Hey everyone,

I currently have FSX:SE and I’ve heard lots about P3D. My current addons are:

- ORBX Global + OpenLC

- ORBX Dubrovnik, Stockholm

- UK2000 Newcastle, Belfast, and Gatwick

- Aerosoft A318/319

 

How would buying P3D actually benefit me? What does it give that FSX:SE doesn’t, and would it actually be worth it?

 

My specs:

i5-6500 3.2ghz

GTX 1050Ti

16GB RAM

 

Thanks everyone! :)

The 64-bit is alone worth it, IMO.

I think Anders comment about 64-bit says it all.  FSX runs out of resources pretty fast and it results in a CTD as Microsoft only gave FSX 4GB's of virtual address space (VAS) to run.  For P3D, Microsoft gives us over 7TB's of VAS.  You can pretty much move most of your sliders to the max in P3D and enjoy the eye-candy.  In FSX, moving any slider is a challenge.

If you are happy with your FSX and it is stable there isn't a single compelling reason to move on to P3Dv4 but a variety of factors may come together to make it worthwhile for you. I migrated because I got fed up of having to restrict everything to prevent OOM crashes and the endless bloody tweaking; I wanted the improved lighting such as shadows in the cockpit and from the clouds, improved handling of photographic scenery and higher autogen densities. There are now some P3Dv4+ exclusive products such as Aerosoft Airbus Professional, CaptainSim's new 757 and ORBX's TrueEarth. The pull factors are growing by the day. But there are still push factors like question marks over licences (it's professional and academic use only) and some developers such as PMDG and A2A insisting on charging you more than the original FSX version of their products to get the P3D port.

Your graphics card is a little on the slow side to be able to take full advantage of the graphical improvements P3D offers but you will still get better visuals for similar framerates.

Edited April 7, 20197 yr by ckyliu

1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

For P3D, Microsoft gives us over 7TB's of VAS.

Slip of the finger there Jim? 😉

Doubt it @Ray, 64 bit can technically address 18.4 exabytes so Microsoft providing support for up to 7 Terrabytes of virtual memory is not unreasonable. Although I think in terms of actual RAM it's limited to 2TB by their software.

Edited April 7, 20197 yr by ckyliu

I was thinking more along the lines that it was Lockheed-Martin that was responsible for a 64-bit simulator. Without that whatever the OS can provide is meaningless.

As already mentioned you will need to upgrade your GPU to take advantage of the eye candy.  I loaded up FSX a few months ago to take the PMDG MD11 for a spin.  I shut it down within ten minutes.  The washed out colors, autogen popping, lack of shadows, and horrible LOD completely ruined the immersion.  My only big complaint about P3D is the scenery has not been upgraded at all since FSX. 

40 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I was thinking more along the lines that it was Lockheed-Martin that was responsible for a 64-bit simulator. Without that whatever the OS can provide is meaningless.

And vice-versa, I might add... besides, without a 64-bit OS, you can't even execute a 64-bit application, so I don't see why it's a problem, that Microsoft mentioned as the deciding factor...

Edited April 7, 20197 yr by Anders Bermann

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Slip of the finger there Jim? 😉

No.  Windows gives us VAS.  4GB's for 32 bit systems and over 7TB's for 64 bit systems.

Another reason is, that more and more developers already stopped supporting FSX. 

I would say it depends on your priorities and where you're coming from.  For a simmer new to the hobby P3D makes more sense than FSX.  For an older simmer like me, with thousands of dollars invested in addons for FSX over the years the decision is less clear cut. I bought P3Dv4 a year and a half ago thinking it was the way of the future. What is my go-to sim today?  FSX!  I carefully manage my scenery library, activating only those areas I'm flying in for any given flight.  I use Steve's DX10 Fixer.  I very rarely get OOM's and the scenery looks fine to me.  Framerates are a non-issue.  I have cockpit shadows like P3D.  Plus I refuse to repurchase addons I already have (and which work fine in FSX) to run in P3Dv4, especially at a higher price!

26 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

And vice-versa, I might add... besides, without a 64-bit OS, you can't even execute a 64-bit application, so I don't see why it's a problem, that Microsoft mentioned as the deciding factor...

Fair point Anders. I think it’s fair to say you can’t have a 64-bit FS without a 64-bit OS to support it.

3 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

No.  Windows gives us VAS.  4GB's for 32 bit systems and over 7TB's for 64 bit systems.

Jim, I know the VAS rules. Just seemed a bit unfair not to mention L-M without whom a 64-bit OS would be an unnecessary luxury.

53 minutes ago, torque2 said:

I would say it depends on your priorities and where you're coming from.  For a simmer new to the hobby P3D makes more sense than FSX.  For an older simmer like me, with thousands of dollars invested in addons for FSX over the years the decision is less clear cut. I bought P3Dv4 a year and a half ago thinking it was the way of the future. What is my go-to sim today?  FSX!  I carefully manage my scenery library, activating only those areas I'm flying in for any given flight.  I use Steve's DX10 Fixer.  I very rarely get OOM's and the scenery looks fine to me.  Framerates are a non-issue.  I have cockpit shadows like P3D.  Plus I refuse to repurchase addons I already have (and which work fine in FSX) to run in P3Dv4, especially at a higher price!

Let me guess PMDG?  I'm still bitter over repurchasing for P3D.  Not to mention abandoning the wonderful MD11.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Fair point Anders. I think it’s fair to say you can’t have a 64-bit FS without a 64-bit OS to support it.

No worries, Ray! I understood your point and I'm sorry, if I came off as a bit too direct. 😉

Edited April 7, 20197 yr by Anders Bermann