Are you happy with P3Dv4?

[Michael Moe 495]

36 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing ☺️

Jokes set aside it sounds great the new version of P3D seems to overall make good use of your hardware resulting in mostly great performance.

Really cant beat honesty can you  , Thats what i like the most about my sim friends . The Scandinavian build of trust 

Dont worry  , step up

 

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

[WebMaximus 372]

10 minutes ago, regis9 said:

I'm absolutely happy with it.  I left v3 installed just in case, but haven't used it once since v4 was released.

I feel like this is the true successor to FSX we were all waiting for.

This version being the true successor is something I've read before and with so many people saying the same thing it appears LM really nailed it this time.

[MadDog 353]

3 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

I always use windowed mode so that's not a problem for me plus I thought there's always been a full-screen mode by pressing ALT+ENTER.

Nope...it's just a borderless window (which is why 1/2 vsync doesn't work with it).

5 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

So what is your current platform of choice, XP11?

I'm sticking with FSX for the time being (although I also tinker with XP11 and FSW occasionally).  I avoid OOMs 99% of the time by toning down the autogen when using a complex aircraft/airport.

[swiesma 625]

I personally love V4.

[Chock 17,769]

Performance-wise it is good, but it needs some stuff doing at it to be really as good as some people are claiming it is.

Flying around in a sim which still has the same airport and nav aid database from 12 years ago is a bit lame, as was removing the ability for it to download weather (as FSX could and even FS9 can). It's pretty poor when FSX-SE (which you can buy for a fiver in a Steam sale much of the time) has better weather capabilities than something which costs considerably more and is much more recently developed. Even when you add Active Sky to it, the clouds still look a bit naff and there are problems with the cloud shadows and the lighting which FSX does not exhibit when you put the DX10 fixer and cloud shadows in it, and that is poor when something which is supposed to be an updated base sim is outdone by a 12 year old iteration with a 20 quid add-on made by a small developer shoved into it.

Similarly, the autogen is the same as in the old FSX (i.e. not very convincing) and the ground terrain is also similarly poor and not any different from FSX, nor are the airports. Yes P3D V4 has shiny new lights and is 64 bit, but they could do a lot more than that to it, and they should, because most of the things which give it a decent appearance are not as a result of its default capabilities, but as a result of us throwing payware at it to tart up mediocre-looking airports, ground textures and sky textures, and that doesn't seem like much of an advancement in the twelve years since FSX came out. Yes the fact that we can do that with less chance of VAs issues is good, but really, I'd expect more of an effort with some of the base features of the thing from a company with LM's budget.

Don't get me wrong, there is much to like about P3D, but there is much more they could do and really should have in the four years and four iterations they've had at doing so.

[gpf3m 41]

Very happy with P3DV4.  Looking forward for more things to come.

[vgbaron 3,590]

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

Don't get me wrong, there is much to like about P3D, but there is much more they could do and really should have in the four years and four iterations they've had at doing so.

Some folks see the glass half full and some folks see it half empty.

 

Vic

[Chock 17,769]

8 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Some folks see the glass half full and some folks see it half empty.

 

Vic

Well, nothing I wrote is untrue. Yes I do appreciate P3D V4's 64 bit capability, but for the kind of money it costs, the truth is that I could take a screenshot from a tarted up FSX-SE, which costs a fiver, and one from P3D V4, which is considerably more than a fiver, both with the same add-ons installed, and I'd defy anyone to tell me which shot was from which sim.

If that's what can be done with two sims which are twelve years apart in development time, then it's really not that impressive in terms of what has been achieved visually with a sim which can supposedly utilise a modern GPU's more capable whistles and bells.

[vgbaron 3,590]

As I said - Some see the glass half full and some see it half empty. But the glass remains and the quantity remains so both are true.

Personally, I prefer to dwell on the positives.

Vic

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm ecstatic!

I'm able to fly to almost any major airport and get decent performance. It's like I bought a new system and all I had to do is pay an upgrade price for a few addons.

I just finished a full windows 10 Pro install. Prior to that I was in win 7 64u. It was a free upgrade.

