Why Prepar3d ?

[ricktorbe 0]

Hello everyone. So, I am with FSX but was wondering if to move over to Prepar3d and I have a few questions.

I am new at this, so please bare with me.

 

Does Prepar3d uses all CPU cores?

 

Will I need to tweak here and there like with FSX?

 

Why Should I move to Prepar3d? What's better?

 

Can I use all add-ons on this new Platform? Like PMDG, Aerosoft?

 

Are there significant advantages on this platform over FSX?

 

What version of this Platform should I purchase?

 

I appreciate all of your answers and advices.

Thank you, guys.

 

[Jude Bradley 659]

When you see DX11 shadows with the Airbus from Aerosoft, you will not ask such questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrKH_x6-ZEk

 

The latest Aerosoft Airbus is supported, the video was just to show the shading - watch in HD for best results.

 

You will not need to tweak very much at all

Prepar3D is in active development and will only get better.

PMDG is coming on board soon, but there are plenty of vendors already there.

If money is tight get the Academic version - go to the webpage and forums to find what suits you best. There is a small watermark on the academic version,which is not noticable after a while.

[corkyo4 2]

Hello everyone. So, I am with FSX but was wondering if to move over to Prepar3d and I have a few questions.

I am new at this, so please bare with me.

 

Does Prepar3d uses all CPU cores? Don't know, some people use an affinity mask. Prepar3d offloads quite a bit of work to the GPU so the whole PC pulls it's weight not just the CPU.

 

Will I need to tweak here and there like with FSX? No, some like to but generally it runs ok.

 

Why Should I move to Prepar3d? What's better? Continuous development, improvements to the core that build on the problems fsx had. Improved graphics, improved performance.

 

Can I use all add-ons on this new Platform? Like PMDG, Aerosoft? There are a number of addons that work, the Estonia migration tool allows you to install many fsx based addons in to prepar3d but be aware there are some licensing issues. There is a list in this forum somewhere of which ones work etc.

 

Are there significant advantages on this platform over FSX? Yes, continuous development and enhanced stability.

 

What version of this Platform should I purchase? That's down to you to decide based on your situation. License discussion is a no no in the forum.

 

I appreciate all of your answers and advices.

Thank you, guys.

Answers above

 

Hope they help. Others will have different views.

 

Thanks

 

Tom

[Guest]

Does Prepar3d uses all CPU cores?

 

Will I need to tweak here and there like with FSX?

 

Why Should I move to Prepar3d? What's better?

 

Can I use all add-ons on this new Platform? Like PMDG, Aerosoft?

 

Are there significant advantages on this platform over FSX?

 

What version of this Platform should I purchase?

 

1.  Yes, but one core is used more than others as it is the main synchronization process which is common for any quad tree based application.  Also more cores can also increase VAS usage so take that into account.

 

2.  For the most part no, there are tweaks to adjust HDR and rain and other things, but entirely optional.

 

3.  No to PMDG currently (perhaps that will change in the near future), Aerosoft have many products that work with P3D v2.x (but not all)

 

4.  Yes, additional graphics features, more modern graphics API (DX11), and more (too much to list) ... as stated P3D v2.x development is active and continues with a 64bit product in the future, FSX is not (stopped many years ago).

 

5.  That will depend on your hardware and your goals ... P3D v2.x comes with a 60 day refund policy if you don't like it.

 

I recommend you search this site as your questions are very common and have been addressed many times.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[davethewave2 20]

fsx was last compiled in 2007 with acceleration/sp2, therefore it can only target technology that was around at that time. Currently this means p3d takes advantage of directx11 and avx cpu instructions.

 

Going forward I expect further improvements such as directx12 support (expected to increase performance to counter amd's mantel) and I'm sure there will be a 64 bit version at some point. 

 

At some point it will be a no brainer to upgrade but there will always be some that won't, just the same as some still fly with fs9!

 

Since you get any updates for free until version 3 comes out, and it works alongside fsx, why not buy it now?

[TrafficPilot 121]

I was using FSX DX10 mode (using Steve's excellent DX10 fixer). 

 

I probably wouldn't have switched to P3D had it not been for the promise of cloud shadowing and continued development.

 

As a serious flight simulator it has a long way to go. As a game (like FSX was) it's great.

 

Certainly alot more immersive than FSX once you install FTX Global/Vector and OpenLC or UTX.

