4 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I get very smooth movement in v4.5.  Rarely have stuttering.

Perhaps v5 will be worth it once LM fixes all the problems. 

Dave

I would honestly say I had a very large performance improvement going from V4 to V5.  Like you I was mostly smooth in V4.  However, put me at a VATSIM event with bad weather at a place like Fly Tampa YYZ, FSDT JFK.  That was a different story and I would get some stuttering.  Those kind of situations do not seem bad at all these days in V5.  If I miss anything from V4, it's the reflection profiles I had for my non pbr aircraft like the 717 and Q400.  EA is off for me in V5

40 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Sadly I'm not happy with X-Plane 11 either, I just can't find good airliners. Even the best airliners for X-Plane like Flight Factor A320 have lots of things missing compared to their Prepar3D counterparts. At this point I really don't know what simulator I want to use: X-Plane has better global scenery and better aerodynamics, while Prepar3D has better sky environment and better airliners. I just can't find a "no compromise" experience.

 I don't know since I kinda completely moved myself into XP11 airliner ecosystem, the only planes I miss proper 787 and 777. However, in the other hand you can still good other airliner and definitely the free zibo mod. Inibuild a300 is definitely very immersive.

I am flying the most with zibo 737, FF320 and inibuild a300.

 

44 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

Deleted

 

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by omarsmak30

14 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

Honestly, part of the puzzle (in my own experience in implementing these in my own projects) is simply that..........................................

To be honest, it'd probably be worthwhile for many to try and make a basic scenery addon with all the bells and whistles. I think threads like these will then soon come to an end...

Thanks for your words and some insides! I do not claim anything here. Just my personal observation. P3D is my core and main used sim. I use it in 99% of the time compared to the 1 % MSFS usage.

I do really ask myself why is it that lots of stuff is not used, not implemented well or not working as intended.

I think one of the main reasons is complexity vs time (=money) and also deliver backwards compatible products and keep the sim compatible to prior version of addons too (as much as possible).

This may be one of the strengths of P3D, but also one of negatives as the sims gets filled with outdated products.

I am not a dev. So I can not take this point of view you have.

But is it correct that developing airports and scenery in MSFS is "quicker" done? I see pretty good looking addons out there from old and new devs which they deliver in no time one after another...it seems not to stop.

Even "freeware" can look pretty  good. And that are just people who "try" and share their work.

I think it is ok to "ask" for products with ALL bells and whistles, I want also to pay for it. 

But if I read things like sloped runways are complicated to implement, or PBR will not get updated or implemented because LM is still changing lots of "things" which influences the behavior. Or a developed MSFS product looks in your dev tool exact the same as in the MSFS scenery environment, I think LM does "miss" something and delivers not optimized. And that could be a reason why these features a not used.

I am just interested in some insides and opinions on this. From devs and users as well.

I have a feeling that P3D is getting used more and more the last weeks/days. I see lots of new users here and over at LM support forum. This is a good sign.

LM should use the upcoming months to stabilize DX12 and optimize EA. Because I think those 2 things are major enhancements and key factors for more P3D usage.

Marcus

 

25 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Please *prove* that P3Dv5 is much better than P3Dv4.  Not just "better", which I'm sure it is in some respects, but "much better".  Then it will no longer be a claim.

Thanks.

Dave

There will be no prove as there are simply to many variables between yours and "others":

• Hardware
• Software
• proper OS installs
• proper OC´s CPU/GPU (if used)
• Wanted features
• Goals

35 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

I read a lot of subjective perception here. 

 

Yes of course Joe. But isn´t simming and "feelings about simulations" based a lot on subjective perception?

But I do get your point anyway.

It is a pity that lot´s of features are "missing" in addons. For lot´s of different reasons for sure. I am just interested how others do see and feel about this? 

Why are devs able to deliver such nice addons in this short time? These devs are not always experienced. It really seems (subjective) to me that developing for MSFS is easier (scenery addons at least).

I think it is important that LM gets the new lighting engine "fix" so others can start using it without having any fear to do it over and over and over again after every release/update AND HF!

Delivering half baked features (like every HF and release starting with V5) does keep some devs keep staying away from changing as it is simply to much work (read some comments from simbol, kaiii and others here at avsim).

