What are the big missing features in XP11.x v P3D 4.x now?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

So I have tried the beta twice, with and without threaded optimization.  It is smooth with default aircraft but stuttery with my add-on Aerobask Eclipse, which I refuse to give up, so I reverted to 11.26 again and I will still there.  I will leave threaded optimization enabled in 11.26 however, perceptibly Xplane11 is smoother than it was without it.  So when 11.30 is final I will opt out and stay where I am, it ain't broke that bad and I don't wanna fix it.  This is what betas are for, to try and decide if they are right for your system.  My rig just is not powerful enough to handle the new particle system.

John

[strider1 575]

53 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

So I have tried the beta twice, with and without threaded optimization.  It is smooth with default aircraft but stuttery with my add-on Aerobask Eclipse, which I refuse to give up, so I reverted to 11.26 again and I will still there.  I will leave threaded optimization enabled in 11.26 however, perceptibly Xplane11 is smoother than it was without it.  So when 11.30 is final I will opt out and stay where I am, it ain't broke that bad and I don't wanna fix it.  This is what betas are for, to try and decide if they are right for your system.  My rig just is not powerful enough to handle the new particle system.

John

Did you try a Clean copy of Xplane 11.30? What are you system specs? And what settings are you using in xplane? If you are seeing stutters your probably using to much vram

[John_Cillis 2,406]

7 minutes ago, strider1 said:

Did you try a Clean copy of Xplane 11.30? What are you system specs? And what settings are you using in xplane? If you are seeing stutters your probably using to much vram

Yes, was clean copy, my system specs are in my signature.  11.26 is smooth as glass, 11.30, when the particle system is in use, is not.  It is smooth under all other circumstances, it is the particle system that hobbles it.  My prop flights in 11.30 were just as smooth as in 11.26.  But my add-on jet flights in the Eclipse really suffered.  The test scenario I used was a flight from SFO to Reno up to FL270, with a deck of cumulus and high cirrus, and light winds, and photoreal scenery I made with Ortho4XP.  In 11.26 it is smooth as butter, a real sensation of flight.  In 11.30, it stutters, and I'd say drops below 20fps, especially near clouds.  I tried the first 11.30 beta with threaded optimization off and the latest beta with it on.  No difference in performance, the particle system is a slouch on my system and since my cpu speed is not the highest, and my VRAM is not the highest, it is obvious that Xplane is using a far better system than mine for 11.30.  I will stick with 11.26.  I do not have to upgrade just because an upgrade is available.  Someone's gripes aren't mine, that's all.

John

[strider1 575]

5 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

Yes, was clean copy, my system specs are in my signature.  11.26 is smooth as glass, 11.30, when the particle system is in use, is not.  It is smooth under all other circumstances, it is the particle system that hobbles it.  My prop flights in 11.30 were just as smooth as in 11.26.  But my add-on jet flights in the Eclipse really suffered.  The test scenario I used was a flight from SFO to Reno up to FL270, with a deck of cumulus and high cirrus, and light winds, and photoreal scenery I made with Ortho4XP.  In 11.26 it is smooth as butter, a real sensation of flight.  In 11.30, it stutters, and I'd say drops below 20fps, especially near clouds.  I tried the first 11.30 beta with threaded optimization off and the latest beta with it on.  No difference in performance, the particle system is a slouch on my system and since my cpu speed is not the highest, and my VRAM is not the highest, it is obvious that Xplane is using a far better system than mine for 11.30.  I will stick with 11.26.  I do not have to upgrade just because an upgrade is available.  Someone's gripes aren't mine, that's all.

John

Your system ram is very low and so is your vram. You should have at a min 16GB of ram and at least 6-8GB of vram in my opinion. You probably need to stick to 11.26 until you update your computer specs or you need to lower your sliders in the settings menu.  

[John_Cillis 2,406]

1 hour ago, strider1 said:

Your system ram is very low and so is your vram. You should have at a min 16GB of ram and at least 6-8GB of vram in my opinion. You probably need to stick to 11.26 until you update your computer specs or you need to lower your sliders in the settings menu.  

I will stick with 11.26 and keep my sliders where they are at, I am happy with Xplane11 with them set at a high level.  11.30 chokes my system, 11.26 does not, I see no need for going backwards and turning Xplane11 into FS9.

