Is it a good idea to get into Prepar3D now?

[Biology 1,347]

Hi,

I am an existing X-Plane 11 user, and a fan of airliners. Sadly, I started to regret getting X-Plane, as it lacks for the aircraft I love, when compared to their Prepar3D counterparts. PMDG 747, 777, FSLabs A320, QualityWings 787, Majestic Q400, TFDi 717, Leonardo's MD-80, ...

I was planning to wait for PMDG, FSLabs, ... to come to the new Microsoft Flight Simulator, however, the recent delay announced by PMDG made me lean towards Prepar3D. I am also an undergraduate student and won't have much time flying after 1-2 years, so I am not sure if I can wait like more than 1 year for these aircraft.

I got both P3D v5 and MSFS, and after spending time on MSFS with its beautiful visuals, using P3D is really hard for me. However, it looks like these airliners I love will take like 1-2 years to come to the MSFS, so I don't have any oher chance anyway.

So, I am here with a few questions, as a beginner:

• Is it really a good idea to get into Prepar3D v5 now? Will these airliners I've mentioned indeed take a lot of time to come to the new Microsoft Flight Simulator?
• What improvements will Prepar3D v6 bring?
• Even though I am really enjoying sky environment of Prepar3D v5, the ground environment is really disappointing. Is Orbx TrueEarth good for that purpose?
• I am also unsatisfied with the default night lighting, is there a visual add-on to make it look like X-Plane 11 night lighting?
• Overall, what visual add-ons do I need to make Prepar3D v5 look beautiful like X-Plane 11?

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

24 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

So, I am here with a few questions, as a beginner:

• Is it really a good idea to get into Prepar3D v5 now? Will these airliners I've mentioned indeed take a lot of time to come to the new Microsoft Flight Simulator?
• What improvements will Prepar3D v6 bring?
• Even though I am really enjoying sky environment of Prepar3D v5, the ground environment is really disappointing. Is Orbx TrueEarth good for that purpose?
• I am also unsatisfied with the default night lighting, is there a visual add-on to make it look like X-Plane 11 night lighting?
• Overall, what visual add-ons do I need to make Prepar3D v5 look beautiful like X-Plane 11?

P3DV5 is a great simulation platform, and for an airliner fan, yes, go for it!

It works, and it is here, now!

V6.. what is that?

Orbx True Earth is overkill, but Orbx Global and Landclass will do the job for you.

As for visuals / lighting etc... go fly MSFS some more, it has great lighting, as you have seen already.  🙂

Edited October 1, 2020 by Bert Pieke

[DavidP 1,410]

Before this thread gets locked, for an all round experience I'd say a resounding yes.

[F737MAX 5,604]

Hi and welcome to the Avsim forums.

It would be good if you could add your PC specs to your signature so that other people know what your setup is.

Given that you are unsure of how long you will spend in the hobby, I would recommend buying only one airliner to start with, just to make sure that you really like using P3D (it needs a lot of add-ons, freeware or payware to make it look respectable in 2020, especially if you have already used MSFS).

Everyone here has their personal favourite airliner. Some swear by the vast systems depth of the FSLabs A320, others by the detail and PBR of the PMDG 747 or 737NGXu.
I like the Majestic Q400, it allows me to have an airliner that is not heavy on my PCs resources so that I get a realistic airliner into extremely detailed sceneries and environments without a unmanageable FPS drop that the FSLabs Airbus would give. The only downside with the Dash 8 is that there's no PBR texturing.

 

27 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

So, I am here with a few questions, as a beginner:

• Is it really a good idea to get into Prepar3D v5 now? Will these airliners I've mentioned indeed take a lot of time to come to the new Microsoft Flight Simulator?
• What improvements will Prepar3D v6 bring?
• Even though I am really enjoying sky environment of Prepar3D v5, the ground environment is really disappointing. Is Orbx TrueEarth good for that purpose?
• I am also unsatisfied with the default night lighting, is there a visual add-on to make it look like X-Plane 11 night lighting?
• Overall, what visual add-ons do I need to make Prepar3D v5 look beautiful like X-Plane 11?

