Chock

FSW AND P3D go head to head...

Recommended Posts

Again like my recent FSX vs FSW Piper Cub comparison vid, this is not the most scientific of comparisons either, since one is in early access and the other one is a released product, but kind of fun to check out anyway.

So... Here is a video of P3D V4 Academic Version (and yup, I do own a training school where I teach people on software, so I am legit as far as that EULA goes in having the Academic version lol) and FSW Early Access (with the third update). Both show a quick flight from EGCC to EGCD in the Virtavia UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter (the one in FSW is my payware version, the one in P3D is a default aircraft which comes with the sim). Both sims are on broadly similar settings (mostly with the sliders around the 20 percent mark). In both cases, they have an operational EGCD airport (the real one closed down six years ago, so both have a database which could do with updating). The weather setting is the same default setting for both sim flights (Fair Weather preset). Both sims were getting more or less the same frame rate of around 30-50 fps.

Notice that the extremely bright lighting in FSW makes the chopper's rotor blades all but invisible, but they are there in the sim, just very pale, also notice that the default FSW terrain, buildings and airports are a bit nicer than the default P3D ones, as you'd expect, since there is a bit of third party stuff going on in the default FSW. Neither sim has those buildings right though, the buildings near Manchester airport are nothing like that at all, not even close.

Also notice my crap helicopter flying lol, I am no chopper pilot, I've had a go at the controls of a real Bell JetRanger once, and I was rubbish at it, but as far as both sims go, choppers fly exactly the same.

 

Share this post


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

Aren't you putting your thumb on the scale?  You write, "notice that the default FSW terrain, buildings and airports are a bit nicer than the default P3D ones, as you'd expect, since there is a bit of third party stuff going on in the default FSW"-- but "that third part stuff" IS default FSW.  In short, vanilla FSW is better looking than vanilla P3D and without the paranoia-inducing EULA.

You've probably already checked out the screenshot thread over at Flightsimworld where there's a whole lot of very good looking shots of default FSW. 

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post

Not really, I was just pointing out that there is some stuff in both sims which is not done by the regular in house developers, i.e, you will note that I also point out the Virtavia UH-60 is default in P3D but not default for other sims including FSW, so that would be the same with regard to any add-on scenery for P3D if you put Orbx scenery in P3D which of course you could. Now, you could argue that if this is the case, why have I put a payware chopper in FSW, but it seemed to me that it would be the easiest way to compare the sims directly, by using the exact same aircraft in both sims with everything else on default. And as noted, I did point out that it was not intended to be a particularly scientific comparison, just an interesting one.

It's worth pointing out too that the default FSW (at present) is not really 'better looking than the vanilla P3D' in many regards which don't crop up in my video, for example, there are no cloud shadows in FSW (at least not yet anyway, nor is there as fancy dynamic lighting or anything like that, though this too may show up). What is interesting, is that performance is not too dissimilar for both sims, and this is on the current EA FSW version (third update) which people have been saying is not as good on frame rates as it had been, presumably as a result of not being optimised yet, so that is actually a good sign for FSW in the future. In any case, when it comes right down to it, they are both tweaked up 64 bit versions of ESP, so really, how truly different could they end up being from one another? I guess we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Chock said:

Not really, I was just pointing out that there is some stuff in both sims which is not done by the regular in house developers, i.e, you will note that I also point out the Virtavia UH-60 is default in P3D but not default for other sims including FSW, so that would be the same with regard to any add-on scenery for P3D if you put Orbx scenery in P3D which of course you could. Now, you could argue that if this is the case, why have I put a payware chopper in FSW, but it seemed to me that it would be the easiest way to compare the sims directly, by using the exact same aircraft in both sims with everything else on default. And as noted, I did point out that it was not intended to be a particularly scientific comparison, just an interesting one.

It's worth pointing out too that the default FSW (at present) is not really 'better looking than the vanilla P3D' in many regards which don't crop up in my video, for example, there are no cloud shadows in FSW (at least not yet anyway, nor is there as fancy dynamic lighting or anything like that, though this too may show up). What is interesting, is that performance is not too dissimilar for both sims, and this is on the current EA FSW version (third update) which people have been saying is not as good on frame rates as it had been, presumably as a result of not being optimised yet, so that is actually a good sign for FSW in the future. In any case, when it comes right down to it, they are both tweaked up 64 bit versions of ESP, so really, how truly different could they end up being from one another? I guess we'll see.

