I fly for a VA almost every day, and still using P3D version 3.4, Everything works, good FPS, and no crashes at all , zero.  Can't beat it. 

22 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

OP has six posts, and comes here and makes an obviously inflammatory statement, Troll. I shall feed no further, and I suggest you do the same.

Give your sanctimony a rest- I posted an opinion with which you are free to disagree but not be abusive. Pursuant to the number of posts I have made, I used to be quite active in the days of FS98 through FS2002, but I have been active on other forums as well. I'm happy that P3d v5 works well for you, eventually maybe it will for others as well.

No one in this topic has "bashed" P3D v5, unless your definition of "bashed" is anything other than unconditional praise. The discussion seems to have been reasonable for Avsim. It is hard to be inflamed by reading that someone had tried P3D v5, will persevere with it, but for day to day flying has gone back to FSX because they do not have any other versions of P3D. In fact, it replicates my experience so far, except that I am lucky enough to have a copy of P3D v4.5. I still use FSX from time to time and reject the assertion that once a new version is released, somehow the previous versions suddenly become in some way less than they were.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Reader

54 minutes ago, Reader said:

No one in this topic has "bashed" P3D v5, unless your definition of "bashed" is anything other than unconditional praise. The discussion seems to have been reasonable for Avsim. It is hard to be inflamed by reading that someone had tried P3D v5, will persevere with it, but for day to day flying has gone back to FSX because they do not have any other versions of P3D. In fact, it replicates my experience so far, except that I am lucky enough to have a copy of P3D v4.5. I still use FSX from time to time and reject the assertion that once a new version is released, somehow the previous versions suddenly become in some way less than they were.

"I recently purchased P3D v5. I'm sorry I did. Yes, it loads faster and has better performance on my 8 core ryzen than fsx, but it isn't compatible with much, regardless of claims of various developers."

It's a dumb post that straw-mans the "claims of various developers". Posts like this add nothing to the world, it's just an attempt to get an argument going.

I could turn up in the X-plane of FSX forums and say how I'm sorry I bought that sim and I'm going back to P3D for some bogus reason, but that would just annoy people. 

There's nothing in the OP's post that is a useful critique of v5. Pointless and likely to lead to arguments for no good reason.

 

24 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

"I recently purchased P3D v5. I'm sorry I did. Yes, it loads faster and has better performance on my 8 core ryzen than fsx, but it isn't compatible with much, regardless of claims of various developers."

It's a dumb post that straw-mans the "claims of various developers". Posts like this add nothing to the world, it's just an attempt to get an argument going.

I could turn up in the X-plane of FSX forums and say how I'm sorry I bought that sim and I'm going back to P3D for some bogus reason, but that would just annoy people. 

There's nothing in the OP's post that is a useful critique of v5. Pointless and likely to lead to arguments for no good reason.

 

As I said, Give it a rest.

I see no forum rule that requires a post to be a "useful critique" or indeed add something to the world. I do see a relatively interesting discussion with several contributors adding their views.

Glad I've saved my SubLOGIC Flight Simulator floppy!  Time to dust my trusty Tandy 1000 off and take it for a spin. From what I remember it was very stable with high FPS.  Saving up for a CGA colour monitor!!

Lon

 

3 hours ago, Reader said:

I see no forum rule that requires a post to be a "useful critique" or indeed add something to the world.

Well in that case do you at least see the Avsim terms of use rule which states the following, concerning prohibited behaviour: 'includes and refers to any material or language that AVSIM Staff consider to be inflammatory and intended to do no more than elicit controversy and division'?

Don't you think that posting an initial thread which opens with the statement that P3D V5: 'isn't compatible with much, regardless of claims of various developers', aside from being a lie, as well as a defamatory comment aimed at a large number of companies and Avsim users with a commercial membership which frequent this forum, was made with the intention of causing a row? Because it sure looks that way to me.

If someone wants to discus problems with software, there are better ways to go about it than to open up on literally every developer for that software, by accusing the majority of them of lying.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Chock

No, I don't. I read it as an expression of frustration with the newly acquired simulator. If the AVSIM Staff considered the topic's opening post to be inflammatory and intended to do no more than elicit controversy and division, it should have been closed at that point, instead of being allowed to run and then moderated by a forum user who didn't like the content.

Most people would agree that a forum is a place to hold a discussion. The best way to have a discussion is to put forward a view and then have a friendly and open exchange of views, possibly reaching a consensus, or perhaps agreeing to differ. That seems to me is what this topic has achieved, in between the attempts to stop it. To seek to close down such a discussion and to simply impose one's own view upon all other contributors is not a discussion.

 

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Reader

17 minutes ago, Reader said:

No, I don't. I read it as an expression of frustration with the newly acquired simulator. If the AVSIM Staff considered the topic's opening post to be inflammatory and intended to do no more than elicit controversy and division, it should have been closed at that point, instead of being allowed to run and then moderated by a forum user who didn't like the content.

Most people would agree that a forum is a place to hold a discussion. The best way to have a discussion is to put forward a view and then have a friendly and open exchange of views, possibly reaching a consensus, or perhaps agreeing to differ. That seems to me is what this topic has achieved, in between the attempts to stop it. To seek to close down such a discussion and to simply impose one's own view upon all other contributors is not a discussion.

 

I'm sorry that I posted here at all. With all the nasty and sarcastic responses that other posters have offered, while condemning my post as some violation, this place is a sorry shadow of its former glory. Sign of the times I guess... In any event, I keep trying my best to work with P3d v5, with some successes and some failures. Seeing as how many of the other posters here sit at the right hand of GOD, I will keep them to myself.

