21 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

1.  Bug fixes (many many many of them that were in the FSX-SP2 code base used for ESP).

2.  Dynamic Reflections

3.  Dynamic Lights

4.  Cloud Shadows

5.  HDR providing much more vibrant lighting and color (and "maybe" PBR in future release)

6.  Increased Autogen density and view distance that goes considerably further than any flight sim currently on the market, even AF2 (mind boggling far if you make a couple of Prepar3d.cfg changes and have the processing power to work with it)

7.  Tessellation that brings more geometry subdivisions to terrain providing a subtle but more granular world 

8.  Additional shadow options and quality settings 

9.  Better "native" AA support with SSAA 

10.  Better performance when "similar" graphics settings are used even on older hardware 

11.  Improved threading support for gauges, terrain, and more

12.  Additional Reflection options 

13.  New SDK features and functionality from SpeedTrees creation (true 3D dynamic trees that move based on wind speed) to controller options to ScaleForm objects in the VC to many other new SDK options we've yet to see be implemented by 3rd party.

14.  Avatar mode (that keeps improving with ability to interact with aircraft/vehicles)

15.  GPS data broadcasting

16.  True volumetric water that responds to weather

17.  Much improved snow/rain effects (detailed precipitation option)

18.  Ability to calibrate controllers natively in P3D and options to use RAW input or Direct input

19.  Improve visibility and weather features with Volumetric Fog

20.  Windshield effects (enabled via SDK also)

21.  Move from DX9 to a much more efficient DX11 graphics API

22.  Continued development and NOT static

I could go one, but  you did ask :) 

 

 

 

That's probably how George Lucas defended the Special Edition and the second trilogy, too... ;-)

Less is often more (economical), one should concentrate on the basics, something no better graphic or programme gimmick will ever deliver for you. So, even FS9 still goes fresh (see Historic Jetliners Group and California Classic Propliners)... and I'm 32!

2 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

If you have a DX11 card now and a 64bit OS, then performance (using equivalent setting as that in FSX) would be better and you would need to care about OOMs.  As you increase and enable features in P3D V4.x that are NOT in FSX, you'll increase CPU/GPU load.  But it's unlikely you'll need a "new" rig if you have purchased or upgraded your computer within the last 5 years or so ... but the choice/control is yours.  I was just answering your question because like you say, people have preconceived ideas about platform X without every using platform X or understanding what it has to offer.

A sim being "better" than another sim really depends on what's important to the individual.  If you want to just go down the "feature" list and "add-on" support as the only criteria, then yes there is a very clear winner ... but that's setting the stage by defining the criteria ... end users are really the only ones that can "set the stage" with their own criteria.  So define the criteria then you'll be able to determine what is "better" for you.

Cheers, Rob.

Nah I got a 10 year old system an AMD Phenom with a 2GB GT630 but I do run a few 64 bit sims quite nicely with lowered sets but enough to enjoy, but anyway the point is there is no clear winner and as you stated "What's important to the individual"  , as to the features its a mix for all the sims IMO. 

Anyway before this thread goes off topic ,I think we are all fools arguing on every thread about that so called superiority  the software we use to simulate a flying environment.  

and "my sim is better than yours" was just for laughs 

Cheers.

 

10 minutes ago, paulopp said:

That's probably how George Lucas defended the Special Edition and the second trilogy, too... ;-)

I'm just responding to a question with accurate information, not really defending anything?  I could/would provide a similar list if someone wanted to know what was different from XP10 to XP11 ... although in context of FSX to P3D V4.x, I would probably be better comparing XP8 to XP11 given timeframes of each platform compare ;)

3 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Anyway before this thread goes off topic

This is Hangar Chat, close to impossible to go "off topic".  As far as superiority, if you define that as one product being able to simulate something another product can't, then YES some platforms are superior to others in that regard to that specific aspect.  There are real "facts" in this world, one just has to be willing to find them and decide on their importance.

Cheers, Rob.

17 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

 

This is Hangar Chat, close to impossible to go "off topic".  As far as superiority, if you define that as one product being able to simulate something another product can't, then YES some platforms are superior to others in that regard to that specific aspect.  There are real "facts" in this world, one just has to be willing to find them and decide on their importance.

Cheers, Rob.

I agree on the point that when one can't and the other can simulate what one wants is superior for you. 

For me the other sim is superior because I tend fly the helis more often and purely VFR and the other does not offer that superiority and some other type of flying . 

Cheers 

I don`t think it matters which sim in terms of number`s what you invest in is a personal choice, it just get`s me that threads like this are usually started by the same sim based users all over the web,

I don`t get what truck simulator users get out of that sim yet there's over 4 million users that do, probably more than all flight simmers combined and that's only steam numbers it can be purchased off steam for the game consol.    