John

[FDEdev 955]

4 hours ago, NorwegianAviator said:

Missing in P3D:

• ground handling
• aerodynamics
• countless bugs regarding the simulation of aerodynamics, engine dynamics, ground friction bug, turboprop engines, piston engines etc.
• pbr and other graphical improvements

LOL, finally typical x-plane fan-boy comments again. I'm developing FDEs/FMs for both sims since many years and nothing could be further from the truth. 

If x-plane is so much better, why is it that one can't land any airplane in a limiting crosswind? 

The horrible pitch down moment in ground effect until 11.30 was realistic? Seriously?

That's another drawback of  x-plane. Every few versions Austin re-invents the wheel and breaks items that where working before. 

It's always two steps forward and one step back. A horror scenario for every developer and very annoying for paying customers.

[jcomm 5,890]

Well,

something's missing on both, for sure... because I ended up playing War Thunder 99% of the time and I can't look back....

I'd say, to really contribute something worth for your OP, that weather is turning the good way !

Then, even with all of it's quirks, and there are quite a few, the modelling of default features both flight dynamics and systems wise, available by simply using the native Plane-Maker application that comes with XP, is quite ahead of what FSX / P3D offer, and the outcome, at least in as far as rotary wing are concerned, is far superior.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by jcomm

[FDEdev 955]

21 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Then, with all of it quirks, and there are quite a few, the modelling of default features both flight dynamics and systems wise, available by simply using the native Plane-Maker application that comes with XP, is quite ahead of what FSX / P3D offer, and the outcome, at least in as far as rotary wing are concerned, is far superior.

Concerning helos, that's definitely true!

[NorwegianAviator 60]

6 hours ago, FDEdev said:

LOL, finally typical x-plane fan-boy comments again. I'm developing FDEs/FMs for both sims since many years and nothing could be further from the truth. 

If x-plane is so much better, why is it that one can't land any airplane in a limiting crosswind? 

The horrible pitch down moment in ground effect until 11.30 was realistic? Seriously?

That's another drawback of  x-plane. Every few versions Austin re-invents the wheel and breaks items that where working before. 

It's always two steps forward and one step back. A horror scenario for every developer and very annoying for paying customers.

First of all, you are correct, I am a fan-boy of XP. But I'm also a fan-boy of P3D and DCS World, and I don't see any problems with this. I've also been a fan-boy of real aviation for the last 10 years, both recreational flying and commercially. Been using the ESP platform since FS98, but the last 6 months I've been using XP more and more.

This thread is not about P3D vs XP. It's about the biggest missing features on both platforms. I'm not saying XP is perfect, but generally way ahead of P3D regarding aerodynamics. Regarding crosswind. XP is atleast TRYING to simulate crosswind, and the effect is has on the airplane. It's not perfect, but still far better than I've ever seen on the ESP platform. In P3D you can land any plane in 50kt crosswind without any problems. You don't even need wind correction on the ground, the plane will just slide sideways in a straight line on the runway in P3D. Ground handling in P3D is lacking completely. Then you have the ground friction bug which has been on the platform since the FSX days (and possibly even longer, don't remember). Turboprop engines are so terribly poorly simulated it's a big joke. To a point where they're useless, and the reason why I never fly turboprops in P3D (the only exception being Majestic, but they use external simulation). Even piston engines don't work the way they're supposed to (you need A2A planes for that). RPM/MP bug, leaning bug etc. These issues have been reported to LM many many times over the years. But LM refuse to fix them because it will break backward compatibility. And then you have the horrible helicopter simulation. And I guess we don't need to go into details here. The list goes on here. The only positive thing with P3D in this regard is the possibility to use external simulation for certain things, not sure if this is possible in XP, and if so, to what degree.

