Most important question.

 

Will we be able to run P3D without messing for hours and hours with the .cfg file and get a good experience from day one???

The video you're referring to was probably made with the early beta that leaked to the internet. Many things have changed since then. If you look at my screenshot, there are no jaggy/blocky shadows, even under small cockpit parts. The quality is probably better than in DX10 with Steve's fixer.

One important thing is that the shadows are calculated differently. In FSX, even with DX10 fixer you will usually get all sorts of artifacts if you enable the shadows in an airplane that was not designed to use them. In P3D it does not matter, it just works.

 

So the quality of the shadows is not adjustable? If they look smooth and sharp then I'm fine with this, but lower-spec machines might not be able to handle them.

 

Also, that video was made with Beta 2.

Impressive images thus far.....and it would be interesting to see what we are able to do with the Q400 when we get our hands on it.  Out of curiosity, does the Academic version still have the insignia in the top right corner of the screen as I have seen in some previous P3D images?

So the quality of the shadows is not adjustable? If they look smooth and sharp then I'm fine with this, but lower-spec machines might not be able to handle them.

There is a slider for shadow quality, plus a lot of options where you choose what casts and what displays shadows. (terrain, aircraft, vegetation, buildings, other objects)

There is a slider for shadow quality, plus a lot of options where you choose what casts and what displays shadows. (terrain, aircraft, vegetation, buildings, other objects)

 

So it's very adjustable after all. Thanks for the info!

Impressive images thus far.....and it would be interesting to see what we are able to do with the Q400 when we get our hands on it.  Out of curiosity, does the Academic version still have the insignia in the top right corner of the screen as I have seen in some previous P3D images?

I guess so. Our beta copies have a Prepar3D Beta 4 watermark.

Most important question.

 

Will we be able to run P3D without messing for hours and hours with the .cfg file and get a good experience from day one???

 

One of the first things I did was mess with the CFG file to get the most out of performance. I found that zero of the FSX tricks worked. Thats because it's optimized out the box, and already running nicely without tweaking for hours. 

You will however be messing with the various graphics settings. There are more options than FSX, which is good. It's definitely not as time consuming as editing the CFG, and you can fine tune it more to your needs. 

 

Here are a couple more shots, with some addons. No editing made except resizing. (apologies in advance if I broke any size rules here, original screenshot size was 2560x1600)

 

One thing here to really notice are the shadows on the aircraft. The shadowing system is much more realistic, and the color is more accurate.

 

 

 

 

What a great Xmas present for every flight simmer.

So it's very adjustable after all. Thanks for the info!

There are a LOT of shadow options but be aware that those can have a real impact on FPS.

Now landing lights can illuminate objects, by default the option is off, this also has an impact on FPS.

 

In other words investing in a mid-high to top-of-the-line video card is warranted.

One of the first things I did was mess with the CFG file to get the most out of performance. I found that zero of the FSX tricks worked. Thats because it's optimized out the box, and already running nicely without tweaking for hours. 

You will however be messing with the various graphics settings. There are more options than FSX, which is good. It's definitely not as time consuming as editing the CFG, and you can fine tune it more to your needs. 

 

Here are a couple more shots, with some addons. No editing made except resizing. (apologies in advance if I broke any size rules here, original screenshot size was 2560x1600)

 

p3dv2c.jpg

 

p3dv2d.jpg

 

Very nice screenshots. What scenery is that?

 

There are a LOT of shadow options but be aware that those can have a real impact on FPS.

Now landing lights can illuminate objects, by default the option is off, this also has an impact on FPS.

 

In other words investing in a mid-high to top-of-the-line video card is warranted.

 

Landing lights illuminating objects? Wow! Looks like a high-end GPU will give you lots of quality options.

Thosr shots do indeed seem to look like a new sim. Will follow performance reports with interest when it comes out. Have prices been announced yet?

Was never my worry ... could you clarify your statement regarding FlightBeam airports? Did you folks need to make adjustments to get your products to work, OR are they working "as is" with P3D V2?

 

Thanks, Rob.

 

 

 

They are currently working as is. There may be a few tweaks down the road to make better use of the development tools. 

Thosr shots do indeed seem to look like a new sim. Will follow performance reports with interest when it comes out. Have prices been announced yet?

No.

 

 

There are more options than FSX, which is good. It's definitely not as time consuming as editing the CFG, and you can fine tune it more to your needs. 

 

This will be good news for many ... love the SF/BayArea shot.  Is the LOD_RADIUS adjustable beyond 6.5 (which is what I think P3D maxed out in V1.4), or has it also been removed completely? ... only reason I ask is that the LOD looks very small and ground textures are very soft in those pics.

Thosr shots do indeed seem to look like a new sim. Will follow performance reports with interest when it comes out. Have prices been announced yet?

 

Lockheed Martin updating their site on the week of Nov 18 with fresh new information, including pricing

 

 

 

This will be good news for many ... love the SF/BayArea shot.  Is the LOD_RADIUS adjustable beyond 6.5 (which is what I think P3D maxed out in V1.4), or has it also been removed completely? ... only reason I ask is that the LOD looks very small and ground textures are very soft in those pics.

 

Great question. To be honest I don't remember the settings used during this shot, most likely completely default. The scenery itself is quite old, so probably not the best example.