No thread on P3Dv4 basically being confirmed to be 64bit and coming in 2017?

[Guest]

In fact, the ligting engine is the ONLY defining feature which I can see differentiates the two in a significant way.

Although I do agree - comparing the two side-by-side, out of the box, XP wins.

The other very obvious and significant difference is how the scenery is shown. P3D has a clear and very obvious LOD around the aircraft and you see things being loaded all the time. Certainly not as bad as in FSX but still. It is impossible to fly through a mountain valley without seeing the various files being loaded at different resolutions. Huge immersion killer and something I always have been aware of and which annoyed me constantly.

 

XP however shows the world around you as it is: everything seems to be there right away without any difference in detail. I can zoom into something that is MILES away, a lamppost, a traffic sign, a car, and it is as sharp as it would be when I would have parked my plane next to it. This also goes for the ground textures. The amount of detail (just fly low over a highway) is awesome too. This helps a 1000% to give the idea you are actually there. To me this is one of the MAJOR differences. In fact, I may like this even more than the lighting system.

 

Of course quite a few things are lacking. Clouds are crap right now, weather too, airplanes aren't that high end, although the default Cessna is absolutely great and better than any P3D default airplane. And btw I tried the ATC yesterday and was surprised how nice it was. But yes, there certainly is room for improvement. And it also of course depends on what is important to you in a flight sim.

[ErichB 3,643]

And it also of course depends on what is important to you in a flight sim.

That's exactly right and I think that's what it ultimately comes down to. For many years I was a GA guy - I loved the mountains and the autogen/texure loading issue did bother me. As time moved on, I just learned to live with it. In my opinion, P3D is not a great VFR sim at all - even with all the Orbx addons thrown at it. Autogen scale is ridiculous, the loading is noticeable and the roads running through houses etc. I don't want to deal with all of that crap anymore.

 

These days (for the past two years) I'm almost exclusively a heavy metal guy - this is where P3D does shine. It has the range of complex aircraft I want, it has a ton of large airports and with the addon shader tools and advanced AS16 weather now available, it blows anything else out of the water, hands down.

[shivers9 1,174]

I plan to stick with Prepar3d unless something really magic happens. In reading all the comments here I think X-Plane and Prepar3d are clearly the front runners and I think your opinions support my beliefs and why I chose P3D. Simply put we have two camps of users here. Those who are drawn to complex aircraft and systems whick is clearly LM's goal and why they continue to march towards a Flight Sim.

 

X-Plane on the other hand is doing a lot in the direction of graphics ect. and continue to march towards becoming a Scenery Sim.

 

There is nothing wrong with either goal. Until we all have a Hal ultra computer from the year 3535 then their is not going to be enough bytes and bits for perfect systems and perfect scenery. It is just like buying a boat. Choose which hole you want to drop your money in and then enjoy it!!

[Bobsk8 12,745]

The other very obvious and significant difference is how the scenery is shown. P3D has a clear and very obvious LOD around the aircraft and you see things being loaded all the time. Certainly not as bad as in FSX but still. It is impossible to fly through a mountain valley without seeing the various files being loaded at different resolutions. Huge immersion killer and something I always have been aware of and which annoyed me constantly.

 

XP however shows the world around you as it is: everything seems to be there right away without any difference in detail. I can zoom into something that is MILES away, a lamppost, a traffic sign, a car, and it is as sharp as it would be when I would have parked my plane next to it. This also goes for the ground textures. The amount of detail (just fly low over a highway) is awesome too. This helps a 1000% to give the idea you are actually there. To me this is one of the MAJOR differences. In fact, I may like this even more than the lighting system.

 

Of course quite a few things are lacking. Clouds are crap right now, weather too, airplanes aren't that high end, although the default Cessna is absolutely great and better than any P3D default airplane. And btw I tried the ATC yesterday and was surprised how nice it was. But yes, there certainly is room for improvement. And it also of course depends on what is important to you in a flight sim.

 

Probably due in part to the minimum requirement of 16GB of ram in XP and some XP  users have twice that. Many PCs more than a couple of years don't have that Ram capacity, and P3D and FSX runs fine on those computers, so switching to XP also requires investing in a new PC, so it gets pretty expensive. 

[ComSimPilot 623]

These days (for the past two years) I'm almost exclusively a heavy metal guy - this is where P3D does shine. It has the range of aircraft I want, it has a ton of large airports and with the addon shader tools and advanced AS16 weather now available, it blows anything else out of the water, hands down.

