Does this include P3D v3?

 

Yes. I'm using v3.0 right now.

 

 

When you compare the performance of FSX to a different game, you should do a GTA V stock install to a FSX stock install. Not a GTA V without addons to FSX with addons. 

 

Why so? That defeats the purpose of the comparison since FSX stock looks so ... empty.

 

Point is, I feel like that the code behind ESP is incredibly inefficient at handling and balancing computer resources. Computers today usually have no issue handling games made in the mid-2000s. And yet here we are, 11 years after FSX, and we're still struggling to get decent fps out of high-end computers.

I fly X-Plane where I have no issues with performance. Smooth animation, frame rates never below mid 30's to low 40's fps with good world detail, long-distance views with no pop-in. I'm "only" running one monitor at 1920x1200 but that would be something I'd consider astounding a few years ago. I'm a happy camper for performance. At least until solid VR support arrives (both on the sim and on my hardware side), and that's probably a couple of years away.

 

For me, and with my current sim platform, the main frustration is weather modeling. It's gotten a bit better with add-ons, but the current weather engine in X-Plane is an antique layer cake with just three layers, and no vertical convection modeling like you'd need for thunderstorms. Maybe it will get better in the next version (11) which may not be too far away. I don't hold out much hope for the current version. It just needs a massive upgrade.

 

Another frustration -- and I know this is a contentious topic here, from past threads -- is that I'd like to see much more extensive damage modeling. The sim shows a ground crash in basically just one mode, as an on/off switch. I'd like to see more fine-grained damage as a check on flying skills. I've done landings where I know I might have bent metal, or blown a tire, and yet I've gotten away with it. There are some missing modes with helicopter models too, like mast bumping on twin blade helicopters (DCS does model this for the Huey).

 

Also, I know there are performance reasons why this doesn't happen, but I would like to see every tree, every powerline, every building as a crashable object. Making it over a treeline at a bush strip when I'm heavily loaded at a high density altitude should be a challenge, not somethng I ignore because I know I'll fly right through the trees as if they're a hologram. 

 

And finally, but this is a minor thing, I'd like to see a little more life on the ground at every airport. Cars moving in and out of the parking areas, dropping people off, more activity loading baggage, fuel trucks, etc. It's available in packaged scenery, but I'd like to see some automated way of doing this even with the growing library of default airports in X-Plane. Maybe not soon, but eventually. 

 

 

As someone who started simming in the Bruce Artwick days, the thing that frustrates me most about today's flight sims are the people that are constantly complaining about them. Frankly, we have never had it so good.

 

Bingo!  :smile:

LACK OF SUPPORT from the development teams. Lockheed Martin P3D is a big violator of this. P3D forums lack any involvement from the developers. I am certain that idf the developers were engaged in the tech support aspects that these OOM issues would not be happening for those of us who have 1000 of $$$$$ invested in this passion.

 

Other than that it seems that many development teams are absent in tech support..

 

Seems for them they like the Steve Miller song..... "Take the Money and RUN"

An up to date AI program for FSX/P3D.  It's sad we don't have an Ultimate Flight 3 type program by now that covers the merged airlines like Delta, United, and now American.  If it weren't for 'World of AI' we'd be stuck in pre 2008 era for traffic (for those that aren't AI creation savvy). 

Man I completely agree with the OOM on final or descent after a 2+ hour flight I have never been so angry in my life... now when it happens I have accepted it as a life annoyance. 

Yes. I'm using v3.0 right now.

 

Why so? That defeats the purpose of the comparison since FSX stock looks so ... empty.

 

Point is, I feel like that the code behind ESP is incredibly inefficient at handling and balancing computer resources. Computers today usually have no issue handling games made in the mid-2000s. And yet here we are, 11 years after FSX, and we're still struggling to get decent fps out of high-end computers.

 

Why compare stock for stock? Because you want an even playing field. Addons only drag performance down further and leave uneven results.

 

I thought Lockheed Martin could do whatever they wanted when it came to the source code of ESP? Or can they not change the core of it?

 

Games made in the mid-2000s or even modern games like Overwatch don't render the visible horizon of Earth. Roughly 120 square kilometers or so. They render a small little map about the size of a city block. Some might be bigger like GTA V or Skyrim, but they still aren't as big as FSX's rendering distance. Bigger render distance and number of things to render means more performance hit, not less.

 

FSX is typically not seen as a game though, so it can't be compared to a game. It's a 3D simulation platform.

 

Maybe it's not the code, but rather simulating the planet in a complex aircraft is just naturally heavy on computation and graphics. Like video encoding. Despite all the advances with hardware and software in that area, it still runs like a tank. The newest video compression technology, H265, actually runs roughly 2.5 times slower than H264 developed roughly 13 years ago.

P3d v3.3.5 Water. It;s not half as good was what we had in FSX..

 

I posted the details here

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/493751-water-still-sucks-in-p3d-v335/#entry3470466

.. 

I'm saying that we need a completely new simulator by that point. No more legacy code. I think that the only entity that can pull it off at this stage is LM.

AeroFly2 looks like a heavy weight contender for next gen sim.

As someone who started simming in the Bruce Artwick days, the thing that frustrates me most about today's flight sims are the people that are constantly complaining about them. Frankly, we have never had it so good.

+1

AeroFly2 looks like a heavy weight contender for next gen sim.

 

Maybe, although they're using flat orthophotos everywhere except a few places like airports and major city centers where you see 3D buildings. I know there are still fans of orthophotos, but I think of that as an old-school approach, a relic from the days when computers weren't as powerful as they are now. It doesn't work well for seasonal changes, morning or afternoon lighting, or for flying at night. 

 

Compared to what's being done in other sims now, I think they'll have to improve their world generation to be competitive. 

Controls that don't respond (due to very little use--I should just quit work!)or respond realistically.  Setup of controls can be difficult.  

 

It can be time consuming, especially installing, configuring and tuning (less so now with P3D).  The base scenery is no longer enough, I want any airport that I  fly into to be installed automagically.

Performance ie low framrate. Easily. Without a doubt.

 

Any other issues are just in a lower league.

Share your largest pet peeve concerning anything with any of today's flight sims or flight sim hobby.

 

I'll start off...

 

For me, it is performance. Really wish I could crank the jaw dropping eye candy to max and never go below 30 fps, never have a single stutter and have no graphic glitches, in any situation.

 

Me too.

 

I got into flight sims in the mid '80's (and, BTW, I DO remember Sub Logic's ATP simulator....learned a lot from it) and have always been just a little behind the curve where memory is concerned.  Now that I have a system with more than enough RAM and video RAM, I can't use any of it!  A descent platform would be nice.

None of the real "today's" FS have the depth and breath of the retreaded ESP, i.e. fsx, based sims which IMO, however glorious, fall soooo far short of what modern graphics and compute power are capable of doing.