Robert McDonald

The big drawback of the killer FSX/P3D airports is that they murder frames. I was able to add all my payware FSX airports to my P3D setup. I was thrilled. Then I flew into the Los Angeles basin with KLAX installed, along with Orbx Global and Orbx Vector 1.1. I had the thrill of experiencing 7 fps. SEVEN! That was gosh-awful. I got so disheartened, I totally removed my entire P3D setup and then reinstalled ONLY P3D basic 2.2. Of course the frames are super again. The one thing I wished for about P3D was that they might put "EVERYTHING" into just ONE folder like the brand-X sim does. That is SO much easier if you discover you thrashed your install, you just restore a backup of that single folder and you're golden, because the entire sim and all the adds live in the brand-X folder. FSX/P3D are scattered all over your PC, so you're forced to restore your entire disk partition image. That takes much longer in terms of time, and there are additional dangers (if the image you are restoring from is invalid, you can hose your entire system).

I have purchased a great amount of airports for X-Plane, and I love the work by Tom Curtis. His Glitter Gulch at KLAS (Las Vegas) is very very nice, and I recommend it highly. I also have obtained some of the freeware airports. Clearly, something you pay for is going to (generally) be higher-quality than freeware. I would purchase high quality payware airports as they become available for XPlane 10. I agree that larger 'hub' airports would probably be the best place to start. And of course, make sure the airports 'work' in 64-bits Cheers!

I spent so much time tweaking FSX back in the day - I used to joke I spent more time trying to squeeze my fps than I did flying... then I realized it wasn't funny because it was the truth! I had great hopes for P3D and think Lockheed has advanced the game considerably. If they ever go 64-bits, they will have something truly amazing - and then if they enhance networking so i can run 3 monitors across 3 pcs... I will think I died and went to heaven. Just now, P3D as it comes out of the box is grand. A lot of the hang ons are not (yet) optimized for P3D, and thus you can STILL thrash your frames. