It's been Real- I'm out

[Fi5kuS 57]

 

The idea to move to another sim is to have a better experience in both graphics and performance - Not to lower my settings to FSX or DS9 standards. This is the same reason why we move from a lower quality add-on to higher quality one.

 

 

+1

 

Why I'm sticking with FSX (and probably many other as well).

[DylanM 1,069]

^ again, if your hardware is the limiting factor, it may be better to stay with FSX and enjoy what you have. For most mid-high end systems, performance (even with with the P3D-exclusive eyecandy) is markedly better.

 

For reference sake, this was with my "ancient" i7 930 and GTX680. New components are in the mail and I can't wait to dial it up even more...  

[ricktorbe 0]

^ again, if your hardware is the limiting factor, it may be better to stay with FSX and enjoy what you have. For most mid-high end systems, performance (even with with the P3D-exclusive eyecandy) is markedly better.

 

For reference sake, this was with my "ancient" i7 930 and GTX680. New components are in the mail and I can't wait to dial it up even more...  

 

The system I currently have is more than capable to run P3D. However, there is a cap of 4Gb on VAS. My preference is top quality addo-ns and use the top quality settings (or close to). I can do it on FSX- not on P3D.  Some folks are fine with low settings; others are not, then there comes the decision making.

[DylanM 1,069]

I certainly don't run low settings in P3D; quite the contrary, and much higher than possible with FSX (as that's where I was hitting the VAS / performance ceiling). Where I am careful is loading up top-quality P3D compatible addons, for the most part.

 

As is always the common refrain in this hobby - YMMV, but hope you enjoy flying regardless of which sim works best for you!

 

Cheers.   

[Noel 4,486]

The system I currently have is more than capable to run P3D. However, there is a cap of 4Gb on VAS. My preference is top quality addo-ns and use the top quality settings (or close to). I can do it on FSX- not on P3D.  Some folks are fine with low settings; others are not, then there comes the decision making.

There is a 4Gb VAS limit in both sims.   Your 'low settings' reference seems oddly applied, unless you are on older/weaker hardware.   I run all display settings at 100% except autogen & vegetation one notch less.  I have clouds out to 100 miles.   Tessellation, LOD, maxed.  And I use cloud shadowing though judiciously.   If you're running strong CPU & GPU in P3D most of these settings have zero to modest impact at best on total performance, and you would know this and so the comment regarding needing to run 'low settings' would not have been stated.  I define 'performance' as:  texture update rate/image clarity, freedom from stuttering or longer pauses, all at an adequate frame rate, which for me is around 24 & up.   Side by side, on strong hardware, for total visual effect & smoothness--P3D V2.x outshines the old gray mare by a serious margin.  This is why people put up w/ the loss of products like PMDG--because in the end, the under the full domain of what constitutes 'eye candy', P3D outshines FSX by a considerable margin.   You simply don't see anything like what you see especially w/ dawn/dusk in FSX that do now in P3D--and these are very very low impact features of P3D.

 

To live within the realities of the 32-bit VAS limit, one does need to employ intelligent use of the platform, whichever one you're using.   When you do this on strong hardware w/ P3D, you get the best of image quality, frame performance, smoothness & complexity.    One rather simple solution to living w/in the 32-bit VAS limit is using FTX Global for your large, complex aircraft flying out of dense metropolitan 3rd party airports.  I have yet to get anywhere near an OOM using this strategy.   Since at ground level you hardly appreciate what FTX regionals offer, and since you are staring point blank at high quality airports like KPHX HD as you're prepping for TO in your complex large airliner, using this strategy to not blindly load up FTX regional level complexity when it's hardly noticed is a great approach to living w/in the platform's VAS limits.   If you're using FSCaptain or other software demanding you keep very focused on tasks in prep and shortly after TO, you don't miss the lower altitude eye candy you get using FTX regionals.   But even then, it really depends on the specific regional as to how hard it is on VAS use.   I flew from KDEN HD to KPHX HD in FTX CRM regional and had ample unused VAS in the CS Super MD80 Pro.  About 620,000 remaining by the time I got to the gate using GSX.   Now, do I blindly load up and head into NCA w/ FB KSFO after a 2h flight from Denver and expect not to OOM--nope.   For flights out of that airport, or FTX KMRY, in the lovely RA Duke or Legacy, OOM is never going to happen even w/ NCA regional.  So you do have to use what you have intelligently.

