I never had those problems with FSX. Perhaps you don't know how to set it up properly? (Install > forget 'tweaks' > run)

 

From what I've seen, it doesn't look any better at all. In same cases, to me visually it looks far worse. The dreaded 'cartoon' look appears and looks worse then FSX. Tacky almost.

 

The clouds look TERRIBLE. I've been using fs9 out of necessity lately and default clouds look better then P3D's.

 

 

LM has simply developed a sim for the GTA kids brigade. The avatar inclusion has convinced me of that. Think I'll stay well clear....

 

 

Mark L.

 

I have probably forgot more about setting up and running MSFS than you will ever know. P3DI is a fluid running flight sim that feels like flying a real aircraft. which I have hundreds of hours of experience doing in real life. FSX never felt that way to me. As far as LM developing a sim for kids, that is probably the most ridiculous statement I have read in a long time. 

Great post Rob, but this thread was clickbait from the get-go :wink:

 

$10 is no barrier to entry for someone to get in an make an informed decision themselves (rather than vacillating and speculating)....

P3D is moving forward all right, courtesy of 1000's of folks who have paid $50 and up for the privilege of being a beta tester.  Indeed clever marketing. 

 

Hi Steward

 

I see that you have a high opinion of P3Ders  :wink:  ! Well, I do not feel like a sucker caught in a "clever marketing" net !  I've had P3D since the 2.3 mark and I've had a fully functional sim all the time. It has had its flaws, of course, but rather less actually than early FSX which couldn't be used without heavy trials and errors  tweakings (BP= and the like), for instance. Even FSX/DX10 needs some calibration for an imperfect result.

 

A lot of us here have flown both FSX (and FS9 and 2k2  and you name it.) and P3D v2 and/or v3 for hundreds of hours and know, from experience, that P3D is superior to FSX. Not  from forum photos, not from cherrypicked threads, from flying them  :smile: .

Hi,

 

EDIT: removed EULA discussion

 

...not too mention the cost of switching to P3D is not insignificant and the current basket of FSX add-ons I have invested in over the years, my plan is to stick with FSX and wait for the 64bit sim to come out from DTG.

 

At that point in time I would seriously consider upgrading my old flight sim rig from the i7-2600K I have to something more powerful. In essence I hope to leapfrog P3D altogether.

 

Regards,

Most likely I will be doing the same, Mark.

I never had those problems with FSX. Perhaps you don't know how to set it up properly? (Install > forget 'tweaks' > run)

 

From what I've seen, it doesn't look any better at all. In same cases, to me visually it looks far worse. The dreaded 'cartoon' look appears and looks worse then FSX. Tacky almost.

 

The clouds look TERRIBLE. I've been using fs9 out of necessity lately and default clouds look better then P3D's.

 

 

LM has simply developed a sim for the GTA kids brigade. The avatar inclusion has convinced me of that. Think I'll stay well clear....

 

 

Mark L.

 

Yeah, the dreaded 'cartoon look'..

 

Hi Steward

 

I see that you have a high opinion of P3Ders  :wink:  ! Well, I do not feel like a sucker caught in a "clever marketing" net !  I've had P3D since the 2.3 mark and I've had a fully functional sim all the time. It has had its flaws, of course, but rather less actually than early FSX which couldn't be used without heavy trials and errors  tweakings (BP= and the like), for instance. Even FSX/DX10 needs some calibration for an imperfect result.

 

A lot of us here have flown both FSX (and FS9 and 2k2  and you name it.) and P3D v2 and/or v3 for hundreds of hours and know, from experience, that P3D is superior to FSX. Not  from forum photos, not from cherrypicked threads, from flying them  :smile: .

