I guess what I would like to see is direct and clear explanations as to why (in what ways and examples), P3D would be (or is), better than FSX. For instance, we test CPUs, GPUs, RAM, etc, etc. And we can clearly tell this CPU is better than that CPU. So far I haven't seen a prove of results of any tests comparing both sims where we can say: "Oh yeah, check this out, this has more horsepower than that, or look, using the exact same add-ons, at the same time in the sim, and the exact same amount of scenery, P3D get's 10 fps more than FSX."

 

We've talked for ages about not looking at the fps numbers; however, that is there for a reason.. It is a measurement of frames per second. And we know that the less frames-per-second, the less fluid the graphics are. Just as in a vehicle with a speedometer, or an airplane with a speed-flight gauge, etc. You don't get in your car, cover the speedometer and say: "Oh hello, hello my dear folks, I will now drive and if I don't feeeel I'm going fast enough , then I'm not, or if I don't see the tree going by me fast enough, then I'll just keep pressing  the gas pedal." NO!

 

So, I guess it would be proof to be able to test both sims with the Exact hardware, software, settings, and  add-ons. Then, compare  how each perform. Has anyone in our sim world done that? Or are going to keep saying: " My car is faster than yours."

This is just my opinion but I will you my take on each of the flightsims, I have FSX, Prepar3d and Prepar3d V2. currently I am using P3D V2 exclusively as I consider it to look and perform the best on my system. For hardware I have an Intel I7 3970 overclocked to 4.5ghz HT turned off in Bios with CPU liquid cooling, an Nvidia GTX 680 and 16Gb of 2133mhz memory. I run four 24" monitors of which 3 are set up in Nvidia surround mode running resolution of 5760 X 1080. The fourth monitor is configured as extended desktop above the surround monitors and runs at 1920 x 1080. I also am running these sims from 256Gb Toshiba SSD's with Sata 6 gb/s. For the simulators I have the same addons running which are Orbx FTX Global, Rex w Overdrive and Mytraffic X. The settings in the two versions of Prepar3d are identical and the FSX differs only in that the setting menus are not the same. In each of these I have the sliders either all the way maxed out or 1 step below max. I have FSX tweaked to the max and it runs with great FPS and in my opinion looks ok. P3D V1 is also tweaked to the max and again in my opinion looks and performs ok. As for P3D V2 I absolutely love the looks and the performance. I have no tweaks installed whatsoever and my FPS maxes at 60 and has dropped as low as 20 when flying into New York, Washington and LA. Overall I am very impressed with what LM has accomplished with P3D V2. There are still improvements that can be made to the sim and I believe LM is working on the those improvements. But in closing I can say that you can tweak whatever performance you think you need to have as long as your hardware is up to the task. I can actually get better FPS out of FSX than I can in either versions of P3D but in the end I do not like the looks of FSX anymore compared to P3D.

 

Hope this helps.

I'm in too for the Club of very satisfied LM P3Dv2 customers.

 

I had p3dv1.4, but gave up on it in favour of FSX and latter FSX + DX10 fixer.

 

I bougth a monthly license for P3Dv2 when it got released, just to be able to test it on my rig, but there were so many problems that I gave up after a week trying various settings and tweaks :-/

 

Now, after a friend started reporting his positive experience with v2.2, and specially because I have been smoking other stuff ( mainly IL2 BOS, DCS World and Condorsoaring ), I decided I should give it a new try, and set it as my Civillian Flight Simulator.  I guess that's what it will most certainly end up being. 

 

A full day testing P3Dv2.2 gave me a very positive oppinion about it, with super smooth perfromance, excellent graphics, and a few add-ons with available P3D installers already running on it.

 

ASN is also working very well with it, and I could say that there is less impact, under adverse weather situations, tan what I saw with FSX.

 

I will wait for the Q400 and the PMDGs to be made available for P3Dv2.2 and successors. Meanwhile, I am more than pleased with what I got, specially with no need for tweaking!

 

And, since I mentioned the word "tweaking", I should point out that I simply deleted the default Prepar 3d profile that came with NI, and actually introduced a single "tweak" in the Prepar 3d CFG file, which was setting first AffinityMask to 14 as I used to in FSX, and now to 15 after that friend told me he was getting even better results with that value.

I guess what I would like to see is direct and clear explanations as to why (in what ways and examples), P3D would be (or is), better than FSX.

 

Easy ;o)

• Image quality, i.e. texture sharpness to a high LOD, having that entire field of view essentially fully loaded all the way out to the maximum LOD--very little popping autogen, no blurry textures all the way out to the max LOD.
• Smooth, very smooth performance.  I've had this in FSX, but much more intensely here.  In FSX road traffic always had a significant stutter.  Much much less so in P3DV2.2. 
• Contrast range is much higher, adding to more value from dynamic lighting--remarkably so.  How much?  Very hard to quantify as we're talking really about simulation of reality--our vision is full 128 bit, incredible range of color perception, etc.  P3D V2 on a fast machine does this incredibly well.  FSX just looks 'flat' by comparison.  
• Dynamic lighting adds a subtle but very important facet of your real world experience that FSX just can't do. 
• Now we just have had dynamic lighting and shadow casting from clouds.   This is huge--once you've experienced it anything less just looks a degree fake and missing a key part of the real-world picture if you will.
• From a hardware utilization point of view:  a big door is just now opening w/ SLI implementation.  This means any user can now see (estimates) of 50% and up improvement in performance--no need to buy a new case, power supply (if you planned for SLI up front), mobo, ram, drives, etc etc--just by SLIing their current card whatever it may be.  A 50%+ upgrade for the cost involved is comparable to a very strong full system upgrade--but for little cost relatively speaking. 
• On the software side--LM is moving hard on improvements it's truly remarkable.  And these are some pretty big changes, cloud shadowing for example-that's not a little thing!

From a CONS point of view FSX in the domain of visuals reigns supreme for water textures.  This is a very significant issue graphically.   We hope this is solved and I can't imagine why it can't be, though it seems it would take some collaboration between LM, Nvidia, and REX or other texture designers.

 

I have left FSX on the drive just because I wasn't sure initially w/ P3D V2.0.  I'm now permanently done (read:  have been spoiled by P3DV2.2)

With the last two posts having enumerated the relative advantages of Prepar3D v2.x over FSX, it's time to close this thread on a positive note...

 

...especially given that the OP is no longer with us. :Whew: