How is it?

[scotchegg 4,157]

 

 

I've known folks who've had P3D v1.4 installed for months and never even noticed that pale, tiny and almost invisible watermark in the upper right corner!

 

Well you've known folks who aren't afflicted with a strong sense of visual pedantry like me. And it's nice that that gives you such a laugh!

[dazzystar 23]

I guess I need some Nvidia inspector settings as the one's I've been using are from FSX DX10!

[Guest]

FXAA is terrible because it's a post-processing method. Try MSAA.

 

Also, what about blurries?

 

Er... I use both. Shouldn't I...?

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Er... I use both. Shouldn't I...?

 

You can use it if you like everything to appear blurry.

[fscottee 10]

 

Here... You want $60/$199 worth of change log.. Have at it...

 

*Edit: removed excessive and needless quoted text*

 

You know what I see?  Crumbs.  That's all that is up there, crumbs from the table, and a pile of hungry simmers doing their best to devour every little crumb that falls to the floor, all the while proclaiming how full they feel.

 

If I saw FSX and P3D next to each other at a Gamestop, I'd be asking what's the difference?  We shouldn't be asking that.  It's 2013..., 2004 called and they want their sim back.  We should be looking at a sim that makes us drool and our bellies full with the fat of the hind quarters. 

[DAL1850 51]

Here... You want $60/$199 worth of change log.. Have at it...

There's nothing "wrong" with the list per se and it's a move in the right direction to be sure. I'm just saying I haven't seen enough meat of substance on this bone for what matters to me to bite. If I were new to the hobby and starting clean with a baseline simulator for the future, I would definitely start with P3D (or XP). But for someone with hundreds (probably a couple thousand) invested in FSX, it's a difficult jump to justify. If 64-bit were on that list or the sim was visually an order of magnitude superior with regard to scenery/environment/weather than FSX "out of the box", that would probably tip the scales for me. I just don't think it's there yet. It still looks like a sim from 2007.

[JasonHarris 96]

Guys, dont buy it.  Not sure why you keep telling everyone else it's not worth buying it if they are happy with it.

[E6BAV8R 88]

There's nothing "wrong" with the list per se and it's a move in the right direction to be sure. I'm just saying I haven't seen enough meat of substance on this bone for what matters to me to bite. If I were new to the hobby and starting clean with a baseline simulator for the future, I would definitely start with P3D (or XP). But for someone with hundreds (probably a couple thousand) invested in FSX, it's a difficult jump to justify. If 64-bit were on that list or the sim was visually an order of magnitude superior with regard to scenery/environment/weather than FSX "out of the box", that would probably tip the scales for me. I just don't think it's there yet. It still looks like a sim from 2007.

 

I agree 100%.  I'm also concerned about the licensing aspects for the major payware developers (e.g. PMDG).  They have been stating all day that P3D is NOT a personal consumer/hobbyist piece of software - it is a professional and commercial platform.  And you can bet prices for highly advanced simulations onto this commercial platform will be reflective of that.

 

Guys, dont buy it.  Not sure why you keep telling everyone else it's not worth buying it if they are happy with it.

 

No one here is saying to not buy it.

[Noel 4,483]

$199 for clouds, shadows, and some next-gen menu and UI sliders? What they gain in clouds and shadows is somewhat diminished by the less-than-stellar water people are reporting. The jury is still out, but I need a more compelling story than, "Whoooo...it's got DirectX 11 technology inside!" before I bite down on that worm.

 

I think, hopefully, we're investing in something that will continue to be developed.  I rationalize the high cost of $199 as a means of helping their project stay off the ground, pardon the pun...

[GodAtum 68]

$199 is nothing compared to cockpit software which is $1000.

[Drumcode 1,892]

Are the nights darker than they are in FSX without ENB?

[PoanickyBoad 3]

You know what I see? Crumbs. That's all that is up there, crumbs from the table, and a pile of hungry simmers doing their best to devour every little crumb that falls to the floor, all the while proclaiming how full they feel.

 

If I saw FSX and P3D next to each other at a Gamestop, I'd be asking what's the difference? We shouldn't be asking that. It's 2013..., 2004 called and they want their sim back. We should be looking at a sim that makes us drool and our bellies full with the fat of the hind quarters.

 

I would like to take it a step further. I see poos. Big brown disgusting poos. For now at least. This thing will come into its own given time but for now people arent going to see all their hopes met. At least this platform has a future though.

[Manny 1,293]

 

 

run three screens in Eyefinity and with FSX you get the dreaded fisheye effect. When their was only FSX it was something you learned to live with. With P3D NO FISHEYE EFFECT -

 

How did you remove the fisheye effect? I have three screens in wideview and its identical to FSX. I know they said there is a way to adjust and remove the fisheye effect.

 

So what did you do? What adjustment  and where did you make them?

[Jimmy Angel 19]

This is why we can't have nice things.

I think it's great. My aging GTX 570 isn't quite up to the task of running with shadows (beyond the plane/cockpit), but from the sounds of things a moderate video card upgrade is going to help quite a bit.

 

I've been buzzing around the Seattle area in the default 172 (roughly ported over from FSX). I've been trying, without success, to duplicate all of the visual issues with FSX that make me insane. Autogen pop-in? Nope. Flashing scenery? Nope. Deforming terrain? Nope. Stutters in turns? Nope. Micro-stutters when straight and level? Nope. Blurries? Nope.

 

Now, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the one guy who has these sorts of issues with FSX, and is sick of the crazy balancing act inherent in all of the various tweaks to try to solve these problems. Or, perhaps, this is a solid new foundation which is more scalable, more stable, and--for the love of all that is holy--actually supported by a developer.

 

And all for about the price of one add-on plane or fancy airport.

 

Yes, there's a few teething issues (nothing compared to FSX). Yes, it's not knock you out of your socks gorgeous, but the lighting is great and the scenery, clouds, water, etc. will get prettier as third parties get into the mix. 

 

Just got done flying out of Ranger Creek in Washington. It was early in the day, and the shadows of the surrounding hills created a strip of sunlight across the runway that my plane passed through as I soared smoothly into the sky. Maybe I'm just a glass half full kinda' guy, but I'm a little bit in love with this thing.

[MarkSC 122]

My impressions after about an hour of flying:

 

1. The shadows are better (more realistic) than the FSX DX10 fixer.

2. The reflections on the water are incredible. The sky effects are also first rate (I love the SweetFX look to dawn or dusk).

3. I'm still experimenting with the sliders, but overall performance is better than FSX on my 3570k and GTX 760.

4. Night lighting effects are unbelievable! I'm using FTX Global. The light reflections on the water and the 3D lighting are amazing with none of the bugs of DX10 mode.

5. The menu system will take getting used to.

6. I've been using the PseudoFullScreen utility for awhile, so I'm used to that. It's great that P3D built it in. It really gives you the best of both worlds with full screen but the use of open windows on a second monitor.

7. Haven't tried to configure my Saitek panels yet.

8. Scenery load times are faster than FSX with none of the annoying stutters with the menus.

9. The black screen bug is annoying, but it's great that LM is already working on a fix.

10. Autogen popping is virtually eliminated (what popping occurs is way in the distance and thus much more realistic). That alone is worth $199 to me. I smiled when I saw in the cfg file a line that says "Pop_free_autogen=1". Wish we could have had that in FSX.

 

Overall, I'm extremely impressed with P3D. It takes some getting used to the menu system and the lack of tweaks needed compared to FSX (a lot like XPlane), but the overall experience is way better IMO.