They did not stay away, but they did mention that a lot of works has to be done.......every time.

Marcus

 

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by mpo910

54 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

I read a lot of subjective perception here. 

 

That is putting it nicely.. 😉

This whole topic is just:  Complain, Complain, Complain..

37 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Not sure I understand if one sets their graphic settings too high for their available VRAM is LM's fail?  LM provide graphic settings to avoid this like Dynamic Texture Streaming, texture cap options like 1024 x 1024 or 2048 x 2048 for terrain/SimObjects.

 

 

I personally had issues with Device Hung errors in V5 first release which "never came back magically" after HF 1 for 5.0 Rob.

And lot´s of people here, including some well named devs, stated it is MY settings which I have to turn down.

And guess what? 5.1 HF1 has really nice performance gains compared to prior versions and 4.5 AND no ctd so far on my side.

I do really think LM did tinker around with some things and also had some issues to deal with.

This has left a very nasty taste to lot´s of users.

I always believed they will sort it out. But I also spend hours/days to search on my end if everything was right. This is time that not everyone is willing/able to spent. 

I love P3D. And Truesky, NvidiaWaveworks have to get optimized. Three things are bothering me about EA for now:

1. A really big immersion killer is the fully flat and faulty implemented cloud layer which shows clouds going way to high at horizon! It is such a bad view! And within VR this is MUCH more visible (VR view is probably another P3D camera setting/config).
2. The "jumpy" updating shadows on ground and simobjects when clouds/sunlight is moving. The shadow drawing is done once or twice every second? Really nasty.
3. The cockpits are still too dark at daytime

EA is one of the most important things IF you want a better immersion! And truesky is ALL about immersion. I can not see any other reason for implementing truesky.

And exactly THAT could be done way better as they did in V5.0 HF1, HF2, V5.1 and HF1!

Marcus

 

 

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by mpo910

11 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

That is putting it nicely.. 😉

This whole topic is just:  Complain, Complain, Complain..

Come on Bert. I am a really heavy user of P3D (ONLY P3D and maybe 1 hour a week at MSFS) and really like it (P3D). Why is it bad to talk about things they have done and obviously not done very well OR done well, but not used by 3th party?

We are depending on 3th party and P3D or not.

EVERY time a user has some "negatives" about a sim others jump in and shoot the messenger. Why is that?

I am a adult person who spent lots of hours in P3D, updating it, using it, learning about it and also being positive about it. Maybe not in this thread. But yes, that´s why I opened it. Read my first post.

I am just interested how others see this and getting some insides about developing in P3D and MSFS and differences.

😉

If you don´t like it, you always may just leave "silence". If you like it, discus with us/me about your likings and "not likings".

Fact is, the AVSIM P3D space get´s more attention lately. THAT is a good sign. Also over at LM there is more movement. So I think P3D is getting used more again and people are sorting out some things to use it properly and see some improvements.

Marcus

28 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Not sure I understand if one sets their graphic settings too high for their available VRAM is LM's fail?  LM provide graphic settings to avoid this like Dynamic Texture Streaming, texture cap options like 1024 x 1024 or 2048 x 2048 for terrain/SimObjects.

The frustration, as a user with 8GB VRAM, is that of those options provided, setting 1024 textures is the only one that actually provides protection against CTDing if you're running something like the NGXu at a PBR airport with GSX. I could run 2048 textures in V4 no problem in that scenario. I can't now, because otherwise it'll crash. That sucks, dude, no matter how you spin it. That's a huge downgrade in quality. Just open up the default F-22 and sit in the VC and switch between 2048/1024. Or the NGXu. Or FSL. Airport textures look like trash, and things like signage become nearly illegible. 

Big picture, LM really screwed some of us over by not giving us a heads up before V5's release about this massive change. I probably couldn't gotten my hands on a 2080Ti back in the spring had I known, but since the P3D team refuses to communicate with customers, share a road map, etc. we're stuck waiting for $1,000 3080Ti's just to take a crack at using the features we paid for by going to V5.

