Your Thoughts on P3D v3

[Egbert Drenth 250]

As we say in Dutch: P3D is not "Haarlemmer olie", meaning: P3D is not a miracle product fixing everything,

but it is by far the best Flight Simulator I have ever used since FS2 and much better and more stable then FSX.

 

Also the fact that LM still is very actively developing on P3D makes it for me a no brainer.

Sure it has bugs and other anomalies but these are ironed out and with each update performance and stability is increased.

[Anxu00 176]

I am still on 3.1 and have not made the move to 3.2 yet, but will if the AA support is proven to be better.  P3D v3 offers non-poping autogen and clouds shadow, which are the two factors that increase realistic environment for a sim, which to me enhance my experience tremendously.  Eventually I hope that more add-ons will be specifically designed for P3D rather than the hybrids we have currently that sort of work but less than optimal.  However my biggest wish is the LM solves the AA issue for good.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

However my biggest wish is the LM solves the AA issue for good

 

The AA issue lies with DX11, nothing LM can do about it, if it was fixable Nvidia or AMD would have done it by now and it's not just P3D that suffers.

[skully 1,045]

P3D is Super FSX Turbocharged Pressurized

FSX for me is now a repository for addons to be moved to P3D.

Running at 4K it has to be seen to be believed. Just an incredible looking sim.

[tf51d 284]

In general it was a good review,. In the the area of performance though, I think you were being a little disingenuous, especially in the area of VAS management compared to FSX. While everything you said is totally accurate as compared to FSX-Box, not so much when it comes to FSX-SE, which you totally ignored in this review, and , which also has similar VAS management improvements, and in fact had them first. It's also runs much smoother then FSX-Box, just like P3D. By comparing to FSX and not differentiating between the Box and Steam version, you give the impression that both FSX  platforms have the same limitations which is just not true.

[Jimm 437]

I've read a lot of the recent comments here and abroad about people's opinions of P3D v3, and for the most part, all have been positive, but with the typical caveats.  One thing that sticks out for me is that LM, while actively working on it to fix bugs, improve it, etc., there has to be only so far LM can go with a 32-bit sim.  Many have mentioned in the past that one desire they have is a 64-bit version but as I see it, LM would have to develop a new sim, correct?

 

Again, in my opinion, 32-bit is dying and I see no reason why these days, sims like this shouldn't be 64-bit.  I know X-plane is out there and supposedly Dovetail is creating a 64-bit sim as well so when we either move to x-plane or Dovetail, then we have to decide what to do about add-ons, which to me, is like starting all over and a lot of money wasted.

 

For me personally, I appreciate the latest version very much.  I am able to do so much more now without any issue.  I recently purchased the Aerosoft Airbus A320/A321 and am having a lot of fun (and frustration) with it, but overall for performance, it is working rather well on my laptop rig.  To give you an idea of how much this version has improved, I am actively moving forward with a Navigraph subscription and am starting to train a lot more in tubeliners as opposed to the casual jaunt around the pretty scenery of ORBX, which I was constrained to before.  I also relented and purchased the P3D version of the PMDG B737 (which I once swore I wouldn't do because of the added cost, since I already had the FSX version).  In any case, both aircraft run fine and I have a more immersive flying experience.  Sorry that all sounds like a paid endorsement, but it really isn't.  I don't get excited much over many things these days, but this version of P3D actually makes me look forward to flying again.

 

-Jim

[Anxu00 176]

 

 

it comes to FSX-SE, which you totally ignored in this review, and , which also has similar VAS management improvements

While using new compiler helped FSX-SE I do not think Dovetail did anything to improve VAS management as P3D v3 does.  Iow, you can still get into OOM with FSX-SE in complex scenery areas and using something like the PMDG 777.  In defending the reviewer, the review is about P3D not FSX-SE.

[rparson99 32]

Long time simmer here. P3d begins where FSX has left off. The LM team have proven to be responsive and very complementary in their development effort such that many enhancements are appealing to the flight sim community. Flight simming for me has never been better.

[alderon57 7]

Like others here, I have been sim-flying since the green-lines-on-black-background days.  :-)

Since my last full installation was a fully tweaked-out FS9.1 setup; I am extremely happy with my P3d v3.2.

I personally don't see the need to go any further than this for the foreseeable future - except to add scenery and aircraft.

Everything is in place to enjoy a scenic flight almost anywhere in the world; or to practice and improve my piloting skills.

Modern technology is pretty cool!

Ron

[hychewright 46]

Like others here, I have been sim-flying since the green-lines-on-black-background days.  :-)

Since my last full installation was a fully tweaked-out FS9.1 setup; I am extremely happy with my P3d v3.2.

I personally don't see the need to go any further than this for the foreseeable future - except to add scenery and aircraft.

Everything is in place to enjoy a scenic flight almost anywhere in the world; or to practice and improve my piloting skills.

Modern technology is pretty cool!

Ron

+1, I agree

[JimmiG 244]

P3D 2.5 user here, but almost ready to move to v3. Been waiting for a few more "daily driver" addons to get updated, especially OrbX airports.

 

For me, P3D has both pro's and cons compared with FSX. The biggest advantage is the updated graphics engine which brings many advanced visual effects that other games/sims have had for years. It's not quite 2016-level, but at least perhaps 2011-era graphics. Regarding performance, it's still extremely dependent on single-core CPU performance. It can take advantage of faster graphics cards, but unless you also have a high-end CPU, performance won't be very good.