Even if it's two steps forward and one step back, it's still making progress. And as long as there is progress, I'm happy 🙂

 

 

[pmanhart 176]

12 hours ago, NorwegianAviator said:

Missing in XP:

• Seasons
• Performance
• Weather engine
• Improved ground textures (and autogen trees)

Missing in P3D:

• ground handling
• aerodynamics
• countless bugs regarding the simulation of aerodynamics, engine dynamics, ground friction bug, turboprop engines, piston engines etc.
• pbr and other graphical improvements

 

I think Jan gets it right with this list, however I would add the following to each:

 

Missing in XP:

• Large Quality Payware Market (not required, but definitely nice to have)
• Quality ATC simulation
• Quality Air Traffic addons

Missing in P3D:

• Large Quality Freeware Market (outside of liveries) (not required, but definitely nice to have)
• Easy to use and modernized UI
• Performance without tweaks (or just disable all shadows and go back to FSX... 😎)

 

Disclaimer: I do not like XP and prefer P3D over it anyday of the week for a ton of my own reasons, but while testing Orbx TrueEarth GB in XP I couldn't help but long for P3D to look and feel as good as XP did... 😉

[NorwegianAviator 60]

17 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Add the still unrealistic and unsatisfactory aerodynamics simulation during crosswind ops. 

IRL the rather lightweight ATR42 has a 45kts crosswind limit….in x-plane 11.30b3 not even the 747 can handle that!

Since the still buggy crosswind and turbulence simulation makes even remotely acceptable xnd takeoffs and landings impossible, I'm not even thinking about switching.

The crosswind simulation is not perfect in XP, I agree on that. But at least it's being simulated. The wheels on the airplane also follows the ground in XP, and not train tracks as soon as the wind picks up. Regarding real life flying. I spoke to an ATR pilot a couple of weeks ago, he told me the ATR was absolutely terrible in crosswind, and a real nightmare. Wind correction was crucial, otherwise the plane could tip over. I cannot personally comment on that since I've never flown an ATR. A Dash 8 however, can easily handle a 45kt crosswind, if not more, regardless of it's crosswind limitation of 35kt. A B747 has a crosswind limitation of only 30kt (25kt for autoland), so size does not really matter here (so no wonder it will struggle in a 45kt crosswind). This also largely depends on the terrain and type of wind conditions as well. Add some gusty winds in some mountainous areas, and I can guarantee you won't be able to land the plane nice and safely. It's suddenly the plane flying you. Try taking off a C172 in real life in 10-12 knots crosswind. Without wind correction I can almost guarantee you will be up for a little surprise. Same thing with landing.

My point here is, while the crosswind and turbulence simulation is not perfect in XP. It's completely lacking in P3D, and you can put down a C172 with a 40 degree crab angle on the runway and the plane will just continue straight ahead with a 40 degree angle down the runway until it stops. You can probably land it with 50kt crosswind too, haven't tried that. Not much realism in that. Being a real pilot, I know what I prefer, and it certainly isn't P3D's ways of doing things. But you are absolutely right about the exaggerated crosswind and turbulence simulation in XP (especially turbulence). Not sure if the crosswind in XP is a problem with the way the sim handles it, or if the problem is the airplane not being coded properly.

[jcomm 5,890]

2 hours ago, NorwegianAviator said:

My point here is, while the crosswind and turbulence simulation is not perfect in XP. It's completely lacking in P3D, and you can put down a C172 with a 40 degree crab angle on the runway and the plane will just continue straight ahead with a 40 degree angle down the runway until it stops. You can probably land it with 50kt crosswind too, haven't tried that. Not much realism in that. Being a real pilot, I know what I prefer, and it certainly isn't P3D's ways of doing things. But you are absolutely right about the exaggerated crosswind and turbulence simulation in XP (especially turbulence). Not sure if the crosswind in XP is a problem with the way the sim handles it, or if the problem is the airplane not being coded properly.

It's not that bad... and in some aspects IMO better done in FSX than in XP...  Compare these to RW videos... 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by jcomm

[FDEdev 955]

9 minutes ago, jcomm said:

It's not that bad... and in some aspects IMO better done in FSX than in XP... 

+1

[FDEdev 955]

2 hours ago, NorwegianAviator said:

 A B747 has a crosswind limitation of only 30kt (25kt for autoland),

Now I'm curious. Which airline is this? I don't know any 747-400 operator which has such a low crosswind limit.  

Most 747-400 operators have a 40kts T/O and 36kts LND limit.

Edited November 19, 2018 by FDEdev

[NorwegianAviator 60]

12 minutes ago, jcomm said:

It's not that bad... and in some aspects IMO better done in FSX than in XP...  Compare these to RW videos...

I don't compare youtube videos. I compare it to my real life experience.