Has Orbx abandonded FSX and P3Dv3?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Bob650 said:

LOL, I feel your pain.

If I were to switch to P3D, I'd not only need P3D but a new gaming rig to run it on. It's not even a money issue, I'd buy the rig and buy all my favorite planes and scenery over again, at least the ones without dual installers. But the thought of the hours I'd have to spend setting up and tweaking a new sim turns me off. Some of you P3D gurus should hire out your services to set up new sims for people 🙂. 


That`s what I like about P3Dv4 I don't tweak anything like FSX I only use two config tweaks from Robs testing no AM,  you can get lost in over tweaking. 

Share this post

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

1 hour ago, rjfry said:

That`s what I like about P3Dv4 I don't tweak anything like FSX I only use two config tweaks from Robs testing no AM,  you can get lost in over tweaking. 

I can say the same about my FSX installation. The tweaking of yesterday isn't necessary with today's systems.

Share this post

Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 9:31 PM, Ramjett said:

Ah yes, but I wonder if someday it will be a factor?  It's known that the 64-bit simulators handle things much, much better than FSX or FS2004, but I suspect the developers...seeing an open-ended market...will throw more and more "eye-candy" in to the pool to get that guy or gal "on the fence" to buy their scenery.  Girls waving goodbye from customized terminal interior shots, the guy in 16C who keeps getting up to go to the Loo.  Purchase by download an in-flight movie to watch from a selectable cabin seat while "Otto" gets you to Dubai.  Firefighters practicing crash response with realistic looking flames pouring from the practice hull in the "pit".  Pretty soon, you'll all be singing the same song we are and trying to come up with your own version of a "flux capacitor" to power up and go bigger, better, farther, higher with an Intel i21 octa-core and a nuclear power supply.  If it starts to hum better head for the hills... LOL.  And the Devs know you'll buy it...we're all hooked in one form or another, be it 32-bit, 64-bit, FSX, FS2004, xPlane11.  The Devs see potential and they will tap it, regardless of how it works on your system.

No, this won't be a factor in devs "filling up" all that 64-bit memory space. At least not in most of our lifetimes. Most people don't realize how massive the jump from 32-bit to 64-bit address space is. It's not a linear progression, as if you're just doubling the available memory.

Here's what different versions of Windows 10 can address in RAM right now:

Windows 10 Home 32 bit   4 GBs
Windows 10 Pro 32 bit       4 GBs
Windows 10 Home 64 bit   128 GBs
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit       512 GBs

And that's not even the theoretical maximum, it's just what the current OS versions support and it will likely be expanded in the future. Windows Server Datacenter already supports 4 Terabytes!

There is simply no way, even with the eye candy and bloat you're mentioning above, that we'll hit a limit in 64-bit RAM for flight sims any time in the near future. This won't be like what happened with FSX and the 32-bit limit.

Of course there is no free lunch -- you will have to buy the physical memory needed for new features. I'm running a 32 GB RAM system right now because there actually is a feature in X-Plane (UHD scenery mesh) where that's a good idea, when used along with other utility software running along with the sim. It's likely that I might have to go to 64 GB of RAM in the next few years, the way things are going. But look how much overhead is still there in the OS versions above! Even with 64 GB of RAM in my computer I would still be using only half what my Windows 10 Home 64-bit system could use, with another massive upgrade step available if I switched to Win10 Pro. 

The 64-bit flight sim developers are just taking baby steps in starting to use this extra capacity, because they can't get too far out ahead of what people actually have installed in their computers.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post

There will always be tweaks! Systems are more diverse than ever and optimisations work well. The simulator has no way of working out precisely the partitioning of power within the PC so we must do it. Put simply, current PCs work well but they really do have more scope for performance differences between systems now, much more.

Share this post

Link to post

OK Guys, you sold me!

I have both V3 and V4 installed side by side with the essentially the same settings.

This afternoon I made a comparison test.  V4 won hands down.

I few the same course in the same aircraft with the same weather at the same time of day.  I turned the traffic off for both tests.

I had the frame rates capped at 30FPS.  

I flew an area I'm very familiar with.  The San Francisco Bay Area where I grew up.

I took off to the north from Gnoss field in Novato up in Marin county.  I had the autopiltot set to hold at 2,000 feet.  As soon as I cleared 500 feet I turned east and flew past Vallejo into Suisun Bay and turned south until I hit the bridge at Benicia.  Then I turned west until the nose of the aircraft was heading toward Mt. Tamalpais.  I held the course until I could see downtown Oakland.  Then I turned due south overflying Richmond and downtown Oakland.  When I reached the Dumbarton Bridge I turned west and then flew up west side of the bay skirting San Francisco and back home. 

