What's really going on with the FSX vs P3D Debates

[mganz121 159]

Thanks Mich.Lot of useful info. Much appreciated.

 

Come on Julian ....... you know you want to try it ! :lol:  :lol:

 

Remember the old Satco / Vatsim days when NZ and Australia went with (and encouraged) voice? And the US was still focused on typing and quite negative about using voice? It is just like that. P3Dv2.2 works very well

[ZKOKQ 984]

Remember the old Satco / Vatsim days when NZ and Australia went with (and encouraged) voice? And the US was still focused on typing and quite negative about using voice? It is just like that. P3Dv2.2 works very well

Sure do Dave. That brings back memories.

 

I was just a bit concerned my 580 would choke to death. ( hard to believe not so long ago the 580 used to be king )

 

I am tempted :lol:

[MikeT707 1,181]

Yup, I watch their thread with much anticipation. I fly in New Zealand though, and those are yet to be converted. Looking forward to the new night lights it will introduce too.

New Zealand is going to look great in P3D and I am looking for it too.  

[groentesoep 22]

A couple of months ago my FSX-PC crashed and I had to do a full re-install. This was just after the release of P3D v 2.2, so I decided to take the plunge.

 

I decided to not do a dual install because somehow that seemed "cleaner" to me, and I'm afraid of the conflicts running P3D and FSX alongside may cause. But maybe one day I will re-install FSX again.

 

I ran FSX in DX10 and did not suffer many OOM's. Mostly because I used the SceneryConfigEditor and do not fly many long haul flights. So besides some quirks here and there, FSX wasn't all that bad for me (though I must admit that I banned a lot of the FSX-negativity to the back of my brain ;-)). 

 

Till now P3D has been a pleasant surprise. It means that I have to give up on somethings, like the NGX and the 777. On the other hand I can still fly the Q400, AXE and MD-11.

Aerosoft airports are working, but have trouble with the lighting (except the newer ones). FSDT and FlyTampa are working great for me.

 

The performance with P3D is a lot better for me than with FSX. I can even have road traffic on now, without watching to a Powerpoint. 

I have the feeling that the ground scenery is more detailed/dense. All of this without tweaking settings and such. I miss flying the NGX and 777, but not yet enough to make the switch back. 

 

The fact that not all add-ons are working in P3D, also has a positive effect on me. I can be really happy when a add-on that I already had for years becomes P3D compatible. Without trying to sound to cliche: it really lets me enjoy and appreciate the stuff that I have...

[RaptyrOne 1,398]

Wow - P3D is a 12GB download? And subsequent major updates and/or service packs might require similar downloads..... wonder if that is even possible where I am - with our crummy 'high speed' download speeds and dodgy connections.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Wow - P3D is a 12GB download? And subsequent major updates and/or service packs might require similar downloads..... wonder if that is even possible where I am - with our crummy 'high speed' download speeds and dodgy connections.

 

I agree about the 12GB download, especially with someone who has a terrible connection like me. I wish Lockheed Martin would offer a stripped version of Prepar3D which wouldn't include any of the default aircraft and simply have them as extra downloads for those who want them. Most people are using add-on aircraft anyway.

[Guest]

OP, this "debate" could have gone no other way and your question seemed to just want to provoke what has already been discussed many times.  It almost sound like you wanted justification from others to stay with FSX?  Hopefully that is not accurate of why you started this thread.

 

From the many threads I've seen about FSX vs. P3D boil down to these:

 

1.  Huge investment in FSX, don't want to take the time to move it all over to P3D as some of that investment might not work so make up some reason to not like P3D

2.  Hardware requirements to use all the new features in P3D requires $$$ expenditure, so make up some reason to not like P3D

3.  FSX campers don't want 3rd party to migrate to P3D because content will dry up for FSX, so make up any reason to not like P3D

4.  Pretend FSX looks as good as (or better) and performs better than P3D because of items 1 and 2 and 3 above

5.  Use license agreement as an artificial barrier because of 1 and 2 and 3 above

6.  Ignore any statements about future development of FSX

 

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with people's reasons to stay with FSX - all valid.  The problem arise when some (not all) make up justifications for their choice by providing inaccurate and wrong information about P3D.  It's one's personal (or professional) choice for people that only work with one and only one flight simulation platform ... and I can understand maintaining multiple platforms is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.

 

P3D is basically free to try, refunds will be issued if not satisfied.

 

The best debate is the one you resolve yourself with actual product experience, given the $0 investment to find out, I'd recommend you go find out what it's all about.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[wims80 121]

Whether people use P3D for entertainment or not is irrelevant. LM know only too well that a large number of private customers will be using it for exactly that reason. However, all they need to worry about is to make sure that "not to be used for entertainment purposes" is specifically stated in the EULA or any other piece of legal documentation. They have been able to sell to home based customers by stating that the software can be used for simulation and training purposes, so they are covered legally. That is all that matters to them. If they really wanted to stop people using P3D for entertainment purposes (or stop them purchasing the Academic license when they are not really using the software for training), then they would have enforced it. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes, and makes any argument about this completely pointless.

 

One could of course lie to LM and pretend that the software is not going to be used for entertainment. However, that approach is not really viable for people who are not liars

 

[Azone 39]

OP, this "debate" could have gone no other way and your question seemed to just want to provoke what has already been discussed many times.  It almost sound like you wanted justification from others to stay with FSX?  Hopefully that is not accurate of why you started this thread.

