I'm waiting to see how much real change is in P3D v2.  The theoretical improvements certainly sound spot on but the real world can be different.  One thing I haven't seen any comments on is how 'performance' is when comparing the same settings in both sims, which I know would be hard to make an exact apples-apples comparison on, but you could be close.  If we're really seeing the GPU-added improvements be reasonably visually striking at the same performance cost, then it will be compelling to switch, otherwise if the improvements are somewhat marginal, then dumping the NGX & T7 will be a tough pill to swallow.  Right now I have FSX set up pretty much perfectly and already have good performance.   If the move ends up being compelling likely I'll keep FSX for a while, just to fly PMDG stuff on, but when PMDG moves to P3D which I assume they eventually will, then I will remove FSX and install XPlane along w/ P3D 2.x.

It sometimes almost seems like the collective community memory is intent on erasing the existence of flying through squares and flour bombs!

So that's what the "Flour Bombing" looks like! I've not once run any of the 'missions' in FSX...

I will use and support all available sims...period-and use the one at the present moment that gives me the best experience for what I want to do-at that moment. I've never found just 1 yet that covers everything.

So that's what the "Flour Bombing" looks like! I've not once run any of the 'missions' in FSX...

Thus the shock when such "childish" things showed up in Flight. People mostly didn't seem to remember how true it was to the original heritage of FSX.

 

Thinking about P3D, my big spending days on FSX have mostly come to an end. I don't expect P3D to revive that particular urge, and X-plane certainly hasn't so far. I find that even hearing about the new P3D tech, there is a feeling that things have reached a plateau.

 

Again, no reason to choose one exclusively over another.

I am pretty comfortable with FSX and all my add-ons, and there will be more great add-ons in years to come. However, I'm looking at P3D version 2 right now. FSX will remain installed on my machine, it's just that P3D looks really nice. 

Thus the shock when such "childish" things showed up in Flight. People mostly didn't seem to remember how true it was to the original heritage of FSX.

 

Thinking about P3D, my big spending days on FSX have mostly come to an end. I don't expect P3D to revive that particular urge, and X-plane certainly hasn't so far. I find that even hearing about the new P3D tech, there is a feeling that things have reached a plateau.

 

Again, no reason to choose one exclusively over another.

 

Seems some are forgetting (and never realized) the huge rw  training potential of the mission system on fsx. I even did one (here in the avsim library) which recreated a rw mountain training flight I once did-except in a twin with a engine failure when one least expects it, and coachings on Baron technique the whole way thru. Very valuable stuff-too bad most viewed it as gamelike-but then how one uses the sim makes it gamelike or not.

Very valuable stuff-too bad most viewed it as gamelike-but then how one uses the sim makes it gamelike or not.

Ken Stallings wrote some truly excellent training missions for the Milviz C310R release. Judging by the number of downloads, they were quite popular, largely because Ken owns the specific model of the aircraft on which the FSX version was based.

From Frooglesim Facebook...

 

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi iPhone 5S con Tapatalk Pro

From Frooglesim Facebook...

 

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi iPhone 5S con Tapatalk Pro

 

 

Judging by what Aerosoft, Orbix, FlightBeam, and others have reported I'd put money on P3D v2 being the better alternative to FSX at this point.  On top of that LM is committed to fixing anything we find in a timely matter versus us sitting around fixing it ourselves which is far better than what we got from Microsoft over the years (especially post 2006).  Need compatibility with Windows 8, LM will make sure it happens; Find something that needs a tweak to work, LM will fix it while we get on with the business of flying/using and enjoying our add-ons.  Our third party developers are actively helping in the development of P3D which is not something we ever got totally from Microsoft.  So all the naysaying reported from Facebook is not going to change the fact that P3D through what ever it's life cycle will be is wrapped around our add-on developers and built upon by this community.  FSX in it's current form is all your going to get, period.  Simmers and certain developers can stay with FSX while the rest of us move on.  No one said P3D v2 is perfect but it's at least being actively developed which is a far cry from where FSX is now...

As far as PMDG is concerned, I have a feeling they'll get things worked out eventually.  They're smart folks.  From RSR's last post, it seems like the parties involved are interested.  It may take a while, but they'll get there.

 

A far as the new P3D version, I'm still not sure it's enough for me to get back into simming.  It's great that LM is putting in the work, but I've always liked to do long hauls on VATSIM with all the goodies.  I'm not sure a 32 bit sim with the high level of stuff the great 3rd party developers are putting into their products these days, can handle it in a 32 bit sim.

This is way too complicated, i'm just going back to the Flight Simulator 1.0

Is there a list of addons that are usable with both FSX and P3D?  Horizon scenery, A2A, RealAir, Orbx etc?  and if I have them for FSX would they need to be fixed/reinstalled or what?

Cheers 

Tim

1. Exactly the same weather engine - not a problem for me, since I generally fly in clear, calm weather. If I do want more detailed weather systems, then I will purchase REX for P3D.

 

2. Better threading support, but not better multicore support - I suppose that the latter would have been nice, but I wasn't expecting it.

 

3. Same global scenery and mesh - irrelevant to me, because I would only be flying in the UK, and using payware photographic scenery and mesh across the entire region.

 

4. Still no sloped runways - I couldn't care less. Flat runways are perfectly fine as far as I am concerned.

 

5. Not 64 bit - it was never advertised as 64 bit, so I am not sure why this should be a disappointment. The memory management has apparently been significantly improved, so that's a good start.

Sticking with X-Plane 10 for now. I fly sims primarily for the entertainment value. I do learn a lot about aviation when I try new things, but I'm incapable of doing the mental/moral gymnastics to fool myself into thinking I'm any sort of student to justify the base P3D package, since I'm not pursuing a formal education in the field of flight operations, and $200 for entertainment software is a wee bit much for me.

#4 -- Still no sloped runways...

 

Good! It was a decision by Microsoft, not to go with sloping runways with FSX. It was possible of course, just as with X-Plane. Problem is, while some airports look okay, and the effect works......there are many that are a disaster, because our mesh doesn't contain enough elevation points. So when I see postings in favor of X-Plane, using sloped runways as a reason, and then saying "take that Microsoft"......I have that "whatever" thought pattern. And I don't like the use of "whatever".

 

 

So in the meantime, we've got a whole lot of simmers out there, thinking that these roller coaster runways are more realistic. In reality, that would seldom be the case. A grader would have been brought in to level out much of the high and low points for a real life runway.

 

 

I've flown the mountainous area of the western United States in real life, for many years. The sloping runways we get within our flight sims, are not very realistic, unless they've been hand created by 3rd party developers........which are also available for FSX.

 

 

A NO vote from me, for sloped runways as being standard, unless someone volunteers to re-do 10's of thousands of them. Otherwise, you're just being fooled into thinking its a cool addition.