FSX-MS Replace FSX with P3D or X Plane 11 = 64 – bit

[FredrikHj 1]

5 minutes ago, Eby said:

Yea IMHO

You just have to play with the settings in fsx

I am not looking any further for a sim

I can send some of my private videos if you like

Yes it would nice :)

[vortex681 806]

3 hours ago, Eby said:

I tried FSX:SE, bought the download version, and it requires me to have internet connection every time I launch the prog. So without internet, no simming.

You only need the Internet connection to download the program. After that you can run in offline mode. See: https://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/7/530645961936110097/

[Jim Young 2,356]

5 hours ago, Fredde said:

One for v1, v2 and v3. Does the License for v3 approving you buying v4?

No.  You need a separate license for each version.  Discussions of licenses are prohibited here in the forums. 

 

4 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I do not believe for one minute this should be a sim promotion or sim demolition. There are numerous threads on  AVSIM that decry or promote the various attributes of each and every sim.

I am not sure where you got the information for you to post this.  Is someone trolling? 

 

4 hours ago, Fredde said:

It´s look like FSX DE is good product even 10 years after its release? :)

Today I have a i7 4820K, 16gb RAM and GTX1080 so I have a much better computer since 10 years. FSX should run better and smoother now?  

FSX w/SP2 or Acceleration is still a good product.  When it was first released in 2006, we were happy to get 15 fps.  Now we are getting fps between 40 and 100 pretty easily.  With the default scenery/aircraft/weather, I can get over 300 fps where I could barely get over 30 back in 2006/2007.  Still there is stuttering and pauses but that's not FSX/Acceleration or FSX-SE fault.  It works great with default scenery, default airports, default aircraft, default weather, and I think even better with a commercial product like GEX which replaces all of the default textures with optimized textures.  But individuals who purchase FSX boxed or FSX-SE, go out and buy add-ons looking for the eye-candy.  Commercial aircraft products, commercial airports like those made by FlyTampa or FS Dreamteam, or new landclass, vectors like Ultimate Terrain or Orbx/FTX stuff, or photo scenery all make for better immersion and enjoyment of the product.  It gets pretty boring with the default stuff.  Man has to make his enjoyment and learning experiences with FSX as real as possible and there are many commercial (and some freeware) that can make that happen.  But, watch out!!  Once you buy the add-ons, you have compromised the integrity of FSX/Acceleration and FSX-SE.  If a product makes for pauses, stuttering and other anomalies, get rid of it.  It is not working properly and no computer system can make it better.  Or, experience the occasional pause/stutter or other anomaly and fly!

The same analogy, as above, is exactly the same for X-Plane and P3D.  If you are losing fps, VAS, have stutters/shimmering, or other anomalies, dump the add-ons and just fly with the default.  Blame the commercial add-on developers because it is important that they develop a product fully compatible with P3D or X-Plane.  Also, you can lower your settings and get a better experience with a flight session but then, why purchase the add-ons?  You want the eye-candy.  Still, do not blame Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, or Dovetail for running out of VAS, low fps, stutters, or other anomalies.  Blame the add-on developer.  

Lastly, FSX-SE and P3D are based off of the basic FSX/Acceleration engine.  There is no one working on FSX (boxed version) anymore.  Dovetail is providing some improvements with FSX-SE.  Lockheed Martin is making major changes to the FSX engine with P3D.  They are also working in concert with other commercial developers to make their product work better with the add-ons.  That's the future....

Best regards,

Jim

[Chock 17,769]

I'd be inclined to agree that the Steam version of FS is the one to go for at the moment, since it would require the minimum risk in terms of what you spend.

If we are to believe that Lockheed Martin are not far away from releasing a 64 bit version of P3D, then now would not be the best time to buy a current version of P3D, as it might be very soon relegated to being the 'older' version, moreover, even if you were 'prepared' (lol) to take that monetary hit, you might find any P3D add-ons incompatible with a newer version, so that could get expensive down the line if you bought some expensive add-ons for it. This is not the case with FSX-SE, since it is effectively frozen as far as development goes. We know LM have had three cracks at P3D thus far, and it continues to develop, so it is a fair assumption that they will continue to release newer versions, and they will certainly not want professional client users of P3D to be getting OOMs, so it makes sense for them to go 64 bit with it, thus we can safely assume a 64 bit version will be on the way before long.

FSX-SE has the virtue of being inexpensive (very much so if you catch it in a sale, when it is sometimes sold for 7.99), it runs better than the boxed versions of FSX, is more stable in terms of OOM issues and includes all of the patches and expansions which the boxed version of FSX had available (i.e. everything that you'd get with Acceleration, Deluxe, Gold etc, plus the well known tweaks such as max texture load and high memory fix), so it will run any FSX add-on which requires those. Pretty much every old FSX add-on you have will install and run in the Steam version of FSX, and many of them will run on P3D and possibly may do later down the line if you did eventually go for a 64 bit version of P3D, so there is potentially an advantage there too.