 

From the many threads I've seen about FSX vs. P3D boil down to these:

 

1.  Huge investment in FSX, don't want to take the time to move it all over to P3D as some of that investment might not work so make up some reason to not like P3D

2.  Hardware requirements to use all the new features in P3D requires $$$ expenditure, so make up some reason to not like P3D

3.  FSX campers don't want 3rd party to migrate to P3D because content will dry up for FSX, so make up any reason to not like P3D

4.  Pretend FSX looks as good as (or better) and performs better than P3D because of items 1 and 2 and 3 above

5.  Use license agreement as an artificial barrier because of 1 and 2 and 3 above

6.  Ignore any statements about future development of FSX

 

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with people's reasons to stay with FSX - all valid.  The problem arise when some (not all) make up justifications for their choice by providing inaccurate and wrong information about P3D.  It's one's personal (or professional) choice for people that only work with one and only one flight simulation platform ... and I can understand maintaining multiple platforms is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.

 

P3D is basically free to try, refunds will be issued if not satisfied.

 

The best debate is the one you resolve yourself with actual product experience, given the $0 investment to find out, I'd recommend you go find out what it's all about.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Then there are those that have a million dollars and a million hours to spend tweaking P3D and slam the rest of us that don't have that kind of money or time, while some of us with our half decent systems would rather wait till LM gets it into 3rd gear.

[Glynn 405]

One could of course lie to LM and pretend that the software is not going to be used for entertainment

 

 What if we use it for Simulation, is that ok ? after all that is what LM is busy developing.

A Simulation that can't be used for Smulation. I cannot see much of a buisness case for one of those but apparently LM can.

The best bit is they even included a Lockheed Constellation just in case anyone out there is still transitioning to the type LOL.

[mganz121 159]

Then there are those that have a million dollars and a million hours to spend tweaking P3D and slam the rest of us that don't have that kind of money or time, while some of us with our half decent systems would rather wait till LM gets it into 3rd gear.

 

Well, I for one am not going to sit here and say you are wrong as you seem to have your mind made up. But I will say that as there is no financial risk to you (think refund), try it and find out for your self. I am reasonably sure that you will then (and only then) discover that your perception above is indeed quite incorrect. Two tweaks that took all of 45 seconds is all I needed to do.

 

Ignore the "Frame Chasers" and enjoy out of the box, this is NOT fsx.

[Azone 39]

Well, I for one am not going to sit here and say you are wrong as you seem to have your mind made up. But I will say that as there is no financial risk to you (think refund), try it and find out for your self. I am reasonably sure that you will then (and only then) discover that your perception above is indeed quite incorrect. Two tweaks that took all of 45 seconds is all I needed to do.

 

Ignore the "Frame Chasers" and enjoy out of the box, this is NOT fsx.

Trust me, I've tried it and spent many hours trying to get into decent shape. Maybe you like planes with fuzzy wings and jagged lines. I don't , I'll wait till LM gets the basics in order.

[Hirdy2013 104]

OP, this "debate" could have gone no other way and your question seemed to just want to provoke what has already been discussed many times. It almost sound like you wanted justification from others to stay with FSX? Hopefully that is not accurate of why you started this thread.

 

From the many threads I've seen about FSX vs. P3D boil down to these:

 

1. Huge investment in FSX, don't want to take the time to move it all over to P3D as some of that investment might not work so make up some reason to not like P3D

2. Hardware requirements to use all the new features in P3D requires $$$ expenditure, so make up some reason to not like P3D

3. FSX campers don't want 3rd party to migrate to P3D because content will dry up for FSX, so make up any reason to not like P3D

4. Pretend FSX looks as good as (or better) and performs better than P3D because of items 1 and 2 and 3 above

5. Use license agreement as an artificial barrier because of 1 and 2 and 3 above

6. Ignore any statements about future development of FSX

 

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with people's reasons to stay with FSX - all valid. The problem arise when some (not all) make up justifications for their choice by providing inaccurate and wrong information about P3D. It's one's personal (or professional) choice for people that only work with one and only one flight simulation platform ... and I can understand maintaining multiple platforms is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.

 

P3D is basically free to try, refunds will be issued if not satisfied.

 

The best debate is the one you resolve yourself with actual product experience, given the $0 investment to find out, I'd recommend you go find out what it's all about.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Rob,

 

Why does it always come down to this. Members asking if posts are designed to provoke. Just relax will you.

 

My original post is nothing more than to have some sensible discussion around the 50/50 split in the community around FSX and P3D. Nothing more, nothing less. Its simply my observation when scouring the myriad of posts about what the pros and cons are of each simulator.

 

I even say in my OP that its not about me and my decision to change..... in fact I have read some really good points here on this topic. Those that can't communicate effectively on this topic will most likely have their post removed or addressed by Avsim staff.

 

So in answer to your question, Rob. No, it's not designed to provoke.

 

Hirdy

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

fuzzy wings and jagged lines

 

Fuzzy...that's the word that came to my mind when I saw the lines on my airplane in P3D.  I don't have a dog in this hunt, though.  Visuals...shadows, sunlight in the cockpit, etc. are really nice.  The jaggies, shimmering and stutters on my rig are there and I'm working on them so that I can enjoy it.  FSX, in the meantime, while I do.  That's all the agenda I've got.

[mganz121 159]

Trust me, I've tried it and spent many hours trying to get into decent shape. Maybe you like planes with fuzzy wings and jagged lines. I don't , I'll wait till LM gets the basics in order.

 

I hear your frustration as I experienced it with FSX  :lol:  :lol: . I think one of the problems that many of us encounter is that we tend to continually chase perfection and suffer from "Forum Information Overload". Continually tweaking this and that and pushing the sliders beyond the capability of our hardware - whilst gradually deteriorating the overall experience. I decided from day one that with P3d I would not fall into that trap again. So far it has paid off (without the jagged lines and fuzzy wings you speak of).

 

At least LM are continuing to develop and refine the sim for us, so that is the best news for this hobby.