 

Same boat, agreed. XP is not yet there and I don't even see signs of coming there soon.

 

"Do you get a free update from Office 2013 to 2016? A 64bit version of the sim should be considered as a totally new sim, & it could be a bonus to us simmers if 'old' 32bit add-ons will work!

 

As about the x64 P3D upgrade fee, of course its on company's policy to do whatever they like. I am not talking about LM, but for the payware developers. However, I suppose they understand that if their 64bit converted products are sold like a totally new product and not with an upgrade fee, then very few will go with them. My payware inventory for P3D is way over 1200$ including the P3D upgrades so far. And I'm already  going to pay the P3D upgrade fee for FSL soon, having bought the FSX version. Besides, I bought the PMDG T7 two times already for FSX and P3D. Sometimes companies have to work for hours that not get paid immediately when the product goes out if they want to stay in business and look at the long term investment and growth. Again, I understand a small upgrade fee. But they should fully understand that a payware built sim of over 1000$ is not gonna be replaced by a vanilla 64bit with only their new 64bit add-on. The current FSX/P3D user has many add-ons (airports, scenery, airports, weather, textures etc..) to only care about one add-on. So, his choice will be based on the overall new platform upgrade cost. And certainly I don't know many who are going to pay +1000$ for an 64bit P3D. Many will then go to XP or simply stay x32bit. And maybe LM doesn't care so much (though I also doubt that..just see their homepage), but the smaller add-on companies will. 

 

And to answer your question about the Office 2013 and Office 2014, this is easy to see why its a wrong comparison. When let's say an add-on developer releases the x64 P3D version of his payware product as a new product with a new price, this is not an office 2013 to 2014 conversion. This is an Office 2013 x32bit to an Office 2013 x64bit. Same version. All software companies, sell their 32/64bit versions in the same price. You just pick the installer you want. Even Microsoft Windows, the base product, has the same price for x32 and x64 bit. 

 

Now, if you tell me that their 64bit new products will not be remade to only support 64 bit but will be totally different, I won't believe you. If that is the case, they will provide a free upgrade for the same product in its x64 version and the new upgraded product in its x64 version and let the customers choose what they want. Hiding a completely new product under the 64bit version is not going to fool simmers, and flight sim developers are good and fair people.

[simmerhead 885]

I plan to stick with Prepar3d unless something really magic happens. In reading all the comments here I think X-Plane and Prepar3d are clearly the front runners and I think your opinions support my beliefs and why I chose P3D. Simply put we have two camps of users here. Those who are drawn to complex aircraft and systems whick is clearly LM's goal and why they continue to march towards a Flight Sim.

 

X-Plane on the other hand is doing a lot in the direction of graphics ect. and continue to march towards becoming a Scenery Sim.

 

There is nothing wrong with either goal. Until we all have a Hal ultra computer from the year 3535 then their is not going to be enough bytes and bits for perfect systems and perfect scenery. It is just like buying a boat. Choose which hole you want to drop your money in and then enjoy it!!

Why on earth world LM introduce bathymetry, avatar, submarines, animated ocean waves etc. if they only strived to be a Flight sim?

[shivers9 1,174]

 

 

Why on earth world LM introduce bathymetry, avatar, submarines, animated ocean waves etc. if they only strived to be a Flight sim?

I think you missed my point simmerhead. I am very aware of the many uses of Prepar3d and have used the same examples in other post to make the point that LM in invested for the long haul here. To keep it simple, I am just interested in the flight sim area and was limiting my comments to only the Flight Sim area for this discussion.. 

[simmerhead 885]

I think you missed my point simmerhead. I am very aware of the many uses of Prepar3d and have used the same examples in other post to make the point that LM in invested for the long haul here. To keep it simple, I am just interested in the flight sim area and was limiting my comments to only the Flight Sim area for this discussion.. 

 

Maybe, but I just don't follow your logic. I see both XP and P3D as two platforms aiming to be both a scenery sim and a flight sim. I would even argue that XP to a larger extent is just a flight sim, while P3D is a simulator platform for all kinds of vehicles and then some. One of the greatest competitors to P3D is Presagis. But I get your point in trying to define the sims from your personal standpoint. 

