Are you happy with P3Dv4?

[ukplane1 37]

same planes, better scenery that's not 11 years of progress from FSX.

[MadDog 353]

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

The popping autogen is suddenly so noticeable and annoying

I certainly can't argue with that... but the vsync-related microstutters in Prepar3D annoy me even more.  As with everything in simming, it's about which compromises you're willing to make.

[Chock 17,769]

39 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

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.   

 

All true, but the question posed on the title of this thread was 'are you happy with P3DV4?', not 'how suitable is it for military scenario training?' because this is the Avsim forum, not a forum for tactical squad leaders or whatever. As such, I never said anything about it being unsuitable for that task, I am sure it is eminently suitable for planning an assault on a harbour or some such with a Navy SEALS unit you plan to insert via minisubs or whatever, if you happen to have one of those and are called upon to plan such an operation, which I'm guessing isn't likely for most people who frequent Avsim lol.

[FalconAF 213]

21 minutes ago, MadDog said:

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.

You are still missing the point.

P3D was and is designed and marketed as a "professional training scenario simulator".  What NEEDED to be "fixed" in it before it could ever be REASONABLY marketed to commercial or military training agencies was the 32-bit platform.  It had to go to a 64-bit platform so it could be a RELIABLE simulator without constant OOM's, etc.  THAT could (and was) done without having to upgrade any "graphics", "flight dynamics", or any of the other things you mentioned.  The CORE PLATFORM of P3D was changed to 64-bit.  THEN, third-party developers could USE that NEW core platform to develop BETTER and MORE ACCURATE addons, like "flight dynamcis", "engine modeling" (think PMDG products), etc.

But the KEY is NO developer SHOULD have to make a "world wide addon" product for P3D.  No commercial or military training user will EVER use P3D for a world-wide scenario.  They will use it in a much, much smaller geographic area, with a LIMITED number of vehicles specific to that particular scenario they are training.

"We", on the other hand, want instant gratification for the WHOLE P3D product world wide "out of the box".  That's not gonna happen.  There is no way LM is going to upgrade the entire world in P3D the way some people think they should in this thread.  It will be by "us" purchasing third party addons made for OTHER THAN how a commercial or military "addon" would be made for a specific scenario.

The "Army" training tacticians could care less how many leaves the tank drivers could count on the trees around the tanks.  They want the tank drivers to be able to see other tanks and be able to make tactical decisions that will let them kill those OTHER tanks and not their tanks.  "Look at all the pretty scenery" doesn't have a damned thing to do with that.  Neither would "Look at all the pretty whales" while a pilot is making a landing on an aircraft carrier. 

 

[brucewtb 247]

I live on the far south coast of NSW in Australia and in FSX just off the coast from the Pambula river mouth there is a display anomaly on the water - a long straight line.  It is still there with orbx AU added and it is still there in P3D much to my surprise.  After moving from FSX and firing up P3D4 for the first time I was underwhelmed the same look as FSX but more washed out.  So after 10 years it seemed not much had changed even with 4 versions of P3D. But we have 64 bit and that is a big change for me because without it in FSX I get an instant OOM when for example I load up Orbx Norcal/SoCal & FB's KSFO and the NGX but in P3D4 good to go with reasonable fps.  Also after installing ENVTEX and PTA the overall look is greatly improved with the major exception of ocean textures which are still much better in FSX.  The comments made previously in the thread about P3D being a "professional training scenario simulator" are very apt.  We can be grateful that LM seem happy for the likes of those who frequent AVSIM to play in their commercial/professional sandpit despite what they say in their FAQ etc but I do wonder how this will play out over the longer term so with that in mind I hesitate to call P3D4 a true successor to FSX.

Bruceb

[FalconAF 213]

7 hours ago, Chock said:

All true, but the question posed on the title of this thread was 'are you happy with P3DV4?', not 'how suitable is it for military scenario training?' because this is the Avsim forum, not a forum for tactical squad leaders or whatever. As such, I never said anything about it being unsuitable for that task, I am sure it is eminently suitable for planning an assault on a harbour or some such with a Navy SEALS unit you plan to insert via minisubs or whatever, if you happen to have one of those and are called upon to plan such an operation, which I'm guessing isn't likely for most people who frequent Avsim lol.

I agree.  But here's my disagreement with the part of your post I originally quoted.