Moreover, if you take the pragmatic view, any sales which DTG get for the Steam version are contributing toward their inclination to keep going in creating sims, such as their forthcoming simulator which is based upon development work they did with FSX-SE and Flight School - i.e. using the ESP base but in 64 bit with optimisation, improved ATC, improved autogen, GUI etc, whereas I don't think Lockheed Martin need to worry about funding lol.

I've got P3D, FSX-SE, DTG Flight School, AeroFly FS2, Ready For Take Off, Glider Simulator, Condor, DCS World, etc, etc and I enjoy them all for what they offer, but I think I get the most MPG out of FSX-SE. It's a lot of bang for your bucks, particularly if you have a bunch of add-ons for it already and look at all the freeware there is for it too.

A final word on X-Plane: Yes it needs some tweaks and really could do with better built-in weather and ATC and flight planning, but as noted, these can be sorted with add-ons. Personally, I think X-Plane is going to come on in leaps and bounds, and so I wouldn't say 'don't buy it', rather I would look out for it at a discount price (maybe a Steam sale or seasonal offer some such) and enjoy it for what it is in the knowledge that it's going to be one to watch in terms of more payware developers latching onto it. There are some great experiences to be had in XP-11 if you get a few decent add-ons for it, for example, many people bemoan the lack of a really good 757 or 767 for FSX or P3D, but there absolutely are those aircraft to a study sim level already available for X-Plane from developer Flight Factors; and when I say good, I mean they are better than any FSX/P3D Boeing 757 or 767 by a very long way indeed. That's true of the same developer's Boeing 777, and their Airbus A350 too, both of which are every bit as good, and in many cases better than anything you can buy for FSX or P3D.

Not convinced? Check out their 757 product page and see if you can find an FSX/P3D one to match it in terms of 3D modeling, functionality, failures, systems modeling, graphic effects etc:

http://store.x-plane.org/Boeing-757-version-2-Professional-_p_542.html#tab-1

[n4gix 4,947]

8 hours ago, Eby said:

I tried FSX:SE, bought the download version, and it requires me to have internet connection every time I launch the prog. So without internet, no simming. The support offered by dovetail was so disgraceful I requested a refund (turned down)

It is perfectly possible to run FSX:SE while off-line. I do it nearly every day! If you didn't know this, you should have simply asked...

[G-RFRY 1,710]

I run FSX:SE from a desktop shortcut with internet disabled this is a habit I have used for some years it stop`s any auto updater and frees up more resources for FSX:SE, I do not use real weather or multiplayer which would require internet connection, I intend to wait until DTG, P3D , release there next sim to make my choice.

 

Ray Fry.   

[Bjoern 1,157]

Had thought of switching camps for a really long time. X-Plane will only become a viable option once its ATC, AI and weather are up to FSX' standards right out of the box or can be improved with freeware. FlightGear is the perfect sandbox, but requires a whole lot of time to get into and individual development effort get involved to make it better for everyone (killer Space Shuttle simulation though!). P3D requires a credit card and seems to move away from MSFS compatibility. Aerofly is not much more than eyecandy.

So that leaves FSX with all its known bugs and limitations. With the fixed DirectX 10 mode, the Steam Edition and realistic expectations (no more HD textures and ludicrously detailed models), it's the best flightsimming experience one can get at the moment. The FSXSE and DX10 bundle even clocks in cheaper than an academic license for P3D.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Eby,

Thank you so much for your so much better and informed opinion. I bow to the master and sincerely hope that this is not too verbose.

Jim Young

I derive that information from close to thousands of posts, which advise one and all, to buy this simulator or that simulator.  To avoid another simulator because...,. Your comment, though, IS appreciated.

To all, 

I was/am simply trying to present a balanced opinion ie I was not telling the OP that FSX was better than FSX-SE, P3D, Aerofly or XPlane. Frankly, I am close to overload with those opinions . 

Regards to all

Tony

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Eby,

I know I shall regret this but I just cannot leave it alone.

I cannot for the life of me find a "whinge" in this post that was originated by me and felt that your comment was unwarranted.

I do have a spare pair of reading glasses that I can send you, but your comprehension paucity is something only you can deal with.