I agree with a good example is the window rain effect in FSW they nailed it, LM didn't listen to the simmers  .

Share this post


Link to post

Never quite sure why everyone is obsessed with a rain on the windows effect in flight sims, and that's especially the case in FSW, where most of the aeroplanes are prop singles. Prop singles gnerally don't even need wipers because the prop backwash blasts almost all the water off the windshield. Sure it is nice to have the effect, but I'd prefer them to develop an icing on the windows effect, because that actually has a bearing on flight operations and is a useful visual clue in real life, whereas most prop and jet aeroplanes are not adversely affected too much by rain, unless it is really very heavy indeed. Rain is only really an operational issue with gliders in my experience, where having wet wings can be a bit detrimental to lift, so I always wipe the wings and tailplane down on a glider before taking off if it has been rained on, and I will sometimes do a high speed dive to get it off the wings if I've flown a glider through some rainfall.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My biggest take away is both are lacking stock in the visuals department (which is well known).  The biggest question to me is not how similar they are out of box, but what can you achieve with the available quality addons?  After all, I look at flight simming like a train set or lego set meant to be expanded.

Compare the best of what FSW has to offer versus P3D and you are talking two different experiences completely....

I own both, I like both, but FSW can't touch what my P3Dv4 install is capable of in aircraft quality, visuals, or scenery unfortunately.  Maybe in a few years, but not even a race at this point unfortunately imho.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's true in terms of the included default aircraft and a few add on aeroplanes, but really, there actually are not that many P3D V4 compatible payware aeroplanes available at the moment. You can see that by the fact that quite a lot of people are buying the Virtualcol CRJ for P3D V4, and whilst I quite like Virtualcol add ons, I wouldn't say they are normally that hugely popular with many simmers of the kind who would buy P3D V4.

Share this post


Link to post

But when your parked and not moving the rain should be on the windshield.

When playing this video click on the full screen icon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hypercide said:

Aren't you putting your thumb on the scale?  You write, "notice that the default FSW terrain, buildings and airports are a bit nicer than the default P3D ones, as you'd expect, since there is a bit of third party stuff going on in the default FSW"-- but "that third part stuff" IS default FSW.  In short, vanilla FSW is better looking than vanilla P3D and without the paranoia-inducing EULA.

You've probably already checked out the screenshot thread over at Flightsimworld where there's a whole lot of very good looking shots of default FSW. 

 

Tim

It's got better ground textures coloring out of the box, yes. Better looking? Meh. FSW's more limited autogen radius, blurry LOD ring, weird atmospherics, lack of expansive shadowing, low resolution textures, etc. all still leave a ton to be desired from the base engine graphically. The blurry, low resolution of the ground textures in both sims really kills them visually in this test.

Share this post


Link to post

Rain on the windshield

Is that something FSW does on its own and will happen with every plane? or is it something a third party dev will have to add to their planes?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, laserit said:

Rain on the windshield

Is that something FSW does on its own and will happen with every plane? or is it something a third party dev will have to add to their planes?

I think they confirmed it's model specific after most initially thought it was a global feature. But I could be wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The rain effect is available in FSW, but the aircraft developer has to write that effect into his model code for it appear in the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, A32xx said:

The rain effect is available in FSW, but the aircraft developer has to write that effect into his model code for it appear in the sim.

So, in principle, like P3D v4...

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, nthabti79 said:

So, in principle, like P3D v4...

Yes. Except no one has activated it in P3D v4 yet to my knowledge after discovering it.

In previous versions, I think developers had to code the rain from scratch. In FSW and P3D v4, it's in the base sim but still has to be added and worked to each model.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Chock said:

 

Notice that the extremely bright lighting in FSW makes the chopper's rotor blades all but invisible,

Chock - are you serious here?  Do you think the appearance of one addons (not made for FSW) blades equates to "the sim is too bright"?  Do you think the addon might need an update?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, sightseer said:

Chock - are you serious here?  Do you think the appearance of one addons (not made for FSW) blades equates to "the sim is too bright"?  Do you think the addon might need an update?

I know you have the opinion that the sim is too dark, but as far as I can determine from numerous responses to threads on Avsim and other forums, you are literally the only person saying that, everyone else is without exception saying FSW is too bright. This alone ought to tell you something.

