An Idea For P3Dv6

[IanHarrison 522]

3 hours ago, Daytona125 said:

I have to agree. Seems v5 was a money grab just before the big flight sim came out. We have heard nothing from p3d for a long time. Looks like they got their money and went into hiding....

That is utter BS. v5 is a vast improvement in performance over v4.5, like having an upgraded PC. I get far better performance with lower settings.

[vtracy 0]

Rafal, I get that, yes TE needs more space than GES. But that also means it is possible at all to have more precision, reality, visibility,… for a price. As long as the software handles the data stream from SSD to GPU right, I can live with the fact rhat I have to buy larger SSDs for my scenery. I have long decided that I only need TE England South, the two Germanys, the Netherlands, Austria, and the French channel coast, for my flying. So, vast areas (and space) are left out. I think it is a very good design decision by LM to offer areas that can be down loaded, or not. After all, when I am flying VFR, I do not cover huge distances, a few area sceneries are sufficient for my sim exparience.

Volker

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

8 hours ago, Daytona125 said:

I have to agree. Seems v5 was a money grab just before the big flight sim came out. We have heard nothing from p3d for a long time. Looks like they got their money and went into hiding....

So you don’t consider the change to DX12 from DX11 a significant upgrade? I find that curious. It resulted in a decent performance improvement akin to upgrading the CPU from an i5 to an i7 IMO. Plus we now have volumetric clouds - another visual boost.

Not all new versions of P3D are going to be as ground-breaking as v4 was with the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit. That was a mammoth leap forward and finally rid us of the dreaded VAS limit of 4Gb.

Monitoring GPU and RAM memory usage in v5.1 I’m seeing 5-6Gb of VRAM and up to 13Gb of RAM usage. That’s why v5 looks light years ahead of v3 which I still have purely for flying FS Labs Concorde.

Evolution, not revolution is the key. I’m not saying v5 is perfect. The behaviour of Ai traffic remains relatively poor and would benefit from some attention as would road traffic which still has a performance hit. But I’ve never been happier than I am now with what LM has given us.

[Daytona125 225]

7 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

That is utter BS. v5 is a vast improvement in performance over v4.5, like having an upgraded PC. I get far better performance with lower settings.

  Ian, I’m not going to call your comment BS, you are entitled to your opinion, this is just how I feel. I only fly in VR and I feel the performance of my P3Dv5 is better than v4, as it should be. But, is it way better? I don’t think it is. Maybe this could have been a v4.8 update or something? Kinda like x-plane did. Not only is the performance not that much better it took Lockheed months, almost a year to refine it just so it would run without crashing on most systems(v-ram). I would sure like to see some interest from Lockheed regarding this sim, we have heard very little. I am still using P3D because I love my add-on planes and scenery but I’m finding myself flying MSFS2020 quite a bit more, I find it runs way smoother in VR than P3D and is way more appealing to my eyes. And the planes are getting better by the day. Like I said. You are entitled to your opinion and I will always respect your opinion but it is ok for you to disagree with mine as it is ok for me to disagree with yours, respectful debate is good.

  Please have a great day.

Dean.

[IanHarrison 522]

5 minutes ago, Daytona125 said:

  Ian, I’m not going to call your comment BS, you are entitled to your opinion, this is just how I feel. I only fly in VR and I feel the performance of my P3Dv5 is better than v4, as it should be. But, is it way better? I don’t think it is. Maybe this could have been a v4.8 update or something? Kinda like x-plane did. Not only is the performance not that much better it took Lockheed months, almost a year to refine it just so it would run without crashing on most systems(v-ram). I would sure like to see some interest from Lockheed regarding this sim, we have heard very little. I am still using P3D because I love my add-on planes and scenery but I’m finding myself flying MSFS2020 quite a bit more, I find it runs way smoother in VR than P3D and is way more appealing to my eyes. And the planes are getting better by the day. Like I said. You are entitled to your opinion and I will always respect your opinion but it is ok for you to disagree with mine as it is ok for me to disagree with yours, respectful debate is good.

  Please have a great day.

Dean.

No problem. Each person is different, as is each PC and the results you get..

[Daytona125 225]

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

So you don’t consider the change to DX12 from DX11 a significant upgrade? I find that curious. It resulted in a decent performance improvement akin to upgrading the CPU from an i5 to an i7 IMO. Plus we now have volumetric clouds - another visual boost.

Not all new versions of P3D are going to be as ground-breaking as v4 was with the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit. That was a mammoth leap forward and finally rid us of the dreaded VAS limit of 4Gb.

Monitoring GPU and RAM memory usage in v5.1 I’m seeing 5-6Gb of VRAM and up to 13Gb of RAM usage. That’s why v5 looks light years ahead of v3 which I still have purely for flying FS Labs Concorde.

Evolution, not revolution is the key. I’m not saying v5 is perfect. The behaviour of Ai traffic remains relatively poor and would benefit from some attention as would road traffic which still has a performance hit. But I’ve never been happier than I am now with what LM has given us.