34 minutes ago, rjfry said:

I don`t get what truck simulator users get out of that sim yet there's over 4 million users that do

I'm one of those  and it is indeed a large and active community, especially in Poland and Germany. I'm not a hardcore user like others I've seen, but I find it quite relaxing now and then.

1 hour ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I would probably be better comparing XP8 to XP11

Yep, I'd say 10 to 11 really wasn't a major jump personally for me. I still prefer the UI of 10 (it was more powerful), and the haziness and dull colors of XP11 is not something I like or care for too much. However, if we compare XP9 to XP11 then they could both be different sims to me, these are things I can remember that stood out:

• New "plausible" autogen. Although, I'm not a fan of it , it was a big improvement from XP9 to XP10.
• 64-bit. This happened during the v10 run, and was free
• Updatable GNS430/530 units added for free during the v10 run. This was something that really kept me on v10 when it happened, as I missed my RXP units in FSX
• PBR textures. This is one of the best features of v11, and has now started to mature enough to be used in scenery as well.
• Lots of new tech added throughout 9 to 11 for developers. LR are normally responsive and will add things if people request them.
• The airport gateway. This has been a huge success and we get lots of quite accurate lego-brick airports on every update
• Each update includes updated navdata, airports, navaids etc
• Native VR support appearing in 11.20

I could probably go on and on. Whilst the sim has obvious problems for me, and I'll be the first to admit there are lots I don't like, I have to really respect LR for doing most of these things completely for free, e.g. 64-bit was free, GNS430 was free, etc.. XP9 to 11 has been a much cheaper path for me than P3D v1 to v4, and I just see far more features for my money. P3D v1 to v4 looks almost identical to me (and I have bought each version, costing $800), XP9 to 11 is almost a completely different sim, and the upgrade cost has cost me around ($120) and lasted a very long time.

I continue to use P3D as well because of the addons for it, not because I see anything in the base sim that makes me think the cost is worth it, but because I love the addons for it.

Look at what AeroflyFS have added into their sim during early access, i.e. Large amounts of autogen, detailed airports, some decent planes, and there is more coming. DTG have also done pretty well, although progress has died down here. My personal feeling is that LM are going to need to step up the game with their updates if they are to continue to compete in the future.

 

I don`t think LM give a toss which sim if we never purchased it, It would still survive without us that cannot be said of the other sims and I suspect the reason for threads like this users Fear there sim will not.   

1 hour ago, rjfry said:

I don`t think LM give a toss which sim if we never purchased it, It would still survive without us that cannot be said of the other sims and I suspect the reason for threads like this users Fear there sim will not.   

I don't think there's any XP user that fears it will not survive. People and haters alike have been predicting its demise for 20 years, and if it survived while it had less than 1% market share (with MSFS having 99%), it would seem pretty stupid now to fear it will not, given that its market share had been steadily increasing for quite some time.

 

Possibly, and if it was my main sim and our only choice it would very much bother me. It would mean that the developers don't really have us in mind and/or care what we want to see in the sim, and is one reason I don't get why people aren't running to iPacs, DTG or LR. If I was a developer for the platform, it would bother me even more, but I'm not and so I don't really care. What boggles my mind is that if the majority of their clients are actually large training contracts then the default sim is woefully ill-equipped out of the box (Even the navdata is still from 2006), and there are better and probably cheaper professional simulators out there.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, rjfry said:

I don`t think it matters which sim in terms of number`s what you invest in is a personal choice, it just get`s me that threads like this are usually started by the same sim based users all over the web,

Which sim am I "based" on??

1 hour ago, rjfry said:

threads like this users Fear there sim will not

I don't think folks fear longevity ... look at FSX, it continued to thrive and be the dominant platform 10+ years later with zero core development happening and closed ACE studio.  So even if LM or LR closed shop today, the platform would continue to live on and thrive for a decade or more just like it did in the past.

LM absolutely do care what "The community think" ... if they didn't, they wouldn't have a public website and public forums and screenshot contests and have the software engineers/team communicate with end users and they certainly wouldn't have enlisted such a large Beta group.  They wouldn't have implemented features that were asked for by end users, they would have just done their own thing to meet their external contracts (primarily military training).

I like XP11.11's building autogen - much better texture quality than P3D (although in XP11 not being able to see the city of Seattle when departing KSEA on a clear day certainly requires the "blind eye").  Mr.X HD Trees are a nice freeware but not as good as Turbulent or Orbx HD Trees (payware) on FSX/P3D side ... and that's key element, payware bring about more polish and most importantly support.

Roads do seem to blend better in XP11 over P3D ... but it could be the over use of brownish/haze or whatever it is LR seem to think represents reality.