 

I have no mods in my CFG and it runs nicely.

[ricktorbe 0]

I was using FSX DX10 mode (using Steve's excellent DX10 fixer). 

 

I probably wouldn't have switched to P3D had it not been for the promise of cloud shadowing and continued development.

 

As a serious flight simulator it has a long way to go. As a game (like FSX was) it's great.

 

Certainly alot more immersive than FSX once you install FTX Global/Vector and OpenLC or UTX.

 

I have no mods in my CFG and it runs nicely.

 

I am currently using DX-10 and I enjoy it. I have tons of add-ons on it and with OBRX stuff, I don't see much of a difference (other than shadows) from the videos I've seen. But of course, that's just what I see on You tube. So, I was hoping someone would give me some significant difference to make the move. I have spent some serious $$$ on both hardware and software on FSX.  But I  imagine P3D is constantly improving, right? I'm guessing it will get better when it goes on 64Bit version, and increase performance, isn't it?

1.  Yes, but one core is used more than others as it is the main synchronization process which is common for any quad tree based application.  Also more cores can also increase VAS usage so take that into account.

 

2.  For the most part no, there are tweaks to adjust HDR and rain and other things, but entirely optional.

 

3.  No to PMDG currently (perhaps that will change in the near future), Aerosoft have many products that work with P3D v2.x (but not all)

 

4.  Yes, additional graphics features, more modern graphics API (DX11), and more (too much to list) ... as stated P3D v2.x development is active and continues with a 64bit product in the future, FSX is not (stopped many years ago).

 

5.  That will depend on your hardware and your goals ... P3D v2.x comes with a 60 day refund policy if you don't like it.

 

I recommend you search this site as your questions are very common and have been addressed many times.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Appreciate you, Rob. Your answer number 5 is not too clear too me, though. I have a 780 Card and Intel 2700-SandyB. I guess what we are mostly concern is with frame rates. Let's suppose the exact slider settings on FSX vs P3D.

[Guest]

 

 

Your answer number 5 is not too clear too me, though. I have a 780 Card and Intel 2700-SandyB. I guess what we are mostly concern is with frame rates. Let's suppose the exact slider settings on FSX vs P3D.

 

FSX doesn't mimic the same settings as P3D so can't really compare settings between the two platforms.  Also FSX doesn't have HDR, tessellation, and all the shadow options and shadow distance settings (all of which will impact performance).  I do see a lot of people trying to compare FSX settings with P3D settings and that seems like a futile gesture.

 

The i7 2700K would seem a little weak to me ... probably can't feed the 780GTX fast enough.

 

Cheers, Rob. 

[Qatsimo 7]

The best thing is: It never crashes. If the core (P3D) and add-ons installed well and the system is ok, then it is rock stable. Unlike my FSX experience, my flights are much more relaxing now. Don't have to worry if I will make it to my destination.

[TrafficPilot 121]

The best thing is: It never crashes. If the core (P3D) and add-ons installed well and the system is ok, then it is rock stable.

 

Not really. Loads of people suffering from runtime errors when running with tessellation off and lots of OOM issues reported.

 

P3D is stable enough for me but then I don't fly big jets on long flights. Like everyone else - P3D will crash if you run it with tessellation ticked OFF. Annoying for those with less powerful CPU/GPU's!

 

Will it be fixed? We've been waiting months and months so far.

[ricktorbe 0]

Not really. Loads of people suffering from runtime errors when running with tessellation off and lots of OOM issues reported.

 

P3D is stable enough for me but then I don't fly big jets on long flights. Like everyone else - P3D will crash if you run it with tessellation ticked OFF. Annoying for those with less powerful CPU/GPU's!

 

Will it be fixed? We've been waiting months and months so far.

 

Geeez, that's discouraging.  I hope P3D is not just the same FSX with some makeup on it  right? My understanding is that this is a Brand new product by Lockheed, isn't it?

FSX doesn't mimic the same settings as P3D so can't really compare settings between the two platforms.  Also FSX doesn't have HDR, tessellation, and all the shadow options and shadow distance settings (all of which will impact performance).  I do see a lot of people trying to compare FSX settings with P3D settings and that seems like a futile gesture.

 

The i7 2700K would seem a little weak to me ... probably can't feed the 780GTX fast enough.

 

Cheers, Rob. 

