Everyone Loves P3D aka FSX SP3 but these forums are slow and dead :(

[Raymundo 6]

Installed P3D and Windows 8 on the same day and have had nothing but issues since...ever think the problem may not be P3D but that other program...???

[mgh 89]

Installed P3D and Windows 8 on the same day and have had nothing but issues since...ever think the problem may not be P3D but that other program...???

 

Why did you do that? The minimum system requirements for Prepar3d are Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, or 7 (32-bit) and the recommended ones Microsoft Windows 7 (64-bit) - not Windows 8.

[Raymundo 6]

Oops, guess I wasn't clear enough, I didn't do it myself but was referring to an earlier post somone made and he seemed quick to blame the problem on P3D and I was questioning that. Just want to make sure P3D, which I am committed to, gets a fair shake.

 

R.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Installed P3D and Windows 8 on the same day and have had nothing but issues since...ever think the problem may not be P3D but that other program...???

not me, I have p3d on (2) win8 machines and it runs great, must be your drivers/pc settings.

[mgh 89]

Oops, guess I wasn't clear enough, I didn't do it myself but was referring to an earlier post somone made and he seemed quick to blame the problem on P3D and I was questioning that. Just want to make sure P3D, which I am committed to, gets a fair shake.

 

R.

 

The problem is those who instal P3D on Win 8 - a non-recommended system and then complain they have problems. Neither Microsoft nor Lockheed Martin are to blame here.

[Horskrzy 0]

Just returning to FSX and have now just found out about P3D. While it looks like what little add-ons I have in regards to FSX will probably work my biggest question is how well does this work with Win8? I just went back to Win7 because of some freezing up issues but I really like how much faster FSX loaded in Win8 and would like to return.

 

Also would like to know what version of P3D is recommended. Not to keen on dropping $199 if the accademic version is the equivalent to FSX.

 

Thanks in advance for all responses!

[wizzards 99]

Hi ,I purchased the academic version ,I just wanted a straight MS Fsx replacement without the issues cost £30 ,and has been good straight from the box ,but more than that you have a very large company working to improve Prepare3d,

yes it will cost but Fsx isn't going anywhere in the improvement stakes

[Ian McPhail 55]

Buy the latest version of course, v1.4

 

All 1.next versions are free.

 

Whenever V2.0 comes out that will be an extra cost. Incidentally just about all of us have bought the Academic version ... it has all the functionality we need.

 

There are some glitches, some irritations but read the forums many workarounds and other contributions to make it run well.

 

And don't get trapped in the EULA wars ... just enjoy.

[lateagain 45]

I've yet to see a good feature by feature comparison test/review of FSX and P3D.

 

The marketing from Lockheed itself is probably the LEAST informative I’ve ever seen for ANY product ever! The desperate attempt (part of the deal with Microsoft?) to promote it as a teaching aid with pictures of school children sitting at computers (........and just where is flight simulation on any school curriculum?) tells me nothing about the programme or it’s features.

 

Surely now there's enough experience to write one? I'm talking a totally objective scientific comparison.

 

First we need to know “what’s in the box” and how that compares with FSX Gold (last version?)

 

Then we need screenshots to compare where features differ.

 

Then we need performance differences

 

We need “set-up” and “interface” differences.

 

Only when all these basics are covered do we need to know about the “icing” of add-ons.

 

Also with a major upgrade promised as a prospective customer I want to know what changes that will make to functionality, price, features etc.etc.

 

It’s not that I don’t respect the opinions on the forums. They are mostly subjective and deal with specifics. What I want is a review and proper description of what comes out of the box and how that differs.

 

I have searched for this. PC Pilot ran a multi part article on it that left me ....not much the wiser.

 

Geoff

[Ian McPhail 55]

Love you Geoff: by definition all reviews are subjective, even one as comprehensive as you request.

 

As far as I can read LM is not in competition with Microsoft as after all MS sold the ESP, the base code to Lockheed Martin. But we do know that the base code is constantly being updated by LM, and of course the base code is the same base as FSX. Hence the huge compatibility with made for FSX add-ons.

 

At the moment, FSX and P3D, when run on powerful modern computers seem to perform about the same. On lesser computers P3D has the edge because of code refinements.

 

P3D is FSX on vitamins .... P3D v2.0 whenever it comes, say late next year, will be FSX on steroids - DX11 is one of the promised features but the huge advance will be a new rendering engine, the very heart of the limitations of both FSX and the 1.x versions of P3D..

 

FSX is now a nearly abandoned child. No further development is taking place - although I am unsure whether any support is still offered.

 

I have a good computer, I am exclusively P3D, and subjectively I find it smoother. That's about all I can say.

[HighTowers 1,436]

I dont have win 8 but for those who installed it, even though p3d doesnt officially support it, if your having issues, perhaps there is a windows 7 compatibility check just like in windows 7 for compatible with winxp etc.

i would imagine it would be the properties of the file your running. in this case p3d.exe?