 

All of this being said, I'll be first in line to consider P3D 64-bit and don't care about lack of legacy compatibility.  I say this not because P3D 32-bit is particularly lacking, but because the future of development lives in the 64-bit space, so might as well start moving there ASAP.

[vgbaron 3,496]

Very well put, Noel. I run pretty much the same settings as you and have noticed the same. Several payware a/c like the Majestic 400 eat up a lot by themselves but a little planning ahead and I have 2 and 3 hour flights with no issues.

 

Also, to reiterate, if I load up FTX NCA and the Majestic, I can't make it from KBUR-KSFO without an OOM on approach. Choosing your eye candy is critical.

 

For me, I like sitting on the ground in the cockpit doing the checklists and watching the cloud shadows roll by, etc.

 

There is no comparison with FSX.

 

Vic

[GSalden 4,656]

FSX : what was

P3D : what is

[Noel 4,486]

FSX : what was

P3D : what is

 

P3D 64-bit:  what will be 

[vgbaron 3,496]

P3D 64-bit:  what will be 

From your mouth to LM's ears!!

 

Vic

[Noel 4,486]

From your mouth to LM's ears!!

 

Vic

Well, we've heard the rumor.  And while they're there I'm hoping it will be possible to do some more revision to the engine to take whatever tasks, if any, off the main thread.  And maybe air traffic like XPX does w/ their multicore implementation.   I also wonder what can be had at least in terms of caching when you have large amounts of physical ram, i.e. for P3D 64-bit.   I'm not a programmer, but it seems reasonable to think large amounts of physical ram might be significantly exploitable to promote smoother video during runtime.  This idea may be outdate though when fast SSDs are involved.   Yep we'll see Vic.  I hope they are working on it.  They are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to broadcasting their agenda very much I imagine.  As soon as people know what a release date might be for 64-bit P3D that would be the end of 32-bit P3D perhaps.

[vgbaron 3,496]

I know it's on their agenda but what time frame - anyone's guess. Some people think it's just simply recompiling the code in a 64bit compiler. They just do not understand that each and every piece of code must be rewritten and THEN checked to be sure it hasn't broken something else.

 

As users, we have become spoiled by looking at the end product - as an old programmer, I can appreciate that there are literally millions of lines of code to be dealt with - a monumental task for sure.

 

now, add in the major changes that DX12 is supposed to bring. It may be a while coming but it will be a great time for simmers. understanding that most, if not all, payware and freeware a/c will not be compatible, I feel sure that the dev's will get on the bandwagon ASAP.

 

#1 - it will not be a free upgrade so they stand a chance of recouping development costs although they will have to deal with the inevitable complaints that any upgrade should be free.

 

 

Yup, it's a great time in Simmsville!

 

Vic

[Noel 4,486]

now, add in the major changes that DX12 is supposed to bring.

 

You're right and I forgot about DX12, which if I remember correctly involves much better utilization of the GPU, and that seems to imply more value for SLI.  I hope they take their time and take the sim to the next big level which will open doors.  I agree--if and when the big players in 3rd party content KNOW for sure of what they can count on as a strong core w/ some decent service life to build for look out here they come!

 

My one hesitation, and I don't know how founded it is, is that LM is in charge of it.  I'd rather see a company w/ an entertainment focus BUT also dedicated to authenticity.    I guess that's X-plane.   OTOH, LM has the $$ to pull it off w/o blinking an eye.  Their 2013 revenue was $45 billion, w/ profits of $3 billion.  They could drop $50 million on the project and whip it into shape quite well, and not even know what hit them!  I know, they likely have other things on their mind...

[Guest]

I'm trying to understand your comments. What was predictable?

 

I can respect anyone wanting to stay with FSX or FSX:SE ... the outcome is predictable based on your earlier comments ... specifically:

 

 

 

I don't see much of a difference (other than shadows) from the videos I've seen.