To answer your questions:

• We're on the cusp of a new point release (v5.1) of P3D that we hope will bring some stability to our GPUs' VRAM usage. Since v5.0 launched with DX12, flight simmers with GPUs with 'only' 8 GB of VRAM or less have suffered CTDs.
  Additionally, a new weather renderer TrueSky appeared as an open beta feature. Hopefully this is finalised to give us more modern looking weather.
   
• Way too early to be discussing v6.
  P3D v4 was developed for 3 years, before a new version appeared.
   
• You have to balance your settings and expectations with Orbx's TrueEarth. It's designed for 'low and slow' VFR flying, but if your PC is fast enough and you don't overdo the settings, you can use it for airliner flights. *You will have to compromise*.
  Alternatively, you could investigate 'Ortho4XP for P3D' to generate freeware aerial imagery for your sim.
   
• There are night lighting products, however none are as good as XP. Save your money.
   
• Using the default Enhanced Atmospherics and PBR settings in P3D could be enough. Alternatively, you could take a look at EnvShade.
  
   

Edited October 1, 2020 by F737NG

[Biology 1,347]

Hi, and thank you all.

I guess I will indeed start with Prepar3D, preferably slowly as @F737NG suggested. Airliners coming to Microsoft Flight Simulator will take a lot more than I can wait, after all. I can do exciting airliner flights (I really like trying failure procedures) on P3D and enjoy the beautiful scenery with default GA aircraft on MSFS when I want to relax, until high-detail aircraft add-ons are released (even though I probably won't have much time for flight simulation once this happened) for it...

Again, thank you all for your welcoming comments.

[Skywolf 992]

46 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Yes, it looks better than MSFS in many aspects (not all) ... it will be a harder on FPS than Orbx Global.

I can't comment on LM's road map, but they are very aware of what needs to happen to keep DLC providers interested long term.

Cheers, Rob.

Rob said it the best.

My suggestion would be DCS for the time being....and I know it is not everyone's cup of tea as it is military aviation only.

[Pilot53 544]

I think true earth is way better than orbx regions for airliner flying, as landclass based textures look like trash at high altitude compared to photoscenery. I refuse to fly anywhere with mountains or desert in p3d unless its with photo scenery, of which true earth is the best because you get autogen too.  I dont really understand why true earth would hurt performance compared to regions, the photoreal textures dont put anymore load on your system aside from using more ram/vram.  The only thing I noticed about true earth is the configurator doesn't let you disable things like windmills like the regions do, that might hurt performance but honestly it seems to be the same for me around ksfo as the norcal region with antennas, windmills, and cranes off so maybe they optimized it.  

Edited October 2, 2020 by Pilot53

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Your system should be able to run TrueEarth effortlessly at maximum detail levels, Mike. I have everything enabled in TrueEarth GB and Netherlands on my i5 7600k @ 4.6Ghz/32GB DDR4-3600 RAM/6GB GTX 980Ti powered system, and P3Dv4.5HF2 runs fine.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Christopher Low

[B777ER 2,486]

18 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Yes, it looks better than MSFS in many aspects (not all) ... it will be a harder on FPS than Orbx Global.

I can't comment on LM's road map, but they are very aware of what needs to happen to keep DLC providers interested long term.

Cheers, Rob.

They redo the night lighting and maybe use their proprietary satellite data (Google Lockheed Martin Precision Terrain) than that would be a true competition.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

18 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Yes, it looks better than MSFS in many aspects (not all) ... it will be a harder on FPS than Orbx Global.

I can't comment on LM's road map, but they are very aware of what needs to happen to keep DLC providers interested long term.

Cheers, Rob.

ORBX TE is not a viable alternative to MSFS unless one is independently wealthy. The performance is not comparable to MSFS either. Despite all its bugs, MSFS  scenery is the most natural and immersive experience one can get in a flightsim.

