It always comes down to the same argument..."you can make FSX look better if you add A,B C,D E to it....100 200 300 400 500 600 dollars ...doesn't take long for that 30 dollar piece of software to become 500.

 

I've already spent 300 on FSX and I don't even have any LC or detailed areas from Orbx. it gets ridiculous...50GB of FSX om my HD..only one payware plane....20GB just for mesh!

 

I still have hopes for P3d V 2.0.   maybe I'll be disappointed, time will tell.

It always comes down to the same argument..."you can make FSX look better if you add A,B C,D E to it....100 200 300 400 500 600 dollars ...doesn't take long for that 30 dollar piece of software to become 500.

 

I've already spent 300 on FSX and I don't even have any LC or detailed areas from Orbx. it gets ridiculous...50GB of FSX om my HD..only one payware plane....20GB just for mesh!

 

I still have hopes for P3d V 2.0.   maybe I'll be disappointed, time will tell.

At least you get planes with cockpits!!!

 

Here's a similar shot in around the same location in FSX with FTXG. Note my frames are now locked at 30. I have to say, the FTXG one looks the best to me out of the 3.

 

 

Seems like the P3D developers don`t want to release a new FlightSim (WorldSim), but just a base software that may have the abilties to make it a better FS in the future.

You are quite right.

LM does not want to develop a whole Flight Simulator all by themself's.

That is exactly why MS Game Studios Failed, they wanted the whole cake and eat it too.

 

P3D is just the core Flight Simulator Plataform (Like FS9, FSX), add-on developers will make the rest.

 

Anyway; to each its own. Anybody can keep FS9, FSX, MS Flight, and P3D on their PC. (Space permitting). IMO people should enjoy whatever they want, the way they want.

 

In my case; if I want to have fun in Hawaii or Alaska I launch MS Flight, but If I want to fly somewhere else or make a FP, practice with instruments or simulate a VFR flight I launch FSX, that is until I can buy a copy of P3D V2.0. (And still will keep MS Flight, FSX on my PC)

At least you get planes with cockpits!!!

I knew that would come up.

 

We were discussing performance not content. After the addon argument it switches to content..it's always ....but.but,but. ..

 

if you ever used Flight you would know that there is cockpits.

Nope....I run FTX Global...Flight still looks better.

 

But if you install the right airport...(shameless plug on FSDT Hilo...). I only have default + XClass scenery in the background, I guess it could improve with FTX Global, and 81.9 fps it's not bad.

 

 

I knew that would come up.

 

We were discussing performance not content. After the addon argument it switches to content..it's always ....but.but,but. ..

 

if you ever used Flight you would know that there is cockpits.

You brought up addons I didn't, and yes I did obviously used Flight, and know a couple had cockpits (Which was pretty well done I'll say) but most didnt.

Prepa3D is just FSX with some enhancements.

Not really a milestone, and i still doubt that it wil become an alternative.

Just look at the leaked changelog, nothing really interesting.

 

 

It's a tiny tad better than MS Flight. I'm pretty sure that Flight had DX11 too. Also, I'm starting to wonder why the roads never seem to be created properly. Also, the waves in P3D 2.0 don't look right. Then again, there's little difference to me compared to Flight.

 

The biggest difference to me is that it has weapons, and it has the whole world to fly in. Nothing else. Then again, it's military training related.

 

I'll just send you guys here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/423146-prepar3d-20-beta-the-facts/page-3#entry2821399

 

The goal of V2 is not to improve scenery and aircraft. It's to heavily optimize the graphics engine and make future visual improvements easier. It just so happens that they rewrote the shadow, fog, water, and terrain systems along the way to offer some very nice visual improvements. With some add-on scenery and non-default aircraft, I'm sure it will look really nice.

That's probably why Ontario Air Cadets are using this software. They can run it on cheap computers.

But if you install the right airport...(shameless plug on FSDT Hilo...). I only have default + XClass scenery in the background, I guess it could improve with FTX Global, and 81.9 fps it's not bad.

But Umberto..., in Flight all of my airports in Hawai'i are of FSDT quality, so to speak... :He He:

 

And for that, I am thankful! :im Not Worthy:

Flight is DX9, but it is quite a bit more than graphics optimizations.  I know people like to argue that the performance improvements came as a result of removing ATC, traffic, etc, but in reality only the freeway traffic and animation of aircraft in those features were a performance issue in FSX.  If those things were added back to Flight, it would still run well.  It is extremely difficult to compare performance of FSX and Flight because FSX does not have some of the features that Flight has.  One significant example is the cascaded shadow maps in Flight which end up drawing the scene up to 4 times more than in FSX.  If you turn off shadows in Flight then you may start to get a reasonable comparison.

 

It is nice to see P3D making progress, and as far as I know a couple people from FSX and one from Flight are over working on it.  I have doubts that they are able to squeeze out the same performance as Flight yet, but they have been at it for a long time (longer than Flight was), and I'm sure they will get there eventually if they aren't already.  One thing you also have to keep in mind is that a lot of the art content is still much lower detail than what was used in Flight.  It will be interesting to see how P3D does with high end 3rd party content.

I know people like to argue that the performance improvements came as a result of removing ATC, traffic...

I never understand how 'those' people can possibly know these things. Its clear to me from using my eyes, that the FLIGHT engine is special, especially when it utilised DX9 so wasn't taking advantage of any special technology like DX11. It might not have had all the bells and whistles, but it was given extras that FSX didn't have, like a superior vanilla platform on which to build. Also, when building such a project you ensure that its extensible and accessible and has built in extras and plug ins so that you can make it future proof. We shall never know of course, unless MS sells the code and someone buys it.

 

Right now, we are on the verge of at least knowing that the old (and brilliant) FSX is being reincarnated. I for one, am very excited about the prospect of this hobby hopefully having a future.

 

The people that say "oh it looks awful" are totally missing the point. In actual fact they are the same people that use FSX. By default, they are actually saying that FSX looks awful. I digress, because they are seeing the vanilla platform, forgetting that the vanilla platform has a new engine and no add-on glitz. I do despair.

 

FlIght was canned, but not on my PC if P3D fails then actually its akin to FSX being a failure and its only taken 7 years for anyone to notice.

 

I love flight and wish P3D every success. It will certainly live on my PC next to FLIGHT.

I still have some hope for Aerofly FS. They will not say much at this time but they ARE continuing to work on an entire new addition with bigtime improvements. We will see it one of these days. One can only hope. MSFlight will always be on my hard drive as it is still the best!

 

Steve