17 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

The frustration, as a user with 8GB VRAM, is that of those options provided, setting 1024 textures is the only one that actually provides protection against CTDing if you're running something like the NGXu at a PBR airport with GSX. I could run 2048 textures in V4 no problem in that scenario. I can't now, because otherwise it'll crash. That sucks, dude, no matter how you spin it. That's a huge downgrade in quality. Just open up the default F-22 and sit in the VC and switch between 2048/1024. Or the NGXu. Or FSL. Airport textures look like trash, and things like signage become nearly illegible. 

Big picture, LM really screwed some of us over by not giving us a heads up before V5's release about this massive change. I probably couldn't gotten my hands on a 2080Ti back in the spring had I known, but since the P3D team refuses to communicate with customers, share a road map, etc. we're stuck waiting for $1,000 3080Ti's just to take a crack at using the features we paid for by going to V5.

I share some views here:

• Truesky was announced before the V5.0 version got released (a few days before 5.0). AFTER 5.0 was released, LM stated that truesky is out as BETA. Read carefully: AFTER initial release of V5.0. Bad communication and somehow not user friendly
• NvidiaWaveworks came out as well. But with water on ultra it causes stutters. People started to get used to it. Initial complains where there......now silence about this. Not userfriendly either. This feature is also implemented very basic. 
• DX12 came out. Lots of user had issues with VRAM. They needed several HF´s to get it better. But why AFTER release? User are used as testers and users paid money for such a bad implementation

These 3 features where the big "newcomers" as LM communicated. Well........we all know how that went. 

And now add my other listed features to this. And you see what I mean?

So "lacking" communication may be a topic "why" things fail or not being used.

3th party devs do maybe not know how long their work will last because they not know if LM is making further bigger changes which will still influence the work devs have to do.

This can be days (HF), weeks or months.

It may sound like complaining (what you and I am doing here). 😉 But why accept this in silence and paying than $ 199 for this?

As I said. I share your view here. 

This COULD have done better. No, this SHOULD have done better by LM.

Marcus

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by mpo910

1 hour ago, mpo910 said:

There will be no prove as there are simply to many variables between yours and "others":

• Hardware
• Software
• proper OS installs
• proper OC´s CPU/GPU (if used)
• Wanted features
• Goals

Exactly.

Like I said, I have seen numerous claims that P3Dv5 is such a big improvement over P3Dv4, or that it is so much better, but that assertion is quite subjective.

I note a general consensus that v5 performance is better, i.e. graphics are smoother even under heavy scenery conditions.  This is likely due to implementation of DX12, but then I've read about all the high VRAM usage causing problems.

I don't have a 3090 video card with 12GB of VRAM and don't wish to spend the money for one, so P3Dv5 may not be for me.  I also don't want to be forced to reduce my graphics settings so low in order to get decent performance that it simply becomes pointless to upgrade to v5. 

Then there are all the issues with the enhanced atmospherics, which was a big selling point for v5.  A lot of folks have stated that they've had to turn that feature off.

I have a feeling that LM will get this all sorted out over the next couple of version iterations.

Dave

59 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Not sure I understand if one sets their graphic settings too high for their available VRAM is LM's fail?  LM provide graphic settings to avoid this like Dynamic Texture Streaming, texture cap options like 1024 x 1024 or 2048 x 2048 for terrain/SimObjects.

I had to lower down my textures to 1024 on my 2k screen and lowered down many of my settings comparing to my v4 and at some point my v5 looked uglier what I used to have on v4. Sure I used to have maybe at the beginning maybe like 5gb vram used (QW and orbx stuff) and it used to climb up to some point and the sim will CTD or the popup of not enough vram shows up. 

It could run better if you have invested with graphic cards with 12mb vram and up. However, until today I don't see the urge to upgrade my graphic card since my XP and MSFS are working perfectly good on my current rig. However perhaps sometimes this year or beginning next year I may update my graphic card to RTX3090 or RTX3080ti and I will definitely try again to run P3Dv5.

 

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by omarsmak30

It would be nice to hear from P3D customers that use it to rehearse military missions or gain familiarity with a military weapon system.  

Edited January 3, 20215 yr by SAX702

I don’t think it’s fair that users continue to fault them in terms of needing a better graphics card. V4 works great and didn’t require a mandatory upgrade to v5. If you don’t want to upgrade your hardware to support a newer version then stay where you are at.