I was searching for smoothness & even better fps and I got both. FREE!

[Chock 17,769]

Well, it's not so much that the glass is half full or half empty, as the glass having remained untouched in terms of being filled up with something new for us to drink.

[FalconAF 213]

34 minutes ago, Chock said:

Similarly, the autogen is the same as in the old FSX (i.e. not very convincing) and the ground terrain is also similarly poor and not any different from FSX, nor are the airports.   ...but they could do a lot more than that to it, and they should, because most of the things which give it a decent appearance are not as a result of its default capabilities, but as a result of us throwing payware at it to tart up mediocre-looking airports, ground textures and sky textures, and that doesn't seem like much of an advancement in the twelve years since FSX came out.

Don't get me wrong, there is much to like about P3D, but there is much more they could do and really should have in the four years and four iterations they've had at doing so.

Sorry, but I can't agree with this assessment at all.  Ten-year-old FSX and "new product" P3D are NOT developed for the same purpose.  FSX was allowed to be used as an "entertainment" platform.  P3D is NOT allowed for "entertainment" per the contract the end-user has with LM.  There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a commercial or government user who purchases P3D to have DEFAULT high-end graphics.  For a SCENARIO simulator designed and used for TRAINING, what you need graphics-wise is independent of each scenario being used.  Flying an airplane is not dependent on how many autogen houses you can see on the ground, or their texture quality for a non-training use of the product, the same as "mediocre ground or sky textures" do not effect the operation of the airplane (or ground vehicle).

Face it....there are a LOT of "us" using P3D in an "entertainment" mode, and "we" are the ones demanding higher texture graphics so we can "look at all the pretty scenery", which in almost ALL cases would have NOTHING to do with a quality TRAINING scenario simulation taking place.  Heck, when a third-party developer's forum is mostly "screen shot" posts showing their scenery with replies like "Great shots!  Looks like FUN!!!", it's a pretty good indication how MOST users are using P3D.

Consider yourself lucky you can even BUY third-party addons, fly the sim for something other than using it as a true TRAINING SCENARIO simulator, and not get in trouble for doing it.   

 

[JYW 2,979]

For me, P3Dv4 is a fantastic version of the ESP platform, and almost ready to go 'out of the box'.  There are many good things about it. The two areas of disappointment for me have been (i) the fact that I get no actual increase in performance at all (using a fairly modest set up).  I can't have sliders or effects any higher than I could in FSX:SE.  Of course, as the OP said, the VAS risk has gone, but because I had a modest systems and didn't push the sliders too hard, I never really got OOMs anyway.  And, (ii) a few hard to predict CTDs that have occurred; often on approach after 2 hours flights! :)   They're not OOMs in any way, just hangs and CTDs.  Also sometimes get them when panning around scenery using my TrackIR.   

What P3Dv4 does have though, is the performance scalability for when I update my GPU.  I know that that is when the benefits will really shine. It's not been a fairy tale but for me it's sufficiently good that I'd never retrograde back to FSX.

The need to re-purchase the PMDG fleet again must also be a negative for me, althouth clearly this is not in anyway the fault of LM.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, MadDog said:

I'm sticking with FSX for the time being (although I also tinker with XP11 and FSW occasionally).  I avoid OOMs 99% of the time by toning down the autogen when using a complex aircraft/airport.

I could not go back to FSX after flying P3D4..

The popping autogen is suddenly so noticeable and annoying..

[MadDog 353]

11 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a commercial or government user who purchases P3D to have DEFAULT high-end graphics.

Then why have most of the "improvements" made to Prepar3D been related to graphics?  DirectX 11, HDR, shadows, haze, Speedtrees, tessellation, dynamic lights, LOD distance, autogen, etc. = Graphics!  Heck, if it wasn't for all the pretty add-on scenery, it probably wouldn't even need to be 64-bits!

Meanwhile, "professional" features such as flight dynamics, ground friction, turboprop engine modeling, weather, camera systems, AI traffic behavior and ATC have not been touched in 4 versions.