Hi there, Dom.  I apologize for the impression I might have left about P3Ders.  I don't begrudge those who wish to invest the money in a flight sim they view as worth the investment.  And I never used the word "sucker".  Actually, when it comes to flight sims, we are all suckers in one way or another!  LOL.  However, I will say this about P3Ders:  They are as passionate about the hobby as anyone, and they should be.  As you point out, they have spent a lot of time (and $$) on the hobby, so if they are excited about how well P3D performs viz-a-viz FSX, who am I to argue?  What is a little galling is the typical comment (not made here in this discussion, btw) that "I can't understand why anyone would settle for FSX", or words to that effect.  Well, fine, but the folks who make that sort of comment should consider first of all why there are simmers who are flying with FSX.  Maybe they are just starting out and haven't heard of P3D.  Maybe they don't have the $$ or time to make the change to P3D.  Maybe they just don't think it's worth the change--they have airplanes they want to keep, scenery they don't want to replace because it doesn't work in P3D (for the time being, at least).  There are a host of other reasons.  My original query was why P3D is "demonstrably superior" to FSX.  I haven't really received a logical, conclusive reason except that it runs better or looks better (both subject to hardware or subjective opinion) or "it's the future of flight sims" or some such.  In my humble opinion, the future of flight sims is neither with FSX nor P3D, but the next flight sim (X-Plane excluded) that goes full balls with 64-bit.  If that happens to be P3D, as some here have speculated (without much evidence, btw), then so be it and P3D-64bit will win the lottery.  There--I've put my cards on the table, I guess.  For the time being I'll stick with FSX because it does what I want it to do with a minimum of hassle, with the planes I want to fly, and with the scenery/airports I have installed.  That being said, however, in the event I want to try P3D, and who knows when that will be, I have all the quad installers for Orbx sceneries on an external HD, just in case!  :smile:

Hi there, Dom.  I apologize for the impression I might have left about P3Ders.  I don't begrudge those who wish to invest the money in a flight sim they view as worth the investment.  And I never used the word "sucker".  Actually, when it comes to flight sims, we are all suckers in one way or another!  LOL.  However, I will say this about P3Ders:  They are as passionate about the hobby as anyone, and they should be.  As you point out, they have spent a lot of time (and $$) on the hobby, so if they are excited about how well P3D performs viz-a-viz FSX, who am I to argue?  What is a little galling is the typical comment (not made here in this discussion, btw) that "I can't understand why anyone would settle for FSX", or words to that effect.  Well, fine, but the folks who make that sort of comment should consider first of all why there are simmers who are flying with FSX.  Maybe they are just starting out and haven't heard of P3D.  Maybe they don't have the $$ or time to make the change to P3D.  Maybe they just don't think it's worth the change--they have airplanes they want to keep, scenery they don't want to replace because it doesn't work in P3D (for the time being, at least).  There are a host of other reasons.  My original query was why P3D is "demonstrably superior" to FSX.  I haven't really received a logical, conclusive reason except that it runs better or looks better (both subject to hardware or subjective opinion) or "it's the future of flight sims" or some such.  In my humble opinion, the future of flight sims is neither with FSX nor P3D, but the next flight sim (X-Plane excluded) that goes full balls with 64-bit.  If that happens to be P3D, as some here have speculated (without much evidence, btw), then so be it and P3D-64bit will win the lottery.  There--I've put my cards on the table, I guess.  For the time being I'll stick with FSX because it does what I want it to do with a minimum of hassle, with the planes I want to fly, and with the scenery/airports I have installed.  That being said, however, in the event I want to try P3D, and who knows when that will be, I have all the quad installers for Orbx sceneries on an external HD, just in case!  :smile:

 

Maybe a question of definition, Stew, but  running better and looking better is exactly what I mean by being superior for a sim  :smile: !  Subjective ? You bet it is. Its my fun after all.

 

64bits won't bring much except for those flying PMDG birds with Aerosoft mega-airports to put it simply. For you and me, with our GA, warbird, short-hauler aircraft in OrbX sceneries, we won't see the difference. The real game changer would be a sim knowing how to use all the processors/threads of a rig. P3D, in a way, had advanced into this direction by using the graphic card processor at its fullest, something FSX does not know how to do.  

 

I've been using FSX for years before shifting to P3D. There is not a scenery or an aircraft I liked that I really miss. Most could be transported to the new sim, something which was not entirely possible from FS9 to FSX SP2 by the way. You have any in mind ?

From this thread we can confirm two well-known facts:

 

1) The flightsim community is full of old guys who will defend their 15 year old FS9/FSX versions till the end. The fact that they even think it looks pretty and performs well is a clear indication that they've totally lost contact with reality.

 

2) Lots of people still think that going 64-bit is some kind of magic silver bullet

From this thread we can confirm two well-known facts:

Not really, the topic like always is derailing.

