One of the elephants in the room with P3D

[SmokeDiddy 262]

Meh....I fly only GA in P3Dv4.  I notice a few of the things pointed out in this thread, but for whatever reason, I'm not too bothered with it.  I will say though that most of the flying I do is down in the Caribbean and most of the sceneries are payware, so there is much photo real used.  I do own ORBX PNW and a few payware airports in the region, so I fly there some, but not nearly as much.  I can agree that the land classes on big bodies of land has much to be desired.  I also own XP11 and I like it to a point, but ground handling, especially on the runways takes most of my enthusiasm straight down the toilet, but I keep it around in hopes that the ground handling and some other key features get fixed some day soon.

I understand the case of why many would prefer to fly high alt in P3D, but I'm just not into the heavy metal or jets of any kind, so it's low and slow for me.  

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

So the big question is:

Will you be prepared to accept a new terrain engine for the sake of longer term gain which will most likely render all current scenery addon's useless - and therefore stick with the platform but have to pay for the scenery add-ons (again) - or would that just make you switch platforms entirely?

I'd absolutely go with buying it again if the benefits were such that it was a marked improvement in in utilising the GPU to  provide better looks and performance gains. But having said that, I think my point about the offer of brand loyalty and at the very least some kind of nod to it for previous customers who had purchased the many add-ons to tweak up P3D V4's appearance and its content, is relevant in that circumstance. Beyond any improvements which a new version of P3D might offer, the TPD market and what it could offer for a new platform too would be a factor in making such a switch. As noted, I don't expect anything for free, I concede that any developer is deserving of fair payment for any product they sell and which I want. 

I usually buy any and every flight sim which endeavours to push the envelope and widen the appeal of flight simming, since I'm very much of the opinion that we either 'use it or lose it'. Competition is good and it drives development. To this end, even though I don't use other flight sims as much as I use P3D, I've religiously purchased every new version of XPlane since way back when, and a number of add-ons for it too, and I also buy pretty much any other new sim which comes out just to offer my support; I was a heavy supporter of efforts to get FSW off the ground and also of AeroFly FS2, although an exception to that rule with buying all the new stabs at flight sims was the recently released wings Over the Reich, because I felt it was not much more than a reskin of O.F.F. and they could have certainly improved its looks a bit, so I voted with my wallet on that one although I wouldn't rule it out if they choose to pretty it up a bit.

But back with what most people would regard as P3D's, main contender, my support for XPlane, or rather the lack of it in wider terms is because of Laminar's continued lackluster efforts in improving things such as ATC, seasonal changes, AI and weather depiction. They've been promising that stuff for several versions and it's always 'jam tomorrow' where they are concerned with those improvements. I expect my criticisms of P3D and what I think it needs will indeed be addressed and we've seen some evidence of that too, whereas with XPlane, I would not be inclined to continue hold my breath waiting for that to happen, because I've already been doing that for years without much evidence of it occurring.

[SmokeDiddy 262]

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

But back with what most people would regard as P3D's, main contender, my support for XPlane, or rather the lack of it in wider terms is because of Laminar's continued lackluster efforts in improving things such as ATC, seasonal changes, AI and weather depiction. They've been promising that stuff for several versions and it's always 'jam tomorrow' where they are concerned with those improvements. I expect my criticisms of P3D and what I think it needs will indeed be addressed and we've seen some evidence of that too, whereas with XPlane, I would not be inclined to continue hold my breath waiting for that to happen, because I've already been doing that for years without much evidence of it occurring.

Profound, but true.  P3D keeps me breathing and satisfies my need to sim every day I can.  There was a time when I was holding my breath on XP and big mama kept asking why my lips are always blue, so I've been happy with P3D for the most part and will stick with it for now.

[tonywob 4,768]

1 hour ago, pmb said:

However, if you want to have a clear shiny summer day on the backside of a cold front, it needs a lot of patience in XP11.

I dislike the haze in X-Plane, however every time I fly in real-life (which is a lot), it's pretty much how it really looks. 