 

HDR, Tessellation, Volumetric fog, cloud shadows, volumetric waves based on wind speed, bathymetry, and many other shadow options.  If these differences aren't visually obvious, then you've already set yourself up for a biased experience.  If these don't interest you, then by all means I'd recommend you stay with FSX or FSX:SE ... but your statement was "don't see" not "I'm not interested in".

 

 

 

I don't believe I have ever blamed P3D for not being able to use third party add-ons .

 

I have a long long long long list of add-ons that work fine in P3D v2.4.  When you make generalized comments about "Add-ons" don't work without any specific qualification is again emphasizing your Bias to FSX -- I assume you aren't really looking for a response to those types of generalizations?  Sure, not ALL add-ons will work, but MANY do ... PMDG doesn't but hopefully we'll see it sometime early next year.  For some PMDG is make or break, fair enough.

 

I've provided many many ways to minimize VAS usage and I have pointed the way to work around the Vehicle select screen bug in P3D (that will cause OOM) that is acknowledged and will be fixed for next v2.5.

 

As far as performance, if I set my system up to "close to" (there is NO exact comparable set of settings) FSX settings, my hardware will operate P3D at 2X the performance I get in FSX ... simply because FSX can't leverage modern GPUs and modern DX APIs.  If I use a Titan Black with FSX it performs about the same as a 680GTX.  However that same Titan Black in P3D will perform considerably better than a 680GTX (especially at higher resolutions).

 

These features "HDR, Tessellation, Volumetric fog, cloud shadows, volumetric waves based on wind speed, bathymetry, and many other shadow options" will impact performance ... adding increased realism never ever comes for free.  If you added these features to FSX "as is" (note tessellation would have to be software render since DX9/10 doesn't support hardware accelerated tessellation) you would be looking at a slide show (think 2 fps) regardless of GPU/CPU combo.  The fact I can run 3840 x 2160 in most cases at a locked 30 fps with all these features turned up is pretty amazing to me.

 

Anyway, I respect your decision (and many others that stay with FSX) ... my points of contention where what you said P3D can't do, when in fact it can do.  The reason for my involvement here is because I do get frequent generalizations about what P3D can't do -- especially on my YouTube channel I often get folks say "oh I thought P3D couldn't do that".

 

Would flight simulation appeal to more if "everything just worked" ... of course it would, and I can share that desire ... but sadly this market just isn't large enough to provide such a polished solutions.  MS Flight attempted to be that product, but failed.  Flight Simulation (at this level of realism/detail) will always require "more than average" end user effort (and hardware) to get the best out of the platform of choice.  I see endless comparisons with 3D shooters and why can't flight sims look like that ... they can, but only if you don't mind flying in a world that is 2-4 miles in diameter (and about 1000 feet high) and don't mind waiting 30 seconds for the next 2-4 miles to load -- its all about render distances.

 

Trust me, there will be a day when you will want to just walk away from FSX and flight simulation in general ... I've been there, done that ... as have many others.  I'm back because I'm seeing a future, flight simulation is moving ... at last ... it is kicking, screaming, and moving very slowly ... but it is moving.  FSX however is not changing (and some 3rd party love that it's not changing) ... most of these debates are really about those that don't want change (because of existing expenditures) vs. those that do want change.  I'm hoping for the long game which is change.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Anxu00 176]

 

 

Trust me, there will be a day when you will want to just walk away from FSX and flight simulation in general ... I've been there, done that ... as have many others.  I'm back because I'm seeing a future, flight simulation is moving ... at last ... it is kicking, screaming, and moving very slowly ... but it is moving.

And I thought I was the only one! Rob, one thing is clear though, that LM should have a guide to run P3Dv2 appropriately for the HW that people have.  The UI gives hint and language like "may affect performance..." it would be nice to know which features when abused (i.e. push slider to the right) will kill performance.  I like your settings for example, but I also know my HW are nowhere near your gears! May be there is such a guide, but I can't find it yet.

[pasayten 4]

I would just say goodbye and wish you the best with a sim you find to your liking...   I did and the sim I left was FSX and the sim I am liking is P3Dv2.4.  Each to his own.  

 

There is plenty of info in forums for P3D tweaks and hardware.  Just look at the contributions from Rob and many others. That is not Lockheeds/P3D's job for us many "academic" users.  Just my honest opinion.  

 

Cheers and happy flying...  :-)