 

The thing is FSX is what the 80% of people have, I believe; and many with DX-10. So, like myself I would like to upgrade; however, I want to make sure there is  significant difference in performance. After all we've come a long way hoping to get better graphics, dynamics, and performance with new platforms. Or else it would be useless to upgrade to the next "Sim." And, if All I get is shadows, then geez, that is no reason to leave FSX-DX10.

[WotanUK 289]

Geeez, that's discouraging.  I hope P3D is not just the same FSX with some makeup on it  right? My understanding is that this is a Brand new product by Lockheed, isn't it?

 

It uses ESP, Microsofts commercial simulation variant based on the FSX engine, MS sold it to LM (and others i believe).  In the first iteration LM added Bathymetric data (no use to flight simmers) and cleaned up the product, in the second iteration they added DX11 support.  

 

It's not an entirely new product, up to you if you think those improvements warrant calling it "FSX with some makeup", personally i think that it is a exceptionally feature rich service pack for FSX

[Guest]

And, if All I get is shadows, then geez, that is no reason to leave FSX-DX10.

 

Are you trolling?  You originally post seemed to have questions, now it's turning more into FSX is great thread?  

 

Where did you get that number 80% and is based on exclusive use, many of us use more than one FS platform (I do)?

 

If performance is your objective, then I'd recommend you go back to FS9 or even FS8 ... they clearly perform better and there are folks that will suggest they are visually as good as FSX or P3D.

 

Just some shadows ... ok, lets take that statement onboard ... lets say a given scene (frame) has 10,000 objects (trees, buildings, cars, boats, aircraft, bridges, aircraft, etc.) ... out of those 10,000 objects lets say each object averages 8 light exposed surfaces, each surface has the potential to produce a shadow ... so we're at 80,000 shadow calculations ... lets see how FSX does with 80,000 shadow calculations?  Any takers?

 

Now, apply tessellation (gives the environment a more realistic edge look and less of a flat 2D look) to the terrain ... another several thousand calculations that will vary by location (mountains requiring more processing work along with mesh setting influencing that work) ... again lets see how FSX does?  Oh, it doesn't.

 

And to top that off, lets toss in a dash of HDR to go thru and calculate all the pixel dark and light values and adjusts them ... lets see how FSX would handle that?  Oh, it doesn't.

 

Don't mean to pick on you but you sorta asked for it with your comments ... and yes after a while these same type of comments get tedious.

 

Anyway, if your thread is serious, then I suggest you test out P3D and decide for yourself ... 60 day refund policy.

 

Loads of people suffering from runtime errors when running with tessellation off and lots of OOM issues reported.

 

And loads of people NOT suffering from runtime errors and OOMs with or without tessellation. 

 

Cheers, Rob.

[BillCusick 75]

...And loads of people NOT suffering from runtime errors and OOMs with or without tessellation. 

 

 

 

I also wish to remind many on this forum that there must be thousands of users, like me, who have no problems whatsover with P3D. We don't need to post.

 

I'm at 2560 x 1600 on a Dell U3011 IPS 30" - and I'm getting beween 35 - 60 fps - and no stutters.

(i7 3770K @ 3.50 GHz with a GTX 680 2GB & 16GB 1600MHZ DDR3).

 

I'm running with Horizon's GenX UK photo real scenery. Even with the SkySim Hawk at 400 kts it is much smoother than FSX ever was. (..and I have no tweaks - don't need them).

 

Cloud shadows - beautiful. I've been up in GA aircraft many times locally here, and my current P3D is absolutely spot-on - so realistic. I've still got FSX installed, but I haven't used it much - only to fly the NGX.

 

I'm using P3D now almost exclusively.

 

With their 60-day offer - there's absolutely no reason not to try it.

 

Regards

Bill

 

[figgios 0]

Most people have different experiences, due to the fact that almost everyone run their sim on different hardware. I think it's funny to read about grown up people complaining about this or that, maxing out their settings in the sim. Please...

 

For me, P3Dv2 is the best thing ever. Really. No crashes, smooth (locked @ 40 fps) with the correct settings, and loaded with the usual scenery/environment add-ons and aircraft. Visually, the difference is huge. Just look at all the videos and screenshots out there.

 

Instead of asking around, try it out for free (did MS give you that option, except for their "demo"?). And if you have add-ons, they usually let you install on both platforms.