Given LM's target audience, do you not think that VAS usage with addons would be a primary concern for them?

 

Is there anyone here who really thinks that pro training scenarios are going to be using default ANYTHING?

 

If its currently not where it needs to be you can bet that LM will be fixing it......they have to! Their business model relies on 3rd party addon content being able to run in the base sim.

 

Very true. And very reassuring. ^_^ This is not a game that's been released after which the devs can forget about it completely, as usually is the case with games (certainly after a patch or 2). This sim has a future!

 

 

All default aircraft with basically min settings. When one adds autogen and complex scenery/ aircraft, it goes to it's knees. He also states he isnt going t keep it. Refund.

 

Not true here Rendi.  Running the same basic non-HDR/non-DX11 settings, i.e. autogen, cloud, traffic except at LOD 6.5 in V2 versus typically 5.5 in FSX except when in PMDG in FTX scenery where I would have to dial back to 4.5 for best results, and ADDING high end new features:  shadows, reflections, bloom (!) I'm seeing 50 to locked at 60 frames at the default runway and after TO and up around 2K to 4K feet altitude out the VC of the stock Carenado.  FTXG scenery installed.  No popping autogen.  Excellent clarity well out in the LOD radius.  REX E+ going in tonight.  Night flying is really something too.  I had road traffic at 100% flying into KSBA and it was like a blithering interstate highway in So Cal for sure!   Even w/ traffic at 100% frames were still in the 48 to 54 range.  Peering out the left window in a banked left turn frames dropped to 42 or so.  I anticipating having to dial back a quality notch or two when the PMDG stuff comes on board but I can say it really won't translate into big changes in Image Quality, so that helps.

 

What's disappointing is not having access to Inspector's advanced driver parameters.  I hope they get that fixed ASAP and I've mentioned it on the support forum.  As well, the click-spot problem is what we would call a HIGH LEVEL deficit since it impacts sim use greatly.   So right now Rendi, for me I'm going to keep it onboard essentially until the 60-day refund gets nigh.  At that point they must have resolved these two issues, especially the click-spots problem for obvious reasons, else I'll request a refund.  I can so though, it really does look hopeful.   I guess the jury's out on VAS and OOM issues.  I have yet to experience one in FSX.  I'm guessing this will not be an issue if you have the strongest GPU solution for the reasons already stated.  

 

 

...and what aircraft and scenery were you using when you are at 3.6GB VAS in FSX? OrBX PMDG? Throw that into P3D 2.0 and see what happens.

 

FTXG installed, 2.33Gb VAS in V2.  This is running some very high DX11 settings as well.  Frames of 50-60 locked at the default airport and circling around at 2-4K in the stock Carenado, LOD 6.5, bloom, shadows & reflections for select objects.  What I find is that if you dial back some of the lighting/HDR settings the graphic degradation is not much at all, so when PMDG comes in I don't see the an impact that can't be mitigated without losing the graphical/IQ aspects you see in V2 over FSX.

 

 

Rob is pointing out the apples vs oranges comparisons.   They are not always valid and he has brought up some points to show why

 

To which others responded pointing out it might be unfair to say apples and oranges. The problem with using phrases like 'apples and oranges', 'jibber jabber' and 'frustration' is it increases the temperature and so the risk that mods will decide it's more trouble than it's worth to keep the thread open, so everybody loses their access to observations and opinions.

Deep breath... Personally I think this sim is worth investing in and because of this, what comparisons will help?

 

Tell me what settings to use and I'll do what I can.

 

Not true here Rendi.

 

Edit: trimmed the really, REALLY excessive quoted material!

Thats great. I just am not seeing it with my crappy computer.

Edited November 28, 201312 yr by RWFeldman
Edit: trimmed the really, REALLY excessive quoted material!

Im just floored at how hard this p3d works to get things smooth and running well. I just installed FSDT CYVR with FTXG in, and loaded up weather which is somewhat overcast right now and opus weather, and made it Dusk which is usually the hardest on texture loading, and it held up at or near 30. (locked at 34).  Had beautiful shadows too. (these might be conflicting with CYVRs own dynamic shadows though. 

