Is V3 still worth using.

[Bobsk8 12,669]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

That to me is flawed logic... no one forces you to enable "eye candy" that might have a performance impact..

Certainly not a reason to prefer V3 over V4 

V4 needs more than turning down some eye candy, look at the recommended specs V3 versus V4 on LM website. 

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

That to me is flawed logic... no one forces you to enable "eye candy" that might have a performance impact..

Certainly not a reason to prefer V3 over V4 

How is it flawed? He already owns v3😳

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, mpw8679 said:

How is it flawed? He already owns v3😳

Fair enough, if you already own V3.. maybe continue to use it..

But V4 does not use more resources than V3... it may actually run better 

[Afterburner 374]

I am still using v3 and have decided to skip v4. Once v5 will be released, I plan to go with that simulator along with a simultaneous purchase of new hardware.

I can say that unless you want to fly airplanes of PMDG and FSL caliber over ORBX regions with high graphics settings (which would deplete the VAS in 32-bit simulators), the difference between v3 and v4 is actually not that huge when it comes to graphics. In v3, at least you don't have to worry about dynamic lights straining your GPU, so that you can run it fine even with a mid-class GPU. One aspect where v4 has a benefit over v3 is that you can achieve sharper textures at distance and a higher autogen loading radius. However, the latter has to be taken with a grain of salt, since it has been reported on LM's forum that the extended autogen radius loads "late and in patches" on many flights. If you want to avoid the late loading, you need to set your autogen radius to medium - the same level as v3 is using.

And if you are using Level-D 767 and/or Concorde-X, like I do, v4 is not an option to begin with, as these add-ons are not compatible with the newest simulator version. On the other hand, some FS developers produce 64-bit add-ons only, and their number is expected to increase.

[Oliver Ooi 85]

I am still using V3 and have no problem using it. The only features that attract me to upgrade to V4 are the increase LOD and autogen distance, plus the dynamic lighting. But I heard that the cloud shadow bug still present in V4, so I will just wait until LM solve the issue.

[willy647 193]

I'm holding off till v7. That will be mind-blowing ! Meanwhile I just read a book.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

I still use v3.4, and will almost certainly wait to upgrade to the 64bit version of P3D until I have the power (in other words, a new PC) and the required scenery addons (ORBx True Earth UK and Ireland) to do it justice. That effectively means that I will be waiting for v5.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Christopher Low

[Bobsk8 12,669]

The only problem I have run into with Version3.4, and it is really not a 3.4 problem, is the latest version of Pro ATC X doesn't work correctly with 3.4. This problem has not been fixed in over 4 months, so I wouldn't hold my breath on a fix. I finally just switched to PF3. PATC has a version 1919 which will work with, but it also has some issues. 

[mpw8679 428]

11 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

But V4 does not use more resources than V3... it may actually run better 

That is very misleading.

[ckyliu 1,749]

@mpw8679 How? V4 doesn't use any more resources than V3 for the same graphic quality; LM have made some efficiency improvements to the code and you have the option of turning things up beyond what you could in v3 if your system can handle it (e.g. dynamic lighting). That's before you get to the obvious plus point of 64 bit meaning P3D can use more memory when it needs to do instead of OOMing.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

The key point (that Daz owns a licence for v3) has already been mentioned. The question is.....does he want to stick with this and use all of his existing addons (and save money), or would he prefer to upgrade to v4 (which he would need to pay for) so that he can take advantage of the 64bit environment and improved graphics options, with the risk of not being able to run some of those addons that may be particularly important to him? The choice is entirely up to him, but I would not rule out the option of sticking with v3 if he does not suffer from OOM problems, and then upgrade when v5 is released.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Christopher Low

[Steve Dra 7,588]

32bit or 64 bit?  There seems to be such confusion over the subject.  Especially those who think 64bit is just double the capacity of 32bit. (Not saying that's anyone here, but I've seen people make that assumption)

To give this an aviation analogy we all can appreciate....P3D running in 32bit is like sitting in the last row in a CRJ-200 for a cross country flight for 4-5 hours.  P3D running in 64bit is like taking that same flight in an Emirates A380 in one of the residential suites up front with its own butler. 😁

There is simply no comparison as to how much better 64bit is over 32bit....maybe not so much at its current iteration (but still vastly superior)...its the future we all should be looking to.  V3 is still a very good sim...but it will always be a 32bit sim and that is its biggest flaw.  It will never have updates, never get better, never be anything more than it is now.  Some quality developers may develop 1 maybe 2 more products for it, but look for any new development from 3rd parties to disappear faster than a doughnut in a room full of police officers (sorry, bad cop joke, hehe).

