An Idea For P3Dv6

[kdfw__ 539]

Problem with p3d is the rendering engine is just not cutting it. It runs and stutters with compromised scenery settings (stutter or pause loading detailed airport/new detailed areas).

the “game fs” renders 100 times more detailed scenery and runs so smooth with the same HW using dx11, it’s not even funny. Flying at dusk/dawn with ultra clouds?  Those clouds were formed from tears of p3d fliers. 

Regardless, at the moment fsl, pmdg, leonardo are only available on p3d so will keep using it for tubeliner action.  Hope lm can improve performance in v5.2 but not expecting much with the constraints placed on the rendering scheme.  

Lm deserves praise for moving the fs franchise to 64bit and keeping the 3pd ecosystem alive. 

[djbully 210]

16 minutes ago, kdfw__ said:

Problem with p3d is the rendering engine is just not cutting it. It runs and stutters with compromised scenery settings (stutter or pause loading detailed airport/new detailed areas).

the “game fs” renders 100 times more detailed scenery and runs so smooth with the same HW using dx11, it’s not even funny.

I find the opposite, v5 is running great for me, silky smooth, apart from the odd stutter here or there. But they are few and far between. 
 

MSFS however runs like a stuttery mess. And while the graphics are good, in some places the photogrammetry just looks odd and skewed. 
 

IMO it’s still a Beta! 
 

[Chock 17,769]

It's as well to remember what P3D primarily is: A training solution aimed at that purpose above all.

Anyone who has been in a full-on flight simulator of the type which airlines and the military use, or even seen one in action, is aware that it's really about switchology and simulating operations, rather than pretty graphics. It hardly matters how beautiful the deck of an aircraft carrier looks at sunset to a military customer which is using it to train its F-35 pilots on how to land on that deck. Such clients are not worried about the expense of having several computers linked together with super-duper GPUs in order to run the thing if that should be necessary, nor would they be bothered about their sim rendering anywhere else other than the area of interest for a specific operation, so performance isn't likely to be an issue for such clients either. 

The reality is that you and I are merely a sideshow for Lockheed Martin in terms of being customers; it's the big pro users which drive the way it goes. Sure, if visual benefits can be added without getting in the way of stuff, then obviously it would be done, since there is undeniably a bonus to a professional client being able to set a training scenario anywhere in the world and have the visuals be representative of the real location, but if for example it was being used to replicate landing those choppers in the compound to get Osama Bin Laden, then really all that matters is the geometry of the buildings and a decent representation of NVGs in VR. And for that, I'm sure the military could easily have someone knock up a simple bunch of block polygons of some buildings and walls to replicate that well enough for the purpose at hand in the same way that your cliche bank robbers can map out their raid with a few Dinky Toy cars and a some boxes on a kitchen table.

The thing which might potentially change that, is if MS decided to push their technology used in their current sim to have a rival application for military customers, and I don't doubt it is at the very least something they've looked at. MS currently does have a US military contract to provide VR solutions for the US Army after all, which is more than likely a secondary reason why they are going all-out on their shiny new sim beyond the gaming applications of it. In such a circumstance, LM might then potentially consider graphical changes along the lines of what MSFS offers to be more of a necessity in terms of offering a competing solution, but again if they did, we would only be the spin-off bonus recipients of such a thing rather than the reason they'd consider it.

P3D therefore might be best playing to its strengths with regard to what LM actually make it for, which is all the stuff it does have at the moment such as relatively realistic ocean behaviour in littoral waters, pretty convincing NVG replication, the ability to simulate weaponry and the like, and is after all why all that stuff is in P3D when your average PMDG airliner driver has probably never even looked at that stuff, much less used it. Thus it's hardly likely to bother LM that all your favourite high-end airliner simulator developers are looking to MSFS for the sales potential, after all, more than one of those developers already does develop stuff directly for the military which you and I never see, but which has in the past occasionally had the odd spin off benefit for their entertainment products with which we are familiar, but if MS decides to push MSFS for a rival training solution along the lines of what P3D is, then that would certainly get their attention and potentially drive LM to look at competing with it in the visual stakes.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

2 hours ago, kdfw__ said:

It runs and stutters with compromised scenery settings (stutter or pause loading detailed airport/new detailed areas).

You have a state of the art CPU and GPU. If those still result in stuttering or pauses you need to look at your settings.  Not having every setting on its maximum value is not “compromised scenery settings” if that’s what you’re suggesting.

[kdfw__ 539]

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You have a state of the art CPU and GPU. If those still result in stuttering or pauses you need to look at your settings.  Not having every setting on its maximum value is not “compromised scenery settings” if that’s what you’re suggesting.

of course, and most settings are at the middle (high/medium/normal/dense) with only cloud coverage at max.

i'm only using vr and this accentuates every little stutter/pause as the whole view is 'in your face' rather than 2-3ft away.  looking forward to 5.2 that's downloading now, hope rendering performance is improved.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

6 hours ago, kdfw__ said:

i'm only using vr and this accentuates every little stutter/pause as the whole view is 'in your face' rather than 2-3ft away.

Understood. I’ve yet to experience VR so can’t comment on that performance.

[vtracy 0]

I very much agree to what CHOCK said. LM have their own prerequisites to meet and they are (so it seems) not in the area of precise scenery.

BUT: As we all have experienced and enjoyed, A2A and other dvelopers have added fine sceneries to the basis that LM have set. So, we can hope, once the MSFS hype has died, that they will come back to P3D.

So, I am looking forward to having this combination, superb aircraft handling/modelling interfaces, good SDK for aircraft developers (and all the other good qualities that P3D has),

AND the wonderful scenery addons from developers outside LM.

So, what would I like from LM?

Improvements of their proprietary code! Make the default system run as smoothly as possible, make the interfaces for the OEM developers better (ease od use, performance,…?). That would satisfy me very much. And - I presume - that would interest LM also because they certainly want a simulator that runs at peak performance, modelling that comes as close to reality as possible, stability of code.

Volker