 

Granted I was only flying a king air, but even a PMDG plane would probably bring it down to the mid twenties. Still no problem. Its just smooth. 

 

The VAS will continue to be a very delicate balancing act. But its so nice to see these kind of improvements in notoriously heavy impact areas.

Im just floored at how hard this p3d works to get things smooth and running well. I just installed FSDT CYVR with FTXG in, and loaded up weather which is somewhat overcast right now and opus weather, and made it Dusk which is usually the hardest on texture loading, and it held up at or near 30. (locked at 34).  Had beautiful shadows too. (these might be conflicting with CYVRs own dynamic shadows though. 

 

Granted I was only flying a king air, but even a PMDG plane would probably bring it down to the mid twenties. Still no problem. Its just smooth. 

 

The VAS will continue to be a very delicate balancing act. But its so nice to see these kind of improvements in notoriously heavy impact areas.

Im absolutely certain that a brand spanking new install of fsx with the same ad ons will give the same result.

What no one can measure right now is the Time factor FPS drop for no good reason that FSX will give you over 6 months

 

Lets see how the above frame rates are in 6 months when using P3d, that will be the real test. I have a feeling they will drop from 30 to 20 as the inevitable loading of other add ons places a bigger strain on the p3d system 

Im absolutely certain that a brand spanking new install of fsx with the same ad ons will give the same result.

What no one can measure right now is the Time factor FPS drop for no good reason that FSX will give you over 6 months

 

Lets see how the above frame rates are in 6 months when using P3d, that will be the real test. I have a feeling they will drop from 30 to 20 as the inevitable loading of other add ons places a bigger strain on the p3d system

I didn't have 30 fps with a new FSX and CYVR. It was good but it didn't hold 30. But I'm noticing that if V2 does indeed hit around 20 it's still smooth and that's what counts.

 

Sent from my LG-D803 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

You may not like people making unfavourable comparisons of P3D but for those of us who can't afford to buy multiple simulators and associated add-ons and need to budget carefully for hardware upgrades etc., which one to commit to is a serious decision, and comparisons to platforms we're already using are very helpful in making that choice.

 

I don't have any issues with unfavorable comparisons, but I do have issues with comparing apples to oranges and the many inaccurate statements.  I also have issues with people posting negative comments about a product they don't have.  I don't over to the XP10 forums to post negative comments about their products just because I find something better in FSX or P3D.

 

I expressed my concerns over end user expectations long before P3Dv2 was released.  Many were thinking that their existing hardware would magically run better with P3Dv2 - I was pretty clear that end users were going to need to upgrade hardware to run P3Dv2.  And now that's a reality, many seem "shocked".

 

Flight simulation is a world view type of software, it's not a confined and restricted 3D shooter where the environment is carefully managed on polygon count and textures.  Look at Crysis when it first came out, 5 fps on high end systems, but at least it scaled with hardware improvements.  FSX hasn't scaled, about the only thing that helps FSX is faster CPUs and the gains are marginal at best.  

 

As far as your budget, where has P3Dv2 been any different from FSX or XP10?  If you don't want to spend the money on hardware then you'll have to turn off some of the graphics options ... this is NO different than FSX or XP10.  At least P3Dv2 is providing you with a hardware upgrade path and has also managed to keep considerable amount of compatibility with existing FSX products (again saving FSX users money)

 

But Flight Simulation is what you want to make of it, your passion for it will determine your budget for it and it's importance to you.  P3Dv2 has been moved forward into a more modern era of computing were there is at least a choice of adding hardware to improve the flight simulation experience (and many other very interesting tools, SDK, SimDirector, etc. etc.)

 

If you can live with how AutoGen populates the FSX world (which is done primarily to support low end hardware) then great!  But for those who don't like the magical appearance of AutoGen objects, we have another choice.  But trying to make Apples to Apples comparisons is silly when the AutoGen process is completely different in P3Dv2 (along with many many other aspects).

