FSX on my setup...

 

 

Word Not Allowed, I have no idea how you are getting the performance gap you are seeing. I am seeing even performance at best, with FSX being far more stable. I am also getting stutters in P3D that I am unable to smooth out, no matter how much I mess around with the CFG file. I will say that the visuals are better in P3D, but not so much better that it offsets the other negatives.

Unfortunately I can't post it at AVSIM.

 

Word Not Allowed, Just wondering why you can't post here on AVSIM? Doesn't bother me since I'll just check out your blog, but a lot of other simmers might miss it if they don't see this thread.

Word Not Allowed, Just wondering why you can't post here on AVSIM? Doesn't bother me since I'll just check out your blog, but a lot of other simmers might miss it if they don't see this thread.

 

AVSIM rules. I could only present naked FSX vs naked P3D, without any addons - doesn't make much sense. Is why I also lost my Staff position.

 

Those addon developers that are present on my blog have actually agreed with me to post their scenery comparisons, and are actually thankful for that.

Oh ok, I agree that doesn't make much sense and I was wondering why it didn't show you as staff any more but didn't want to encroach on that subject just in case.

 

Good to know though that we'll have comparisons over on your blog. Thanks for your hard work!!