Ok... I just took two images, one in FSX:ACCEL and the other in P3Dv4.  It's the exact same aircraft, same location, same season, no weather, same scenery.  Do they really look like there is no improvement over FSX?

Left side is FSX, right side is Prepar3D

https://goo.gl/photos/omzRrqKQ2pFHM9GR8

Same graphics settings?

Are you being sarcastic or serious (honestly, I just can't tell from the post, that's why I'm asking)?  The graphic improvements have not been substantial, but the memory handling, graphics codes, lighting, SDK, have made pretty significant strides.  I don't think anyone would argue that P3D as an out of the box simulator is fantastic, but it's potential with add-ons is great...even amazing now that it's 64 bit.

With that said, the near scenery looks pretty bland and similar in both pictures to me, but the distant scenery and autogen tree density sure look a step up to me. 

Denser tree coverage..... maybe a subtle lighting difference.......

Not seeing anything earth shattering from those pictures.

If you just showed me the P3D picture and asked what sim I thought it was, 95% I would say FSX or maybe FLIGHT.

If you told me no, then I would Guess P3D.

If you look at it closely, the one on the right is much more detailed. 

It is not the same graphics settings... well, it is... all sliders to the right, but that's not actually the same at all.  I get 30fps in both, though Prepar3D v4 doesn't vary and FSX does.

Considering that the Prepar3D image has autogen trees on the distant mountain ridge that's beyond the tail of the aircraft and FSX has a blank texture... how is that not "earth shattering" when FSX literally can't do that??

I think those pictures define the major problem. Many people do NOT look closely - they just glance and possibly look at aircraft edges for aa. The trees on the slopes jumped out at me as does the distant autogen when I've been playing around with v4.

I agree - it really IS slick!

 

Vic

4 minutes ago, WarpD said:

It is not the same graphics settings... well, it is... all sliders to the right, but that's not actually the same at all.  I get 30fps in both, though Prepar3D v4 doesn't vary and FSX does.

Considering that the Prepar3D image has autogen trees on the distant mountain ridge that's beyond the tail of the aircraft and FSX has a blank texture... how is that not "earth shattering" when FSX literally can't do that??

It depends on what you are accustomed to. 

If your main use of the computer has been for FSX/P3D for the last few years, then it's probably (maybe) an impressive visual jump.

But FLIGHT had ginormous swaths of trees years ago, and by modern game standards your pictures are..... acceptable, but by no means groundbreaking.

I noted the enhanced draw distance in my version of V4 and I liked it, but in the end, my thought was.... "Yeah, but it's still just FSX."

3 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

The trees on the slopes jumped out at me as does the distant autogen when I've been playing around with v4.

What jumped out at me was that the mountains were absolutely identical, the textures were roughly equivalent, the sky was the same, the runway was the slightly weird (to me) new hi-res P3D one, and the major difference was a lot more trees. 

Ok... now that IS funny.

I put the exact same scenery in FSX and Prepar3D... so of course the textures are identical.  Thank goodness for that!  Had they looked completely different, texture-wise, then something would have been horrendously broken.

Hmmmmmmm......

 

Uh... your posts are here.

yup - none deleted.

 

Vic

They disappeared for me for a bit. Perhaps a false alarm.

I think the differences are monumental. The autogen looks amazing. Nice comparison showing how far ESP has come.