[lateagain 45]

Love you Geoff: by definition all reviews are subjective, even one as comprehensive as you request.

 

As far as I can read LM is not in competition with Microsoft as after all MS sold the ESP, the base code to Lockheed Martin. But we do know that the base code is constantly being updated by LM, and of course the base code is the same base as FSX. Hence the huge compatibility with made for FSX add-ons.

 

At the moment, FSX and P3D, when run on powerful modern computers seem to perform about the same. On lesser computers P3D has the edge because of code refinements.

 

P3D is FSX on vitamins .... P3D v2.0 whenever it comes, say late next year, will be FSX on steroids - DX11 is one of the promised features but the huge advance will be a new rendering engine, the very heart of the limitations of both FSX and the 1.x versions of P3D..

 

FSX is now a nearly abandoned child. No further development is taking place - although I am unsure whether any support is still offered.

 

I have a good computer, I am exclusively P3D, and subjectively I find it smoother. That's about all I can say.

 

:lol: With all due respect Ian : We know all that. P3D advocates, like the advocates for anything new, keep telling us how much better it is ....err except those who don't find it so. What they don't provide is any comparative evidence of that. Many posters in this thread actually cast doubt on that?!

 

Seeing is believing. Comparative screenshots are hardly rocket science. A list of what's in the box is hardly rocket science either.

 

The issue of the relationship between, ownership of and development of the ESP between M$ and LM is also a given, although I suspect that the truth is not exactly spelt out here.

 

What is totally unclear to me, and judging by the take up many others, is the fundemental detail. The rather ludicrous (IMO) EULA situation and promise of a "significant" upgrade (?) in version 2.0, whilst giving those of us "in the dark" absolutely no idea about cost, features and an end to the rather silly idea that it's not a flight simulator but something to teach children (what?) with...... means I'll be sitting on the sideline watching and waiting for a proper review. Interviews with PR reps from LM and a series of Articles in certain FS magazines trotting out more LM blurbs with a few far from stunning screengrabs does not constitute a review OR a comparison. I

 

n the past there have been many "reasonably" objective comparative reviews of FS add-ons. Even the magazines that give everything 80% to protect their advertising revenue have produced them with tables of pros and cons, included features etc.

 

The fact that this forum has started an entire thread to try and clarify what publishers are supporting P3D and those who are not is positive proof that the issues are far from clear.

 

BTW your analogy that P3D is like FSX with vitamins is unfortunate considering the widely held opinion that taking vitamins does nothing for you! :LMAO:

 

Frankly I'd hoped someone would post a link to a decent review I'd missed? ...because it does seem odd to me that if P3D is such a significant improvement there hasn't been one?

 

Geoff

[WR269 367]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Geoff.

 

When I had FSX running I could never get two people to tell me how exactly it performed, it is different for everyone.

 

In a nutshell, from personal experience, I can wind p3d up until my system starts to stutter, I can do a long range flight, I can fly at night in heavy scenery, and not worry about a CTD or OOM message. The frame rates are at least as good if not better than P3D, that was the selling point for me.

 

What kind of system do you have?

[Ian McPhail 55]

Geoff; you are an irritation too far.

 

It is not for us to commission such a comparative study, though I believe Word Not Allowed one of our members has done some of that.

 

It is not for us to market P3D that is up to them. And as someone has said ironically they show all of the marketing acumen of PMDG.

 

If you want a comparison of this sort then commission it yourself, it is not your colleague simmer's responsibility to respond to your demand, or to assuage your need.

 

I have bought, I have installed, and I enjoy P3D; but if you are still sceptical, and are happy with FSX, then please, please, stay with it.

 

And if you just Google, then you may be surprised at what information is available, depending on your question.

 

But for a simming peasant such as myself, I have no further help that I can give you.

[kannwar 47]

From my point of view it might be a slightly optimized version of FSX but it doesn't really solve any of the major boads I have with the platform. It is still 32bit code so just as susceptible to OOMs. I don't know why anyone would be experiencing less OOMs than with FSX unless they've made some significant memory management improvements under the hood that allow you to push more scenery with less chance of a breakie. Also they haven't at all fixed the stupid cloud Z-order issue and until that gets fixed the platform will feel half-assed to me. Add in the still archaic lighting system that doesn't simulate any cloud-shadowing effects of any kind or the myriad ways that atmospheric composition affects lighting and you have what is really FSX with a different name and perhaps some subjective improvements.

 

I really wish they'd give us some info on V2.0. I swear if there are still no cloud shadows I'm giving up flight simming as a lost cause with no real future. It had better be 64bit as well. If their changes to the rendering engine is going to be so fantastic why bother even releasing it if even trying to run it at full potential will crash it with a big fat butt-clod of an OOM.