Ending support for older simulator versions?

[GHarrall 494]

Well, it allows further headroom for more complex addons, especially if pmdg heavies and such like are your thing. The ai perf hit has always been a big issue for most users over the years. 

I can see you are determined to justify the stick with fsx decision and that's fine. That also means you can't then cry foul when the addon developers move on to pastures new.

[Holdit 551]

5 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

How it simulates flying is just as important to me (perhaps more so)  than how it looks.

Well, according to at least one poster here, not making the switch relegates you to the status of non-serious simmer. 

I'll be making the switch at some point, but with add-ons purches for FSX that I still haven't got enough use out of, that I would have to buy again for P3D, in addition to new hardware (after a recent PC upgrade) rushing to P3D v4 would be just mad. Sure, we may will see decreasing output of FSX add-ons as P3D v4 gains traction, but that doesn't bother me all that much as I have enough add-ons to keep me busy for another 10 years. The proof of the pudding will be in the economics, though. When developers see that developing for FSX isn't generating the revenue to make it worthwhile, they'll stop. I doubt very much that they'll do it "for the good of the hobby" or because some P3D4 users stamp their feet and demand their new stuff to be delivered more quickly.

Not knocking P3D at all, and I have no doubt that I will be making the switch at some point, but there's no rush, since I can see outlay of €500.00 - €1,000. As I am getting 22-25 FPS in the worst areas, and no OOMs, I would be spending that money to add 3 FPS (or greater, in the areas where I don't need it anyway). I don't think so. I guess I'll just continue with my non-serious simming involving study aircraft, checklists, real-world weather, turbulence, wake turbulence, ridge lift/sink, icing and failures...

 

 

 

 

[WotanUK 289]

I don't even know what the phrase "non-serious or serious" simmer actually means.  Am i a serious simmer because i have P3Dv4 and a Go-Flight Yoke, maybe compared to the person running Pilotwings on the SNES, but i am a rank amateur compared to the person with the home built flightdeck.

I suppose it's up to us when the companies start to drop 32-bit sims, if we all move over to the 64-bit sims then the 32-bit ones will be dropped quickly, otherwise they will keep producing for them; however that having seen said, that 4Gb VAS limit has been a millstone for years, finally free of that it might be hard for the developers not to change over.

Personally i miss the old days of the Microprose or Janes Sims.

[Bobsk8 12,754]

1 minute ago, WotanUK said:

I don't even know what the phrase "non-serious or serious" simmer actually means.  Am i a serious simmer because i have P3Dv4 and a Go-Flight Yoke, maybe compared to the person running Pilotwings on the SNES, but i am a rank amateur compared to the person with the home built flightdeck.

I suppose it's up to us when the companies start to drop 32-bit sims, if we all move over to the 64-bit sims then the 32-bit ones will be dropped quickly, otherwise they will keep producing for them; however that having seen said, that 4Gb VAS limit has been a millstone for years, finally free of that it might be hard for the developers not to change over.

Personally i miss the old days of the Microprose or Janes Sims.

When FSX came out, the quick death of FS 9 was predicted. Let's see, that was 2006, or 11 years ago, and people are still using FS9.  Go figure. 

[WotanUK 289]

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

When FSX came out, the quick death of FS 9 was predicted. Let's see, that was 2006, or 11 years ago, and people are still using FS9.  Go figure. 

Of course, but in that case, there was backwards compatibility and not really any compelling reason to upgrade.  This time it's different, there is a clear reason to change.  I do think that P3Dv4 will have a long life, after the move to 64-bit it will be interesting to see what can be offered in P3Dv5 to tempt people to change again...possibly at cost this time.

[Bobsk8 12,754]

Just now, WotanUK said:

Of course, but in that case, there was backwards compatibility and not really any compelling reason to upgrade.  This time it's different, there is a clear reason to change.  I do think that P3Dv4 will have a long life, after the move to 64-bit it will be interesting to see what can be offered in P3Dv5 to tempt people to change again...possibly at cost this time.

Sorry, but I see no compelling reason to upgrade at this time. I get excellent FPS, no OOMs, all my add ons work and work well, I don't have to read posts everyday on installing stuff or make lists of what I have now that doesn't work anymore, and I don't have to drop $1200+ for a new PC.  What is the  clear reason to upgrade? 

