Why P3D?

[AviatorMoser 353]

If you remove the HDR and cockpit shadows, then there really isn't much to contrast, as shown in the video below.

 

 

Cockpit shadows are great, but easily achievable with a fixed DX10.

 

The HDR is sort of a drawback in P3D. It's very dark and not realistic. On a sunny day, the game should be very bright. Even the stock FSX is not bright enough for me, so I just use SweetFX to get my desired look.

 

If you go through one of Matt Davies' P3D videos, and then fast forward to where he's flying above the clouds, it does not look natural. It's very dark and dim. The clouds are gray! Clouds should be bright and white when directly facing sunlight. I mean what the hell is that all about!? That really puts me off.

 

 

Clouds should be this color on a sunny day.

 

 

Under the hood, P3D does perform better in rendering, but the explosion in v2.5 OOM reports has put me off some. Meanwhile, I've logged 512 hours in FSX:SE and I've had no OOMs. Maybe I just don't have enough addons?

[Clutch Cargo 384]

I would also post the same question in the FSX forum and ask "why should I stay with FSX?"  While many have touted particulars that make P3D excel, I'll sum it up like this from my own experience since using it from version P3D1.2

 

Smoother flying

Less tweaking - more flying

Better immersion

 

I would "rent" P3D for a month or two, keep FSX installed and compare the two for yourself.  Only you can make the final decision despite all the accolades and dismissals on the product.  Then you will be able to help other newbies when they try to decide which direction to take.

[Bobsk8 12,735]

Yes, that is so true Peter  - some developers offer an identical product at an excessive price, hiding behind license excuses. Guess they think the hobby is called fleece simulation, not flight simulation, to maximise the simulation of being fleeced.

 

On the other hand, as the platform continues to develop, they will be caught with their hands on our wallets if their expensive product is NOT kept up-to-date at no further cost to the consumer.

 

Interesting times we live in. Caveat Emptor never more true than today ! I just bought a wet/dry vacuum cleaner for the office that broke down as soon as it was asked to clean up a spill. Asked for a refund, was told that water damage wasn't included - short story, not only have I got the money back, I've cancelled the follow-on order for 200+ units for our various sites and locations.

 

Caveat emptor = Lorem periculosa.

 

Glass half empty/glass half full - they haven't confirmed when it's coming nor what it will contain. A cautious approach to reading into what you read is the smart move, particularly in a disinformation prevalent market like this.

 

I debated about getting the P3D PMDG 737, and I had already owned the first version in FS9 and X. I decided that the price was way too high, so I got the Airbus A 319-321 for a less money and I hate to admit it, but I have grown to love this aircraft in just a couple of days. And the best feature for me is it doesn't have a big impact on frame rates which is one of my biggest considerations when considering an add on. I am now an Aerosoft convert. 

[hychewright 46]

I would also post the same question in the FSX forum and ask "why should I stay with FSX?"  While many have touted particulars that make P3D excel, I'll sum it up like this from my own experience since using it from version P3D1.2

 

Smoother flying

Less tweaking - more flying

Better immersion

 

I would "rent" P3D for a month or two, keep FSX installed and compare the two for yourself.  Only you can make the final decision despite all the accolades and dismissals on the product.  Then you will be able to help other newbies when they try to decide which direction to take.

+1 with Clutch Cargo. That would be the best way to determine which is best for you.  I switched to P3D last year and have not looked back since.

[DylanM 1,069]

Also agree with the above about giving it a go to come to your own fair conclusion (the "test drive" is only $10...!).

 

And there are no issues installing P3D alongside an existing FSX installation as there are no dependencies. I had that setup running for a while (albeit on separate drives).

[Bobsk8 12,735]

Also agree with the above about giving it a go to come to your own fair conclusion (the "test drive" is only $10...!).

 

And there are no issues installing P3D alongside an existing FSX installation as there are no dependencies. I had that setup running for a while (albeit on separate drives).

 

That what I did , paid the $10 for a month, flew a couple of hours, and purchased it. 

