P3d Regrets

[be77solo 125]

I agree with everyone else, P3D is the way to go, especially if you have a new machine you are building.

 

With these shader tweaks we've gotten the last few months, it looks absolutely fantastic.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

No regrets at all.  As a matter of fact I have FSX on a WD Raptor drive....I am thinking of formatting the drive as I can't remember

the last time I ran FSX.

 

CK

I still run with FSX (DX10 Steve's Fixer), as I really like the waves changing with wind direction.  Having said that though,  I really do use most of the time now, P3D v3.2.3 as the main M.S. based platform.  It runs great, looks great  (Orbx Central v2.0) and it is the first version that I can say, has me using it more than even a 50/50 use-of-time for both FSX and P3D.

 

No regrets at all. I could delete FSX, but with such cheap storage these days...I don't see why I would.  Sometimes, you just want to fly something else for a change-up...

 

Ses

[RaptyrOne 1,412]

Running P3D v3.2 Professional for about 2 months now. Equal or better than FSX in every respect. Handed my FSX setup down to my kids, will never go back . Just go easy on the eye candy (sliders) as it is still 32bit and OOM (VAS limitations) are ever present if you over do it. Some are the default aircraft are a bit of a joke though, almost insulted that LM sees it fit to include them.

[Bobsk8 12,735]

Sounds exactly the same as FSX. Think I'll stick with fs9...

 

FS9 and FSX convinced me to quit flying PC flight sims until MS Flight came out. When Flight was ditched I quit again until P3D 2.5. To me FS9 and FSX are like living a horror story compared to P3D. 

[Bobsk8 12,735]

I fly the Aeroworx King Air, iFly 737/747 in fs9 that hit the actual aircraft numbers perfectly.

 

It's a Flight simulation. Not kids look at how pretty the cartoon graphics and avatar guy looks simulation. So makes no difference to me as long as the aircraft I fly perform as to the real thing.

 

Probably just me, I don't like using windows 95 anymore either. 

[Rimshot 1,143]

Sounds exactly the same as FSX. Think I'll stick with fs9...

 

I hear FS2002 is even better! 

[Glynn 405]

 

 

Shadows around trees? Great for the train simulation guys out there I guess....

 

How about shadows under clouds or Rayleigh scattering, guess you don't miss those either in FS9 Jon.

Lets face it, Flight simulation has moved on and for the better.

Enjoy your 256x256  ground textures and limited detailed rendering distances, I think the rest of us will be happy for you.

[Bobsk8 12,735]

All those shadows look over done. No loss.

 

I do actually. My 256 look better then my 1024 orbx textures. And FSX ALWAYS overdid the distance rendering. Too unnatural. As you seen in the screens, FS9 perfectly replicates the realistic horizon and distance. Only X-plans betters it. The other two fall far short in that regard. Shame, they could've been something.

 

But like you said, it IS a 'Flight simulation'. And exactly how I use it.

 

The only thing I saw FS9 simulate well in the many  1,000's of hours I flew it, was crashes to desktop, planes falling through holes in runway and taxiways, lockups, and stutters, and flying  into the middle of large clouds and being able to clearly see the ground in the middle of the cloud.   Other than that it wasn't bad in it's day, which is long gone.  

[Bobsk8 12,735]

Having read that, I'd go so far as to say you've never owned fs9 at all. I've never known that by anybody anywhere anytime.

 

 

Only thing I've seen close to the above is when I read the FSX/p3d boards. Yep, advancement indeed...

 

Oh please. Don't make up stuff trying to prove your point that an obsolete piece of software that most simmers moved away from years ago, is still viable today. And don't accuse me of lying trying to defend your silly  position either. If you don't like  P3D, why are you hanging out on this forum by the way, just to churn up discord? 

[Poppet 710]

Oh Boys,  Put away the egos  :smile:  :smile:

[Glynn 405]

 

 

FS9 perfectly replicates the realistic horizon and distance. Only X-plans betters it. The other two fall far short in that regard.

 

Not any more Jon, P3D now has Rayleigh scattering just like Xplane, you should really keep up with developments, and the hobby just keeps moving forward, better textures, weather, 3rd party aircraft.

Check this out Jon

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Oh, dear Lord......

[Glynn 405]

Well, please. Don't make up stuff trying to prove your point that an obsolete piece of software that most simmers moved away from years ago, is still viable today. And don't accuse me of lying trying to defend your silly  position. If you don't like  P3D, why are you hanging out on this forum by the way, just to churn up discord? 

 

Bob, it's our fault for feeding him, just humour him and he will go away.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

Anyway, let the guy fly FS9!

 

For me (flying MSFS since FS5.0), P3D v3 is the most feature rich - I've got no regrets...I've managed to port most FSX addons to it

 

I'd say you need a relatively modern PC to run it well (very subjective), but all in all it runs well on my 2500k 4ghz / GTX 970

 

I'd also check out XP10 - beats out P3D in some areas (and lacks in others)

[Glynn 405]

 

 

That is one of the most unappealing vids I've seen. My fs9 smashes that into next week.

 

Of course it does Jon, we are all pleased for you really.