WarpD

No change? Really?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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. 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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??

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. :unsure:

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."

Share this post


Link to post
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. :unsure:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Uh... your posts are here.

Share this post


Link to post

yup - none deleted.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WarpD said:

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

Is there a difference...absolutely!  However, the difference is negligible, especially when you consider the competing sim was developed 11-years ago.  To put the current state into perspective, consider Microsoft's former development cycle. Seriously, compare FS 5.1 to FSX, which represents the same 11-year development cycle.  If you put those pictures side-by-side, there's no ambiguity to the simulators improvement. To that point, it frustrates me how little our hobby as advanced in the past decade.  Yet, we know this space is littered with talent people adept at bringing the base sim to the next level; my faith lies with them....   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I see is more trees and a darker runway. 

BTW, is that photoreal in the background? Where is this picture taken? 

Share this post


Link to post

That's how I feel about V4, it seems that except for the 64bit so no OOMs, we gained almost nothing compared to the V3. Kind of depressing. 

Share this post


Link to post

coding wise and technically it may be remarkable with all the work that has gone into p3d under the hood but visually when flying difference is very subtle other than the shadows, but overall not significant change from the original sim. Performance and hardware usage wise also not that different which even after becoming 64 bit pose a limit to how much it can be enhanced by 3rd party without becoming an unusable slideshow.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm very impressed with v4. Locked  30 fps at flytampa eham with hi-res it looks amazing.

And thats with all scenery and shadow sliders full right.  40 % road traffic, every setting in fly tampa config on high  with 4x sssa on a 42 inch 4k tv

Before with 3.4 it would have been oom or slideshow.

I'm happy

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, FlyIce said:

That's how I feel about V4, it seems that except for the 64bit so no OOMs, we gained almost nothing compared to the V3. Kind of depressing. 

Don't be depressed - the way to think of P3D vs FSX is not to look at the paintwork, the dashboard, the seats or the tires of this car, but concentrate only on opening up the bonnet and looking at the engine within. Then you will see some solid improvements. Unfortunately, with so many accessories missing, it becomes expensive to kit it up with all the bells and whistles. That is the problem for many. P3D is actually a typical military grade product - bland but it works well for what it was engineered to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now