So you see there are more sims out there performing really well on the old base from the FS series of code...

 

I have high hopes of P3D turning out to be really good, but for me I'm afraid it is really not quite there yet. It certainly doesn't perform so well on my system as either FSX or FSX-SE, and the graphics (particularly the anti-aliassing) are still not right, at least for me. I do wish it wasn't so, because I paid for both academic and professional versions (the former for testing, originally, and the latter on my cockpit system).

 

 Current Amsterdam offering from Aerosoft is one of the worst developed sceneries from a technical standpoint (I'm even very polite here;-))

So I applaud that Fly Tampa is doing Amsterdam my home town (almost lol)  Airport a non brainier when it's released.

 

 

I'm afraid I am no expert at accessing scenery from a 'technical standpoint' at all. To me it looks good, and, in FSX-SE at least, performs well. And it matches my charts for the airport well. Not sure what is so technically substandard about it.

 

But I will, of course, try the FlyTampa offering. I only fly in Europe and I make very sure i don't miss anything that may be good.

 

It's just that I wish some of the as yet missing major European airports would become available. What about Rome, for instance, long promised but not yet appearing. Pisa, Vigo, and Prague are among other major omissions at present, airports I've frequented in real life which I'd love to do also in simulation.

 

Regards

Pete

I have high hopes of P3D turning out to be really good, but for me I'm afraid it is really not quite there yet. It certainly doesn't perform so well on my system as either FSX or FSX-SE, and the graphics (particularly the anti-aliassing) are still not right, at least for me. I do wish it wasn't so, because I paid for both academic and professional versions (the former for testing, originally, and the latter on my cockpit system).

 

 

 

I'm afraid I am no expert at accessing scenery from a 'technical standpoint' at all. To me it looks good, and, in FSX-SE at least, performs well. And it matches my charts for the airport well. Not sure what is so technically substandard about it.

 

But I will, of course, try the FlyTampa offering. I only fly in Europe and I make very sure i don't miss anything that may be good.

 

It's just that I wish some of the as yet missing major European airports would become available. What about Rome, for instance, long promised but not yet appearing. Pisa, Vigo, and Prague are among other major omissions at present, airports I've frequented in real life which I'd love to do also in simulation.

 

Regards

Pete

 

Agreed Pete but it's good we have choices now for everybody his preference expectations, it's better as a few years ago.

Correct AA is a weak point but so many stuff makes up for it have it local here now at an acceptable level :-)

 

Well performance wise it could be done far better also the quality it was nice for the time back then,

but unfortunately not so clever done regarding performance ;-)

 

Rome was done by the same developer however cancelled by Aerosoft.

I have high hopes of P3D turning out to be really good, but for me I'm afraid it is really not quite there yet. It certainly doesn't perform so well on my system as either FSX or FSX-SE, and the graphics (particularly the anti-aliassing) are still not right, at least for me. I do wish it wasn't so, because I paid for both academic and professional versions (the former for testing, originally, and the latter on my cockpit system).

 

 

 

Anti-aliasing for P3D needs to be set externally from Nvidia Inspector. What kind of issues are you having? 

I was going to say what happened to Sydney

Different members of FlyTampa are working on that project..

Anti-aliasing for P3D needs to be set externally from Nvidia Inspector. What kind of issues are you having? 

 

I have tried most settings in nVidia Inspector, but I can never seem to get it looking as good as FSX on at 1080p on my 10 feet wide projection screen.

 

I think, for me, the only potential advantage P3D has over FSX at present are all to do with shadows, but flying a 737 real cockpit, viewing the outside world through the windows from 30000 feet, this isn't really very important. And P3D just isn't as smooth as FSX-SE, and suffers badly at dense airports with lots of AI traffic.

 

Add less compatibility with add-ons (though, yes, they are all catching up), P3D for me remains a watching brief. And of course I still keep FSUIPC up to date for it.

 

Regards

Pete

Different members of FlyTampa are working on that project..

Great!

 

And P3D just isn't as smooth as FSX-SE, and suffers badly at dense airports with lots of AI traffic.

 

I can't comment on the performance of FSX-SE as I have never used it. However, P3D on my new PC (i5 4690k @ 4.,6Ghz/2GB GeForce GTX 770/16GB Kingston Hyper X Fury DDR3-1600 RAM) performs very well indeed at dense airports with plenty of AI traffic. Considerably better than FSX performed on my old PC (i5 2500k @ 4.3Ghz/1GB GeForce GTX 560Ti/8GB Corsair DDR3-1600 RAM).

I have tried most settings in nVidia Inspector, but I can never seem to get it looking as good as FSX on at 1080p on my 10 feet wide projection screen.

 

I think, for me, the only potential advantage P3D has over FSX at present are all to do with shadows, but flying a 737 real cockpit, viewing the outside world through the windows from 30000 feet, this isn't really very important. And P3D just isn't as smooth as FSX-SE, and suffers badly at dense airports with lots of AI traffic.

 

Add less compatibility with add-ons (though, yes, they are all catching up), P3D for me remains a watching brief. And of course I still keep FSUIPC up to date for it.

 

Regards

Pete

 

Hi Pete, I also fly with a projector (100"), using P3D as a scenery generator (building a home cockpit with Jeehell FMGS for the avionics). Using nVidia inspector my settings are extremely sharp and comparable to FSX/FSX-Steam. 

 

I was using FSX-Steam but have gone back to P3D 2.5. P3D (besides XP10) will be evolving and improving over time. 

I can't maintain 3 flight simulators and I am sticking with P3D and XP10. 

 

Thank you for updating FSUIPC. I know you have a 737 homecockpit, have you tried Jeehell FMGS? Its free and great

 

I've been trying to figure out how to use Jeehell's software with X-Plane (using XPUIPC, but its not working!), perhaps you geniuses if you have time could lend me a clue. 

 

Cheers. 

I know you have a 737 homecockpit, have you tried Jeehell FMGS? Its free and great

 

No. I was using Project Magenta up till late last year -- I'd been with PM since its very early days, when it was really the only such package around. But I moved on to Prosim737 with which i am extremely pleased.

 

Pete

I'm with the majority on this I'm sure but if it's anything like their Toronto then I will stay well clear.

 

Even on p3d and dx10 Toronto is up there with the worst performing sceneries going. Reminds me of the Aerosoft Brussels and Amsterdam. Slideshow ;-)

I'm with the majority on this I'm sure but if it's anything like their Toronto then I will stay well clear.

 

Even on p3d and dx10 Toronto is up there with the worst performing sceneries going. Reminds me of the Aerosoft Brussels and Amsterdam. Slideshow ;-)

I agree completely. I have just about all of the FlyTampa airports and Toronto is just brutal on my system. The only OOM crash I've in P3D was FT Toronto. Hopefully Eham will be better.