And runs acceptable on ancient equipment.

 

Ah, it all becomes clear now.....

That's why you can't get FSX/P3D to look great

 

 

I'm interested in Virtual Pilot 3D, but haven't bitten the bullet yet. It looks ok but the only stuff I find on it seems to be seller propaganda.

 

That is because it is the Freeware Flighgear sold by a bunch of scammers using screenshots from other sims, avoid at all costs

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/VirtualPilot3D

I have since realized that. Thank you very much for trying to save me.

 

To comment on Jon_aus,

 

 I have no "sim war" intentions by saying the following; I have had ALL the MS flight sims including the steam edition and boxed FSX. I prefer P3D, I have P3D Pro v2.5 which I do not need since I haven't figured out how to be in 2 places at once using sim director. Maybe I just don't know how to use it properly. Back to what I was saying, P3D imo, is superior to FSX. It's PC friendly and I have an antique 2008 machine (Intel 3 GHZ, 16G ram, GTX 650 1G). I'm running roughly 85% max graphics and keeping a steady FR of at least 30fps but jumps to 40 and even up to 60. The clouds first off are the real deal when flying through them. Plane textures in and out are so much better than FSX with shading, light reflections when you look out over the wings, realistic landing light lighting up the runway on approach, IMO. It's definitely worth trying out if things like that make a difference. The academic version is what I would think most of would need unless your running a flight school.

 

Xplane's flight dynamics are slightly more authentic IMO. You can actually do spin training.

 

Sorry for all the IMOs but I can not be absolute as so many have different preferences and opinions.

 

I am not a P3D spokesperson. God help us with disclaimers and political correction. haha

Ah, it all becomes clear now.....

That's why you can't get FSX/P3D to look great

 

 

 

That is because it is the Freeware Flighgear sold by a bunch of scammers using screenshots from other sims, avoid at all costs

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/VirtualPilot3D

 

I think I messed the quote thing but see above if I did. My last comment was for you.

Sounds like you need to buy a real PA24 Rhys

 

I was never a fan of that plane until A2A worked their magic on it. In keeping with the vintage I seldom even use the GTN with it, and I couldn't be happier.

Hello Ryan,

 

I have only FSX installed and the program works fantastic even with all the hardware (CP-Flight, Saitek, CH) The only problem gives A2A C172,C182,Cherokee. Here I see double digits on the radio's in VC and I can't solve this problem. (I use a double Saitek radio panel). So with Intel Core i7-3770 CPU at 3,40 GHZ and NVidia  GTX650 with 8 GB RAM and ASN installed I reach very easy at EHAM with B737 and B777 from PMDG 25fps. More easy planes, for instance RealAir Turbine Duke in Alaska about 50fps. So personally I have no reason changing to another Simulation program. I now locked the simulation at 30 fps.

 

Three green,

 

Ben

I use fsx.

 

I have only used the simulators from Microsoft. I think that in the future it might be other options, based on the facts i read about it beeing outdated, kind off.

 

I am sceptical to change, i like the menu interface in fsx alot

90% of the time, Nine dot One... but I also dabble in 2002, CFS 1 & 2, and occasionally IL-2/ Pacific Fighters.

 

Alan :smile: