I wanted to do some FSX-P3D comparison shots of the ground textures w/ max auto-gen  and scenery complexity on both.. While the textures themselves looked the same, there was something VERY different about the look of everything and I couldn't put my finger on it.. I set out to bring to light what the differences I was seeing actually are. 

 

 

FSX and P3D with auto-gen and scenery complexity maxxed on both. Same date, time, season, hour, minute, second with both. I'm not setting to prove "What is better" just providing examples of what is different. 

 

WARNING: FULL SIZE ANIMATED GIFS.. EACH IS OVER 2MB PER GIF..

 

 

Philly: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/11399202544_6b91518273_o.gif

 

Chicago: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/11399302473_f2f1c89240_o.gif

 

San Fran: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/11399204654_b6e00d4cd9_o.gif

 

 

Enjoy! 

Hm, that's odd… You say both are maxed out but P3D clearly shows LESS autogen…?!? While afaik LM said P3D shows MORE autogen? Other than that the main difference seems to be the light: P3D has more light in it. But again, I am really surprised to see less autogen in P3D…!

Yes, there is less autogen and this leaves a lot of white spot in P3D compared to FSX. I'm surprised  by the fact that all missing buildings are over very light color (white or close to it). Is this due to an algorithm used by P3d developpers to "position" each autogen buildings by analyzing an underlying scenery geometrical forms and colors?

And I thought it was the other way around, but after looking at these comparisons, clearly FSX loads more autogen. Regardless, the autogen in P3D looks better, not sure why, but it does.

FSX looks better than p3d in that comparsion

OK that was helpful.  More autogen in FSX, and darker in FSX.  I actually don't like the "white" roofs and lighter texture of P3D in those shots.  All you need with FSX it ENB or SweetFX and for that matter your monitor lighting settings to adjust to your particular preference.

 

I would love to see some comparison shots of non urban areas.

 

Thanks for this work.

Well, after what I was reading, not unexpected. LM reduced the autogen near/below the aircraft and increased the autogen further away. I believe I read it somewhere on the forums after release of v2... FSX renders more autogen near aircraft, and this is what's visible here. However, farther away, P3D wins hands down.

Ah interesting "concept".  Personally since I fly low and slow, mostly GA I like lots of stuff closer.

Well, after what I was reading, not unexpected. LM reduced the autogen near/below the aircraft and increased the autogen further away. I believe I read it somewhere on the forums after release of v2... FSX renders more autogen near aircraft, and this is what's visible here. However, farther away, P3D wins hands down.

 

Yes, Word Not Allowed picked that one up a few weeks ago. If you look out of the cockpit (which is where most of us spend our time), the increased autogen with P3Dv2 viewable in the distance is quite substantial. It appears to be a trade off that I believe makes sense, because it has managed to greatly reduce or even stop the "popping".

I have to say though that in some circumstances the popping is still very obvious. Like when you fly above large cities: you see large blocks of grey cardboard buildings popup at once... pretty annoying still. Luckily I mainly fly where there are mountains and trees and small villages and there the poping up is far less noticable if not completely unnoticable. You have to fly quite low though otherwise you will see it and you will also see where the autogen ends abruptly.

 

P3D is an improvement because you can see autogen as far as the eye can see during take off and landing but during flying it still isn't perfect and it's a pity LM didn't implement alpha fading.

 

 

it's a pity LM didn't implement alpha fading.

 

That would make quite a difference - hopefully something they can code in down the road...

Weird because FSX looks better in the pictures.

 

I would love to see some comparison shots of non urban areas.

 

 

No problem.. I'm curious about this stuff too so.. I have no problems doing this..

 

I tried to highlight the points made in the other example. This time showing a more long shot instead of a overhead perspective. 

 

WARNING: 2MB+ GIFS

 

Grand Canyon: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/11422408736_cb4d0693b9_o.gif

 

Yellowstone:  http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/11422545923_834bbba8af_o.gif

 

West Virginia: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/11422406964_e0e4d70246_o.gif

 

To reiterate.. The settings are identical as possible. These are not to make FSX look bad, or P3D look bad, or FSX look good, or P3D look good. Purely fair comparisons as doing either of the latter is unfair to the respective users of both. I'm not trying to sell either "brand".. Everything  is maxed scenery wise except LOD which is 4.5 on both.

Hey Bill,

 

I like this concept...can you try it while sitting in the cockpit. I would be curious on how a city sky line would  look and how a wilderness such as West VA, would look. Also, I thought the water was to look more real in P3D, but from your screenshots FSX looks more natural.

 

Thanks,

Ray

 

Hey Bill,

 

I like this concept...can you try it while sitting in the cockpit. I would be curious on how a city sky line would  look and how a wilderness such as West VA, would look. Also, I thought the water was to look more real in P3D, but from your screenshots FSX looks more natural.

 

Thanks,

Ray

 

Fair request.. I'll do one of them.

 

Shall we use the greatest city of them all? NYC? I was actually really surprised with this one. Probably the most dramatic..

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/11422883006_55f7434652_o.gif

 

Edit: Just noticed.. I forgot to set clear skies in FSX.. Not that it matters at all..