In my video, both sims are using the same GPU, same monitor etc, yet the rotor blades appear okay in P3D but are almost completely washed out in FSW. On that same GPU, things looking washed out is not the case ifor any other game or sim run on that machine either, and that's a lot of them, including, Naval Action, Euro Truck Simulator, American Truck Simulator, XPlane 10 and 11, FSX, DCS World, various Train Sims, first person games such as Skyrim, RPGs such as The Secret World etc. Now if literally all of those games and sims look great on the same GPU settings, but one sim doesn't, instead looking like the gamma setting is too high, then that tells me that it is that one sim which needs tweaking, and this is especially true on that machine I used, because it is calibrated to sRGB IEC 6-1966 2-1 regularly because I use it for training people on Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro etc, so it needs to accurately depict colours.

It's nothing to do with the add-on helicopter needing an update, the fact is, everything in FSW is too bright in its current form as evidenced simply looking at it; a good example on that video is the apron and runway 23 compared in both sims at EGCC; it is is dark with visible markings in P3D, but the runway textures in FSW are so washed out by light bloom that you almost cannot even see the markings at all. This is a shame because the runway textures in FSW are pretty good when you look closely at them, but it is a fact that FSW is way too bright at the moment. Now, I understand that it is because it is early access and they have not addressed it yet, so I am sure it will be sorted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Chock - sim brightness has no bearing on semi transparent textures that Im aware of.  and you are entirely too focused on the runways.  Get up in the air a few hundred feet and look ONLY at the ground textures and then compare that to real life (without haze).  The runways in 170229 are actually brighter than they were with previous lighting and my sky texture lighting change that I proposed.  Those sky textures still have input and they are the cause of some of these issues imo.(like blueish ground)

Like it or not the ground and buildings are all bright and warm and saturated when the sun is shining brightly in real life.  Its cloud shadows and haze that dull and darken the appearance.

 

PS:  I am happy to be all alone in my opinions.  and I am not alone.  The Lord is my Shepherd.

Share this post


Link to post

As Chock says, the global lighting is a work in progress - possibly waiting for TrueSky? You can see this very clearly by opening the FSW.cfg file and changing Cloud Shadows=0 to Cloud Shadows=1 as a test.

As to whether you should be able to see rotor or prop blades spinning or not, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! You can usually edit the prop or rotor alpha channel texture to get more or less visibility as required.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Chock - sim brightness has no bearing on semi transparent textures that Im aware of.  and you are entirely too focused on the runways.

Well, clearly sim brightness does have a bearing on them, since they are virtually invisible in FSW and readily apparent in P3D. The textures files are identical when you open them in an image editor, so it is clearly the sim making them appear how they do in FSW. Yes the grayscale tone on an alpha channel affects transparency, but it is the colour and brightness settings overall which are affecting their visibility in FSW.

With regard to 'being too focused on runways', I'm simply making the observation that they look too bright, which they do. In any case, you are supposed to be focused on the runways when taking off, landing and flying around an airport, that's kind of one of the things they teach you when learning to fly lol.

Seriously though, this picture below is what Manchester airport looks like from the air on a sunny day. The aprons actually have a pinkish tinge to them on this picture, as indeed they do when you are there looking at them in real life, and the runways are anything but a glaring white, they look like that picture, I ought to know, I've been landing and taking off from there for the past thirty years or so. Some of the buildings with painted white hangar doors are very bright when it is sunny, but the tarmac absolutely is as it appears in this picture, even in very bright sunlight:

airport_zpsxqngzeff.png

 

Share this post


Link to post

Chock - to start with, that pic has been stopped down to avoid overexposure.  many such shots will be.  It looks different with the naked eye and if you are being honest then you will agree with me.

Sure the tarmac may have a pink tint to it and the runway may be dark(ish) asphalt at Manchester airport.  That has no bearing on anything as far as Im concerned.  FSW uses one runway texture in many places.  It cant be all things to all airports.  That's what Orbx is for.