 

To me the scenery and flying goes hand in hand and are inseparable. Flying has always been about seeing the earth from above, and travel to places that would otherwise be out of reach. When you don't use a Level D motion simulator platform, the scenery becomes even more important to suspend disbelief and get your head into the game. Without great scenery, even the best study sims by PMDG becomes quite pointless and boring. The experience of flying is so much more than pushing the buttons in the cockpit - that's the easy part. 

[ErichB 3,643]

 

 

Without great scenery, even the best study sims by PMDG becomes quite pointless and boring. The experience of flying is so much more than pushing the buttons in the cockpit - that's the easy part. 

 

Agree, but the obvious flaws of texture loading,  bad autogen and other scenery anomalies are much less obvious at high altitude.  The world looks amazing in the blue, pink  or red haze at 37 000'

[simmerhead 885]

Agree, but the obvious flaws of texture loading,  bad autogen and other scenery anomalies are much less obvious at high altitude.  The world looks amazing in the blue, pink  or red haze at 37 000'

 

The scenery engine of P3D has some major flaws, and I agree, texture loading is a major annoyance, especially in mountainous areas. The LOD radius is also extremely limiting, and I hate seeing those blurry mountains, textures and missing autogen in the not to far distance. It worked great in 2006 when most of us where using low res 15" to 21" monitors, but not today.

 

It's so refreshing to fly in Aerofly FS 2 and have endless sharpness and detail... 

[bonchie 2,305]

Agree lighting and 64 bit are separate things - but 64-bit will (presumably) come with other enhancements. Although lighting has been improved - my aircraft are still shrouded in darkness on a floodlit apron. Ridiculous and glaringly noticeable.

 

At what point do we consider a sim to be a 'new tech sim'? What has to change? And what is it that we hope the change to bring|? In many ways i would regard P3Dv3.4 as a new tech sim compared to buggy , crappy old FSX. It's a complete breath of fresh air. XP may be all 'new tech', but it is not without flaws or performance issues. In fact, the ligting engine is the ONLY defining feature which I can see differentiates the two in a significant way.

 

Although I do agree - comparing the two side-by-side, out of the box, XP wins.

 

There is far more that XP has advanced over P3D than just the night lighting. Scenery depiction is light years better and the default scenery rivals any payware you can buy for P3D in presentation, including Orbx stuff. Not because Orbx aren't awesome, but because of P3D's ultimate limitation to flat/painted ground textures (most ugly in city environments), landclass placed autogen, and roads. It's just a different level of quality that P3D will never match until the move into a more 3D built world. While there are some cons with everything, the pros outweigh them to my eyes.

[ErichB 3,643]

I honestly sometimes sit infront of my 55' 4k monitor in cruise and am just in awe of the immersiveness of it all. The fan noise, the air noise, the ATC background, the amazing views at that altitude and lighting produced by the shader mods coupled with the texture mods. That alone is sometimes an escape.

. While there are some cons with everything, the pros outweigh them to my eyes.

 

I know you have been a FSX/P3D guy in the past who, along with other notable FSX/P3D diehards are now saying the same thing about XP. So there must be truth in that.

[simmerhead 885]

I honestly sometimes sit infront of my 55' 4k monitor in cruise and am just in awe of the immersiveness of it all. The fan noise, the air noise, the ATC background, the amazing views at that altitude and lighting produced by the shader mods coupled with the texture mods. That alone is sometimes an escape.

 

 

I know you have been a FSX/P3D guy in the past who, along with other notable FSX/P3D diehards are now saying the same thing about XP. So there must be truth in that.

 

A glass of whisky, a nice FlyTampa airport and custom AI Traffic... It's my aquarium. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show. We've come a long way, but are not quite there yet  

[bonchie 2,305]

I plan to stick with Prepar3d unless something really magic happens. In reading all the comments here I think X-Plane and Prepar3d are clearly the front runners and I think your opinions support my beliefs and why I chose P3D. Simply put we have two camps of users here. Those who are drawn to complex aircraft and systems whick is clearly LM's goal and why they continue to march towards a Flight Sim.

 

X-Plane on the other hand is doing a lot in the direction of graphics ect. and continue to march towards becoming a Scenery Sim.

 

There is nothing wrong with either goal. Until we all have a Hal ultra computer from the year 3535 then their is not going to be enough bytes and bits for perfect systems and perfect scenery. It is just like buying a boat. Choose which hole you want to drop your money in and then enjoy it!!

 

That's just an unfair characterization.

