P3D vs FSX: DA42 around beautiful Pago Pago

[Guest Mik75]

Hi there!

I hope you like my comparison shots of a short flight around the beautiful island of Paro Paro (ORBX) in the Alabeo DA42. The weather came from ASN, the clouds are REX soft clouds.

I really love the superior shadowing of P3D 2.5, its beautiful water effects and the HDR rendering.

But good old FSX DX9 (with ENB) creates a very convincing look as well.

Which one do you like better? I couldn´t pick a clear winner:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FSX:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HLJames 2,568]

Beautifully rendered by ORBX many south pacific islands and airports to explore!

 

HLJAMES

[MartinRex007 390]

Like the first set better, which I believe is P3D......Nice shots!

[warbirds 555]

2nd set for me.

[A320FAN 370]

Great landscape!

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

I think the FSX shots look more natural and real. The P3D shots are also beautiful and have a high degree of color saturation and contrast. Personal preference to the user I guess. 

[AviatorMoser 353]

I would be happy with either!

[Guest Mik75]

Thanks for your comments!

I am happy to have both sims installed. I use FSX more often though, simply because I have all my addons installed in this sim. Not everything is available for P3D or works in it, and with my limited HDD space (all SSD setup), I couldn't install all the scenery and aircraft into both sims... ;-)

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

I installed P3D 2.5 (I wasn't impressed by 2.3 and I skipped 2.4 entirely) a few days ago and have been comparing as well.  To me, so far, P3D wins on daytime lighting, haze and clarity.  FSX wins on AA, the look of water.  Still trying to figure out which wins on performance.  I have a 46" HDTV so I see the AA more than most folks, I think.  Also, photoreal can look better on FSX since some of them were designed for FSX and, perhaps, the colors don't look so good in P3D.  I'm going visiting lots of my favorite airports, comparing the two to see how they look in each. 

 

All in all, I really like 2.5.  Can't say it's a slam dunk winner but there are times when the haze and lighting blows me away...especially around midday.  Thanks for posting these shots. 

[warbirds 555]

So what is the problem with haze in FSX? Here is my FSX SE and there is no or very little haze showing. You can set the amount of haze in FSX to whatever you want in the weather section.

 

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

So what is the problem with haze in FSX? Here is my FSX SE and there is no or very little haze showing. You can set the amount of haze in FSX to whatever you want in the weather section.

 

I don't have SE so I'm not sure if there is a difference between it and FSX DX9.  There is most definitely are differences between FSX DX9 and P3D in haze depiction and, at times, they're huge to me.  But, to be fair, two people can have differences of opinion about the same sunset so there's not much to discuss beyond opinion there.

[warbirds 555]

Not really an opinion, just a fact. FSX has a setting for visibility and you can eliminate or ad haze as you want. This is with FSX dx 10 or 9 and also with FSX SE. 

 

It is a simple test, if you have FSX or FSX SE and running DX 10 or 9 just go into weather settings and adjust visibility. 

 

Is there something in my screenshot that you think is untrue?

[Guest Mik75]

I always limit upper visibility to 70 SM in ASN, for both P3D and FSX. That's what comes closest to reality, in my opinion. With that setting, mad cloud draw distance can bet set to 70 SM as well. which can help with performance in heavy weather.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

I always limit upper visibility to 70 SM in ASN, for both P3D and FSX. That's what comes closest to reality, in my opinion. With that setting, mad cloud draw distance can bet set to 70 SM as well. which can help with performance in heavy weather.

 

I'll give that a try.  Nice tip.