 

OOMs won't go away until the sim goes 64-bit. 32 GB of RAM will probably become standard for high-end systems in 2016. Meanwhile, the sim can still only use 4GB, just 12.5% of the memory capacity of a modern system. The ability to unload areas on the fly is welcome, but it's just a stop gap measure that doesn't solve the issue.

 

The rapid development cycle is both a blessing and a curse. Every time a major update is released, most add-ons break for at least a few months, sometimes several years in the case of some OrbX products. On the other hand, it means bugs in the sim usually get fixed instead of having to be worked around. In a way it's a return to normality and how things were when MSFS was still being developed, with a new version every couple of years and service packs in-between. Addon developers will simply have to re-learn to keep their products updated. They can no longer just release a product and cash in on it for years with absolutely no work.

[Bobsk8 12,536]

P3D 2.5 user here, but almost ready to move to v3. Been waiting for a few more "daily driver" addons to get updated, especially OrbX airports.

 

For me, P3D has both pro's and cons compared with FSX. The biggest advantage is the updated graphics engine which brings many advanced visual effects that other games/sims have had for years. It's not quite 2016-level, but at least perhaps 2011-era graphics. Regarding performance, it's still extremely dependent on single-core CPU performance. It can take advantage of faster graphics cards, but unless you also have a high-end CPU, performance won't be very good.

 

OOMs won't go away until the sim goes 64-bit. 32 GB of RAM will probably become standard for high-end systems in 2016. Meanwhile, the sim can still only use 4GB, just 12.5% of the memory capacity of a modern system. The ability to unload areas on the fly is welcome, but it's just a stop gap measure that doesn't solve the issue.

 

 

Couldn't disagree more. I have an i5 running  at 3.1 gigs, and 6 GBs ram and average almost 30 FPS on all my flights.  I never had an OOM, but I don't load down my system with scenery and airports. I enjoy smooth, stutter less flying more than eye candy. It looks good and feels good, period. 

[Cruachan 705]

The ability to unload areas on the fly is welcome, but it's just a stop gap measure that doesn't solve the issue.

 

Hi Jim,

 

Not sure I agree with you on this one. The way I see it working under such constraints, as are imposed by a 32 bit programming environment, encourages far more efficient coding. No doubt developers are under constant pressure from their employers to meet deadlines and this, necessarily, will encourage the taking of shortcuts. It is likely that the Prepar3D Development team are not burdened by this same sense of urgency to get things done and so can spend time getting it right.

 

Takes me back to the days when the likes of Jeff Minter of 'Llamasoft' fame churned out quite impressive 6502 machine coded games which ran in minuscule amounts of Ram: "NO FRAGGIN' MEMORY! The only way around that was just to come up with clever designs and code 'em tight." He was, and remains, especially fond of the Commodore Vic20 which was my first home PC in the 80s - still have it and, as far as I know it still works. That was a truly special time - where has all the excitement gone as we marvelled at what was then possible? All these what I call "Bang, Crash, Wallop" films with ever so spectacularly complex and clever special digital visual effects currently appearing in our cinemas are becoming so routine that they are in danger of being taken for granted by an audience feeling they have seen it all before.

 

Having ever faster processors just encourages sloppy coding with unnecessary bloating. 64 bit, while desirable, is not the ultimate solution many believe it to be so long as this lazy approach persists. Surely exploiting what is possible under 32 bit must be a good thing as these learned techniques can then be carried forward to 64 bit Prepar3D when it comes some day in the not too distant future.

 

Regards,

Mike

[tf51d 284]

While using new compiler helped FSX-SE I do not think Dovetail did anything to improve VAS management as P3D v3 does.  Iow, you can still get into OOM with FSX-SE in complex scenery areas and using something like the PMDG 777.  In defending the reviewer, the review is about P3D not FSX-SE.

You'd be wrong about that, in fact it was one of the first things they did. They did it by flushing the terrain cache and releasing it's address space back to the sim, this left space for the new scenery when you reach your destination to load with room to spare. FSX Box held on to it so when you reached your destination there often wasn't  enough available address space to load the new scenery resulting in an OOM? This also occurred with P3D prior to V3.0. LM didn't implement any form of VAS management until then. For example on my system in FSXSE and the NGX or T7 I could fly most anywhere in the world  no matter what length I've flown 14 hour flights. and have 500MB or more VAS left available with no pinging at anytime from FSUIPC. With FSX-Box I couldn't get close. The only exception I found was flying to New York or London Heathrow. I could still make it but it was much closer with pings from FSUIPC. This is with 2048 texture res, Extremely dense Scenery, and autogen, and WOAI traffic. Doesn't sound too impressive, until you take into account I'm running a pretty old system, still on Win Vista 32bit. with it's 3GB VAS limit. So that gives me an effective VAS usage of 2.5GB, in FSXSE itself. The only reason I brought this up, was because the reviewer chose to make comparison to FSX. I just wanted to point out that FSX-Box and FSX-SE really do have some significant differences internally due to the improvements DTG put into FSX-SE, visually though they are pretty much the same. Here's the bullet point from the original release notes of FSXSE

 

"Fix to flush all levels of detail in terrain cache."

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I was astonished that they didn't code that right from the start, although I guess they just never thought that anyone would get anywhere near the 4GB VAS limit with FSX (probably because they thought an FS11 would be released by the end of 2009).