About the waves. Don't forget to set the texture mesh to 1m!

Spirit

About the waves. Don't forget to set the texture mesh to 1m!

Spirit

 

Never thought of that but my mesh is maxed out - good thing

Here is a video I recorded landing in some nasty weather in NY. I had ASN and Drzwecki JFK. I dont think this would've been possible in p3d

 

 

 

I dont think this would've been possible in p3d

 

Only because PMDG 777 isn't available for P3D, but I can certainly do that with the CS 777 and my clouds/fog, water, and cockpit lighting would look considerably better.

 

Enjoyed your video, thanks for sharing.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Only because PMDG 777 isn't available for P3D, but I can certainly do that with the CS 777 and my clouds/fog, water, and cockpit lighting would look considerably better.

 

Enjoyed your video, thanks for sharing.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I meant on my system it wouldnt be possible. Now maybe yours since you have a supped up system lol. PMDG planes are considerably more complex than their CS counterpart and the fps hit is harder so thats not really saying a lot. 

 

P3d hasnt really added much other than some graphical enhancements which most moderate computers cant run unless they turn those feature off anyway. LM may say VAS usage has improved but it has not. I ran oom flying the A2A c172 twice flying in heavy clouds around AYPY from orbx and my settings are moderate. So even though FSX may not have cloud shadows and cockpit shadows, with a few tweaks and addons it can look good and run well on moderate systems

Installed P3D 2.3 today from a clean format of W8.1 and holy s*** LM have got the sim performance down pat now. No addons, Shader mods, Affinity mask or anything. Just running stock install. With add-ons this would blow FSX out of the water. Had to go back to the previous NVidia drivers tho to the avoid blue triangles.

 

Just brilliant. Keep it up LM!

Here is a video I recorded landing in some nasty weather in NY. I had ASN and Drzwecki JFK. I dont think this would've been possible in p3d

 

 

Nice video - thanks for sharing but the PMDG would perform better than CS777 - I have both and in P3D it would be even better than fsx - maybe one day I will get to prove it

PDMG is CPU heavy to my understand, so P3D would probably handle it better since more graphical features are pushed to the GPU.

 

Quite a bit is simulated in the Q400. Sitting in KPDX with damn near full settings, max autogen, close to max shadows, with a GTX Titan (1 year old) and a 4.7ghz 2600k I get 25fps which doesn't seem to fluctuate at all. This is with Orbx PNW, Global, and Vector installed. KPDX is fairly dense as well.

 

 

Now maybe yours since you have a supped up system

 

Naaah, just select your settings carefully and stay with 1024 textures.

 

 

PMDG planes are considerably more complex than their CS counterpart and the fps hit is harder so thats not really saying a lot.

 

What specifically?  I have both.

 

 

 

I ran oom flying the A2A c172 twice flying in heavy clouds around AYPY from orbx and my settings are moderate.

 

See my OOM solutions thread on how to avoid unnecessarily using VAS.

 

 

So even though FSX may not have cloud shadows and cockpit shadows, with a few tweaks and addons it can look good and run well on moderate systems

 

Agree.  But your original post was P3D can't do what you did in FSX, and that is not accurate -- regardless of one's hardware.

 

Cheers, Rob.

_{Nice video but I do that every week in multiplayer sessions - even down to minimums. Much better experience in P3d IMHO.}

 

 

_Vic

_{Nice video but I do that every week in multiplayer sessions - even down to minimums. Much better experience in P3d IMHO.}

 

 

_Vic

do what exactly? I'm not talking about flying a default plane I'm bad weather. My fps already sucks with the a2a c172 in bad weather so I can just imagine how it will be when pmdg join the party. Hopefully they'll have this cloud issue resolved by then.

Naaah, just select your settings carefully and stay with 1024 textures.

 

 

What specifically? I have both.

 

 

See my OOM solutions thread on how to avoid unnecessarily using VAS.

 

 

Agree. But your original post was P3D can't do what you did in FSX, and that is not accurate -- regardless of one's hardware.

 

Cheers, Rob.

What I should've said was that it wouldn't be possible on my system without it being a slide show.

 

I also tried that mod you posted for the VAS and 15 minutes into the flight with a2a Cessna I ran oom. Like I said my settings are moderate. Dense autogen and scene complexity. No Shadows except for planes and 1024 textures.

 

 

Like I said my settings are moderate. Dense autogen and scene complexity. No Shadows except for planes and 1024 textures.

 

You would need to list all your settings and all your add-ons especially if you use weather engines you'll need to list how those are setup also, if you run Orbx Vector, and AI traffic program (guessing you don't).  Solution to your OOMs is there if you are interested, but you'll have to want to be interested.

 

OOM's haven't gone away, they need to be managed just as they need to be managed in FSX.  An unfortunately reality of the 32bit address space and the luxury of having so many FSX 3rd party products working in P3D.

 

64bit is the only way out of this issue and that is not going to happen overnight and if it did, most 3rd party products would not work in 64bit and will need conversion so there will catch up time.  If we're lucky LM will provide 64bit conversion tools or maybe even get a 3rd party vendor to make the tools for them.

 

 There is NO development happening to FSX, there is development happening to P3D and has been for a few years now.  So armed with this information, knowing that 64bit is needed (regardless of FSX or P3D) which platform do think it's best to encourage and support?  One that has NOTHING going on, or one that has something going on?

 

This is ONE huge "boggles my mind" kinda thinking that I see so many FSX die-hards come over P3D forums (and in my videos) and make feeble attempts to say FSX is better??

 

Do you folks that bang the FSX drum realize you're shooting yourself in foot?  Something like P3D comes along to give hope of some better future in flight simulation and is greeted with nothing but negative attitudes, endless ignorance about the product, and continual  comparisons with FSX?  Seriously, what is wrong with some of you people?  I just don't get it?  

 

By all means live with FSX until you bore with it (if you ever do) ... that's great, your choice, your reasons ... but for the remaining majority of people that do indeed want to see and embrace "change" and don't fear "change" and realize change isn't easy, then stop the ignorance around P3D -- frankly it gets repetitive and exhausting.  Either make it work and use the helpful suggestions many folks have provided, or get on with what you like and stay with what you like.

 

Anyway, back to work ... enjoy your flight simulator(s) of choice.

 

Cheers, Rob.

What I should've said was that it wouldn't be possible on my system without it being a slide show.

 

And you know this how?

 

Not sure why your A2A is causing VAS. I don't have it (yet) but the Q400 has zero issues and it's FDE is fairly complex as well.

 

I'm going to be frank. There are some devs out there that didn't even bother looking to optimize their software before making it officially P3D compatibile. So it's hard to say whether P3D is going to work or not with a certain addon, as some of them claim P3D compatibilty but run poorly. It's not the same coding, not anymore.

 

I have a feeling PDMG will definitely do everything they can to take advantage of P3Ds capabilities. But we'll see.

You would need to list all your settings and all your add-ons especially if you use weather engines you'll need to list how those are setup also, if you run Orbx Vector, and AI traffic program (guessing you don't). Solution to your OOMs is there if you are interested, but you'll have to want to be interested.

first of all I bought p3d so I have no allegiance to any platform so I defense both. Like I said in my very first post. P3d is smooth out the box and I would love to use it for GA flying but the cloud issue if preventing me from doing that.

I really don't care if fsx is not being developed for anymore. It has been that way for good while now and developers are still supporting it so that's all that matters. While p3d is actively being developed I don't think it is usable on moderate systems unless you turn a whole bunch of settings down and then you can't even enjoy the eye candy. I can't fly with cloud shadows and that was one of the major update.

As far as oom is concerned, I don't have any ai traffic but I do have vector. Maybe that's what's causing my OOM because I have'nt really tweaked that yet but my p3d settings are lower than my fsx settings.

Edited August 27, 201411 yr by devgrp
Removed excessive quote. Again!

 

 

It has been that way for good while now and developers are still supporting it so that's all that matters.

 

And they keep making their products better each year in order to stay in business and be competitive and they use more VAS in doing so ... you get where this is eventually going regardless of FSX or P3D?

 

 

 

While p3d is actively being developed I don't think it is usable on moderate systems unless you turn a whole bunch of settings down and then you can't even enjoy the eye candy. I can't fly with cloud shadows and that was one of the major update.

 

You can't add more visuals at no computational cost (be it the CPU or the GPU that's doing the work) -- if that were the case then there would be no point for Intel or AMD or nVidia to make faster CPU's/GPUs ... this is the ignorance part.

 

And my all time favorite comment "the code is just not efficient and the engine is hopeless mess" ... this is repeated by people that don't have access to the code, have never seen the code, don't understand a quad-tree, have no real practical experience coding a flight simulator, have zero experience with DX11, but they insist that moderate hardware can and should perform miracles because Crysis 3 runs fine on their hardware.

 

And this isn't just you, it's repeated over and over and over and over again.  Normally I just ignore the ignorance and "walk away", but for whatever reason, today I feel the need to let it go ... call it therapy

 

Cheers, Rob.