Where is P3DV2.3 better than FSX Dx 10

[n4gix 4,947]

If you want software that simulates flight, stick with FSX and DX10.

Since it is impossible to even buy "Steve's DX 10 Fixer" any longer, that's rather a moot point now, is it not?

[Farlis 2,277]

didn't know I was challenging in my post   .....never did understand why so much  detail in the water , we are flying has I remember not swimming ...

 

 

TrafficPilot   thanks for your honest answer:  I got r6025 error also did you ever fix yours ...by the way :rolleyes:

 

Perhaps you need to remember that P3D is a world simulator and not a flight simulator, despite the fact that most people use it as a flightsim.

[Arwen 289]

Have any of you guys previously used FSX with the DX10 fixer?

 

I'm getting the feeling alot of new P3D users are coming straight from the "old" (non DX10) FSX which I agree is "state of the ark" (graphically) now.

 

Yes also hate the "new" P3D spinning clouds. Yet another graphical distraction to put me off flying in it.

 

The reason I said the P3D autogen looks awful is because it stands out more than the FSX DX10 autogen. That isn't natural.If I'm "real-world" flying I can't see individual trees 5 miles away. Can you? May be if they're on a hill but not on flat ground. This is the reason people are complaining about the Level of Detail radius being reduced. It hasn't been. It's the fault of the P3D autogen. Reduce your visibility to 5 nm or less and it looks lovely. But that defeats the point of flying VFR surely?

 

I'll keep tweaking in p3D when the runtime errors allow me to. Hoping the new ASN beta will help with FPS in overcast weather. Shall find out when I install it tonight

 

I've been totally honest in my P3D experience . . . I have absolutely nothing to gain by promoting it. The only reason that I even posted in this thread is that the negative posts here on P3D v2.3 were so not what I have been experiencing in my recent flights. In all fairness, I've never used Steve's FSX DX10 Tweaker (for one thing, it was no longer available when my new PC arrived last year).  But you are comparing FSX with a paid add-on (that is not even currently available for purchase) with default P3D . . . while complaining about the default P3D autogen . . . which is pretty much the same as FSX's autogen.  Most of us are now flying with Orbx scenery. 

 

ASN is now much better optimized than with previous versions, I haven't seen any FPS hit at all with it (but I'm current using my P3D v.2.2 settins, of 3 cloud layers and 80 mile cloud distance).  I've rarely noticed any spinning clouds with P3D, but I fly mostly in VC mode and the spinning tends to be mainly visible in exterior views (which is not a realistic way to be flying any flightsim). P3D v.2.3 is by far the best P3D yet, especially if you're also using ASN and Orbx.

[SteveW 1,792]

Since it is impossible to even buy "Steve's DX 10 Fixer" any longer, that's rather a moot point now, is it not?

To use FSX DX10 properly, download shader_release_v3.2.3 from the AVSIM File Library Misc section.

[DylanM 1,069]

I'm gonna guess this thread is really about your concern that 3rd party is moving away from FSX to P3D (either that or its about spending money on new hardware) ...

 

I'd say it may be the case too. Compare and decide for yourself (but it's ultimately your call...noone elses)...

[Howellerman 104]

I am surprised nobody commented on Rob's video - that was quite a tour of flight simulation history!

 

I am a relative newbie, but have always looked to push the envelope just a little harder. I did try DX10, and applied Steve's patches, and it was pretty nice. I did like the look of DX10 versus the stock DX9, albeit with its own set of problems. I also heartily embraced UTX and GEX to improve my visual environment, but when Orbx hit their stride I became a fanboi and have not looked back, despite the investment I had in the various GEX regions.

 

I was pretty happy with that setup, based upon FXS/DX10, but then started getting OOM crashes at random times. This was infuriating, and I tried P3D V1.4. Also tried X-Plane, but my analysis only yielded a "meh". Currently, I am on P3D V1.4, flying mostly trouble free if only because OOM crashes are now deterministic, whereas on FSX they were more "non-deterministic" - I can avoid OOM by doing what the Doctor said: "stop doing that and you will get better".

 

I am monitoring the P3D V2 developments closely, and in fact upgraded to a overclocked GTX780 in anticipation of eventually moving from V1.4. I follow the P3D threads here on AVSIM, particularly the efforts that Rob Ainscough has made as a beta-tester, and V2.3 looks like it may be time to pull the trigger. However, I still marvel at how great V1.4 looks, and how much I enjoy firing up the Legacy/Duke/Phenom/Baron and taking the family up to Lake Tahoe. The most immediate challenge I have is to catalog all my Orbx DVDs and upgrade them to downloads at the Flightsim store (for a minimal fee) to V2 installers. 

 

Finally, looking at LM and what they have done with P3D, we are now at version 2.3. Version 2.0 was introduced, what, less than a year ago? That is real progress, and shows the commitment that LM has moving forward. FSX development? Not so much. Someone speculated about Lockheed Martins military/government contracts, and what the revenue is relative to all us "trainees". I can assure you that a single government training installation, including support, would surpass 1,000 trainee licenses at 60 bucks a pop. Furthermore, since LM would be the "prime contractor", all hardware would flow through them as well. Good hardware, front-line hardware, expensive hardware. It is good to be a supplier to the US Government, and LM is one of the largest. They are definitely not hurting, and the fact that they are updating the code based upon trainee inputs (and a LOT of whining) is a good thing.

 

I will move to P3D V2 before the year is out (have to save my nickels and dimes first), and using the expert turning tips from Rob on his site, am pretty confident I will be able to hit the ground running. It's a great future!

[charleslee201 19]

I'm sorry, what was the question again?    

AMEN

Edited August 19, 2014 by n4gix
Remove excessive quote! Again!