Theres a good amount of haze in that shot and it appears to be city smog due to its color.  In cleaner air it will look different - bluer.  and the camera settings also affect that appearance.

reality is bright and warm.  You can find a lot of pictures out there and they will all be different.  the eye tells a different story.

feel free to post more pics. Id love to see them.  maybe you could check out some from reuniontower.com like I mentioned earlier.  That will show a fair enough representation of what Dallas looks like.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless you either took that picture yourself and know what camera it was taken on, and what lens was used, and what film/CCD/CMOS plate/sensor was in that camera, and know the wet film's ISO rating/digital equivalent setting for the camera used, or read the info on the digital file's metadata, camera data, IPTC data etc to determine that, providing that was present on the file (which it isn't, I know because it was me who saved that file), then there is no way you can know if it was shot with the lens stopped down. Sure, you will have to close down the aperture with certain film speeds, or camera settings such as the shutter, but not with all of them, which is just as well since with many compact digital cameras (i.e. not a more complex DSLR) there actually is no way to stop the lens down manually. The best you can manage on some lesser digital cameras is to half press the shutter button to get it to take a light reading, otherwise you are completely reliant on the camera's automatic sensor. Automatic sensors on DCs generally go for an appearance to reduce chromatic aberrations and to create an image suitable for viewing on equipment which can reproduce an IEC 61966-2-1:1999, or occasionally Adobe RGB1998 colour space, since both these have gamut ranges which are broadly similar (though technically not identical in terms of how they work) to at least the gamut range of an average human being's eye cone receptors, in that they can reproduce about 12 million different colours, which is around what a typical IEC 61966-2-1:1999 profiled monitor can do. In other words, they try to reproduce what the average human eye sees, and then perceives, so that it can be displayed in the most common way images are displayed these days, that is to say, online on mobile phones, tablets and computer monitors, most of which are on that same sRGB profile.

The blue of the distance in that pic is more likely to be caused by an inversion layer and rayleigh scattering than much smog, since heavy smog (of which there generally isn't much in the UK since it has bugger all heavy industry left these days, fewer coal-fired power stations, and very strict emissions laws for vehicles - I know this because my 16 year old sports car failed its MOT on exhaust emissions a couple of weeks back and it ended up with me spending 750 quid to get all kinds of stuff fitted to it, such as a Lambda Sensor in order for it to pass the retest lol) i.e. the hydrocarbons and other pollutants from vehicular exhausts and industrial chimneys etc typically gives the air a beige tint (more likely to be seen in a city in China these days), invariably assisted by being trapped under an inversion layer. Inversion layers on the other hand, are very common in the UK, and on a day like the one in that picture, that'd typically be up at around 3,000 feet AGL and will present a very noticable line in the sky where the atmospheric visibility changes, and I daresay you would see it in the area above that which was visible in the picture and even notice climbing through it in an aeroplane, where the ground's visibility would be considerably reduced when above the layer, and especially so with slant ranges.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll throw my cheap 2 cents in. I'm a pilot. I've literally never encountered a runway, even in the brightest southern and tropical areas, that appears overexposed and blindingly blown out like runways in FSW. I'll also be fair and point out that HDR being too high in P3D can produce the same effect.

It's a work in progress. I think they've already improved it somewhat (it was even worse at release), but there's still work to be done.

If you think FSW is too dark, I'd suggest your monitor's settings are not of the normal range to cause such a result when literally everyone else sees it as being way too bright.

Share this post


Link to post

please stop with the runways.  this is not about runways. its about the warmth and brightness of the ground scenery.

 

thanks, bonchie for your .02 but its not about runways.  Just go look at XP11.  that what I want to see.  If they can do it, its not my monitor.  and there are plenty of photos that I see as right so again its not my monitor.

 

have you ever flown in Texas?  have you landed at Houston Hobby or Dallas love on a bright sunny day?  its bright.  its warm.  the ground is brighter and a totally different tone than in FSW.

In addition to views from reunion tower, you can also look up Chase tower.  some of those have a realistic look (what the eye sees)

 

bonchie - does your aircraft have tinted windows?  do you wear sunglasses while flying?  and why exactly would being a pilot matter?

Share this post


Link to post

Im also out there in the real world flying ... in my personal opinion i dont think we are ever gona get a real accurate representation of what i see out the front window .. it may be close but not the exact same ... 

Share this post


Link to post

It's going to be better when the finished weather engine is up and running, and better still if there is built-in real weather or a compatible weather add-on. I also think the Graphics options would really benefit from a brightness, contrast and saturation adjustment section so that everyone can set their own preference, because it's highly unlikely that a fixed global setting is going to represent rainy Manchester UK, and sunny Houston Tx, to anyone's satisfaction. That should also make the screenshot forums a LOT more interesting too...

  • Upvote 1

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