Ost Kampfer

Beautifully presented video and a seemingly valid test. Disappointing though how poor V4's visual rendering was e.g. stuttering, black initial renders and then pop-ups. Couldn't compare the shimmering observed in V3 due to a turn. Not much progress then on these issues albeit for some just eye-candy. Granted a c20% uplift in FPS is significant. However, set against where the competition is, V4 to my eye is well-short visually. Is it FSX's architecture that contains to hold back or a different focus versus other developers?

Aren't Raptors rather small? Been awhile since I ran any but their capacity topped out at what 180Gb? Whereas with your budget you should be able to afford a 480-500GB SSD and, probably more. I think if you are prudent with your space/budget you should be able to get your OS and P3D on the same drive. Anyway bottom line is move off HDD. There maybe nothing in-sim to notice but life is too short to be waiting for an OS to boot and in a full-loaded P3D a mega-app to load. Interestingly I just spent this week-end moving my 2600K (OC at 4.8GHz) to an i7 6700. Not because Skylake is better for P3D or, even my other computing needs simply because the water-coooler pump gave out after several years of service! Needless to say a new build feels slick and sharp. A multitude of USB ports in the Z170 MB spec is much welcome when trying to connect-up a collection of Saitek panels and peripherals. Can't comment on the graphics as was already running a 980. My dealer suggested I add an Intel SSD 750 running on the PCIe. Despite having run my SSDs in RAID0 for several years this blows the socks off anything I have used before. A clean Win10 install starts almost instantly. Highly recommended. This is a performance gain you will notice and never want to give up.

Why not wait until the next version of P3D for if that requires a fresh install again then you will be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Nvidia 314.09 WHQL drivers are the stock drivers. This is what the WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) means. Of course, like any software companies in the race to step forward there is very, very rarely a glitch such that the latest WHQL is problematic. As this is infrequent and then usually only applies to the very latest of games it is not of itself an impediment to upgrading as the overall gains easily outweigh the miniscule risk. By not updating to the latest WHQL drivers advances in, for instance, power management; Physics-X/CUDA; Win 8 compatibility; SLI profiles, HDMI developments and most importantly upgrades to the core graphics capability are missed. If you some how think that these sorts of developments do not affect your system then stick with the increasingly archaic out of the box drivers. But if you are running a relatively new 680 type card then by definition you will almost certainly need these advances. In general for all users, after Windows security updates I would suggest graphics card driver updates are the most important software updates to make. There will be nothing superior by design about the drivers that come on the CD ROM in a new graphics card box. What is sometimes most problematic is the upgrading impact on Nvidia Inspector. The best remedy to this I find is a clean install (i.e. the complete removal of prior graphic card drivers) which can be done under the Custom screen on installation of the GeForce drivers. And may require the re-establishment of the individual profile in Nvidia Inspector.

Hi Maarten What a delight to return home to find you have posted up the fix. Apologies if I should have found the answer online elsewhere as a pre-exisiting condition. Anyway cured me so very happy with your speedy and swift response as well as the marvellous app alround. Keep the updates coming and shame those L-M programmers! Ost

Hi Maarten I am getting this error message on installation; any pointers on where I am going wrong please? Error in preferences: either runways.xml, f5.csv or g5.csv not found..... Running FSX to Prepar3D Migration Tool which have tried disabling but still get same error message. Thanks

As the OP notes P3D development has seemingly come in baby steps (his original emphasis). I would see nothing wrong in this as the alternative to such incrementalism is a long time awaiting a big bang, paradigm change. We too could have been stuck like Duke Nukem fans awaiting seemingly forever (15years) for the breakthrough update.... or it may simply never come. Even if one accepts the OPs point that these incremental improvements are but minor changes the alternative (for those with committed FSX-family libraries) was stasis. Does this community need reminding that there was no enhancement since Acceleration in 2007! Was, as finally the FSX community is evolving as per most other game communities with the shader, DX10 tweaks and the recent ground physics adaptations via FSUIPC. (Just a pity it does not use JSGME.....) This change in mindset could be as exciting as P3D's own developments though with the downside that has hit other franchises as Falcon4, or IL-2 of code base multiplication and division into different development streams. (Although arguably this is what has already happened with FSX/ESP/P3D.) For sure we would all like to see an x64, DX11 FSX-class flightsim. But as a consumer I note how slowly MS has tried to move the market to x64 which tells me (a consumer not a programmer) it is no easy transition. DX11 while clearly long overdue in the great scheme of things has at least been a given goal of L-M development. Whatever the reasons for it, L-M clearly want to bring on the community of users and third-party developers with it (those that haven't have not for commercial reasons i.e. while they see P3D as a commercial opportunity are prevented from exploiting because of related parties objections: PMDG-Boeing, UTX-GIS data). Again therefore I would see an incremental P3D approach here that enables commercial and technical development to remain in-step and at the same time in the market-place as superior to a programming promise to deliver a x64 flightsim over a what, one, two, multi-year develpment programme with nothing to fly in the interim but a flaky FSX. (Quite why anyone, except for trolling, inserts a stuttering video to illustrate FSX DX10 superiority is beyond me.) In such a context I am a supporter of baby-steps in delivering the best of the FSX class in 1.x updates every six-eight months while awaiting a step changing to 2.x with the improvements it will bring. We all know in our hearts that compatibility can not nor, should not be maintained past a certain point. (And for those who don't then the status quo ante will suit them just fine as with previous generations of users who remained with EAW, FS2004 etc.) However, for a six year old code base that point is surely drawing nearer. While in truth we would all like L-M to program/release faster, in the context of the post suggesting L-M downsizing would affect the P3D development team, I trust that managers have kept costs (i.e. programming headcount down) and profit targets realstic such that any moves would either by-pass the team or, be minimal. If incrementalism fosters low-cost development (as opposed to say Flights dramatic rise and fall) and therefore long-term commitment to development then again it is to be applauded - though clearly I have no insight to L-M's business plans. However, as the OP thought the root of all problems was "limited software engineer resources" then perhaps these observations have merit. So, while a better flightsim could clearly be built to exploit modern hard/software (anyone for a Win8 touch cockpit?) and who wouldn't want that today, I am not so aggrieved it is not yet here (unless it really is X-Plane!) for at least it is acoming.....

