Yes, Orbx Vector is very hard on FPS, especially if you have road traffic settings turned up ... even at just 10% it can generate A LOT of road traffic.  Don't get me wrong, Orbx Vector brings a lot more realism to the simulation ... but as always, at an fps cost ... nothing is for free.  My links include Orbx Vector settings to help out with fps.

 

did a re-install after completely wiping every trace of p3d. This time I just went with ASN and rex 4 textures, and a few aerosoft apts. moderate settings (pretty much what was standard within p3d) much better now, locked fps on 30 and turned off the fps viewer in game after a few smooth test flights.

 

must have been the combi of orbx and vector at too high settings. I had to remind myself also that p3d standard settings is like fsx at max..

 

Flying the twin otter for now I'm quite satified actually. thanks for the help.

 

Ps I also updated my profile picture, so you can all put some context to some of my postings

 I had to remind myself also that p3d standard settings is like fsx at max..

 

This is the most important lesson any new (or old) person to Prepar3D can learn. 

There are still copies of FSX Gold, so I'm wondering how those will be sold? They state "No. Product keys are no longer being issued to new players." so I'm confused on that.

 

Our local Microcenter has 6 gold + accelerator packages on their shelves.  I bought my most recent copy 30 days ago due to a scratched DVD and it registers fine...

As a matter of fact, Lockheed-Martin does not charge any developer one thin dime as a "license fee." Period.

 

There are however some changes that have been made that will sometimes require code changes, and possibly some model changes to accommodate P3Dv2.x, and this extra work has to be offset somehow.

 

Yes, I did just recently hear that. Today actually.

 

They are charging extra due to use. Not due to how much work it's taking. They are pricing according to P3D's uses because they can, and it's no longer gaming software, it's professional. A2A has pretty much shown this here:  https://a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=11&zenid=97403f026608e9766eb7bdfe44fef57a

 

They are pricing it the same as FSX, but only if you quality for Academic, otherwise it's 79.99. They also bundle FSX/P3D packages together.

 

My own opinions on this are a bit skewed. To re-package something and charge more because it's on a different platform is pretty unheard of. But there may be some factors I don't know about. I just don't think it's much different in terms of code.

 

No idea what PDMG will do, but possibly the same structure. I get the feeling they ARE paying a license as Boeing is involved.

I'm another that is using xplane more than anything else now (I have all three), barely touch p3d v2 and never bother with fsx anymore. I can't say how great it is just to be able to use a piece of software and not be constantly tweaking it and messing about with config files etc. I also think there's a bit of 'fsx blindness' that develops over time, which is also there with p3d too. I used x plane exclusively for about 2 months and then had a go of p3d and it looked so crap in comparison. I think if you use fsx/p3d too much you convince yourself that actually those massive blurred patches on the ground and ###### textured buildings and 2d trees actually look good!

 

The other thing I think is a bit of a moment is x plane being released on steam yesterday. There are some things that fsx/p3d do better though, the things I miss are active sky next and at least a decent level of AI aircraft automation and ATC. Also things like fs2crew and gsx are notable for their absence on the x plane platform.

what triggers someone to embrace change

 For the vast majority of humans it's "how much will this cost me?".   Costs aren't always monetary.  Installing all this stuff takes time.  But I'd say money is first, then for a lucky few life can be an adventure.

 

I don't think they're charging developers because they know they have to get them on-board the change in order to make this shared reality work beyond a threshold or critical mass of us lunatics to take off.   I would also think they'd offer to make this an "entertainment product" for the general public, but the licensing MS left them with prohibits that, not in their hands.  It also keeps things in the purist camp, which doesn't hurt if you're going for that niche first.

 

What I have nightmares about is why MS sold of ESP to begin with.  What if they figured out  early on that their method of "fiber" multitasking was never going to cut it in the near future.  That ESP being built on it was never going to obtain the holy smoothness grail.   I've often wondered why Xbox has such crappy hardware compared to the desktop and MS doesn't have an extreme version.  Is it because they've lost the ability to get to the lowest level anymore with multitasking with all their layers of "protection" over the hardware?  That their ineptness would show up if they tried to make anything better, or that they can't.   Leaving PCs and all the gaming efforts to be doomed to stutter ghetto for the foreseeable future?  Maybe just a nightmare, but there are no games without micro-stutter unless  you're running very fast, heavy, and SLI.

 

An alternative explanation is that MS just didn't want a product that had to be other than MS centered to be successful.  

 

And what I mean by no stutter is the 60fps playable that gamers are always trying to get to.

Yes, I did just recently hear that. Today actually.

 

They are charging extra due to use. Not due to how much work it's taking. They are pricing according to P3D's uses because they can, and it's no longer gaming software, it's professional. A2A has pretty much shown this here:  https://a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=11&zenid=97403f026608e9766eb7bdfe44fef57a

 

They are pricing it the same as FSX, but only if you quality for Academic, otherwise it's 79.99. They also bundle FSX/P3D packages together.

