Then stay with FSX, as PMDG 737/777 are neither licensed nor working properly in P3D v2.x.

 

And your current system will most likely run P3D slower than it does FSX.

 

:( Damn

This is really what I am wondering. Could you tell me your system specs?

 

To everyone else, I totally hear what you're saying. P3D is best experienced with a much newer system. I really should upgrade. But what I'm thinking right now is, the engine in FSX is really old tech. It doesn't even take full advantage of multi-core processors. It runs at a fast enough frame rate on my system that, particularly with clouds off, my aircraft (even PMDG) are responsive enough. But it lacks smoothness. The joy of flying is diminished. I purchased MS Flight when it came out, and it runs quite well on my system. It's the same underlying engine as FSX, but modernized, and I'm thinking that P3D is something like the engine of MS Flight attached to a proper and serious sim (tell me if I'm wrong here). 

 

Sure, my specs are an Intel i5-750 2.66 overclocked to 3.3 and just a mere GTX560Ti card. Mediocre at best. And as you can see in this thread there is a belief that P3D will not run on low specs, but it does, and if you keep sliders within sensible limits, it runs better than FSX. Over 30 years in this hobby and still doing more than most  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Oh ........ and Win7 64bit with 8GB Ram

Sure, my specs are an Intel i5-750 2.66 overclocked to 3.3 and just a mere GTX560Ti card. Mediocre at best. And as you can see in this thread there is a belief that P3D will not run on low specs, but it does, and if you keep sliders within sensible limits, it runs better than FSX. Over 30 years in this hobby and still doing more than most  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Oh ........ and Win7 64bit with 8GB Ram

 

Er… seriously? Your CPU is two years younger plus it is over clocked, your GPU is twice as fast, you've got almost three times as much RAM and you are running a 64 bit OS. I really don't understand how you can compare your system with the one from the OP and say P3D should run fine on his…  :rolleyes:

Er… seriously? Your CPU is two years younger plus it is over clocked, your GPU is twice as fast, you've got almost three times as much RAM and you are running a 64 bit OS. I really don't understand how you can compare your system with the one from the OP and say P3D should run fine on his…  :rolleyes:

 

Some fair points Jeroen and yes I have to admit that I did not realise his GPU is so much slower (although twice the VRAM as mine) AND the 32 bit OS. But no, I am not comparing my system with his and never did. The OP clearly stated "FSX runs reasonably well but it's far from silky-smooth (especially with the PDMG 737 running on it)" and I have answered his question accordingly. Here's why I think the way I do with regards to his question:-

 

I think it's logical to say that provided he can run FSX he "should" be able to run P3Dv2 and get some extra features. Logic also suggests to me that as his system meets the minimum requirements, he will have a starting point that may be a better base point than FSX. Logic also suggests to me that as the entry cost point or risk is so little (think money back guarantee or 1 months prepaid fee of $10), it really is worth trying. Because at the end of the day - he has virtually nothing to lose but does have the potential to experience some small gains. Furthermore, I got the impression from the OP's original question that he fully understands the concept of managing the software within his system, so he will not be disappointed if he is ever tempted to push that veggie (and other sliders) fully to the right    

 

I know I am thinking outside the square a little here and going against the trend, but I guess that comes from running and growing my own business for the past 19 years. Sometimes, small steps that you can manage for minimal investment often provide the largest longer term gains - or you just sit there and never know! Either way, if we hear back from the OP he is either going to say "tried it (at no cost apart from his time) and it didn't work", or "tried it and it performs similar to FSX with some small gains", OR  "will try at a later stage when I have upgraded my system".

...

 

I know I am thinking outside the square a little here and going against the trend, but I guess that comes from running and growing my own business for the past 19 years. Sometimes, small steps that you can manage for minimal investment often provide the largest longer term gains - or you just sit there and never know! Either way, if we hear back from the OP he is either going to say "tried it (at no cost apart from his time) and it didn't work", or "tried it and it performs similar to FSX with some small gains", OR  "will try at a later stage when I have upgraded my system".

 

I appreciate the open-mindedness. Looking closer at your system, it's pretty clear I'm still a big step below that, but at least I'm above the minimum requirements stated on Lockheed's website, so I know it will run and hopefully with sliders at least a third of the way to the right. 

 

I may give it a try this weekend, and if I do, I will certainly report back.

 

If I do make the switch, I'm looking to start off with a nice single-engine private aircraft, preferably with decent climb performance and cruise speed, and a high degree of realism. Does anything that comes with the software fit the bill, or is there an add-on aircraft that anyone would recommend?

I appreciate the open-mindedness. Looking closer at your system, it's pretty clear I'm still a big step below that, but at least I'm above the minimum requirements stated on Lockheed's website, so I know it will run and hopefully with sliders at least a third of the way to the right. 

 

I may give it a try this weekend, and if I do, I will certainly report back.

 

If I do make the switch, I'm looking to start off with a nice single-engine private aircraft, preferably with decent climb performance and cruise speed, and a high degree of realism. Does anything that comes with the software fit the bill, or is there an add-on aircraft that anyone would recommend?