You list yourself in big, red letters under your forum name as a "Reviewer".  Then shouldn't you review the product for what it was INTENDED for?  Not what YOU WISH it was "out of the box"? Everything you said about P3Dv4 that made YOU unhappy was OUTSIDE the scope of the DEFAULT product as sold to the consumer. 

Would you review a Volkswagen as an Indy Car, ready to race in the Indy 500, just because the forum you were doing the "review" in had Volkswagen users who were trying to use their Volkswagen as an Indy Car?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

to Bruceb..

It takes a while to work out the best lighting options for P3D4.. but when you've got it dialed in to your liking, it is easily as good as FSX, and in some ways better.

The overall look of the scenery is certainly superior to FSX, and the absence of Autogen popping all over the place is a major step forward IMHO.

If what you are looking for is a flying "game", FSW may be where you should be heading, but if you are looking for a "simulation" of flight, P3D4 is indeed the successor to FSX.  I am very happy that LM has made the effort and I am flying my favorite aircraft over great scenery, using real world navigation.. not too many worries about the "long term" 

 

 

[Cargostorm 151]

I am happy with v4 as am I with V3. 

V4 is a big step forward, no doubt. But I currently only use it for testing and offline flying, as there are still annoyable issues with textures and photo scenery becoming blurry in mid-flight (addressed by several members in LM forum). Further, V4 does not support FS9 code and therefore it is rarely usuable for online IVAO flights (no proper AI aircrafts). 

So for the moment, V3 remains my virtual 'bread and butter' simulator for everday use.

 

 

[Parping Couplet 117]

I love it and if the only benefit were the OOMless flying it would be worthwhile. It has some nice advances in addition to that though. 

The downside is that you can no longer easily shoehorn in a lot of the FSX airports that may never see the light of day in 64 bit. So many Aerosoft airports that I love aren't yet converted. Heck, Aerosoft haven't converted so many to P3D at all. 

It's the right move but nothing is ever perfect of course. 

[WebMaximus 372]

1 hour ago, Cargostorm said:

I am happy with v4 as am I with V3. 

V4 is a big step forward, no doubt. But I currently only use it for testing and offline flying, as there are still annoyable issues with textures and photo scenery becoming blurry in mid-flight (addressed by several members in LM forum). Further, V4 does not support FS9 code and therefore it is rarely usuable for online IVAO flights (no proper AI aircrafts). 

So for the moment, V3 remains my virtual 'bread and butter' simulator for everday use.

 

 

What you said about online flying caught my eyes because I too do all my flying online.

However in my case on Vatsim using a mix of AI models where I've manually discarded any FS9 models since they are known to cause issues even before P3Dv4.

So maybe this is the time for you to try Vatsim out if you didn't already 😉

[WebMaximus 372]

53 minutes ago, Parping Couplet said:

The downside is that you can no longer easily shoehorn in a lot of the FSX airports that may never see the light of day in 64 bit. So many Aerosoft airports that I love aren't yet converted. Heck, Aerosoft haven't converted so many to P3D at all. 

I never shoehorned in any sceneries in any version with a very few exceptions in order to keep potential issues far away from my setup so that's not an issue in my case.

As for Aerosoft products and P3Dv4 compatibility I read an announcement about this yesterday actually. There's a separate thread about this in this forum.

[swiesma 625]

Regarding online flying: I fly at VATSIM and have no problems with model matching etc. whatsoever.

Everything works fine.

[Cargostorm 151]

17 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

I never shoehorned in any sceneries in any version with a very few exceptions in order to keep potential issues far away from my setup so that's not an issue in my case.

As for Aerosoft products and P3Dv4 compatibility I read an announcement about this yesterday actually. There's a separate thread about this in this forum.

 

The good thing is that properly encoded FSX sceneries will usually have no issues in V4. Remember that even the default sceneries in P3D go back to FSX. Only SDK2002 (FS9) encoded sceneries can make serious trouble (see UK2000 forum and workaround for yet non-compatible UK2000 sceneries).

 

24 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

So maybe this is the time for you to try Vatsim out if you didn't already 😉

I seriously considered that idea but I am holding back because I have no extensive Vatsim compatible AI aircraft collection.

[WebMaximus 372]

29 minutes ago, swiesma said:

Regarding online flying: I fly at VATSIM and have no problems with model matching etc. whatsoever.

Everything works fine.

That's good to hear!

[swiesma 625]

14 minutes ago, Cargostorm said:

 

I seriously considered that idea but I am holding back because I have no extensive Vatsim compatible AI aircraft collection.

https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=68666

 

? :-)