 

There are several very high quality addon planes for XP available now. The IXEG stuff is study level. There's a Saab that's study level for turbines. The Flightfactor stuff has really matured and is at least as good as Level-D's 767 (which was the standard for a long, long time and is still respected for it's fidelity). The variety isn't there yet, but it took PMDG how many years to build their catalogue? And they have basically confirmed they are bringing more planes to XP (probably the 737NG next). RXP now has 4-5 packs out for different Carenado planes that bring them near A2A level in not only systems but in maintenance/damage simulation. And XP's flight model is very good when utilized properly. The default 172 is as close to a real 172 in the landing/flare as I've felt in a sim.

 

XP also now has a viable weather addon that's a game changer as it continues development.

 

All I'm saying is don't let your own previous assumptions get in the way. I used to bag hard on XP, but XP11 is pretty incredible.

I honestly sometimes sit infront of my 55' 4k monitor in cruise and am just in awe of the immersiveness of it all. The fan noise, the air noise, the ATC background, the amazing views at that altitude and lighting produced by the shader mods coupled with the texture mods. That alone is sometimes an escape.

 

 

I know you have been a FSX/P3D guy in the past who, along with other notable FSX/P3D diehards are now saying the same thing about XP. So there must be truth in that.

 

No doubt. I used to bash the crap out of XP so everyone knows I'm not biased against P3D, but I'm telling you, XP11 is a game changer. I hated the way scenery was presented in XP10. They've changed how densities and autogen are placed now along with updated OSM data, so cities actually look like real, 3D, living cities. It's pretty ridiculous. Try the free demo and make sure to set objects to maximum (I've noticed little FPS doing this, so no reason not to).

Agree, but the obvious flaws of texture loading,  bad autogen and other scenery anomalies are much less obvious at high altitude.  The world looks amazing in the blue, pink  or red haze at 37 000'

 

Agreed. I can still go fly the NG in P3D and enjoy myself, but for VFR, I just can't use it anymore.

 

My hope for P3Dv4 is that it's more than just 64bit. That they actually upgrade the core engine to allow better representations of scenery. That's really what this thread was about before someone brought up XP.

[Guest]

Those who are drawn to complex aircraft and systems whick is clearly LM's goal and why they continue to march towards a Flight Sim.

 

X-Plane on the other hand is doing a lot in the direction of graphics ect. and continue to march towards becoming a Scenery Sim.

 

Er... say again...? So LM's goal is a flight sim and XP a scenery sim? Now tell me, what did LM add to FSX that has to do with complex aircraft and systems...? Or even basic flight at all? Right. Nothing. All complex aircraft and systems come from 3rd party developers. What did LM do? Add cloud shadows, non popup autogen, new lighting system, performance tweaks. The flight system of the default sim hasn't changed a bit. All changes are thanks to 3rd party developers.

 

Last week Austin, the dev of XP, tweeted very excited that he found a clever way to simulate the influence of aircraft wheels when they do not move (or something like that). He is actually still working on the flight system itself. (I have no clue if it is true because I am not an expert but you often read XP's flight system is better or more deep and actually more a sim than P3D.) Of course (and very obviously) LR is also a.o. working on the graphics (those great reflections) and sound (new system in the Cessna). XP11 will also give us a rather detailed G1000 (or G3000 or something like that, I don't know). P3D still gives us that ###### old FSX GPS. I played with ATC in XP yesterday and even that is quite nice and certainly the vectors you get are a thousand times better than what you get in P3D (because LM didn't do anything about that either).

 

In short: I think you are wrong. :wink: The fact that complex aircraft and system lovers have more to do in P3D right now has nothing to do with what LM is doing or what their goal is. So far LM mainly focused on the graphics and in EVERY regard XP's default graphics blow P3D default graphics out of the sky. In fact, a lot of default XP graphics even blow P3D addon graphics out of the sky. (But don't get me started on the clouds LOL)

 

 

I know you have been a FSX/P3D guy in the past who, along with other notable FSX/P3D diehards are now saying the same thing about XP. So there must be truth in that.

 

You bet. :wink: The ONLY thing that XP has against it right now is the lack of support of certain developers. If the likes of A2A and PMDG would fully (and I mean fully!) support XP11 the whole flightsimming world would change. (There are a few quality aircraft addons already for XP but just not enough.) Orbx is coming (although I have to see if that is a positive thing) and I am sure with XP11 more will follow. XP11 really IS a game changer. You can't dismiss XP if you only used it in the past: XP11 is something else and it is still a beta only!