Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aceridgey

To FSX users on the fence for P3D 2.5

Recommended Posts

Currently I have tried P3D 2.5 and did not see any real performance gains nor did it look all that different from FSX, if anything it was like starting all over again with the sliders down at first and probing to see what I could get away with. I think the eye candy is excellent when turned up and certainly everything looks great but I just cannot get it running as smooth as FSX with it all on. I also think as always with this hobby, moving over so something new is like taking 2 steps forward to then take 3 back. Having to spend another week or so installing addons or even with the case of PMDG addons, buying them again is not attractive to me.

 

The gains for me are minimal and what with having a very solid FSX build now which I am more than happy with, it would take addon makers ceasing support for FSX to get me to change. That is unless LM brought out some pretty major changes beyond graphics and a few other little details. Everything else is completely the same content wise so it is impossible for me to justify effort and money for what really are just improvements. A more realistic AI revamp to EASA/FAA standards or something like that would be true groundbreaking rather than yet another change as to how shaders are handled.

 

I have tried it and just did not see anything I really liked to pull me away from FSX for now.


Lawrence Ashworth

XhCuv5H.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not quite true to say developers only have to change the installer when producing crossover versions. We had quite a few months getting everything to run the Duke well in P3d. The config app had to be re-written and there were subtle but significant changes in flight modelling, the way a few gauges reacted and some things did not function as we expected. So we charged what we felt was a fair upgrade price. It could well be that the more complex the aircraft, the more work is needed to convert from FSX to P3d, so I'm not knocking a fair charge.

I said that and I apologize for that generalization. I had recent experience with a company I highly admired (A2A) and I think my statement stands true for their products. That's why I said that. I know many developers make improvements for their P3D and they should be payed for their work. Hey, I never said that even those who did very little or nothing for P3D versions shouldn't charge an upgrade fee. I just don't feel it's fair to charge the full price for the same or very similar product, that's all. Even 10% discount would make me a happy customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that and I apologize for that generalization. I had recent experience with a company I highly admired (A2A) and I think my statement stands true for their products. That's why I said that. I know many developers make improvements for their P3D and they should be payed for their work. Hey, I never said that even those who did very little or nothing for P3D versions shouldn't charge an upgrade fee. I just don't feel it's fair to charge the full price for the same or very similar product, that's all. Even 10% discount would make me a happy customer.

 

Understood. I broadly agree!


Robert Young - retired full time developer - see my Nexus Mod Page and my GitHub Mod page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some thoughts about the re-release of an 8 year old game, with a few mods/patches etc, compared to a sim that has been modded/upgraded about 7-8 times now. One is sold for entertainment, the other not!


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The move to P3D, for me, was worth it simply because of the much improved and realistic environmental depiction including the lighting, the real time terrain shadows, the cloud shadows both on the terrain and the aircraft/cockpit, the buildings casting and receiving shadows from each other and other nearby objects,the vegetation casting and receiving shadows, the fog nestling in distant valleys, etc, etc.

 

The performance is not streets ahead of FSX, but the out of the window representation of the world is much more realistic and convincing.

 

The only real drawbacks are the user's willingness to purchase certain products again, and the specification of PC required to run at an acceptable level with all of the above mentioned features enabled.

 

The above is referenced to VFR. IFR is a different story as some features have to be dialled back when using complex addons so as to avoid OOMs.

 

Daz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty the best platform out there at the moment is XP10. It scales far better with hardware than either FSX or P3D2.

This is the second post recently where someone has stated categorically that XP10 takes better advantage of new hardware than P3d. Since there is no evidence presented to support this statement in the post, I have to assume that this is just another casual opinion.

 

In my opinion they both take advantage of having a high end GPU and CPU. The difference is that there are substantially more outstanding addons for P3d and this is and will continue to be its main advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, dear Lord.....not this again :rolleyes:

Not only are we debating FSX vs FSX:SE vs P3D, yet again :Yawn:, we have XP10 rearing it's head. :Shame On You:

:t0152:

 

Stick to topic PLEASE! 


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


DX10 makes all the difference to me.

In my case, Steve DX10 Fixer remains a fixer.  I still have artifacts and the ORBX scenery are different in DX10, kinda artificial to me.  I don't have this problem with P3Dv2.  I guess the correct statement to the OP is that if you have the money, don't mind loosing a few incompatible add-ons and are still on the fence, go for it.  Cheers.


Vu Pham

i7-10700K 5.2 GHz OC, 64 GB RAM, GTX4070Ti, SSD for Sim, SSD for system. MSFS2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is the fairy tales about increased performance and "wow" graphics are just that - fairy tales. On all three systems I've run it on P3D2 - in terms of framerate and my subjective interpretation of smoothness -  performs broadly similarly to a properly configured FSX DX10, especially once you start throwing addon aircraft and scenery into the mix. The latest iteration of P3D2 has marginally better VAS management than FSX.

 

Other than that what does P3D2 bring to the table? HDR and some new shadows, including clouds.