Ray, I always respect your opinion, you are one of the names I look for on this forum.

  I do find DX12 an upgrade from DX11 but I don’t think it is making that big a difference on my system than the old P3dv4 and I don’t think the scenery is any better(in my area) in v5 as compared to v4. And, it took Lockheed a long time to manage the v-ram issue a lot of people had and are still having in v5. I would just love to see Lockheed show some interest in this sim, as they should, as customers,we deserve that. I just don’t think the benefits that v5 brought to us justify(yet) a new version number, and new cost. After all, X-Plane significantly updated their sim at around the same time and didn’t feel the need to change version numbers and charge us for a new sim. I use all 3 sims but I am using MSFS2020 more and more as it progresses, and it does progress (unlike some). I just find it runs smoother and is way more appealing at the lower elevations I like to fly in, and the planes are starting to get way better. P3D deserves some attention is all I’m really saying, and Lockheed has been pretty quiet..

 Have a wonderful day!

Dean.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

@Daytona125, without knowing your hardware it's hard to comment. But with my i7-8086K and 1080Ti the performance improvement was noticable although I don't fly in VR mode which I understand is more demanding of hardware.

v5.1 has DXGI bugs but I don't find them particularly intrusive and I believe another update is not far off which will improve stability.

There are no rules saying you can only have one sim installed and nothing to force people to upgrade. I did a lot of reading here before taking the plunge from v4.5 and I don't regret it.

Bear in mind we are not L-M's primary customers. That's the US military. We owe the company a huge debt of gratitude for taking up the ESP code from Microsoft after they abandoned FS years ago. P3D now in it's fifth generation is miles away from FSX and all the better for it.

I still consider MSFS to be in beta so won't be buying it until it's a more mature product and then only for VFR flying.

[dave2013 1,130]

23 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

That is why Orbx developed True Earth regions.. they do exactly what you are looking for.   Albeit for one region at a time.

I agree that ORBX TrueEarth areas look great.  However, IMO this is not a viable solution to what Volker is wanting.  When you factor in the cost, amount of storage space needed, and time to develop just a single continent, TrueEarth simply won't cut it.

LM should focus on emulating what MSFS has done with the scenery, that is, streaming photoreal terrain with image-based rendering of vegetation and buildings, along with accurate rendering of rivers, roads, lakes, and 3D objects such as antennas, power transmission towers, power plants, etc.  Only they can do it better, and still utilize the core FSX/P3D systems of AI traffic, aircraft, weather, and ATC(yes, this still needs improvement).  Add to this the ability to update Nav data, including approach/departure procedures worldwide and we'd have a winner.

Dave

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

LM should focus on emulating what MSFS has done with the scenery, that is, streaming photoreal terrain with image-based rendering of vegetation and buildings, along with accurate rendering of rivers, roads, lakes, and 3D objects such as antennas, power transmission towers, power plants, etc. 

That is a pretty big ask... What makes you think they would want to do that?

I do not believe they see themselves in competition with Microsoft.  😉

[micstatic 4,319]

8 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

That is a pretty big ask... What makes you think they would want to do that?

I do not believe they see themselves in competition with Microsoft.  😉

I agree with Bert.  I'm not sure if I see the hobby flight sim market large enough for another big offering like Microsoft just did.  I mean the server costs, development costs etc.  

[dave2013 1,130]

12 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

That is a pretty big ask... What makes you think they would want to do that?

I do not believe they see themselves in competition with Microsoft.  😉

You're right, it's a lot to ask.

I believe that if LM wants their flight/mission simulator to be as realistic as possible, then a scenery rendering process similar to what MSFS does is the way to go.  I don't think it's about competition.

Dave

Edited June 9, 2021 by dave2013

[dave2013 1,130]

Just now, micstatic said:

I agree with Bert.  I'm not sure if I see the hobby flight sim market large enough for another big offering like Microsoft just did.  I mean the server costs, development costs etc.  

Yes, there would likely be added expense for the users. 

I'd happily pay $10 a month for the streaming scenery, but I also understand that LM might not want to go to all that expense and effort if the military doesn't want it, or just doesn't want to pay extra for it

Dave

[micstatic 4,319]

I'd pay too.  But the question is, how many others?

[G-RFRY 1,712]

MS are different this all about the future of game pass and not any individual game title, they see that as the future of gaming investment due to the high cost of large individual titles.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

30 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I'd pay too.  But the question is, how many others?

Not me. If I want a streaming flight sim with all its drawbacks I’ll buy MSFS. People complain that LM isn’t jumping on that bandwagon but for me the BGL structure of P3D and the various incarnations over nearly 30 years has proved its worth.

Bruce Artwick developed the structure back in the 90s and Bruce’s Graphical Language has stood the test of time.

You can have exclude files, airport layout files, Time Zone files and season files. Everything has been thought of. Whether MSFS has such flexibility I don’t know but given I’m staying put it’s not really something I’m worried about.