 

1) The flightsim community is full of old guys who will defend their 15 year old FS9/FSX versions till the end. The fact that they even think it looks pretty and performs well is a clear indication that they've totally lost contact with reality.

Dead Wrong. I don't know what your definition of Old Guys is!

 

I bet many of us "Old Guys" have been simming for over 30 years now, and fully see, understand and appreciate each an every improvement the FS Franchise has provided, In my case since subLOGIC's FS to P3D v3.2.

 

It just keeps getting Better.

 

Remember this: You will sometime be an "Old Guy" too.

 

 

2) Lots of people still think that going 64-bit is some kind of magic silver bullet

 

Correct.

 

Once the "OOM is gone" (If, and only if users and some developers manage not to exhaust the PC's memory by cranking up all sliders and adding stuff), new user induced problems will arise.

IMO The most probable causes will be Chip Meltdown or  Video Card Meltdown.

What does p3d do that FSX can't?

 

DX11 support

Hardware tesselation. Shifting terrain from cpu to gpu

Realtime lighting and shadowing on all terrain and building surfaces

HDR lighting effect

Cloud shadows

Cockpit shadows

Volumetric fog

Speed tree support

Adobe scale form support (replaces c++)

Sim director scenario creation

Hardware calibration support

Increased lod radius by default

Pop free autogen

Dynamic reflections

Triton water

 

I'm sure I have missed tons more. But you get the picture......

From this thread we can confirm two well-known facts:

 

1) The flightsim community is full of old guys who will defend their 15 year old FS9/FSX versions till the end. The fact that they even think it looks pretty and performs well is a clear indication that they've totally lost contact with reality.

 

2) Lots of people still think that going 64-bit is some kind of magic silver bullet

 

My 32bit sim is better!

No.... my 32bit sim is better! 

 

P3D is clearly the more advanced sim on the market. That cant be denied. Some things old FSX/FSXSE does better, but there are more advancements in P3D and that, no one can deny. 

 

But the time has come for the same platform to move forward beyond a mostly aesthetic level. If hardware utilization is brought up to date with a new MSFS (whether from DTG or LM) sim on the horizon and it is also 64 bit to boot. This debate may finally be put to rest. 

 

Excuse me while I go back to flying. But I will have to adjust my settings first because I may get an OOM.... 

My 32bit sim is better!

No.... my 32bit sim is better! 

 

P3D is clearly the more advanced sim on the market. That cant be denied. Some things old FSX/FSXSE does better, but there are more advancements in P3D and that, no one can deny. 

 

But the time has come for the same platform to move forward beyond a mostly aesthetic level. If hardware utilization is brought up to date with a new MSFS (whether from DTG or LM) sim on the horizon and it is also 64 bit to boot. This debate may finally be put to rest. 

 

Excuse me while I go back to flying. But I will have to adjust my settings first because I may get an OOM.... 

Lucky you, I am in reinstall mode, but for the better...hopefully.

 

-Jim

Maybe a question of definition, Stew, but  running better and looking better is exactly what I mean by being superior for a sim  :smile: !  Subjective ? You bet it is. Its my fun after all.

 

64bits won't bring much except for those flying PMDG birds with Aerosoft mega-airports to put it simply. For you and me, with our GA, warbird, short-hauler aircraft in OrbX sceneries, we won't see the difference. The real game changer would be a sim knowing how to use all the processors/threads of a rig. P3D, in a way, had advanced into this direction by using the graphic card processor at its fullest, something FSX does not know how to do.  

 

I've been using FSX for years before shifting to P3D. There is not a scenery or an aircraft I liked that I really miss. Most could be transported to the new sim, something which was not entirely possible from FS9 to FSX SP2 by the way. You have any in mind ?

For starters, My 3 A2A birds all would have to be re-purchased ($150). My Pilatus Porter from FSD certainly won't install into P3D--it's comfortable only with DX9, lol!  But it's one of the best bush planes in my hangar.  Also, I'm not sure about my Quest Kodiak--it seems LionHeart may have issued an update for P3D.  And there some 3rd party airports, non Orbx, which have yet to be converted for use by P3D as far as I know.  And I figure if I want to install P3D finally, I'll want to install it on a new 500Gb SSD, and to get the most out of the graphics, a new GTX970.  So it has a lot to do with $$, not only the aircraft and airports I might have to do without.  Deleting FSX entirely and replacing it with P3D I don't believe is a viable option. I would keep both, as several of my simming friends have already done. 