I prefer bolder, brighter colours and better visibility in the sim because it is simply more pleasing to the eye on a computer monitor (or in VR). It's never been possible to feel like it's a sunny-bright day in X-Plane because of this, so I think compromises have to be made

[Christopher Low 5,352]

No haze at all has never looked realistic to me in P3D/FSX. I have seen screenshots of PlayHorizon UK VFR Photographic Scenery from the air in broad daylight without any haze, and they have always looked way too "harsh". I set my haze distance in P3D to 20 miles, and I stick to that!

[Cargostorm 151]

From my real flight experience in mid Europe, the haze in XP is very convincing. Very rarely we have clear skys with >100 km sight and clean air.

Well, it all depends on the current weather (I use FSGRW) and if you don't like it, Xvision can be used (at least until XP11.30). In P3D I think I will also play with the haze distance in ASP4. The blurry mountains and popping up ground textures in the alps just don't do it for me the way it is.

[ErichB 3,639]

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

No haze at all has never looked realistic to me in P3D/FSX. I have seen screenshots of PlayHorizon UK VFR Photographic Scenery from the air in broad daylight without any haze, and they have always looked way too "harsh". I set my haze distance in P3D to 20 miles, and I stick to that!

I did the same for years.  20 miles of visibility improved my performance and made the overall environment look more plausible.  Now I set my max visibility parameter with AS at 90 miles - and if the current conditions are less,  then even better

[Raging Bull 23]

15 hours ago, joemiller said:

No difference? Bull ! Come on... The differences are massive.

 

If i install the same global textures, same sky theme, same orbs airports, use the same airplane add-on etc, what are the massive differences? 

I don’t see THAT many to be honest. 

[eslader 1,782]

21 hours ago, ErichB said:

Of course it's flyable but it will sustain interest for about 15 minutes. 

I think that depends on the person. If someone's looking for a video game, then yeah, it won't hold their interest long, and of course they're not supposed to be buying it if they're just looking for a video game. But then they'd probably be happier flying the planes in Grand Theft Auto.

For those of us looking to learn about aviation, and looking for something that's challenging without involving guns or swords or boss levels, I think 15 minutes is a gross underexaggeration.

I started simming back when Sublogic was publishing what would become MS Flight Simulator. The first one was really bad. You had a an airspeed indicator and an altimeter. The only other instrumentation you had was positioning lines for your control surfaces because you flew with the keyboard and needed to know what was deflecting and how. You couldn't measure the framerate because such tools don't exist, but it was probably 1 or maybe 2fps. The next version was a vast improvement; You were presented with half the screen filled with mostly black and white (with splotches of green and purple where the video processor couldn't handle the color rendering) gauges that looked like a child drew them. Above that you saw a green square that was supposed to be the ground, and a black square that was supposed to be the sky. The framerate was probably 4 fps.

I nearly wore out my Apple II flying those things. And then when I got a PC clone I nearly wore that out on MSFS 3 and up. There wasn't much to look at, there weren't many places to go and they didn't look any different than where you'd been anyway, but we kept plugging away at them because compared to everything else that didn't exist, they were captivating.

FSX/P3d are freaking wonderlands next to that. If you're at all interested in aviation, there's a lot more than 15 minutes worth of attention holding to be had.

 

All that aside, if LM were to make it as interesting as you seem to want it to be out of the box, they'd charge hundreds more for it and everyone would almost certainly find features in there that they didn't care about and wouldn't want to spend money on. Besides which, no one's gonna drop $400-500 on something that they don't even know if they'll like, and then the sim market would collapse again. At least this way you can get in on the platform for relatively little money and then customize it to your preferences as you discover them and have the money for them.

 

[Christopher Low 5,352]

I wouldn't even last 15 minutes flying with default landclass textures and autogen in P3D. In fact, I have never found the default terrain and autogen to be acceptable ever since I purchased FSX way back in 2008. If I had not been able to install high resolution photoscenery, I would not have bothered at all. I understand that some people see flight simulation as more "simulating the flight models and systems of airplanes" (and that is also very important to me), but the view out of the window needs to be of an acceptable standard aswell, otherwise that sense of immersion in a believable world is destroyed.

