Welcome back :)

1 hour ago, WebMaximus said:

Welcome back :)

Thank you. ;)

3 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

And Flight Sim World. 

That is simply not true. Maybe given some time, but certainly not now, not by a long shot.

7 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

And Flight Sim World. 

I'll have whatever you are drinking  

For where they are in the development cycle, I'm pretty impressed with what DTG has done with FSW so far. TrueSky is great and I'm sure will only get better. I'm pulling for 'em...but we'll see.

On 8/16/2017 at 7:17 PM, vgbaron said:

Without question, to me, this is the best so far. As with any of them, realistic settings adapted to your hardware is the key. You can overload ANY sim with enough addons, etc.

Using ASP4/ASCA I can tell you I DO fear the weather at destination! The flight models are there but if your settings in your weather are dumbed down or not available, you're not going to get the response. For sure, I get some white knuckled approaches in P3D4 just like I did IRL so to answer your question - 

 

Yes! I am very happy with P3D4.

Vic

Agree same here happy with P3DV4

I just made the switch and I'm also very happy with it. Vastly smoother than FSX at comparable settings.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned much that's a total game-changer for me is the AI traffic performance. Whatever they did, it went from AI aircraft absolutely crushing your performance to being practically negligible in impact. In FSX I'd have to limit AI to 100 (or even 50 in some areas) to get ok performance. Now, even in the NYC area I'm basically seeing no hit with hundreds of planes around. I know that probably sounds like BS, and I'm not sure I'd believe it either, but it's true. Whatever LM changed really worked.

If you're an AI maniac like me, P3D v4 is a no-brainer. Feels like going back to FS9 levels of AI performance.

James

6 hours ago, WebMaximus said:

Welcome back :)

Indeed, nice seeing you back Jeroen!

:-)

27 minutes ago, awf said:

Agree same here happy with P3DV4

Hello André! :-)

Same here too, V4 rocks!

 

15 hours ago, Manny said:

You are less than 30 years old Jason? . :)

Oh don't I wish.  I'm originally from China...I guess betamax never made it to China.

Back to the topic, I think I'm one of the relative few who are still with V3.  I'm waiting to see how 4.1 will be, especially with dynamic lighting.

35 minutes ago, windycloud said:

Back to the topic, I think I'm one of the relative few who are still with V3.  I'm waiting to see how 4.1 will be, especially with dynamic lighting.

There are more of us than you think.  Should call us the "V3ers".  Yeah, the noise level of problems is still on the high side for me.  Still trying to get a sense for the scenery installation change...some addons have installers...some work but you have to tweak them...some have patches.  Some add-ons don't work.  I can wait.

31 minutes ago, David Roch said:

 

Same here too, V4 rocks!

 

Yep! 

54 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

There are more of us than you think.  Should call us the "V3ers".  Yeah, the noise level of problems is still on the high side for me.  Still trying to get a sense for the scenery installation change...some addons have installers...some work but you have to tweak them...some have patches.  Some add-ons don't work.  I can wait.

Not saying you shouldn't wait Gregg, it's your system but if it's the scenery install confusion that's your main sticking point - it really shouldn't be. IMHO, the situation will get more confusing and more and more devs follow the recommended install method and we have "some do" and "some don't" going on. Ultimately it will sort out but not in the next few versions of P3D so you might be waiting for a while.

It's not as confusing as it appears - LM "recommends" third party add ons be installed outside of the main P3D folder. It is just a recommendation for now and the addons can be installed just as in V3 with no problems. Any dev's that have adopted the "recommended" method will work just fine also. The problem comes when the USER not the DEVELOPER tries to do a manual install without understanding what is needed.

Vic

1 minute ago, vgbaron said:

The problem comes when the USER not the DEVELOPER tries to do a manual install without understanding what is needed.

Hi Vic,

Yeah, that's part of the rub...I, as the user, don't really know what's going on with scenery installs...why you'd even want to use this method or that.  It used to be clear and easy to understand.  Now it's muddy.  I have a lot of sceneries, some newer, some older...none, that I know of, use the new way...unless there's a patch.  So, do I just point the installer at my P3D4 directory and click the button?  If it doesn't install to the scenery.cfg do I manually add it?  I, honestly, don't mind waiting a long time if I have to. 

As an aside, does MyTraffic work yet?

Gregg

My Traffic 6.0a works fine with v4. After the UTL disaster, it is nice to have traffic again.

I've been using MyTraffic since day 1. Some people have issues because there are a few FS9 models included which will cause issues. You can manually remove them or use Maarten Boelens SimlauncherX to do it for you.

For scenery - just use whatever installer your dev provides, assuming that the scenery is compatible with P3D4. If they use the add-on.xml method or the older install method it will still work and you do not have to do anything.

To me - the best reason for using the add-on.xml method is the ease of reinstalling. You don't have to. Just start up your reinstalled p3d and it will automatically pick up your addons. When I'm doing beta testing I often mess up my install on my test system - I just reinstall theP3D client and I'm good to go with most of my addons.

Vic