ErichB

One of the elephants in the room with P3D

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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 by J van E

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 by eslader

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

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

 

So the same add-on global textures, same sky, same water textures, same airport add-ons and same airplane add-ons, same over sized trees and houses and the same washed out look will suddenly be magically better in P3D? 

Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, pmb said:

I am an ORBX user and in fact own all of their packages. Cost to upgrade from FSX to Prepar3d4: zero (over all incarnations FSX->P3D1->P3D2->P3D3->P3D4).

Kind regards, Michael

Why did you quote me? All I did was describe my experience. For a number of reasons I don't use ORBX, but so what? Are you trying to start an ORBX vs Photoscenery fight?

Edited by pgde

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Raging Bull said:

So the same add-on global textures, same sky, same water textures, same airport add-ons and same airplane add-ons, same over sized trees and houses and the same washed out look will suddenly be magically better in P3D? 

See for yourself, FSDT KLAX:

FSX

2018-9-27_3-26-31-177.jpg

 

P3D4

2018-9-27_3-22-52-460.jpg

The lack of casted shadows in FSX makes the scenery way more flat. In P3D everything is mode "solid", see how the lower area of the terminal is properly in shadow, how the metal grid and the light pylon casting shadows on the wall makes everything more convincing.

If there was a glass window, it would get dynamic reflections in P3D4, instead of the static environment map in FSX.

If there were clouds, they would cast shadows on ground.

Without even mentioning the jetways with their own individual number made with fast DX11 code (thanks to the Render To Texture feature of the P3D4 SDK which is not possible in FSX), instead of modeling each one individually, and the higher fps in P3D4 , even with a scenery NOT made for it so, it's exactly the same content, made for the FSX SDK. I purposely posted a somewhat old scenery, which was made for FSX and it even has an FS9 version!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

 

So the same add-on global textures, same sky, same water textures, same airport add-ons and same airplane add-ons, same over sized trees and houses and the same washed out look will suddenly be magically better in P3D? 

Right. 

The key is the dynamic flying experience, not the screenshots, and yes, P3DV4 is magically better than FSX, which I still have installed and never fly anymore.

Wonder why :unsure:

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

o the same add-on global textures, same sky, same water textures, same airport add-ons and same airplane add-ons, same over sized trees and houses and the same washed out look will suddenly be magically better in P3D? 

It's not the base sim visuals which make the difference.

It's what you can't see that does - and the aftermarket which transforms the sim into something quite spectacular relative to FSX - for a number of reasons.  Yup, you're still stuck with the oversized autogen, 

If your argument is purely based on the stock sim, then P3DV4 is not for you anyway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Raging Bull has a point. Yes, the shadows, lighting and special effects in P3D are significantly enhanced when compared to FSX, but the base terrain textures, autogen, and AI/ATC system are almost identical.

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Raging Bull has a point. Yes, the shadows, lighting and special effects in P3D are significantly enhanced when compared to FSX, but the base terrain textures, autogen, and AI/ATC system are almost identical.

And with add-ons, all those deficiencies disappear.  It's up to you to decide which ones to use, and how much money to spend.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but we were specifically talking about the default P3D simulator compared to FSX. I wouldn't touch default scenery with a barge pole!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Raging Bull has a point. Yes, the shadows, lighting and special effects in P3D are significantly enhanced when compared to FSX, but the base terrain textures, autogen, and AI/ATC system are almost identical.

Correct, but don't forget about performance and specially pop up of all that autogen. The difference between FSX and P3D is staggering in that regard. Yes, it's true, the textures and objects are the same but how they perform and show up in the sim is really totally different. If someone would do a test and fly over a default city in either sim, without telling me which, and ask me what sim I am looking at, I would see it in a second. The difference is HUGE. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Folks,

I'm with Bert...

"P3DV4 is magically better than FSX".

Regards,
Scott

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

I'm with Bert...

"P3DV4 is magically better than FSX".

Regards,
Scott

+1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but we were specifically talking about the default P3D simulator compared to FSX. I wouldn't touch default scenery with a barge pole!

What about a very very very veryyyyy long piece of plastic while you wear gloves? :)

S.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, pgde said:

Why did you quote me? All I did was describe my experience. For a number of reasons I don't use ORBX, but so what? Are you trying to start an ORBX vs Photoscenery fight?

I am very sorry for hitting your nerve, this was not at all my intention. I just wanted to add another example for zero upgrade cost.

Kind regards, Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pmb said:

I am very sorry fora hitting your nerve, this was not at all my intention. I just wanted to add another example for zero upgrade cost.

Kind regards, Michael

Thanks for the clarification Michael!

Share this post


Link to post

Here is my 2 cents worth of what I do to enjoy P3d V4.3

First here are all my add-ons

ORBX - Global Base Pack
ORBX - Vector
ORBX - Open LC NA
ORBX - NA Rockies
ORBX - NA Northern California
ORBX - NA Northern Rockies
ORBX - NA NA Pacific FJORDS
ORBX - NA Pacific Northwest
ORBX - NA Southern Alaska
ORBX - SOuthern California
ORBX - most airports for the West and southwest.

I mostly fly form denver westward and northward, so I have as many pay airports as I can get. 

I also have many of the Freebies from ORBX

THen I have payware airports from Flightbeam and FSDreamteam, most of them.. I also have GSX for doing the big commercial stuff.

A few odds and ends airports like 29 palms etc. . .

I also have Active Sky & CloudArt, ENVDIR for nice clouds. I opted out of rex stuff as they treated me really bad in customer service. I have turbulent Terminal TerraFlora instead of Orbx trees. I think its much better INHMO. I have night environment California, VFXCentral for rain effects.

Now here are some must haves for me. - Addon Organizer for P3dV4 to keep the order of sceneries correct. I use it with every flight plan. Simple Airport Scanner, for finding conflicting BGL files & believe me they are there in droves.  I also use my Traffic for the AI traffic. It took me a year to tweak that thing and get to work right. Now its golden.  The latest FSUIPC, I also ProATC/X for ATC and that also took me a long time to learn it and get to work right and record and add real world Chatter for each airport. I have many airplanes including PMDG and carenado with GTN Mods  Here is atip- remove carenavigraph.dll your frame rates will go way up. I also have FS Global Ultimate for terrain North America only insalled.  Be sure you set your terrain im P3d to 1M or you will have some weird things at your airports. This all took many years of learning to setup and aquire. Not to mention how to fly all those different aircraft, but the experience is better than any other sim I have seem and is worth the effort if you love flying as I do.  Happy Travels. . . Also by the way, I am an IT person and build my own PC to handle all of this and use SSD exclusively. I hope this helps anyone. It may not be the best way to do it but it works great for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now