1.  Blow your socks off visual differences ...

 

 

I seriously doubt that will happen. There are a few DX11 consumer video games out there in the wild and they don't look that much better than the run of the mill DX9c games. What I would be looking for in P3d 2.0 is increased stability,  a more intuitive and flexible UI, smoother frame rates combined with compatibility to most FSX/P3d 3rd party products. Maybe I have a different view of the flight sim reality. For me, XP10 already gives me all of those improvements, except the variety of 3rd party products. And it uses OpenGL, not DirectX at all. If P3d 2.0 delivers what XP10 has already done and also adds the 3rd party FSX compatibility, then it will be a big seller.

 

FSX is old and tired. I can't believe the big deal that some people are making about DX10 vs DX9, now that Steve did a great job of ironing out almost all the DX10 bugs. It's a great accomplishment on his part (I bought the DX10 fixer as a gesture to his skill and perseverance, since I barely use FSX these days) but to me, the difference between P3d DX9 and FSX DX10 is  just visible but not "Blow your socks off visual differences". To each his own, I guess.

So, I know that this is all speculation at this point, but...

 

Based on what information is floating around, what are the guesses about V2.0 performance?  Lets assume a fairly high end rig with top end video card. Assume that rig gets 20 FPS (average) on P3D 1.4. Again, I know its wild speculation, but I'm curious what informed minds think DX11 and a powerful GPU will do...

Putting key rendering loads like autogen and terrain mesh to GPU would be quite a benefit, I think. I would say something like a 50% increase in FPS would be feasible for users with a good GPU. Take a look at something like War Thunder. Obviously it is extremely light on systems simulation, but it's a good example of what can be achieved visually with good utilization of GPU. So if you factor in that kind of optimization, I think it would be very possible to see large gains. Of course there are other factors like the algorithms that control the way vector graphics are drawn on complex gauges (like navigation MFDs etc) that could still be a large hit on frames. But who knows, maybe even those could be offloaded to GPUs by some shader use. The possibilities are endless really.

Folks, I am going to post this in the hope of managing expectations... Before I say what I have to say, full disclosure; I am not on the BETA test, I am not a signatory to the NDA from LM, and I have no inside information from LMOC about the feature list for V2, or even a product road map that address features beyond V2. I have not communicated with LMOC since our interview with them last year. Okay, with that out of the way, here's my thoughts for you to consider.

 

We have banned the posting of the list of features purported to be a definitive list of features included in V2. We have done that for the simple reason that if we allowed that, we would be allowing the busting of LMOC's BETA license and NDA's. Our policy on this is pretty clear and non-negotiable.

 

Secondly, as we relabeled another topic on the subject that was posted as a troll in the X-Plane forum, the validity of this list is in question, until such time as the NDA is released or when LMOC confirms the list.

 

I don't want to be a "Debbie-downer" folks, but let me ask you a question or two; what if this list is fake? What if it is 50% correct? What if it is so far away from reality that LMOC would be surprised to see anything like this floating around the net? I have no idea what the answer is, but there are those of you have swallowed this without any proof to substantiate it, and the sad part is that when the final V2 does show up, there are going to be many here that revert back to this supposed "real" list and castigate LMOC if every item in the list is not present.

 

If you are a BETA tester, you are under an NDA. If you are posting even a simple confirmation or denial of this list, you are violating your NDA. Smart people and developers on the BETA team will not do that. So, I would encourage everyone use a little common sense, take a deep breath, and wait for what really shows up in V2 before you get excited about what this list purports to be the feature set in V2.

Hmmm I think I will hold my wallet and quit buying anymore FSX addons.

Hi,

 

Actually, you already have a very nicely detailed 737NG aircraft made for P3D by iFly. Sold via Flight 1: http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AircraftSimulations/737NGforPrepar3D.aspx

 

 

Ok, but will it work in P3D 2.0 ... my hunch is no and without PMDG supporting P3D in any official manner it would seem to me we'll not see an NGX in P3D 2.0 at 60 fps with all the goodies enabled/maxed.

Hi,

 

Actually, you already have a very nicely detailed 737NG aircraft made for P3D by iFly. Sold via Flight 1: http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AircraftSimulations/737NGforPrepar3D.aspx

 

this is great because i fly the ifly 737 in FSX!

 

 

the difference between P3d DX9 and FSX DX10 is just visible but not "Blow your socks off visual differences".

 

I think you misunderstand, the difference between FSX DX10 and P3D DX11 will need to "Blow your socks off" ... for the very reason folks don't see the differences between FSX DX9 and FSX DX10 ... in other words the masses need to be slapped across the face impressed

 

 

 

So, I would encourage everyone use a little common sense, take a deep breath, and wait for what really shows up in V2 before you get excited about what this list purports to be the feature set in V2.

 

And I thought this thread was planted by LM to start interest in P3D V2 and keep FSX DX10 Fixer at bay ... oh now the plot thickens!!

 

But seriously, agree with you Tom.  I think (and I hope) we all have the common sense to know to wait for reality to happen ... but I guess you're posting this because that hasn't been the case in the past?