From this thread we can confirm two well-known facts:

 

1) The flightsim community is full of old guys who will defend their 15 year old FS9/FSX versions till the end. The fact that they even think it looks pretty and performs well is a clear indication that they've totally lost contact with reality.

 

2) Lots of people still think that going 64-bit is some kind of magic silver bullet

(1)  This is the kind of comment that never contributes to the discussion.  You, sir, are way out of bounds.  "Old guys" my a$$.

What does p3d do that FSX can't?

 

DX11 support

Hardware tesselation. Shifting terrain from cpu to gpu

Realtime lighting and shadowing on all terrain and building surfaces

HDR lighting effect

Cloud shadows

Cockpit shadows

Volumetric fog

Speed tree support

Adobe scale form support (replaces c++)

Sim director scenario creation

Hardware calibration support

Increased lod radius by default

Pop free autogen

Dynamic reflections

Triton water

 

I'm sure I have missed tons more. But you get the picture......

Thank you, sir. Yours is the first post in this discussion which has attempted to explain the strong points of P3D. You make a good case, even though I don't know what some of those features mean! LOL!

From this thread we can confirm two well-known facts:

 

1) The flightsim community is full of old guys who will defend their 15 year old FS9/FSX versions till the end. The fact that they even think it looks pretty and performs well is a clear indication that they've totally lost contact with reality.

 

2) Lots of people still think that going 64-bit is some kind of magic silver bullet

If your comments were purposely written to spark a reaction, I think you were successful.

 

I think the "defense" you speak of is not about the age of the members, but the fact that we have all spent...excuse me, invested a fair amount of money for the right to use the content provided for a given sim.  Remember, we don't own the software, just the right to use it, and as I have seen elsewhere, that right can be taken away if used illegally.

 

I will gladly jump on the bandwagon pertaining to the investment of add-ons for FSX and P3D, but isn't that the point to the hobby?  If any finger pointing is warranted, it should be to the creators of the sim, by purposely not including full-featured and functional systems to all add-on aircraft.  There are quite a few default aircraft that are really just game-type aircraft (i.e. FMS/MCDU onboard a 737 or A320).  Someone HAD to know that those systems would be looked into by a user, hence the need for add-on content providers.

 

We as users are always hungry for more...more aircraft, the more complex the better, more exterior detail, more liveries...and that's just for aircraft.  There are always constant threads and discussions about "why won't product X work with sim X?"...it'll never end.

 

As far as whether ones sim functions better than someone elses will be a mystery for the ages, but has NOTHING to do with losing touch with reality...sorry, you are way off base there.

 

As for your second statement, those who make the claim that 64-bit will make things better, has some validity.  Take X-Plane for instance.  It is 64-bit and I don't hear many complaining about performance.  Those of us OLD people who have been using flight sim products, are well aware of the memory limitations.  it is a fact and a fact we deal with every time we fly.  Sure, we will always perk up when someone comes along with some sort of "snake oil" treatment, the end all be all of saviors, supposedly marketed to help alleviate or eradicate an issue that stems deep within the heart of the coding.  I fell for it once...shame on them.

 

There is no magic bullet or cure all.  As it has been stated repeatedly, everyone's systems are different and no matter how much you try to mimic someone else's setup, settings, add-on tweaks, you still won't get what the get.  It is what it is.

 

Am I looking forward to 64-bit sims being the norm?  If it helps stave off OOMs, sure I'm all for it, sign me up BUT at the same time, I still have to look at the reality that if all of my legacy content won't be compatible, then yeah, more money to be spent and I will tread lightly until I have expert opinion and proof that 64-bit sims is the way to go.

 

-Jim

You obviously have never been thru flight school ... I did almost exactly what you indicated above at my FBO (KCCR).  Guess what I ran into for my FBO's simulator ... a RedBird motion sim running ... drum roll ... Prepar3D.  Instructor was impressed at how quickly I move thru the simulated scenarios primarily because of my home simulator use.  Simulator hours only count 1/2 towards real flight hours, but they do count when one is attempting to get their PPL.

Thank you Rob, you saved me the trouble of posting the same information. I can understand ignorance, and know that it's easily correctable through education.

 

What I cannot understand though is willful ignorance...