I think everyone's polite replies here are confusing for a newbie. Prepar3D is FSX on steroids. If you load it up you immediately realise you are in an improved FSX environment that works very much as you would expect a small upgrade to your existing FSX (though under the hood it is much more than this). Thus, it is very familar and an easy upgrade. You do not need anything else (Model Converter whatever) to make it work immediately. Ignore - for your flying pleasure - most of the quasi-theological deabte about what it is, what the licence entails and just fly in a much improved but evolutionary FSX sim! Then when you want to get the maximum out of what is a better underlying flightsim then come back here to use these pages to guide you on how to install your add-ins, expansions, hardware, tweaks etc. You can try it for a one month non-recurring US$9.95 - which has to be good value. Install it and make your own decision. I suspect you will not regret it.

I had understood the point of leaving Core0 free was that was where Windows habitually ran. Thus forcing apps off that core enabled both to have more dedicated CPU tasking. Strikes me that is valid theoretically with P3D as with any other app. Practice may of course be totally different.... To my eye P3D uses more cores more aggressively than FSX however this is a Mark1 eyeball observation not a tested conclusion. As such have been happy enough that P3D appears more CPU task allocating efficient than FSX. Maybe this could be further optimised by an AffinityMask.

Yep that would be very disappointing with the rig you have and the clean bill put in place. As a nVidia user no guide on the Radeon however would pursue it with ATi and LM. Its often suggested that Bathymetry should be disabled both in Display / Scenery and in Scenery Library as this is both unecessary if you are purely flying above ground and a huge framerate killer.

Stychx this is a great list which may even under-sell the changes made given that not all of them have been so publicly announced to meet your criteria of being documented here. As Akila flags some new airports have been included (was this what was meant in the early information of "45 airports"?!?). The list of which has alluded me..... Though I have a sneaking suspicion that Hong Kong was part of that. Furthermore couldn't see a specfic mention to the upgrading around Norfolk, Virginia with its naval shipyards and the airport (NNAS). According to PCPilot this is at 12cm imagery done by Pictometry. This is of course the oft used location for many of their screenshots.

Hi WarpD No I wasn't. Interesting. However, as my PC is a general purpose tool for other games and interests, like home video editing where I use the CUDA engine for the Adobe apps I guess I have to make a few compromises.Which in this case seems to be unsupportive of my Prepar3D flight siming.

Actually FSXman I don't - and I hope the majority here don't - believe these forums are a place to accuse someone of not understand anything about what they are talking. One of the core reasons many uses these forums is because of the complete opposite: the quality of these posts with the attendant level of discussion. Accusing jrhoads of not know what he is talking about is patently wrong. You may disagree (or agree) with his opinions but as a commercial member he clearly speaks with experience of his market place. Personally I agree with jrhoads on his point, for as said in an earlier post, one upshot of this tool will possibly be to force manufacturers to tougher and more restrictive DRM. While passions run high on the tool of this thread dragging the debate down with personal comments doesn't help.

jrhoads if you are refering to me in your post then you are wrong as none of which you list is what I actually said. I resent the slur you imply on my name. What I said is that this is disruptive technology as you go on to explain why. I also made a forecast about its impact. The petty nonsense I refer to is those who do not move to Prepar3D because of their interpretation of Prepar3Ds licence terms. While it is your right to infer and interpret as you wish you should not slander people. I expect better on these forums. And if you just want to have a go to get something of your chest and I am amused you didn't take at aim at the lads from Estonia.....

While it may not be acceptable by the commercial developers it shows the power of the market to deliver disruptive technology (presuming it actually works). Such will thus force developers either to code more DRM into their apps, though they can not do this retrospectively to those already purchased or, more likely, give up their petty nonsense by fully developing and back-developing their applications for Prepar3D. I welcome this as a force pushing the overall (FSX) market forward to consolidate around Prepar3D.