[WotanUK 289]

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

Sorry, but I see no compelling reason to upgrade at this time. I get excellent FPS, no OOMs, all my add ons work and work well, I don't have to read posts everyday on installing stuff or make lists of what I have now that doesn't work anymore, and I don't have to drop $1200+ for a new PC.  What is the  clear reason to upgrade? 

I have read numerous times saying that you have never suffered OOMs, well i have, so have numerous others.  I know, you are going to tell me that it's my fault, if i used the default sim and only one add on aircraft with a LOD of 3 i could avoid them too.  But here is the thing; i don't want to do that.  I want to run ORBX FTX, OpenLU Europe, EGLL v3 and the PMDG 747 and now, thanks to v4 i can.  

As for installing stuff, i simply don't install until they have been released for v4.

If you are still OK with v3, power to you, people out there are OK with FS9, why are you not using FS9? 

[bonchie 2,305]

You are going to have some people who just don't want to switch. My honest observation is that they've gotten so used to what they have that they are largely blinded to modern improvements.

I'll give you an example. Yesterday, I made a short flight in P3Dv3 into a low load area (KJAN). As I approached, performance was great, no OOMs of course, but the city was mostly an undefined mush with the 3D objects rendering in the distance standing out like a sore thumb, which looks ridiculous. Why? No, it's not blurries. It's because P3Dv3 and FSX have a very low/hard limit on how far autogen can be drawn. The LOD radius itself is also limited greatly. FSX is even worse for presentations like this because the autogen popup is terrible.

Now, I can do the same flight in P3Dv4 and get the same performance but also have autogen drawn nearly to the horizon with a LOD radius that dwarfs the previous ESP based sims. The city actually looks like a city in the distance for the approach.

Small thing? No, not to me. It's a fix for something that previously killed my immersion in certain situations. I used to dread flying into major urban areas because it just didn't look good. Then we can talk about FSX's lack of shadowing, HDR, lighting improvements, lower resolution texture limit,  etc. and the gulf in appearance is only getting wider. Now, how many FSX users wouldn't even notice what I just complained about in their own simulator?

But you are always going to have some people who just don't see it. It's no different than the FS9 users with their 256x256 ground textures that looked awful but still insisted it looked the same as FSX. And it's not just FSX users. I've seen plenty of P3D users look at a blurry, ugly screenshot of P3D and proclaim it looks better than a gorgeous screenshot of XP11.

Everyone has their biases, whether they realize it or not.

I think the biggest reason most developers will quickly move to 64bit only is that there will be a competitive market for producing the latest and greatest addons. How many people choose their simulator simply based on the availability of a certain PMDG plane? What happens when they release a P3Dv4 only aircraft that blows everything else away? More will then switch.

I'd also caution the idea that FSX is still the primary simulator for addon buyers. Remember the Orbx data from like two years ago showing that P3D had nearly overtaken FSX in it's user base? Where do you think that number is now, nearly two years later? We've seen migration from FSX not just to P3D, but also XP11 and other simulators. FSX/FSX-SE are probably still the "most used," but I would highly question if they are the most profitable for addon sales at this point.

But if you like FSX (or P3Dv3), then stick with them. No one is stopping you. I'm sure there's plenty of fun still to be had despite it's limitations.

[zmak 331]

And here lays the problem. Instead of a gushing wow moment by the flight sim community and a rush to line up for the 64 bit we have the opposite.

A deeper divide if that was even possible and more platforms than ever. 

The best solution for all is to step back and let the dust settle and revisit in 6 months. 

Just my humble 2 cents 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

I've been using P3d since v1.1, I think the response to this version is by far the most positive I've seen, I suspect it's the fact the '64 bit holy grail' has been achieved that's responsible for this.

you can make arguments to stay with fsx etc - cost, convenience and familiarity being the main ones. But you can't sensibly argue that P3D v4 is not a significantly superior sim, so for most users an upgrade will be the ideal path. P3d will continue to improve, FSX will not, so if you spend a lot of time using flight simulators then you're going to have to take the plunge eventually - so why not now?

[out 769]

37 minutes ago, bonchie said:

You are going to have some people who just don't want to switch. My honest observation is that they've gotten so used to what they have that they are largely blinded to modern improvements.

