Well I tried it with the expectation, based on many claims from AVSIM users, it would:

 

1) significantly render frames quicker

 

2) load assets more smoothly

 

3) manage VAS better

 

4) and make a leap in graphical fidelity.

 

Well, it seems to only excel with 2). I perceived no substantial differences in frame rates, it seems to have worse VAS management and OOMs quicker, and while it looks better, it certainly doesn't look that much better.

 

So I wasn't sold one on it. Still waiting for LM to succeed on that part and then I would easily transition, but I'm not in their target audience, so I don't expect them to. It feels like FSX with a little lipstick on the pig.

 

I did same thing, jumped the ship and item 3 is killing me, but what you have to do is realise that the settings even though they look similar are not the same under the hood.  so still in end P3d is worth it, but be prepared to tinker more for setting selections that work best for you.  i do like option for creating custom profile for each type of flights.

 

one BIG note on this, what i am seeing is and don't have 100% proof yet but it appears if you tinker with video settings in middle of flights let me give you example, you flying tube liner and flying over dense city on your approach, and realize that your density settings on take off are taxing your system more now, and you pop into settings and tune down the settings, it seem to cause more vas leak then if you didnt touch the settings and landed with choppy frames, same with adjusting traffic, tessalation etc, again i dont have 100% proof yet but to me it seem to cause OOM more faster.  

 

other then that, i love p3d.

 

 

The evidence is right here on my computer. XP10 - apart from the inferior cloud and weather engine - both looks and runs better than P3D.

 

How are things with those 19 AI Planes flying around?

How are things with those 19 AI Planes flying around?

 

Jim, you are such a killjoy!

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...

How does that demonstrate anything? Imbalances between CPU and GPU usages say more about your system than they do about the sims.

 

Stop evading the issue. I dropped XP10 in favor of P3d because, as the former is a niche product it will never have a full complement of add-ons.

 

 

I dropped XP10 in favor of P3d because, as the former is a niche product it will never have a full complement of add-ons.

 

Sure it will, as soon as everyone drops FSX/P3D and all the addon developers flock to XP... like they were going to 15 years ago, and 10 years ago, and 5 years ago, and... :rolleyes:

How does that demonstrate anything? Imbalances between CPU and GPU usages say more about your system than they do about the sims.

 

Stop evading the issue. I dropped XP10 in favor of P3d because, as the former is a niche product it will never have a full complement of add-ons.

 

I prefer P3D also for the addons but the flight sim engine itself is much better for modern hardware and you can load a sh*t load of addons in X-plane without running into memory issue. In P3D, you have to manage and monitor your VAS.  Unfortunately all the CPU drawcalls that is a legacy of a time where CPU was more important that GPU is still plaguing P3D/FSX.  You will never be able to go around all the limitations without throwing away all the legacy code and build a new engine from scratch.

 

Stop evading the issue.All X-plane 10 is missing is a few decent quality addons. From what I have seen so far, it's getter better all the time. Now that PMDG is on board with X-plane 10. We will see some of the gap being smaller and smaller. Having PMDG on your platform can bring a lot more customer to X-plane which is return can bring a brand new slew of third party developer.

 

 

I dropped XP10 in favor of P3d because, as the former is a niche product

 

Both XP10 and P3D are niche products, which is why all these threads are in the FSX Forum. If they were posted in the XP10 or P3D forums, hardly anyone would see them.

 

 

Sure it will, as soon as everyone drops FSX/P3D and all the addon developers flock to XP... like they were going to 15 years ago, and 10 years ago, and 5 years ago, and...

 

It's coming..... everything is always coming soon in the Xplane Universe.

Thing is at my age can I wait that long, and Austin is not getting any younger... just saying

It's coming..... everything is always coming soon in the Xplane Universe.

Thing is at my age can I wait that long, and Austin is not getting any younger... just saying

Same here, age wise. Can't wait another 20 years, so I just use the best from both FSX and X-Plane.......now.  No need to eliminate either. If a person does, they'll miss out on a lot.

Well maybe one should see the reaction to aerosoft april fools jokke about the crj. Had to lock the forum or read this.

 

As for me no reason to change. Dont want steam, dont see why i should have to install steam just to run FSX as for P3d there are far to much inconsistencies in the pricing varies from developer to developer. BEesides FSX runs fine forme. My but may get a little sore sitting on theis fence and waiting for the dust to settle. But im old and learnt to be patient .

 

 

My but may get a little sore sitting on theis fence and waiting for the dust to settle.

 

Then fall back off to the FSX side and all will be good!

Hers my experience. I was one of the very first to adopt DX10 in FSX when all in this forum were debating it was not even part of FSX it was simply a demo. It's interesting to read how many people now use it.

 

DX11 offers more than DX10. P3D offers more than FSX.

 

If you love flying your computer, fly what you love flying. Some people drive the latest cars, some have their old faithfuls. Each gets them from A to B.

On a side note, I do agree with Super Six Four's opinion that the water in P3D is inferior to its FSX counterpart. I have REX Essential Plus SP3 installed (which apparently has a fix for the water), but I don't see it. It looks just as bland and static as it ever was above a few hundred feet. It is nowhere near as good as the REX simulation of water in FSX. To be honest, it is really annoying me. Either something that is supposed to be happening is not happening on my PC, or else everyone else needs to go to SpecSavers :rolleyes:

I agree.  FSX DX10 water is spectacular.  One of the perks with flying around the Caribbean and Oceania.

There are distinct advantages to both. 

AA in FSX DX9 simply can't be matched by DX10 or P3D without using so much SGSSAA that your computer spontaneously combusts. Water in both FSX modes is much better then P3D. Clouds are better in FSX for whatever reason even though you'd think they were the same. I see less spikes and smoother loading in FSX. The UI is much better in FSX. 

P3D has much better autogen loading, all manner of different shadowing options not in FSX, better atmospherics, better terrain loading (in my experience), HDR, and requires less tweaking (or none at all). But you better have a really nice GPU to take advantage of it. 

 

There's no right answer. 

 

I agree.  FSX DX10 water is spectacular.  One of the perks with flying around the Caribbean and Oceania.

 

Mitch,

 

FSX water in DX10 mode was a big disappointment to me, and not much better than it is in P3D. In fact, FSX in DX10 mode was (in my experience) rubbish in most departments when I tried it on my old PC (even with Steve's DX10 Fixer). The water was worse, the AA was worse, small sections of the more distant terrain textures exhibited annoying white flashes, and I had the same problem with missing navigation and strobe lights on the AI planes that I do in P3D. Frankly, I never understood what all the fuss was about. FSX in DX9 mode was FAR better for me. The only advantage I had in DX10 mode was with the VAS management (which I admit was a significant improvement).