[tf51d 284]

 

 

Prepar3d is a considerable advance on FSX (and Steam Edition which has yet to show any code breakthroughs unrelated to its delivery method and is unlikely to, given the age and ownership of the code).

 

You are right visually there are no improvements in FSX-SE, but then none were expected, and by contract they are prohibited to implement even if DTG wanted to. Internally it's a different story, It's been recompiled with a more up to date compiler, and has considerably  improved VAS management more so then P3D. You're more likely to OOM in P3D at the end of a flight then you would i FSXSE in a similar situation. The improvements, have also made the sim much smoother then FSXMS, and probably equal to P3D, and of course the biggest negative of P3D is it's price (Unless you qualify for the Academic Version) and the higher price of addons in P3D.

[qqwertz 782]

You're more likely to OOM in P3D at the end of a flight then you would i FSXSE in a similar situation.

I have yet to get an OOM in P3D, despite having flown flights like (Aerosoft) BIKF to (FlyTampa) CYYZ in the Aerosoft A320. Maybe that's because I'm not flying PMDG anymore  ^_^ 

 

Peter

[flapsdown 45]

Took the v2.5 $10 "test drive" as well and was not moved to move  - the biggest annoyance was the sound - lots of snaps, crackles and pop problems that searching the forums seemed to provide no concrete answer for - and while visually it is certainly very nice, it is not so staggeringly better than my current FSX rendering that it left me massively disappointed in comparison. I find the UI organization to be really annoying (purely a personal preference I'll grant you), and I don't like losing the use of my second screen for some 2D items- so in the end, with the new box I just built, FSX is running very,very well indeed for me in just about every aspect, and combined with having tons of things I don't want to currently buy twice (some at ridiculously inflated prices  due to the licensing), I will continue to hold off.

 

However, I can see the day coming when I will begin the transition, just not yet...

[jimmy64 43]

An active team of full time programmers who have been working for years, added thousands of man hours, well over 100 significant updates to the code that was ESP, and still people say that it's just cloud shadows and HDR .  This topic has been discussed ad nauseam and yet each time some "very uninformed" people claim that, it's basically FSX. I suggest that you read each individual update from LM beginning with 1.0. Only then will you get the answer you seek.

[Alan_A 1,650]

I'd been on P3D exclusively since 2.0 but took a small break a couple of weeks ago (was a bit worn out after my struggles with SLI artifacts, which I've already talked to death elsewhere) and for the h*ll of it, decided to take advantage of my $5 US investment in FSX Steam Edition and loaded it up.  Additional contributing factor: a number of people I respect, for example Pete Dowson, had vouched for it.  

 

To my surprise I was very favorably impressed with it.  On my system it's dramatically smoother than boxed FSX ever was (yes, with a similar population of add-ons) and in some respects smoother than P3D, which has been giving me micro-stutters lately - perhaps add-on related.  To louisdecoolste's point, it's best to be very selective with what you load into P3D  

 

With that in mind, It's been nice to be able to choose from a wider array of add-ons in FSX:SE, and also to reacquaint myself with other things I've missed, such as the better aircraft selection screen and the transparent ATC window.  

 

I've also appreciated the fact that FSX:SE is a much less expensive environment to live in.

 

And I'm never troubled if for some reason it happens that I discover that I'm enjoying myself.

 

I have, of course, missed P3D's lighting and shadows, volumetric fog... and the fact that there's a small army of programmers working to develop it, so as others have already said, the upside is tremendous.

I don't miss those features and qualities that much because P3D 2.5 continues to live on my system (as X-Plane does, too, from time to time).  So I'm not trying to make the case for one over the other - just noting for the record my own experience and suggesting that FSX:SE has a couple of things going for it.

 

YMMV.

[shivers9 1,174]

Like I said, no delivery schedule there. So can you point to the L-M confirmation ? 

 

Gustave Le Bon said it best

 

Here there is speculation, unconfirmed. That V3 is `on the horizon`, I have no doubt.

That it will be a 64-bit application is nothing more than wishing.