The biggest advantage is for the developers who give us these wonderful products...they are no longer restrained by the 4 gigabyte limit 32bit architecture forced them to code under.  To be exact, it was 4,294,967,296 bits...sounds like a lot, but its a mere 4 billion and change.   To put it into perspective, 64bit allows 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bits!  That is literally eighteen quintillion ,four hundred forty six quadrillion ,seven hundred forty four trillion ,seventy three billion ,seven hundred nine million ,five hundred fifty one thousand ,six hundred sixteen bits...really. (click here to see the site that let me type that out...please don't think I spent hours trying to figure that out, hehe) Click here to type very long mathematics terms

Generally speaking, V4 runs better than V3...regardless of your computer specs.  Why?  Breathing room.  No practical VAS constraints. 

More analogies:

Take a 32oz glass.  Fill it with Tabasco sauce.  Drink it.  Was is hot?

Take that same glass, fill it up again with Tabasco sauce.  Dump it into an Olympic size pool. Stir it.  Dip the glass in the water. Drink it.  Did you even taste the Tabasco?  Probably not.

Same analogy with flightsim.  Load the most demanding payware plane out there. Load the most complex and resource hungry scenery for the departure, enroute and destination airports.  Load every scenery you have for that matter.  Load your weather app with 4k cloud sets, load every single thing you’d load for a flight.  Imagine all that software living in a place that is only 4 billion bits. (Oh we have imagined it….we call it OOM..a term we never heard of until our flightsim devs all started competing for the same puny 4 GB VAS address space) 

Next do the same as above, but in an environment that is eighteen quintillion ,four hundred forty six quadrillion ,seven hundred forty four trillion ,seventy three billion ,seven hundred nine million ,five hundred fifty one thousand ,six hundred sixteen bits…you see where I’m going with this?

Stuff just runs better in a 64 bit platform, hardware has nothing to do with it (unless you’re still running Win 3.11 on an 8086).  If you have older hardware, you just turn down the sliders a bit.  64bit will still look better…and run better than 32bit.  We can all understand it running better…but looking better is subjective.  However, to most people, sub-par visuals running in a glass-smooth sim produces a better overall experience than great visuals running at sub-teen frame rates and stutters galore.  In the middle is where the simmer injects their own personal preferences…i.e….plays with the sliders.

If you're happy with how your 32bit flightism is running, then stick with it...I'm not forcing you to update to 64bit.  But when you see the cool, new stuff coming out for flightsim...please, PLEASE do not be that simmer that asks the developer who's enjoying the new 64bit coding freedom they now have.... "will you make that for FSX and P3d 32bit?"...its getting tiresome to read in the forums all the time.  You are asking our developers to double their development time (and cost)...absorb that cost because heaven knows if they raise the price to cover those costs they get beat to death, and it may be something that simply can't be done in within 32bit code. 

Sorry to ramble on, but I'm passionate about this new platform we've been given, and my enjoyment of flight simming has increased almost as much as 32 to 64 bit (don't make me type that number again, hehe).  I'm always looking to the future, especially when just a few years ago the future of flightisming looked so bleak.  It has never been a better time to be a simmer!

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

@mpw8679 How? V4 doesn't use any more resources than V3 for the same graphic quality; LM have made some efficiency improvements to the code and you have the option of turning things up beyond what you could in v3 if your system can handle it (e.g. dynamic lighting). That's before you get to the obvious plus point of 64 bit meaning P3D can use more memory when it needs to do instead of OOMing.

I should have been a little more specific.  

V4 has the capability to use more resources due to the higher graphics settings available.  

[Noel 4,492]

32 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

maybe not so much at its current iteration (but still vastly superior)...its the future we all should be looking to.  V3 is still a very good sim...but it will always be a 32bit sim and that is its biggest flaw. 

The future isn't quite here yet I'm afraid.  And that 'vastly superior' piece is largely theoretical...in its current iteration.  Right now V3 does 99.9% of what V4 does especially w the OP's hardware, is compatible w/ the largest array of mature 3rd party content, and won't cost the OP a nickel to install and run until something truly worthwhile arrives.  OP--save yourself the substantial cost and hassle and use what you already own.  At some point hopefully V5 if LM gets around to rebuilding the core engine to exploit DX12 and Vulkan it will likely be worth the wait.  The only reason to consider paying for V4 is if you are troubled w/ recurrent OOM, which I seriously doubt the OP will experience.  I don't get OOMs ever, use PMDG & Majestic stuff, FTX regional sceneries, etc. 

[rlashier 93]

I've been waiting a long time for the release of the Tabasco for v.4.3! Hope it integrates with the Flight 1 GTNs!

But seriously, it's a great hobby either way you go. There are new add-ons that may not be compatible with v.3, and you can get decent results with your hardware and modest adjustments to the settings.

I have a 4790K and a 1070 GPU, and all is good. Try Bert's settings if you go this route - they hit the sweet spot for hardware of a certain age.

 

Rich