One interesting thing going w/ V2 and I assume it's intimately related to the new graphic engine is that it is relatively easy to 'lose focus', which was I think how Beau of LM support called it when addressing why GPU use (and resultant big drop in frame rate) might suddenly dip down from say 90% to 30%.  He mentions how mouse-clicking in the VC or exterior view instantly restores focus and with it GPU utilization & frame rate.  Oddly, the VC click-spot issue stopped happening and now they work in full screen mode.

 

I accidentally exaggerated performance in the Carenado when I had road traffic at 100% at dusk in LA:  w/ FTXG 3D lights in LA and traffic at 100% it was amazing to looking at LA freeways w/ heavy traffic!   Very cool stuff!  Frame rate dropped to the mid-high 30's w/ autogen density at DENSE, DX11 settings almost full tilt, and flying towards a bloom enhanced sunset it was amazing!  

I noticed this from day one but thought I was just making it up..

 

There is something about the colors, the clarity and the overall fidelity of the image that is just... Different.. It's not the HDR, and it isn't even the shadows.. There is something else going on that is completely different from 1.4... I used to have to drop screenshots into Photoshop and apply a layer of Tonal Contrast to get the look that v2 just has naturally. I don't even go to Photoshop anymore. Straight from the screenshot button to uploading them.  It's just CLEAN and the color range perfect.. 

Biggest praisers are Titans uses. They Better be.

Well lets see...

 

I don't regret buying it, not in the least.

 

Having said that, it will remain something I tinker with on the side, for now.

 

There is certainly a lot of potential in P3D2, no doubt about it. Crossfire is working, and I have to say, it's more than a little strange to see such high GPU usage from any version of this aged platform. Definitely a good thing to see, though.

 

Pushing the autogen up to Spinal Tap levels certainly brought a smile. 

 

The lowest I was able to get the FPS was around 11-12, but this was with everything full right, every box checked, reflections, ultra shadows, 100% AI etc, at LAX. Surprisingly it wasn't actually that bad at such a low number. 

 

I won't be using it for any planned flights in the near future, but I do have to say, if LM come through with a decent SP1 or point release, then the future looks brighter than it has since we all saw the first FSX preview screenshots.

 

Actually that didn't turn out so well did it ummm, well it looks good anyway  :lol:

I just bought it this morning. I like it.

 

Of coarse I have more work to do getting things working good with my, addons, Panels and such.

 

First thing I did  (while it was default) was crank everything to max - just a what if kinda thing - I did get an error (R6025 "OOM") but I was totally expecting to. Sure did not make me mad or disappointed at all.

 

I just spent the last 4 weeks tuning a new install of FSX so kinda used to working on things. Once I feel things are looking smooth in P3d I will not look at the frame counter again. I want to fly not tweak (that's LMs job).

 

At this point I have all Saitek panels working, Goflight, Remote Pilot (ipad app), SPAD-LINDA-FSUIPC, REX, Opus (somewhat-still crashing the sim sometimes), and A2A 172.

 

I fought Black Screen all day (HDR off did not work). But seems to be working now - not sure why. Note they said three screens have some problems so not worried.

 

Late here so I have not flown a real flight yet but looking forward to "Training" this Holiday weekend. IMHO I see no reason to stick with FSX for my situation as a GA guy.

 

 

If you can live with how AutoGen populates the FSX world (which is done primarily to support low end hardware) then great! But for those who don't like the magical appearance of AutoGen objects, we have another choice. But trying to make Apples to Apples comparisons is silly when the AutoGen process is completely different in P3Dv2 (along with many many other aspects).

 

That's kind of my point. You're dictating what is apples to apples and apples to oranges etc. from your own perspective.

 

Personally I'm not tech-savvy enough to understand, far less think it important, what process is used to render the autogen. What's important to me is that it's done smoothly and plausibly, so a direct comparison of the visual effects of the autogen process between P3D, FSX or even XP10 is very relevant.