When it will arrive, only L-M can say.

 

And they never do - unless you can point us to their post ?

May I just say for the record....You are rude, you add nothing to the conversation. You have been here a year and act like you invented Flight Sims. You do all you can do to start an argument and even if the Mods for what ever reason want stop you then may I politely ask.....Please stop. We all know that you are no expert.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

Took the v2.5 $10 "test drive" as well and was not moved to move  - the biggest annoyance was the sound - lots of snaps, crackles and pop problems that searching the forums seemed to provide no concrete answer for

 

I had that issue in FSX:SE (never had it in P3D 2.X or in FSX boxed - there's no accounting for system differences...)  The cure for me was to install an inexpensive sound card - nothing spectacular, just enough to take some of the load off the onboard sound.  I think the issue is that the PCI-E bus gets overloaded - can't say for sure since I didn't research it in detail, just applied this particular band-aid.  Maybe worth a try if it isn't something you've looked into already.  Hope this helps.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I had just loaded up 2.5 today to look at how it's doing.  I tried 2.2 when it came out and couldn't get the same out of it that I was getting out of FSX.  I did a clean install of 2.5 and added Orbx NCA, KSTS and FSUIPC, set up nVidea inspector and made some adjustments.  I used default weather engine and flew the Carenado Bonanza that comes with P3D.  After flying it around today, I would say the following:

 

• Visually, it's substantially better than FSX DX9.  This really showed when I selected some weather.  Seemed eerily real with a fairly realistic blue haze obscuring the distance.  When I was just below the clouds it felt right...like I was moving under them fast.  When I loaded up one of their weather scenarieos "Orbx Weather 3", I was below a very ominous looking cloud deck...something you'd think twice about flying into.  Night time lighting, to me, was no better than I get in FSX. 
• Seemed harder on my system (which is a fairly strong system).  I had to turn some sliders lower than I did with FSX but with a normal amount of visibility obscuration that wasn't a problem at all.  I was getting stutters in turbulence.
• The P3D turbulence is much, much better than FSX without even using a third-party weather app.  You don't get weird yawing...rather, you get something like turbulence with bounces, shifts, some yawing.  Like I said, I was getting some stutters but I might be able to tweak that.
• Antialiasing, which was the deal-breaker for me with 2.2, seems quite a bit better.  Pretty happy, mostly.
• VAS seemed normal with what I was doing but some folks are reporting that VAS issues are worse for P3D...notably with the big iron.

Now, as some have mentioned, there are some downsides:

• Some of my aircraft, notably the Flight1 Mustang, don't work in P3D.  Not sure they ever will.
• Some add-ons have to be 'hacked in'.
• RealityXP doesn't work and never will.  I have Flight1's GNS but it's for FSX so I'd have to buy it again which sucks.
• Some pricing for some add-ons is very high.
• Whenever they update P3D to a new version, add-ons bust and you have to wait for them to work again.

For me, I'm pondering.  I think P3D is moving forward and it's pretty nice.  On my system FSX looks washed out by comparison and the colors look wrong...P3D is more vibrant and real looking.  But, the add-ons issue is a tough one.  I want my Flight1 Mustang (which doesn't run on SE yet either), a good single and a good twin.  All the add-ons work in FSX and it's still running nicely on my rig.  What I may do is get one airplane and just fly it around NCA for the visuals and see how it goes.  But, I still don't think it's a slam dunk yet. 

 

If you want to see some good examples, look at some youtube videos from ShipDriver71 in full screen.  Here's a recent one where he was flying where I was flying today.

 

[Simmer2050 28]

The answer is really simple.

 

Take clouds out of aviation and many RW pilots and simmers wil pack up their real planes and sim computers respectively.

 

If it was not for the beauty of the clouds, then youll always find me on the ground looking down! not up.

 

P3D volumetric clouds and ASN is far superior to anything I ever saw in FSX.

 

Cockpit shadows, volumetric clouds, no competition , FSX is off my PC easy.

 

And Bring On the Viver V3