P3D vs FSX, which has the better  graphics? By which I mean the basic world and mesh detail before any scenery enhanced add ons. 

The default mesh is about the same, default airports are ..., meh. But the difference between DX9 and DX11 is major.  FSX does all graphics processing in the CPU whereas P3D moves much of it to the GPU and t his alone is a significant improvement.  Comparing addon scenery designed for P3D to the best available for FSX is an unfair comparison... because the P3D textures and materials are vastly improved from the now becoming old FSX.  DX11 brings to the table lighting and shadow effects unattainable in DX9/10.

I quite honestly do not use FSX for anything but beta testing; otherwise, I wouldn't have it installed on my workstation.

Interesting reply Dan. I have been considering P3D for some time now and still not sure when to dive in the water. One of my concerns was the possibility of P3D  "64 Bit" version being brought out this year? and probably as this will be a game changer, require repurchasing. Anyway, not to hijack James thread too much..I will wander off to the hardware area and ask about 27" monitors, as I need a new monitor, and wondered what strengths it needs, eg, fast response like a games screen etc or ?? and I notice some monitors favour AMD rather than Nvidia, and maybe visa versa, which would also have a part to play in better graphics for FSX and or P3D 

4 hours ago, por930 said:

wondered what strengths it needs, eg, fast response like a games screen etc or ?? and I notice some monitors favour AMD rather than Nvidia, and maybe visa versa, which would also have a part to play in better graphics for FSX and or P3D 

A very good solution is a 4K TV because the TV products seem to be much much cheaper than computer monitors in spite of there being fewer and fewer differences in picture quality.  I have a 40 in 4K Samsung with a GTX 980Ti video card and cannot find any fault with it.  Most 4K TVs have game modes for those that need that but it's not necessary with P3D. Flight simulators do not seem as difficult to render as those shooter games, which I do not have an interest.  P3D animation is much more fluid than FSX and frame rate has less importance, in fact I listened to a few more knowledgeable than I and started using a 30 Hz refresh rate for the TV and P3D runs at 20 fps frame rate lock and the average rate stays at 19.8 regardless of what is being rendered and animation is very fluid.  Bottom line is 4K is the way to go.

As I understand it, I believe P3D has an accurate underwater terrain profile mesh, so that it can be used for submarine simulation as part of its 'mission simulation' stuff for militaries. I don't know how true that is and whether it is for littoral waters only, but one assumes it uses what data is generally available and not classified as secret. So this at least is better from a graphics standpoint. It has such things as night vision simulation capabilities, which again is a graphics enhancement over FSX. How useful those things are to someone for flight simulation is debatable, but they are nevertheless in there.

7 hours ago, downscc said:

A very good solution is a 4K TV because the TV products seem to be much much cheaper than computer monitors in spite of there being fewer and fewer differences in picture quality. 

Thanks Dan, the 4k TV's certainly look great, though I think they are very expensive in Australia compared to a HD monitor. If I was planning an increase in size to say 40", it maybe an option, but my desk/office space size requires me to stay less than 30".

I bought a Samsung 40" 4K UHDTV last week for $400 at Bestbuy.  the graphics with P3D are stunning

 

On 3/25/2017 at 10:07 PM, junkyspam7 said:

P3D vs FSX, which has the better  graphics? By which I mean the basic world and mesh detail before any scenery enhanced add ons. 

The only thing to really consider is how good your GPU is, because like Dan said, most of the rendering is now GPU based in P3D and as such, you need a really good GPU to take advantage of it.   I don't run P3D but have seen it on a friend's system with a 480GTX and it really isn't near good enough.   When asking on the P3D forums as to what I should look at the answer was around a 900 series, but preferably a 1080 or something.   

All the best!

Hello,

Very interesting topic. I have invested in FSX(SE) quite a lot but just got pretty good deal on a GTX 1080 so thinking to change to P3D. I will buy the monthly payment not the full version, are there any differences between them?

I just bought PMDG aircrafts couple months ago so changing to P3D now is a real pain. Lucky that all the airports are FSX and P3D compatible.
Cheers,
Hoang Le.

 

How do the 2560x1440 WQHD resolution monitors perform on a 32" screen? As just going from a 24" screen with only HD, means the 27" screen will be a bit sparce.  This is sort of half way between the HD and 4K systems. I would imagine one of the main requirements is to read the instruments, as well as looking great.

 

6 hours ago, por930 said:

How do the 2560x1440 WQHD resolution monitors perform on a 32" screen? As just going from a 24" screen with only HD, means the 27" screen will be a bit sparce.  This is sort of half way between the HD and 4K systems. I would imagine one of the main requirements is to read the instruments, as well as looking great.

 

I ran on a 2K 32 in screen with a GTX750Ti and it was better than anything I had had before.  The upgrade to 4K however is worth the price if you can swing it, even compared to 2K.

8 hours ago, downscc said:

I ran on a 2K 32 in screen with a GTX750Ti and it was better than anything I had had before.  The upgrade to 4K however is worth the price if you can swing it, even compared to 2K.

Dan, can you post a pic of your desk with the 40" tv on it? I'd like to get one but 40" seems awfully big to be sitting in front of on a desk. 

Sean Campbell 

1 hour ago, cmpbellsjc said:

Dan, can you post a pic of your desk with the 40" tv on it? I'd like to get one but 40" seems awfully big to be sitting in front of on a desk. 

Sean Campbell 

Thanks Dan, Life is a compromise. Maybe the 4K system, a step too far. Somehow, I need to get the best experience with minimal footprint.

Hi Sean, That is my worry as well. My present 24" screen for FS, coupled with a normal 19" for normal office work takes most of the real estate. I cut out a piece of cardboard for 27", 32" and 40"..SWMBO said 27" was acceptable, 32" was acceptable-ish, and you need to move into a spare bedroom and play flight sim if you think the 40" is going in the office. I  am some 24-26" away from the screen.

A 40' works great.  Get one that sits low,  I put a tape measure in the photo and you want your eye level above the bottom of the cockpit window.  So a 40" on my desk puts my eye level at 18" above my desk with the top of the tv at 24".  Going too big will make you look up to fly level.  Also the TV sits at arm length away.  Just where the instruments on a real plane should be and the gauges are close to actual size at 80% zoom.

 

 

 

damn, I used the wrong photo

A 40" works great.  Get one that sits low,  I put a tape measure in the photo and you want your eye level above the bottom of the cockpit window.  So a 40" on my desk puts my eye level at 18" above my desk with the top of the tv at 24".  Going too big will make you look up to fly level.  Also the TV sits at arm length away.  Just where the instruments on a real plane should be and the gauges are close to actual size at 80% zoom.

 

http://s1111.photobucket.com/user/googles7/media/DSC_0007.jpg.html?o=0