Until now, my report is:

 

1) Vanilla install:

- no OOMS.

- a few black screens

- frequent problems with vc hotspots

- shadows need some tuning, especially cabin shadows when the sun is low

- clouds and fog are a bit heavy on smoothness

 

2) Orbx FTGX installed with standard aircraft

- rarely experience OOMS (for example overflying London)

- white squarish things visible through the fog where lights should be

- same problems as vanilla

 

4) When flying the A2A 172:

- systematic OOM's especially when overflying water (Italy between Catania and Reggio Calabria, also between St. Marteen and Saba) Please note that the same flight with a default airplane poses no problem at all

 

Conclusions:

 

Some issues need to be fixed by LM.

I suspect that there is something the matter with addons and memory mangement.

True.

 

In any case, I am certain that either PMDG will follow their customers, or someone else will take them.

 

 

 

 

In that case, I highly recommend actual paper charts. I normally use WACs for flight sims, so I don't need as many as I would with Sectionals. The detail-level shown is still more than good enough for visual navigation (when your life doesn't depend on it.) :good:

Oh I completely agree. I was brought up on SubLogic charts. I used to cover them with film and draw bearings with a protractor and a china graph pencil. You'd write down all the frequencies and open the throttles into the unknown. I still remember the buzz I got from finding my way to some distant airport that I didn't think I'd find.

 

Progress is a good thing, but sometimes it removes that pioneering fun of setting off into unknown territory.

Too much negativity and not enough faith ??? :unsure: :lol: :unsure:

I am adverse to negative waves, they bring out the worst in me lol

PMDG get on board with P3D.

 

PMDG are onboard -- they made a lengthy post about it -- or has this changed? 

I believe they said they are onboard, but have been very quiet about at what price-point.

 

I expect they will price their P3D products well above their FSX products.

Maybe Lockheed Martin doesn't want to be "the best Flight Simulation provider"  (what ever that may mean). Its objective could be to  concentrate on its training business - which it has always said from the beginning was its primary interest. It obviously decided not "to break out of the FSX mold and develop a totally new platform" with V2.0 and there's no evidence that it intends to do so.

 

This sums up a lot.

 

I for one have gone back to my CPU bound 4770K/SSD/GTX780 which runs perfectly.

 

I will say this: P3D's value lies in its potential, that is, its ongoing development which may or may not turn out to be a next gen simulation. For this reason it will stay on my machine and I will be watching it closely.

 

Mark

I think this might be over simplistic and here's why: what appears to be most impacted w/ a strong GPU is DX10/11 effects as it were. What I have really no idea about is how much of the basic simulation, for example autogen & cloud depiction, is affected by the strong GPU. With the strong GPU I have I see hardly any differences in frame rate w/ very high DX10/11 effects fully enabled very not fully enabled, which is a testament to the strong GPU, but what I don't see is mitigation of basic scenery sliders. Still, very high vegetation & autogen density takes a big toll on performance.

But I can fly with 40+ FPS smooth with scenery sliders set to very dense. I could never do that in FSX. The only change for me was the addition of a 780 and P3D. A lot more has been moved to the GPU. The October DX11 developer blog on the LM site discussed how the autogen has been reworked to utilize GPU-based object instancing.

Sometimes, when I make these posts I forget to add some important relevant points so the discussion can become either muddled or side-tracked so let me add a few more observations.

 

First - I applaud the work that LM has done with the FSX code but want to clarify that their primary customers are NOT recreational flight simmers.

 

Second - I'm not an insider but am almost positive that the the source code sale agreement between between LM and MS included line items that excluded MS from entering the commercial (AKA military) simulation market and at the same time excluded LM from entering the recreational (gaming) flight simulation market.  This may be the reason for the weird LM licensing and also means that MS is free to give us a brand new FS product.

 

Third - points in this post have been made regarding the FSX core and that it has not substantially changed with P3D 2.0.  I agree with this and this fact forms the basis for my post.  

 

Fourth - probably the most important point is that 3rd part support for any flight simulation platform will make or break the said platform.

 

Finally I need to declare that a new flight simulation platform can be written to support new and legacy code as has been proven many times for all types of software.  Along with the third point this forms the basis of my OP and I stand by it.

 

My frustration is both with the lack of commitment to flight simulation by software companies in general (back in the 90's we saw several flight simulation clones surface) and a noted lack of the want or need to implement all the wonderful technologies currently at our disposal such as the many cloud based technologies like weather, geospatial and real world flight planning.

 

Aside from a core engine, a large part of the problem is the expense of implementing flight simulation assets in the new world order.

 

Always looking forward.

jja

 

 

Fourth - probably the most important point is that 3rd part support for any flight simulation platform will make or break the said platform.

 

Only if it's primary purpose in to serve the consumer market.

 

 

 

My frustration is both with the lack of commitment to flight simulation by software companies in general

 

The lack of commitment os probably due to the fact those companies see no benefit.

Most pilots and other people interested in either learning about aviation or simply simulating flying are consumers.

 

The problem is more that it's pretty much a static community, size-wise, while other software-purchasing communities are growth-markets.  So, they focus on where they can make the most money.  Flight sims are profitable, but if you can make even more money producing something different, they tend to invest their time and money producing something different.

 

P3D is an interesting case...  I expect that most of the development costs (and profits, I'm sure) are driven by active contractual arrangements with large organizations.  The fact that they are also licensing it at the consumer level and letting us come along for the ride is offering us some wonderful updates to the aging FSX code-base.

 

To me, $200 is well-worth the price of admission.