14 minutes ago, Boeingnut said:

I'm sorry that I posted here at all. With all the nasty and sarcastic responses that other posters have offered, while condemning my post as some violation, this place is a sorry shadow of its former glory. Sign of the times I guess... In any event, I keep trying my best to work with P3d v5, with some successes and some failures. Seeing as how many of the other posters here sit at the right hand of GOD, I will keep them to myself.

You literally accused developers of lying about their product compatibility with V5 on the opening post of a thread you started, and now you are playing the victim because people pulled you up about it? Seriously?!

6 minutes ago, Boeingnut said:

With all the nasty and sarcastic responses that other posters have offered, while condemning my post as some violation, this place is a sorry shadow of its former glory.

Actually, I haven't noticed any difference.  Avsim has always been like that.

I decided to hold off on v5 until all my essentials were updated.  I'm still waiting.  I'm not interested in the new clouds (I really prefer ASCA) and I don't care about the new water.  My v4.5 performance is adequate.  

Since getting accepted into the MSFS Alpha I haven't booted P3D anyway.

Good luck, and don't let them get you down.

Hook

17 minutes ago, Chock said:

You literally accused developers of lying about their product compatibility with V5 on the opening post of a thread you started, and now you are playing the victim because people pulled you up about it? Seriously?!

I am well aware that Boeingnut does not need my help and I do not seek to speak on their behalf, however there is a principle at stake. In fact, I think that there are developers who have declared their products to be P3D v5 compatible but that P3D v5 being as it is, problems are surfacing, in particular over how much VRAM a particular piece of scenery or an aircraft is using, that were not forseen. I do not see that suggesting that some addons do not in fact work quite as well with P3D v5 as their developers would like them to and have said that they do, needs to be escalated to "accusing developers of lying".

 

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Reader

18 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Actually, I haven't noticed any difference.  Avsim has always been like that.

I decided to hold off on v5 until all my essentials were updated.  I'm still waiting.  I'm not interested in the new clouds (I really prefer ASCA) and I don't care about the new water.  My v4.5 performance is adequate.  

Since getting accepted into the MSFS Alpha I haven't booted P3D anyway.

Good luck, and don't let them get you down.

Hook

The 'look' of the sim doesn't bother me, although some of the deciduous trees look a bit "cartoonish", but that's an easy fix. I also appreciate how fast the sim loads and that I can track (using shift+z) my GPU ram usage. There are few stutters and as another poster said there are no autogen pop ups- I do get a few, but not like FSX. Still software I've purchased and some freeware that was assured to work in P3D v5, most assuredly doesn't for me, and a few others I've come across. It's irritating. One of the developers gave me some help, but unfortunately, none of his suggestions worked. This indicates to me that since it works for him and not for others, that eventhough we used the same installer, and the same entries are present, that there is an inconsistency in P3d- yes, just my opinion, but MSFS platforms also suffered similar occurrences and it took some investigation to figure them out!

26 minutes ago, Reader said:

I am well aware that Boeingnut is perfectly capable of looking after himself and I do not seek to speak on their behalf, however there is a principle at stake. In fact, I think that there are developers who have declared their products to be P3D v5 compatible but that P3D v5 being as it is, problems are surfacing, in particular over how much VRAM a particular piece of scenery or an aircraft is using, that were not forseen. I do not see that suggesting that some addons do not in fact work quite as well with P3D v5 as their developers would like them to, needs to be escalated to accusing developers of lying.

I can clearly see why the financial contribution to these forums is so sluggish.

Whilst it may well be the case that some add-ons do make use of the VRAM capabilities of V5 to the point where that causes issues, this issue is the result of the host program and its use of the DX12 protocol which is restricted in its capability to limit how much data it can send to the GPU. This is obviously something which has the potential to be a problem, although it can be mitigated by a few option choices, so a bit of common sense in accepting this is prudent and it doesn't really alter the fact that actually being able to make use of the GPU is a step forward albeit one which might need some programming shenanigans to be created to mitigate these problems.

In essence, this is not really too different a problem to the fact that FSX, being 32 Bit, cannot stop add-ons from bombing the program out either, when things hit its VAS memory addressing limitation. The difference is that the limit is lower for FSX, so it is hardly the panacea which suggesting reverting to using FSX in the face of P3D V5 issues might seem, and even if it were, one does not have to make it via throwing accusations of dishonesty at TPDs.

There is a prudent way to open such discussions, and I would suggest that the accusation of claims from developers of add-on software are bogus and that things are not compatible with the host software is not exactly the right way to go about it. These products absolutely are compatible, it is the limitations on controlling what is sent to the GPU via the DX12 method of communication with the hardware which is the issue, and that is for Lockheed Martin to address, which with P3D still very much being software in continued development, is a realistic possibility. 

Conversely, the VAS limitation of FSX is set in stone for software which is now in a frozen state of development. so would it be fair to suggest that the makers of add-ons which might fall foul of that VAS limitation are lying about their products being compatible. No, of course not, the prudent thing to do is to balance things with the options sliders. And this is what you do with P3D V5 too.

So why not discuss it in this way rather than opening up with a belligerent stance? This is what people were reacting to, and they were right to do so. There is no hidden agenda to dismiss claims about potential issues with making use of the GPU as P3D v5 does. If it has problems, which it does, these are not forbidden topics, in fact it is helpful to openly discuss them as it brings attention to things which can be addressed.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Chock