[Skywolf 992]

4 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

More than that needs to happen, and they know it.  Biggest issues are object blending and light (this is why people say "cartoon") ... AO support will help with the blending, and AE will eventually get the lighting right ... now getting DLC providers to update their scenery and aircraft that's another story ... given that many users expect perpetual for free updates for the entire life of their FSX products thru all versions of P3D V2 to Vx.x  vs. I can sell it as "new" in MSFS ... you see the challenge LM faces?

Cheers, Rob.

 

They need to force all third party to install outside.  Some do and some don't.  Do you know how much time waste it is to keep reinstalling addons.  OMG.  For example and I will single out - Flightbeam does it half baked - they use third party install method using xml and yet the files are in the sim.  What gives.  

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Skywolf

[Skywolf 992]

1 minute ago, jabloomf1230 said:

ORBX TE is not a viable alternative to MSFS unless one is independently wealthy. The performance is not comparable to MSFS either. Despite all its bugs, MSFS  scenery is the most natural and immersive experience one can get in a flightsim.

Totally agree

[Bob Scott 7,721]

2 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

ORBX TE is not a viable alternative to MSFS unless one is independently wealthy. The performance is not comparable to MSFS either. Despite all its bugs, MSFS  scenery is the most natural and immersive experience one can get in a flightsim.

I would only agree that MSFS is the most *visually* immersive experience.  "Most natural", no, not at all...acft flying in MSFS are twitchy and unstable, and still poorly modelled as to flight characteristics.  And if your definition of "immersion" includes the planning and problem-solving headwork that makes up 90% of flying and staying ahead of a credibly-modelled jet aircraft--its systems and its operation, then no again, MSFS lacks that dimension of immersion.

For the OP--if *operating* an airliner is what you're after, then P3D delivers the best options now.  If experiencing the visual perspective of being in the air is what you're after, then MSFS delivers the best options now.  As to how each will evolve towards the strong suits of the other, it really remains to be seen.  I'm sure both camps are working hard at doing just that.  As to what will result and when, well I don't have a crystal ball, and neither does anyone else--those that tell you that x WILL happen aren't any better positioned to foresee the future than you or I...they just have a strong belief that is more based on a religion-like faith than a basis in fact.

I have both.  MSFS is mostly an interesting curiosity to me at the moment, but I am keeping my eye on it just the same.  But when it's time to pull out the charts, plan, and execute a flight in a complex acft, P3D is still my go-to platform. 

[Skywolf 992]

MSFS and P3D need to make a baby together.  Then we all will be happy

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

6 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I would only agree that MSFS is the most *visually* immersive experience.  "Most natural", no, not at all...acft flying in MSFS are twitchy and unstable, and still poorly modelled as to flight characteristics.  And if your definition of "immersion" includes the planning and problem-solving headwork that makes up 90% of flying and staying ahead of a credibly-modelled jet aircraft--its systems and its operation, then no again, MSFS lacks that dimension of immersion.

For the OP--if *operating* an airliner is what you're after, then P3D delivers the best options now.  If experiencing the visual perspective of being in the air is what you're after, then MSFS delivers the best options now.  As to how each will evolve towards the strong suits of the other, it really remains to be seen.  I'm sure both camps are working hard at doing just that.  As to what will result and when, well I don't have a crystal ball, and neither does anyone else--those that tell you that x WILL happen aren't any better positioned to foresee the future than you or I...they just have a strong belief that is more based on a religion-like faith than a basis in fact.

I have both.  MSFS is mostly an interesting curiosity to me at the moment, but I am keeping my eye on it just the same.  But when it's time to pull out the charts, plan, and execute a flight in a complex acft, P3D is still my go-to platform. 

At least if you are going to quote what I said and respond, then respond appropriately. My quote said "MSFS scenery" and your response has nothing to do with scenery and everything to do with the piloting side of MSFS, which is still not even close to XP11 and P3d5. The two legacy sims are (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln) "of the pilots, by the pilots and for the pilots." MSFS hasn't gotten that far yet, but I'll wager that they fix the piloting issues well before LM and especially LR fix the appearance deficits.