Such a massive performance related problem is not a difference between 2.3 and 2.4, and has to be caused by an incomplete update or some other interference limiting the system.

I do find all the problems people have with P3D amazing I have had none fps is a solid 20fps what LM has it set to out of the box.

 

I only have a EVGA 570 card with the high range i7 4790k sliders one notch below max and scenery and Im impressed no tweaking of anything P3D is up there with x-plane 10.30 in smoothness heck yesterday I did a flight from Sitka to Seward in the most amazing cloud formations and its just smooth.

 

What I don't understand when reading there posts is peoples constant obsession with really really high FPS you just don't need high FPS.

 

O well Tweaking stuff is a hard habit to break i guess when you have been using FSX I do understand that. 

Steve W

 

Thanks you hit the nail on the head...fully accept lots of users have no issues

 

But for some of us as you say we do see problems. I can retain near 30 fps with p3d but soon as I bank well let's just say it breks up ... Badly even with a bit of NI assistance.

 

Probably is a v synch issue....but running a 60hz monitor and a good GPU ...CPU should make it shine.... Anyway nice to see others can except not all of us have got there yet..

 

No doubt LM will improve things as they go along..

 

All the best

 

 

Such a massive performance related problem is not a difference between 2.3 and 2.4, and has to be caused by an incomplete update or some other interference limiting the system.

 

Yes, the one possible factor I have is that I run my both FSX and P3D on a 46" HDTV.  I have a 27" HD monitor right next to it and sometimes I slide the sim over there to see what it looks like.  In P3D it seems smoother on the 27" but, when I look more closely on the smaller monitor, I can see them...they're just not as obvious on the smaller screen.  It's not bad...just not as smooth as FSX on my computer yet.  Perhaps there are other factors I'm not aware of, though.  As I said, it's not the only reason I'm still on FSX. My goal is to, someday, replace FSX with P3D but that depends on aircraft and other add-ons.

I think a lot of people forget that P3D is not "for entertainment". Meaning that it is aimed at professional organisations. Therefore the computer setups are likely to be more powerful.

Many of the complainants on Avsim probably also had micro stutters etc with FSX as well.

In the title of this thread "Here's why you are not enjoing P3D" the "you are" should be replaced with "I am".

It is totally incorrect to assume that because "I am" having a few glitches with a programme, that everyone else is too and therefore the programme should be slammed.

 

Take PFE as an example. The majority of users have had it years and have never had problems with updates etc. But one person comes onto the forum and slams PFE as a bad programme when it is pointedly not so. Just because 'they" haven't read the manuel or have a non standard setup.

 

I agree that there are occasions when there are bugs and it is quite correct to report those. But to slam a programme that is clearly better than its starting point (FSX) just because your own personal setup is not quite right is not correct. Also too many simmers have downloaded P3D and then shoved in all their various FSX addons and wondered why it wasn't so happy. Instead, set-up P3D then add each add-on one at a time and fully test it before adding the next. Unless a developer has stated that their add-on is fully compatible with each P3D update then assume that it is not.

 

 

I think a lot of people forget that P3D is not "for entertainment"

 

I disagree.

 

Would a professional flight simulator aimed at training organisations really include a Lockheed stealth fighter as the default aircraft?

 

It's a game. A nice one but still a game.

I disagree.

 

Would a professional flight simulator aimed at training organisations really include a Lockheed stealth fighter as the default aircraft?

 

It's a game. A nice one but still a game.

Why do you disagree that P3D isn't for entertainment. It doesn't have an entertainment licence. So you can't disagree with fact.

Let's not get into all that "it's a game/It's not a game" rubbish! Except to say it is not aimed at the gamer whereas "Flight" was.

I disagree.

 

Would a professional flight simulator aimed at training organisations really include a Lockheed stealth fighter as the default aircraft?

 

It's a game. A nice one but still a game.

Considering that LM is the manufacturer?  You bet your arse! It's called marketing. Also, P3D's PRIMARY use is in training. Guess what?  They train on the Stealth fighter and other military a/c. Those companies that use P3D for basic pilot training in their simulators would more use the basic a/c. 

 

YOU may consider it a game but you are sadly mistaken - it is a training simulator. The fact that we simmers and "gamers" provide a wealth of simulation experience for the developers to utilize in no way makes it a game.

 

Vic

Here we go again!

 

I bet there are thousands of pilots out there training on the Constellation! :rolleyes:

 

Good lord, I suspect that they sell 50x more units to hobbyists than they do to "professional training" types. 

 

And if the Air Force is using this to train its fighter pilots, God help the USA.

 

Sorry. I'll be good now.

The military is moving toward pilotless aircraft as fast as they can. Where are they going to get the future pilots for these aircraft? The answer is the best of the best Avsim youngsters using P3D. Why the heck do you think they have an academic liscense? You bet your arse P3D is a training platform...and a recruiting platform. It amazes me how many people don't see this.

 

Ted

 

 

You bet your arse P3D is a training platform...and a recruiting platform.

 

Quite possibly.The military have always said that "non real world" pilots are better drone pilots.

 

For drone training P3D would be perfect.

 

That's not a very nice thought.

The academic license was clearly aimed at people who are studying to get their pilot's license. I think it is pretty baroque to say that it was a training platform for future drone pilots. That certainly isn't implied anywhere in the license terminology. It might turn out to be the case by accident, but that really doesn't seem to have been the intent.

 

 

It's a game. A nice one but still a game.

 

P3D was definitely not made as a game.  It's a training tool.  FSX is a game.  What would make a defense contractor release a product that is strictly for entertainment purposes?  To answer your question about the stealth fighter, the aim was to have it used as a scenario based trainer.  There isn't as much of an emphasis on systems for the default aircraft as there is to incorporate scenarios where it could be used in a real world setting for training missions.

Then 99% of us are using it wrong lol.

P3D may not have been released as an entertainment product, but it is very clear to me that Lockheed Martin bent over backwards to make the simulator available to as many customers as possible. All it takes is for those customers to open their eyes, and see what is really there.