Now I think you have crossed the line and making generalized statement.  What you found was your own and applied to your HW/SW.  I and many others have the opposite of your experience.  Try using it with Fiber_Frame_Fraction=0.01, the correct setting of AffinityMask, Optimized_Parts=1, and report back.  One major problem with FSX that P3Dv2 don't have is the flashing black texture (you can see them in almost all video on FSX) that and no more autogen popping and realistic environment made possible with shadows is what made me switch.  If people want to stay with FSX, FSX-SE it's their choice, and they will find plenty of opinions and "evidences" to support that position.  Now if people have the means and want to really see what P3Dv2 has to offer, then I don't see why not.  Do a search on comparable HW/SW combination, try P3Dv2 monthly dev license, install only one ORBX region and one aircraft, then see for yourself for one month.  ASN, FSGW, REX have dual licenses, so you can already use them in P3Dv2.  So I found the cost to try is very low.  However, if people rely on anecdotal evidences, personal opinions and not try it themselves then that's what they will get.  Now is P2Dv2 the holy grail? No, but with it I no longer have to deal with 9 years old software that may not work in the future. 


Vu Pham

i7-10700K 5.2 GHz OC, 64 GB RAM, GTX4070Ti, SSD for Sim, SSD for system. MSFS2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The gains for me are minimal and what with having a very solid FSX build now which I am more than happy with, it would take addon makers ceasing support for FSX to get me to change. That is unless LM brought out some pretty major changes beyond graphics and a few other little details. Everything else is completely the same content wise so it is impossible for me to justify effort and money for what really are just improvements. A more realistic AI revamp to EASA/FAA standards or something like that would be true groundbreaking rather than yet another change as to how shaders are handled.

 

Very eloquently put and pretty much exactly how I feel.

 

 

 


Appreciate your honest opinion and feedback.

 

No problem my friend. I'm sure you'll take my opinion and experience on balance with others and come to a suitable conclusion.


This is the second post recently where someone has stated categorically that XP10 takes better advantage of new hardware than P3d. Since there is no evidence presented to support this statement in the post, I have to assume that this is just another casual opinion.

 

 

The evidence is right here on my computer. XP10 - apart from the inferior cloud and weather engine - both looks and runs better than P3D. Oh yeah, and it actually uses all the available RAM in my system. P3D, nearly nine years on from FSX is still 32bit.

 

 

What you found was your own and applied to your HW/SW.

 

 

Hence I prefaced my words with "in my experience".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things that one tends to forget:

1. P3D is NOT an upgrade of FSX/FSX:SE

It MUST be regarded as a totally separate & 'new' sim, where there might, I repeat, might be some add-on compatibilities with those of FSX/FSX:SE

Have we all forgotten the move from FS9 to FSX, & the moaning that went on with compatibility issues?

 

3. Do realise that FSX as we know it, is dead & buried.. Long live FSX:SE!

Must disagree on two points.

 

1 - Despite what you may like to think, P3D IS an upgrade of FSX. P3D is based on Microsoft ESP which is, according to Microsoft themselves, "built on the core technology behind Flight Simulator X". ESP was just FSX with a more customisable user interface and a different marketing/distribution/support model. Until the core technology of P3D changes (64bit?) it will still be an upgrade to FSX.

 

3 - Only for new users! FSX:SE is essentially just a new way of distributing FSX with a few minor tweaks. Even Dovetail games have stated on the Steam website "The main reason you would even consider picking up FSX:Steam Edition if you already have a significant FSX-O (their abbreviation) setup is the implementation of Steam for multiplayer purposes".


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only are we debating FSX vs FSX:SE vs P3D, yet again :Yawn:, we have XP10 rearing it's head. :Shame On You:

 

You forgot to mention FS9, which is also rearing its (extremely old) head. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Separate & parallel distribution.FSX sold as a gaming sim, ESP as a pro/commercial sim. 2x different markets, but we actually hair splitting here.

 

2. Well, I surpose FSX: Gold is very much still obtainable.

New users? So many now have both FSX & FSX:SE. Dunno why so much interest & comparrisons. Does not anyone actually fly anymore?


I LOVE my FS9 of which I have 2x installs. A 'normal' one & a 'Golden Wings' version.

No debate that it's faster, smoother & needs no tweaks & is still a lot of fun!

That with my P3D is a perfect (for me) solution.

 

Have a great Easter Weekend!


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My CPU usage while running Xplane 10 : ~ 30%

my CPU usage while runnning P3D/FSX : ~75%

 

My GPU load on FSX/P3D : ~60%

My GPU load on Xplane 10 : ~90%

 

For those who said P3D was an equal to X-plane 10 in terms of taking advantage of modern hardware are sadly mistaken. FSX/P3D is still relying heavily on CPU usage while X-plane 10 is mostly GPU. So if you like FSX, why don't think stick with it. There is nothing wrong with it. I prefer P3D personally but I still keep FSX because I have a few addons that only works in FSX.


https://fsprocedures.com Your home for all flight simulator related checklist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just try it! LM offers a refund policy. I used to be just as pigheaded as you. Then I decided to give it a go. Trust me, it really is that much better than FSX.

Would be nice if LM required 3rd party companies to offer refunds for any product they make with p3d as well. P3D is OOm heaven with the 777 into most highly detailed airports. Esp flytampa toronto, I was not able to load the scenery with the default f22 as I got an OOM at 95% loaded. Disable VECTOR and you might be able to get out of the gate..


Kacper Nowotynski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...