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I have used Steve's DX10 Scenery Fixer, but  I finally ditched it, because I only use FSX for TacPack (and not much longer, since a P3d version is coming). TacPack doesn't work properly with DX10 and the Fixer app.

 

That's my context. The Fixer improves FSX dramatically and in some sense, does bring it close to P3d in that it gets rid of the DX9 cartoony look of FSX. But what else does FSX offer at the moment? TacPack?PMDG 777? If those are your "babies", then by all means, FSX is the only choice for now. But for everything else, there is really no point in staying with FSX. And as hardware advances further, there will be less and less reason to stick to FSX.

 

To use FSX DX10 properly, download shader_release_v3.2.3 from the AVSIM File Library Misc section.

This download only patches the major shader bugs in the FSX DX10 Preview mode and does not even come close to duplicating all the options in the Scenery Fixer, unfortunately.

[TrafficPilot 121]

Since it is impossible to even buy "Steve's DX 10 Fixer" any longer, that's rather a moot point now, is it not?

 

The OP has Steve's DX 10 Fixer. I was replying to his question...

 

Glad to see that Lockheed Martin have now ACKNOWLEDGED the R6025 runtime error issue that lots of people are getting using P3D. They say they can't reproduce the error but at least they're not blaming "any third party addons" for the crash.

 

Any of you reading this suffering from a CTD should post on their official support forum. Hopefully they'll find the culprit and maybe a fix!

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=7994

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Glad to see that Lockheed Martin have now ACKNOWLEDGED the R6025 runtime error issue that lots of people are getting using P3D. They say they can't reproduce the error but at least they're not blaming "any third party addons" for the crash.

 

When I read the various posts on the LM message board, I was convinced that this error was  too widespread to be caused by an add-on. I'm guessing it is a .NET error.

 

Look here:

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh925568(v=vs.110).aspx#net_b

 

If you are getting the R6025 error, see what version of .NET 4 you are running. Most people have 4.5.1, but for some reason a few people have 4.5.2.

[Jimmy Angel 19]

For myself, FSX is just a frustrating platform. Trying to get consistent performance is -- to say the least -- challenging. I gave up on it about a year and a half ago.

 

I just took my first test run of P3D 2.3 in the default flight. Configured the visual settings pretty aggressively (show me the pretties). Hit the afterburners and just buzzed around the landscape low and fast, making tight turns. Amazing stuff. Completely smooth, stutter free, high FPS performance, with great visuals. They must have done something with the affinity mask settings, because it wasn't necessary to tweak the config (as it was previously) to get crisp textures throughout. I know I'll take a few performance hits as I install Orbx scenery and some planes, but I've got plenty of headroom in performance and the sliders. 

 

This is just one of those "your mileage may vary" things. Every system, and our own preferences, are different. Some will stick with FSX + DX10 for visuals that are pretty close to base P3D; others will get a significant uplift in visuals and consistent performance via P3D and will appreciate the fact that it is a supported and evolving platform.

[charleslee201 19]

The OP has Steve's DX 10 Fixer. I was replying to his question...

 

Glad to see that Lockheed Martin have now ACKNOWLEDGED the R6025 runtime error issue that lots of people are getting using P3D. They say they can't reproduce the error but at least they're not blaming "any third party addons" for the crash.

 

Any of you reading this suffering from a CTD should post on their official support forum. Hopefully they'll find the culprit and maybe a fix!

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=7994

 

Finally

[SteveW 1,792]

This download only patches the major shader bugs in the FSX DX10 Preview mode and does not even come close to duplicating all the options in the Scenery Fixer, unfortunately.

Correct. The shader patches fixes the DX10 component of FSX, but does not fix scenery problems inherent in some addons unsupportive of DX10.

[sgreen91 182]

I own p3d and enjoy it very much, it is graphically better than fsx in every respect. The underlying engine for flight dynamics, 2006 airports and navigationational aids, true flight physic such as ground physics, canned atc, weather etc is still fsx. If your into eye candy p3d is for you but if you want a true flight sim it's still has along way to go. The only changes are graphics and performance. Maybe their depending on third party to improve the base engine which respectfully still sucks.

 

Milviz posted in their forum that p3d sales only account for 10 percent; granted its early in its life cycle. PMDG said they will not stop developing for fsx as it is it's primary market. I see with fsx being released on steam a new generation of customers who know nothing will continue to support fsx for third party vendors in much more than what the few of us who would purchase p3d products.

 

Another issue is with p3d developers now feel they can charge more for the same product just because it's not an entertainment product; this alone will prevent p3d from knocking fsx out of the business. Most people will not want to pay double for the same product just because of cloud shadows and lack of autogen popping.

 

I will eat crow if somebody can show me one developer that has said we are only making products for p3d and giving up on fsx. I don't see that happening anytime soon if ever. As I said earlier the steam release will revive fsx and it's products.

 

It's all just my opinion so that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee. I love my p3d but still fly fsx also. I have no problem having multiple sims each with things I enjoy so I support both. I have no ctd etc people complain about with fsx so I have no reason to shelve it nor any issues with p3d so no reason to shelve it.

 

I enjoy each for what it brings.

[jimmy64 43]

Hi if you rule out the cloud shadows , wich is a fps nightmare ,

im asking myself where is the benefit of P3D 2.3.

You're joking right?!! Every instance of P3D has dozens of upgrades over FSX, the numbers are in the hundreds and you can sum it all up as cloud shadows? So either you are joking, or you have not properly researched the product. I will say this to help you, 1.4 felt like a better and more stable FSX, it still seems like a simulator. V2.2 and 2.3 have a sense of realism to them that help make the simulation feel more alive, there's an intangible quality to the experience that would be hard to sum up in any one particular upgraded feature. It's just better, period, and I'm not even using cloud shadows, yet. Just try it for yourself, then you will truly have the answer you seek.