 

10 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

you're going to have to take the plunge eventually - so why not now?

Getnlemen, you are missing one important reason many people have for not switching (especially from FSX to P3D), which lets me think you have the lucky privilege to be well off.
This is called MONEY. If you have to buy a new PC and pay again for many expensive addons collected for years it may look fine to you, but some people, living in different parts of the world, just cannot afford it. Calling them 'blinded' is a bit unfair, isn't it?

[bonchie 2,305]

8 minutes ago, Rafal said:

 

Getnlemen, you are missing one important reason many people have for not switching (especially from FSX to P3D), which lets me think you have the lucky priviledge to be well off.
This is called MONEY. If you have to buy a new PC and pay  again for many expensive addons collected for years it may look fine to you, but some people, living in different parts of the world, just cannot afford it. Calling them 'blinded' is a bit unfair, isn't it?

There's a difference between not having the money and trying to make specious arguments that insinuate FSX is just as capable as P3D v4 (i.e. it looks the same, I never get OOMs anyway, etc.)

If you can't afford to switch right now, then by all means, don't switch.

The only caution is that I'd probably stop buying FSX addons at this point. You are only digging the hole deeper unless you plan to just stay with FSX for eternity.

It's really not as bad as some make it out to be. All your Orbx stuff is cross platform for free. So are most major addon airports (Flightbeam, FSDT, Aerosoft, among others). REX is cross platform with no extra charge.

IF you have a computer that's decently modern (mine's sorta old with a 2500k and 970 4GB but it runs well), you could be a purchase of Active Sky 2016 and your favorite plane away from really enjoying the new simulator. Will your hanger be stocked with 100 planes (95 of which you probably never touch anyway)? No, but it's doable for a lot of people.

[out 769]

Just now, bonchie said:

make specious arguments that insinuate FSX is just as capable as P3D v4 (i.e. it looks the same, I never get OOMs anyway, etc.)

Obviously each simulator's environment looks more or less different. But, honestly I haven't read anyone claiming FSX looks the same as P3D, have you? Of course I may have just missed it in the ocean of threads and posts.
As for OOMs, it is possible to tweak FSX to a state of no OOMs. Not because you suddenly get it working like 64-bit, but by learning how to utilize what you have. My FSX is currently in such a state.

If there is someone who claims that FSX looks exactly like P3D or that no OOMs are possible in FSX, I strongly disagree.

[zmak 331]

15 minutes ago, bonchie said:

There's a difference between not having the money and trying to make specious arguments that insinuate FSX is just as capable as P3D v4 (i.e. it looks the same, I never get OOMs anyway, etc.)

If you can't afford to switch right now, then by all means, don't switch.

The only caution is that I'd probably stop buying FSX addons at this point. You are only digging the hole deeper unless you plan to just stay with FSX for eternity.

It's really not as bad as some make it out to be. All your Orbx stuff is cross platform for free. So are most major addon airports (Flightbeam, FSDT, Aerosoft, among others). REX is cross platform with no extra charge.

IF you have a computer that's decently modern (mine's sorta old with a 2500k and 970 4GB but it runs well), you could be a purchase of Active Sky 2016 and your favorite plane away from really enjoying the new simulator. Will your hanger be stocked with 100 planes (95 of which you probably never touch anyway)? No, but it's doable for a lot of people.

"There's a difference between not having the money and trying to make specious arguments that insinuate FSX is just as capable as P3D v4 (i.e. it looks the same, I never get OOMs anyway, etc.)" 

What a bizarre comment. 

[Holdit 551]

18 minutes ago, Rafal said:

But, honestly I haven't read anyone claiming FSX looks the same as P3D, have you? Of course I may have just missed it in the ocean of threads and posts.

Nor have I. I haven't heard anyone claim that P3DvX isn't as good as FSX, just that for some people there is no compelling reason to make the move yet. This has nothing to do with blindness regarding P3Dv4's features, but rather represents a cost-benefit analysis that results in a "no need to rush into it yet" verdict.

I get the impression that there's a quasi-religious fervour regarding P3Dv4 at the moment (not the first time I've noticed such a phenomenon on AVSIM), with some of the faithful wishing "punishment" (in the form of no more more add-ons) on the heretics...