I was about to post this when AVSIM went AWOL :-

 

Good for you and hope it works out. Just remember to use those sliders wisely and that they provide a lot more than the equivalent FSX settings, so there is no shame setting the sliders to a point that at least matches fsx to give you a good starting point then try to move forward from there.

 

One payware aircraft that I am using is the Alabeo C172RG CUTLASS 2 and it works well with no FPS impact or performance issues. The included Carenado Bonanza A36 is good as well.

 

If I can offer a little more advice - forget the word "switch". Run both sims side by side and (provided P3D runs at an acceptable level for you) get the best out of both worlds. I still use FSX for my push button autopilot tubeliners (albeit quite rarely now) and P3D for low and slow flying by hand whilst looking around.

 

If you use FTX Global in FSX, then you can also download the P3D version at no charge. It appears to have little impact on performance and will provide some good textures for low and slow.

 

Have fun and again, hope it works out for you.

P3D v2.1 with Airbus X Extended. Flight from Rome to Heraklion. After the 1,30h flight a OOM appeared. Thats annoying. Settings are all @ normal.

Interesting chat. I'm using P3Dv1.4 on my 3 year old i5 W7 64bit 4gb laptop.

Far smoother than FSX that I now have dumped. I cannot use V2.1 as I do not have DX11. No problems at all & (tisk, tisk) I loaded into the default install folder, as I have with FS9 (2x versions) with never a problem. 

 

Low & Slows? Maybe look at the A2A C172 as well.

Experiences with P3D2.1 seem to be very individual.  I was advised to move to a more powerful CPU, before trying it, despite the volume of advice to upgrade the GPU.

 

I have an I7 2600k o'clocked to 4.8, and a GTX 680 4gb, not the latest hardware, but my curiousity was too great to resist a try at P3D.

 

I've been very surprised at the result of my own trial and error.  If I keep Vegetation at sparse (makes PNW forests look like recently planted), I can enjoy most of the enhancements of P3D.  I haven't found volumetric fog, nor shadows to to be an extra burden.  I can fly smoothly around London, Melbourne, Seattle, and Vancouver.  If I keep away from these centres, I can move the other sliders further to the right than usual.

 

OOMs are the limitation for the Veg slider, but surprisingly with my older hardware, Process Explorer, never shows my 2600 load above 80%, mostly around 50, my 680 runs at 60-90%, mostly around 70s, with its memory never above 1.6gb.  Right now I seem to have a little horsepower to spare, so if LM can nail the OOM problem..................?  :rolleyes:

 

Jim

Thanks everyone for the tips. I think i will try this. Haven't had time yet, and of course with the Avsim meltdown I didn't see many of these responses until today.

 

Ultimately if I start down this path then I bet I will end up buying new hardware before the year is out. Some nice add-ons like Orbx NorCal are becoming compatible with P3D, but what's the point of going with the add-ons if I have to turn the scenery way down. 

 

One of my dilemas for my next hardware upgrade is desktop vs. laptop. I prefer portability if possible, but would need one heck of a gaming laptop to run P3D well.

.....

One of my dilemas for my next hardware upgrade is desktop vs. laptop. I prefer portability if possible, but would need one heck of a gaming laptop to run P3D well.

I guess you wont get a Laptop which is powerful enough.

Spirit

Your hardware is as good or better than mine and I use V2.1.   Frame rates vary from the low teens with medium settings on up to the low 40s with sliders mostly to the left.  I never used FSX so I can't compare but V2.1 works just fine.  I have a core2duo 3.33 with 2 gig ram and a Radeon hd7750 driving 2 monitors at 1280x1024.  Give it a shot.  It is no risk with the guarantee.

Your hardware is as good or better than mine and I use V2.1.   Frame rates vary from the low teens with medium settings on up to the low 40s with sliders mostly to the left.  I never used FSX so I can't compare but V2.1 works just fine.  I have a core2duo 3.33 with 2 gig ram and a Radeon hd7750 driving 2 monitors at 1280x1024.  Give it a shot.  It is no risk with the guarantee.

This should give some people deep thoughts but I guess that they wont fly with your settings. By the way, are you using any add-ons and what aircraft are you flying?

Spirit

Your hardware is as good or better than mine and I use V2.1.   Frame rates vary from the low teens with medium settings on up to the low 40s with sliders mostly to the left.  I never used FSX so I can't compare but V2.1 works just fine.  I have a core2duo 3.33 with 2 gig ram and a Radeon hd7750 driving 2 monitors at 1280x1024.  Give it a shot.  It is no risk with the guarantee.

 

Interesting. Sounds like my experience would be as good or better than what I'm seeing now in FSX with DX10.

 

Though today I've been debating whether to bite the bullet and just get a new $800-1000 gaming PC. I'm kind of due for an upgrade. If I did that, I could enjoy P3D with sliders to the far right plus addons, and that would be amazing.

I usually fly a stock baron or bonanza on instruments or heavy on the instruments VFR. Obviously the scenery is not terribly impressive at low settings and I don't have any addons. But is is smooth and flyable. Some more memory would be nice (ddr2 haha!) but I am planning a dedicated P3D computer within the next year. Also I am building cockpit components using arduino and multi. The interface helps the realism more than anything IMHO.