 

But just for the record (as I posted above), I'm NOT on the Beta for P3D V2.0. 

 

Back to speculation and generation of interest ... DX11 opens up many doors to improve performance and VAS usage.  But I think a KEY element to the success of P3D v2 will be GPU scalability, to be clear this is my expectation.  I'll be honest, if multi GPU scalability doesn't happen in P3D V2 I will be very disappointed.  For something like a Flight simulation that operates on a "World" basis and not some predefined enclosed environment like you get with current Generation 3D shooters and the like, it's that much more demanding on the GPU and hence the need for more than one GPU.  Tessellation is part of DX11 accelerated support, if used it WILL still put a huge load on the GPU ... on higher resolution (think upto 4K) setups one GPU is not likely going to be enough for reasonable performance at a "World" view level.  When a 3D game like Hitman Absolution running at 4K resolution can bring a Quad-SLi Titan system down to 59 fps (Ultimate settings), what do you think a World simulation can do??

 

It's my hope (and that's all it is) that P3D V2 brings GPU scalability.

 

Rob

Without getting into debates about licences, this is the general trend I'm seeing:

 

PMDG don't support P3D due to the licence (not intrested in debating their decision).

Users of PMDG products won't change from FSX, because they can't use their PMDG aircraft.

 

I once thought Orbx were the catalyst for what people would use as their base sim.

This now appears to be false, and the catalyst is really PMDG.

 

A good licence outcome with V2, allowing PMDG to support it, will ensure sucess.

 

Otherwise things will remain pertty much the same as it is now.

 

 

but I guess you're posting this because that hasn't been the case in the past?

 

Can you say "Hell Yes"? And we don't want to go there again.

All this discussion about 3PD and PMDG's position regarding it is pretty entertaining. Let me put forward some other thoughts on the subject. Standard caveat applies; I know nothing of the details, am not privy to Rob's thinking on the subject, and am definitely NOT tied into the thinking of LMOC, Boeing or any other stake holders in this discussion. Having said that, keep in mind I am retired Northrop Grumman, so I do have some insight in to the possible mindsets. So, this is just speculation on my part.

 

POSIT 1: Boeing and LMOC are competitors. 3PD is fundamentally a LMOC military product, presumably to aid in sales of their own aviation products.

 

POSIT 2: LMOC won't allow a Boeing product of such fidelity such as the PDMG 777 on their "training" product.

 

POSIT 3: Boeing won't allow a high fidelity representation of their product to appear in a competitor's product (remember, Boeing makes trainers and works in conjunction with companies such as CAE to producer high fidelity trainers too).

 

POSIT 4: Randazzo is allergic to anything military and is afraid that LMOC may put weapons and bombs on the 777, 737, etc.

 

Okay, so there you have it. The posit of Allensworth, for whatever they are worth. B)

If a. POSIT 1 was true and b. P3D 2.0 does turn out to be a big step forward for flight simulation, I would say: goodbye PMDG and Boeing aircraft. If a. POSIT 1 was true and b. P3D 2.0 turns out to be a dud, I'll stick to FSX like I have for the past several years.

Regarding PMDG and P3D... here's my thought:

 

1. PMDG can only publicly release their aircraft for entertainment purposes, it's a restriction placed on them by Boeing.

2. Prepar3D is not licensed for entertainment purposes, it's a restriction placed on L-M when they purchased the original ESP code from Microsoft.

Regarding PMDG and P3D... here's my thought:

 

1. PMDG can only publicly release their aircraft for entertainment purposes, it's a restriction placed on them by Boeing.

2. Prepar3D is not licensed for entertainment purposes, it's a restriction placed on L-M when they purchased the original ESP code from Microsoft.

 

Party pooper. :Big Grin:

POSIT 1: Boeing and LMOC are competitors. 3PD is fundamentally a LMOC military product, presumably to aid in sales of their own aviation products.

 

So...P3D will have only F-35's and C-5's?

 

A lot of military equipment  is Boeing/McDonnell Douglas originated, by excluding non Lock-Mart aircraft it's counterproductive to purpose of the product.

 

Hell, a few accurately simulated MiG's for aggressor training would be highly valued by many militaries.

 

 

POSIT 2: LMOC won't allow a Boeing product of such fidelity such as the PDMG 777 on their "training" product.

 

PMDG NGX for P-8 Poseidon training.

 

 

Alternatively, Simulated hijacked airliner intercept, with the interceptors guiding a passenger reclaimed airliner to an airfield. Knowledge of accurate cockpit layout and handling would make things more efficient.

 

 

 

POSIT 3: Boeing won't allow a high fidelity representation of their product to appear in a competitor's product (remember, Boeing makes trainers and works in conjunction with companies such as CAE to producer high fidelity trainers too).

 

Logical, and PMDG's arrangement with Boeing is "for entertainment purposes only."

 

 

 

 

POSIT 4: Randazzo is allergic to anything military and is afraid that LMOC may put weapons and bombs on the 777, 737, etc.

 

Really? I was hoping for a P-8 expansion for the NGX (personal wish, not based on anything.)