[ErichB 3,639]

45 minutes ago, eslader said:

All that aside, if LM were to make it as interesting as you seem to want it to be out of the box, they'd charge hundreds more for it and everyone would almost certainly find features in there that they didn't care about and wouldn't want to spend money on. Besides which, no one's gonna drop $400-500 on something that they don't even know if they'll like, and then the sim market would collapse again. At least this way you can get in on the platform for relatively little money and then customize it to your preferences as you discover them and have the money for them.

 

I agree with you.

But it’s not that I want it to be anything particular out of the box other than a base platform able to support high quality after market products. And to achieve that, there are certain fundamentals which must be in place. At the moment, those fundamentals are lacking, although things are improving - as you know. 

Which is why i think xplane is the beginners choice. Out the box, it’s visually much more appealing without necessarily adding anything to it -  you can add quite alot of high  quality freeware to it without paying a penny.  However, there are quite a few different fundamentals lacking in xplane - which in my opinion are deal breakers. They do not however,  involve terrain 

The whole thing is a compromise 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Which is why i think xplane is the beginners choice. Out the box, it’s visually much more appealing without necessarily adding anything to it -  you can add quite alot of high  quality freeware to it without paying a penny.  However, there are quite a few different fundamentals lacking in xplane - which in my opinion are deal breakers. They do not however,  involve terrain 

Last time I flew XP11 I first had to download every airport I wanted to fly from and to otherwise there simply was nothing, I had to download a load of different object libraries, I had to install them using some file I had to edit manually, ATC was limited, weather sucked... Imho XP is worse out of the box than P3D. Apart from the flashy lighting system, of course, and the detailed roads and stuff. In other words: both XP and P3D suck out of the box. 😉 The terrain in XP may be nice out of the box but terrain alone doesn't make it the beginner's choice. P3D offers a lot more out of the box imho.

Anyway, a true BEGINNERS choice would be Aerofly FS 2 (imho) but then you have the problem that you can't upgrade it to a more serious sim like you can with P3D and/or XP. If someone just wants to fly around and doesn't care about getting serious about simming someday, AFS2 simply is the best choice out of the box. (Until AFS2 does get some serious sim elements but that will probably take years and years.)

I think it's impossibe nowadays to expect a flight sim to be great out of the box. Well... I do expect Deadstick to be great out of the box because that will be an extremely limited sim, of course. Though extremely awesome too, if you like bush flying...!

Edited September 26, 2018 by Guest

[vgbaron 3,586]

So much of it comes down to what you prefer in a sim. Setting up the controllers in XP and AF2 is a pita to me for my type of flying. For a quick visual fix out of the box, I think AF2 looks best. As mentioned, the XP haze really bothers me so visually not thrilled. Of course P3D as a more mature product now has lots of really good addons that change the overall experience for the better but, IMHO, it's still the best right out of the box - easy to set up, decent looking visually and relatively good flight models.

Once you start adding stuff - all that changes.

[eslader 1,782]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

However, there are quite a few different fundamentals lacking in xplane - which in my opinion are deal breakers.

Man do I agree with that. I actually grabbed XP11 on sale when I first became dissatisfied with the OOM crashes in FSX any time I did a cross country flight in a decent airplane. Really pretty, and I especially like the fact that runways aren't all perfectly flat, but unless your thing is tooling around in a GA prop without worrying about following procedures, the stumbling blocks are just too much to deal with. I was especially amazed at how a sim that came out last year has an ATC that feels 5 generations older than FSX, which came out over a decade ago.

I guess that's why I defended p3d-  no, it's not as pretty as Xplane, but it's got depth and can grow with you as your skills and knowledge grow. Even if you get payware in Xplane (I got the, honestly excellent Aerobask Cirrus 550) it's frustrating because the base sim makes it hard to properly fly it anywhere.

I'm actually disappointed that MS threw in the towel on Flight so soon. I grabbed it when it released and thought it had real potential despite MS's bonehead move of firing the ACES studio. It's especially sad when you look at what that studio became after MS threw it away... It's making goofball titles like "Rescue Bear Operation" now. Ouch.

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by eslader

[Bobsk8 12,669]

On 9/25/2018 at 5:06 PM, Raging Bull said:

Overly dramatic and not at all. Probably no different to be honest. 

No difference you say..  Funniest thing I have heard today.