I sincerely hope this ends here and I apologize to you all for a genuine "whinge" and for dragging this thread to its current level.  It was never my intention

Tony Chilcott

[Hoang 108]

All I want to say is in here

Cheers,
Hoang Le

[Eby 1]

15 hours ago, n4gix said:

It is perfectly possible to run FSX:SE while off-line. I do it nearly every day! If you didn't know this, you should have simply asked...

Well I did. I asked the developers dovetail.

Looks like I asked the wrong person.

Anyway I've the boxed FSX Gold.

Thanks.

[Eby 1]

21 hours ago, Fredde said:

Yes it would nice :)

How do I send you files.I hope I am not going blind but the attachement button won't let me attach from my files. Any idea will be appreciated or I can email them to you. Better still check my youtube channel (ebychi1@gmail.com).

[jhelix70 22]

Hi All,

Responding here since I recently purchased X-plane 11 and may be in a position to help those thinking about getting in to XP.  I had only previously used FSX/acceleration (boxed version) for simming; it has been several years since I have flown and am just now getting back into the hobby.  I mostly fly VFR so won't comment and ATC and FMC systems.

My computer is several years old and not top of the line by today's standards.

In my limited experience with X-plane, I agree with the above posters that the default aircraft are much better than those of FSX.  Plus, the natural scenery (trees, mountains and hillsides, etc.) look much better in XP (water is an exception).  The night lighting in XP11 looks great.

However, the default world scenery is much better in FSX.  FSX has custom objects in most major cities  (for example, flying around London you see the london eye, buckingham palace, tower bridge, etc.), and even smaller airports have some terminal and hanger buildings.  In XP, many airports just have runways and no buildings (immersion breaking), and even big cities contain only autogen (London is totally generic).  Fly into Las Vegas McCarran in default FSX (airport buildings and lots of casinos on the strip) and default XP11 (nada) to see another example of what I mean.

My computer struggles to give acceptable frame rates in XP, so I have to manage the sliders carefully.  The one controlling the number of sim objects appears for me to be the most critical, particularly in urban areas.  Those with marginal computers should probably stick with FSX until they can upgrade.

I'd say, if you have  a good computer, want to get into the default aircraft, and are ok with generic looking cities or getting scenery add ons, go try XP11.  If you like good default world-wide scenery with custom buildings, have add on planes you like, and are worried about frame rates, stick with FSX. 

 

Happy simming!

[vortex681 806]

9 hours ago, jhelix70 said:

I'd say, if you have  a good computer, want to get into the default aircraft, and are ok with generic looking cities or getting scenery add ons, go try XP11.  If you like good default world-wide scenery with custom buildings, have add on planes you like, and are worried about frame rates, stick with FSX. 

I agree with much of what you've said. I have a good system and decided to try XP11 and was a little disappointed with it. I agree that the default XP fixed-wing aircraft are better than the default aircraft in FSX (but not better than the likes of A2A, RealAir or PMDG, to name just a few). However, all the hype over helicopters certainly doesn't apply to the S–76 that comes with XP. Other things to consider are that there are no seasonal scenery textures, the ATC is very basic, you are limited to 19 AI aircraft which don't follow flight plans and there is nothing currently as good as Active Sky for weather in XP. There are some good payware aircraft available for XP but not many. If you have invested a lot in FSX and have it running well, I don't think that there's anything compelling about XP11, currently, that makes it worth changing . It's worth reading this review of XP11 by a long-time XP user: http://flyingxplane.apps-1and1.net/review-x-plane-11-0/ which gives a pretty honest comparison with FSX and P3D.

I would say that if you're starting from scratch, then XP11 is probably the way to go. However, if you have a good FSX setup with scenery, aircraft and weather add-ons and you don't get regular OOMs then I'd stick with FSX. Surprisingly, when I went on the XP forum here asking about performance, I had quite a few comments saying that I should expect FSX, with a lot of payware add-ons, to perform better than a new install of XP11!

[Wobbie 938]

I also read with befuddlement.

It's actually quite simple..

FSX discontinued & development frozen, last updated 10 years ago.

FSX:SE development frozen, Released in 2014, minor updates.

P3D Now on version 3.4, constantly being updated, with, it is said, a 64bit version due sometime. P3D is based on the original Microsoft commercial version of FSX, called ESP. Major upgrades as compared to FSX! (see their site), about 10- 12 updates as opposed to FSX with their service packs & Acceleration add-on.

It is also rumoured that current 32bit add-ons will not be compatible with a 64bit sim.

So, if you do decide on P3D, academically speaking, cheapest works!

Just for fun, I downloaded the free FlightGear sim, & was pleasantly very surprised. They have a great selection of planes, their scenery is very good, & they also have a free Space Shuttle that is unbeatable.

Good luck with your decision(s). Remember, you do not need to be locked into any one sim. You can have a few to 'fly' with.