In V3 I experienced some skips in the urban areas.  As I flew over the Richmond-Oakland metro area my frame rates dropped as low as 13 in some spots.  I had 1 pause of about 3-4 seconds somewhere over Richmond.  Throughout the flight frames rates never locked onto a steady 30 but fluctuated between 25-30 in the non-urban areas.

In V4 I noticed no skips.  Over the Richmond-Oakland metro area it never dropped below 17.  The pause I experienced over Richmond in V3 did not occur in the V4 flight.  The frame rates were almost rock steady at 29-30 in non-urban areas.

I'll keep V3 so I can still fly favorite aircraft that V4 doesn't like.

But for normal day to day flying it will be V4.

This has been an interesting thread,  Without it I would probably never have made the comparison test because I hardly ever fly over urban areas.  I prefer bush and mountain flying.  But the comparison convinced me V4 definitely outperforms V3.

My system:

Windows 10 Pro 64

Intel i7-7700 CPU@4.20GGZ


nVidia GeForce GTX 1080T


FXAA - Off


Aniostropic 8x

Vsync ON Triple Buffering

LOD Radius Ultra

Tesselation Factor High

Mesh Res 5m

Texture Res 15cm

Use High Resolution Terrain Textures

Scenery Complexity Normal

Autogen and Scenery Draw Distance Medium

Autogen Vegetation Denisity Dense

Autogen Building Density Normal

These are the P3Dv4 settings recommended by a trusted friend.  They seem to work fine for me.



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post

Going back to OP, my answer would be as a content FSX user with a world of OrbX add-ons (all of them in fact) if Orlando Cityscape is anything to go by I wish OrbX WOULD abandon FSX. All their other products give me huge grins in my sweet setup and almost limitless opportunities to fly where I want. Orlando makes me depressed and probably determined to quit my OrbX completionist obsession while I'm ahead. 

The scenery is grossly under optimized for actual flying. Ignoring the ludicrous load times when loading the sim, flying INTO the region in FSX is impossible. By that I mean the scenery loads so slow in the background that it's only half finished on rollout! I was flying in from KMBS, a GOOD add-on in the PMDG 747-400 and experienced a problem I never have before with FSX and OrbX. Scenery slowly disentegraing outside the aircraft into a green blob on the ground with skeletal airports. External views wreck the flights because once the shock of seeing how bad the area looks with NO scenery loaded wears off and you get back in the plane all your panels are gone and replaced with blurs too. Whereas this minor issue is fairly common with FSX but only lasts a couple seconds at most with any other scenery, with Orlando that's it, flight over. Unbelievably bad. Anyway, point made. Maybe the scenery is OK for vfr IF you start and finish in the same area. I love to travel though making this area a no fly zone. 

Oh BTW please please let's not have any "my sim is better than your sim" comments here. I'm AGREEING that my sim just can't cope with this monstrous scenery so can we limit the discussion to OrbX development strategy as whether they are abandoning FSX? I could make the case that Orlando is deliberately bad to persuade FSX users to just give up rather than complain they will get no more scenery! 

Share this post

Link to post

I think it's difficult to get the level of detail right and still get performance with terrain. If we had a 50Gb point-cloud of a dustbin then look close enough it's obviously not real. FSX detail was just touching the steep part of an exponential curve. Increasing detail even slightly is exponential, a careful balance is required across different regions since density moves us up the curve a little but increases load a lot. FSX was a little early with the performance requirements of the scenery back then and now it's the turn of P3D. Maybe we shall see these size sceneries consumed with reasonable performance like older scenery, all in good time.

Share this post

Link to post

Russell, I suppose it depends on the customer base.  How many FSX-FXS Steam owners have switched over to P3D?  Companies cater to the customer base.  Or is Orbx hoping to force their customers to move over to P3Dv4 if they want to continue collecting Orbx sceneries?  I had all three, FSX, P3Dv3 and P3Dv4.  I gave my FSX Gold Edition to a young man in town who is saving his money to take flying lessons.  I remained with P3Dv3 simply because I wanted to keep all the aircraft I had collected.  Then this thread morphed into a P3D performance thread.  I did a performance comparison test between V3 and V4 and decided the performance improvement in V4 was enough to make it my primary sim while retaining V3 for older aircraft.

As an old sports car enthusiast I cringe when I see Jaguar and Porsche SUVs.  But they are going with what the customers want.  That's what it appears Orbx is doing.  Moving up with the new simulators.  It would be a shame if they abandoned their old customers who still prefer FSX and P3Dv3 but if that's what they are going to do then either be satisfied with what Orbx scenery you already have or move up.

I gotta say Sun Valley is an outstanding piece of work.  I'm somewhat familiar with the area.  I've never flown into it but I have driven by it a number of times.  I do wish a version of it was compatible with FSX and V3.


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