I can't think of an XP11 equivalent FSFX Packages EFFECTS product specific to aircraft and/or generic to all aircraft?

x-Camera (registered) is another tool (payware if registered) that could be improved on when compared to FSFX Packages ChasePlane ... the payware ChasePlane is far easier to manage and assign views/cameras with a clean UI ... and if you want additional camera effects like you find in ChasePlane then on the XP11 side XPRealistic (payware $20) which will integrate with x-camera (for $30 total for both).  Chaseplane is also more aircraft aware to avoid conflicts with any existing aircraft effects.

Moving onto AI traffic and ground services, we have World Traffic 3 (payware) and JARDesign Ground handling/deluxe (payware 16e) ... but compared to P3D/FSX equivalents like UTLive or GSX, these XP11 equivalents require considerable work to implement on an airport by airport basis.  On the P3D side you can pretty much install UTLive and GSX and be done with it (there are a wealth of customization options but they are NOT required to enjoy the full experience).  It's not that XP11 can't do these things, it can, it just needs more refinement and frankly more payware because to implement AI traffic and ground services on a global level in XP11 is going to take A LOT of development time.

It's great that XP11 has a lot of free products, so does P3D and FSX, and I can understand the willing desire to use these products and take the time to make it happen in XP11 with the rewards that brings.  BUT, there are equally more users that want payware solutions where they can just hit an Install Button and be done ... it's certainly doable for XP11 and we're slowly starting to see that with newer payware developers for XP11.  Can't really have any expectations for "Freeware" ... but we can for payware.   

Just like FSUIPC add-on is freeware and used by other add-on developers on the P3D/FSX side, we have FlyWithLua and Gizmo64 freeware plugins on the XP11 side.  Many similarities between these platforms, but some of the missing elements of XP11 is going to require payware just because of the scope of the projects to get to that polished stage of payware.

XP11 has "native" support for sloped runways, P3D does not 
P3D has "native" support for 4 seasons, XP11 does not (4 seasons beyond just terrain tiles but trees also)
XP11 has strange horizon issues and sun reflections in the water
P3D has shifting terrain tiles (especially around mountain regions) causing floating building AG
XP11 water is mostly horrible and repetitive patterns with as far as I can tell no interaction with weather (fortunately a lua script later and that can be resolved or at-least compromised and less distracting)
P3D has object textures that load/unload frequently (for no obvious reason I can determine since it's now 64bit and memory isn't a concern)
XP11 distant terrain reflections jump around all over the water surface in hysteria  
P3D HDR and shadow oddities at certain view angles  
XP11 shadows is far too coarse/jagged (this is probably a limit from deferred rendering)
 

To make a long story short, a "blind eye" is required for both simulators (same goes for FSW and AF2).  They all have real strengths and real weaknesses.

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

XP11 has "native" support for sloped runways, P3D does not 

Ha ha, I'd say that's lucky. The sloped runways feature is one of the most over hyped and worst things in the sim. It's causes no ends of problems, from huge bumps in the taxiways to ditches in the middle of the runway

The point I was trying to make we do not now the numbers in terms on professional`s and organisation that use the product for which it was intended, without us it would still be used for what it was intended, and makes up a small part of a billion pound company`s investment I suspect they spend more on advertising and promotional materiel than is spent developing P3D. 

And I say again the numbers game is to all intense and purpose pointless .

1 hour ago, rjfry said:

The point I was trying to make we do not now the numbers in terms on professional`s and organisation that use the product for which it was intended, without us it would still be used for what it was intended, and makes up a small part of a billion pound company`s investment I suspect they spend more on advertising and promotional materiel than is spent developing P3D. 

And I say again the numbers game is to all intense and purpose pointless .

You are correct, Raymond.  The sector of LM that develops Prepa3D is heavily invested in military training for both US and international customers.  The PC-based software side is a small fraction of their overall business model.  Their full flight simulator products, and subsequently smaller part task trainer devices, as well as the design and construction of world class schoolhouse solutions, dwarfs the revenue from Prepa3D.  But like all cradle to grave training solutions, the building block approach requires high fidelity PC-based simulation products to help beginning students advance to the full flight simulator stage, and then on to their ultimate target, the actual aircraft.  Prepar3D is a valuable and essential part of the overall strategy, which ensures it's continued development.

So, if LM did not offer a way for the public to utilize Prepar3D, they would continue along just fine.  But, their genius was to find a legal way to open Prepa3D up to the public, who would then provide valuable "beta" testing.  With an abundance of passionate enthusiasts in this community they benefit greatly from all our input, and we do as well since much of our feedback is considered and implemented, eventually.  The fact that Prepar3D is such a key part of LM's military training road map ensures it will continue for the foreseeable future, and our feedback contributes considerably to the overall quality of the product being used by our military, and other friendly military customers around the world.  It really is a win-win for all involved.

It may be the aces team that had LM open the product up knowing the wealth of knowledge in the flight sim community and the feedback they can gain, I followed the aces team on Microsoft channel 9, years ago before they pulled the plug.