 

My own opinions on this are a bit skewed. To re-package something and charge more because it's on a different platform is pretty unheard of. But there may be some factors I don't know about. I just don't think it's much different in terms of code.

 

No idea what PDMG will do, but possibly the same structure. I get the feeling they ARE paying a license as Boeing is involved.

 

Here is A2A's explanation, taken from  A2A Licensing with FSX and P3D thread (scroll down to the 11th post, by Scott - A2A).

 

Excerpt:

 

"The difference between the $60 Academic and $200 Professional is how it is being used. A casual user who flies FSX twice a week is very different to flight school that runs all day, seven days a week."

 

My problem with this is that most people who bought the Professional version of P3D are NOT the owners of flight schools.

Here is A2A's explanation, taken from  A2A Licensing with FSX and P3D thread (scroll down to the 11th post, by Scott - A2A).

 

Excerpt:

 

 

My problem with this is that most people who bought the Professional version of P3D are NOT the owners of flight schools.

 

My personal dilemma with Prepar3D is that I don't qualify for either license: I'm not a student, nor am I a professional pilot or flight school owner. That leaves me with the bloated mess that is FSX, that I had to DOWNGRADE my os back to win 7 from win 8 just to have a prayer at running it. I'm getting so fed up with the constant tweaking of FSX under win 7, that I might go back to X-Plane permanently.  

 

Folks here who get FSX running smoothly are alot smarter than me ... I support servers and MS SQL databases for a living, and sometimes all the tweaking necessary to run these sims is just as bad (or worse!) than server support!!! </rant off>

No idea what PDMG will do, but possibly the same structure. I get the feeling they ARE paying a license as Boeing is involved.

Well yes, PMDG would be paying Boeing a licensee fee, but not Lockheed-Martin, just as Eaglesoft has to pay Textron for their Cessna and Beechcraft products.

 

I don't support the concept of charging a different cost based on the user's use of the product, but it is well within any company's right to do so. I will vote with my wallet in such cases.

I've concluded that P3d is some odd version of shareware. You pay what you think that you should pay  (but there are detents).

Back to the OP's question...I vote for neither.

 

FSX I had spent more time fiddling with things than I did way more than flying in order to try to figure out the latest CTD, or why this isn't acting right or that isn't acting right. It has been taken off my HD completely.

 

P3D from what I can tell, is the quite old FSX engine still running under 32 bit. True, P3D has LM behind it which to me personally means its on life support and to top it off not licensed for casual sim user which ironically seems to be what most people here are actually using it for. Now if LM had come out with a totally new much more stable engine with 64bit technology and was meant for simming in all realms and the coding took advantage of all the eye candy and gizmos todays machine are capable of offering, then I'd be flying right now instead of posting this.

 

Until then, it's more advanced engines like ROF and soon to be released BOS for me as far as flying goes. As for a GA sim, I'll just sit back and wait for one based on a newer flight engine and which takes advantage of 64bit technology.

Back to the OP's question...I vote for neither.

 

FSX I had spent more time fiddling with things than I did way more than flying in order to try to figure out the latest CTD, or why this isn't acting right or that isn't acting right. It has been taken off my HD completely.

 

P3D from what I can tell, is the quite old FSX engine still running under 32 bit. True, P3D has LM behind it which to me personally means its on life support and to top it off not licensed for casual sim user which ironically seems to be what most people here are actually using it for. Now if LM had come out with a totally new much more stable engine with 64bit technology and was meant for simming in all realms and the coding took advantage of all the eye candy and gizmos todays machine are capable of offering, then I'd be flying right now instead of posting this.

 

Until then, it's more advanced engines like ROF and soon to be released BOS for me as far as flying goes. As for a GA sim, I'll just sit back and wait for one based on a newer flight engine and which takes advantage of 64bit technology.

 

 

What is BOS - I get rise of flight - thanks

Battle of Stalingrad, I believe...

Battle of Stalingrad, I believe...

 

Thanks

No prob, yes...Battle of Stalingrad. Developed by 1C in conjunction with 777 coming onboard to help out after the success of Rise of Flight. It's a total re-do of the old IL-2.

 

But what I like is that it isn't something just re-vamped - totally new engine which takes advantage of todays rigs, something I wish a GA flightsim would come and do - and be stable while doing it! I have never had one crash or glitch with ROF even with everything maxed out, full-on weather and max aircraft dogfighting, so I know it can be done.

 

Due out this September.

 

For a taste of visuals, iL2sturmovik.com.

 

Sorry OP, wasn't meant to hijack thread! 

 

Enjoy, and remember, these are just MY opinions in which the OP was asking for, so if you disagree that's fine by me too. Your entitled to them just as much as I am! At least we can ALL AGREE on one thing - we all stand on common ground which is constantly striving to push for the best that simming has to offer and enjoying in it's content.