JoshuaBrown

Benefits of P3D v4 over FSX?

Recommended Posts

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! :)

Share this post


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

The 64-bit is alone worth it, IMO.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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 by ckyliu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

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

Slip of the finger there Jim? 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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 by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Anders Bermann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Anders Bermann
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

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

You made a valid point old chap. No worries. 😉👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, JoshuaBrown said:

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

There are of course some visual things P3D offers which FSX does not, but really the main thing it gives, is potential. A good example of this would be to examine the example of the Quality Wings Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and the story of its release.

The QW B787 is an add-on which it was known, even before it was released, would make FSX struggle, owing to the rather large impact which its glass cockpit would have on the VAS limitations of FSX by virtue of the fact that FSX is a 32 Bit application. Shrewdly, QW released the FSX version before the P3D one, and this puzzled some people as to why, but there is no mystery there; it was because QW were well aware that people keen to have a 787, would buy the FSX one since it was the first one available, even if they had P3D, just to be able to fly a simulated 787. QW took the precation of adding a VAS monitor to the PFD of their FSX 787 and even went so far as to warn people before purchase, that it would be subject to limitations. But sure enough, if you were careful with how much scenery you ran in FSX, you could make a flight in it without FSX crashing, however, the moment you started loading up everything into FSX, it was a no-go.

It would have been easy for QW to simply then knock out their P3D version of their 787 a bit later and take the cash of another full-price P3D purchase again off everyone who had bought the FSX version who came to the realisation that if they wanted to fly such things in their sim, then 32 Bit was not going to cut it. They are a business after all, and it would have been a smart move, cynics might even suggest this was the case, but to their credit, QW offered a substantial discount for anyone in that position. That they did this was one reason why I did happily buy the FSX version in order to get an early look at it, safe in the knowledge that they were going to discount any dual purchase.

Thus the QW 787 was for many, the wake-up call that 64 Bit was the way to go if one wanted add-ons which pushed the envelope without making the base simulation program fall over under VAS limitations, since it was the first fairly complex airliner sim to come out which was going to put a heavy graphics load on things to the point where most people would have to give up some scenery eye candy if they wanted to fly it in FSX. In this, it was probably responsible for a huge amount of switches by flight simmers from FSX to P3D. But for those who have not drawn this conclusion yet, it is as well to be aware that the situation is only going to be exacerbated by ever-more newly-developed add-ons, where the temptation and marketing pressures are always to push things visually.

If you don't think this is true, it is perhaps worth examining another much more recently-released airliner add-on - Virtualcol's Airbus A220 - and noting that even this demonstrates the trend.

Anyone familiar with Virtualcol's products will know that they are, generally speaking, cheap and cheerful add-ons with the avionics simulation being decidedly on the 'light' side of the fence, often with rather spartan-looking VCs too. This has usually meant that they are fun to fly, don't require hours of study to master, and importantly for this example, run well on modest systems. Yet take a look at this screenshot of their latest offering, that Airbus A220; the cockpit has more glass than a Murano factory, and this is for an add-on which costs 20 quid and is unashamedly meant to be simple:

lIoCeXm.png

If this is what a simple cheap add-on has to display nowadays, can you imagine trying to run something fancier on FSX when you're sat on the deck at an add-on airport with PBR texturing throughout and animated passengers wandering about all over the place as high resolution, high polygon AI airliners taxy and fly about all around you?

It won't even be a matter of choice to go with the 64 Bit sim option, it'll be a necessity.

Edited by Chock
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Visual advances like cloud shadows, dynamic reflections, dynamic lighting, PBR definitely take the immersion to a higher level, and off course no OOM.

Share this post


Link to post

Whats FSX? 

Share this post


Link to post

Well, looks like you've all convinced me...

I can upgrade to the Aerosoft A318/319 Professional for just £30 which is nice.

I'm probably going to get 1 month of P3D for £10 as a trial to see what I think, with my ORBX installed and some UK2000 Airports too.

Google also claims that TomatoShader and ReShade are good, so I'll install those. Then I'll return here with my thoughts...!

Thanks everyone, and so long FSX...(for now!)

Share this post


Link to post

Prepar3D has 60days refund policy, so actually you can buy the normal one and try it for 59days and decide to keep it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Whats FSX? 

The sim of choice for years that is still running the same add-ons as P3D. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Sunay said:

Prepar3D has 60days refund policy, so actually you can buy the normal one and try it for 59days and decide to keep it or not.

I was thinking about doing that, but based on the fact it's quite likely I'll stay, I don't have £60 to part with at the moment...:(

Share this post


Link to post

FSX is "The Walking Dead" of Flightsims.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Having used both and mainly using FSX ( prepared to be shot down in flames 😃  ) i would say the benefit of going P3D is the 64 bit architecture and the increased utilisation of your Graphics card, it also provides a lot of eye candy.

The one downside personally i find is that AA is not as good and for 60HZ panel users you will get some form of stuttering at times due to no full screen support. Way to reduce this is either run 4K or a 30hz monitor. You will definitely need more than a 1050Ti to fly in coudy conditions,

 

 

Edited by Dazkent
typo

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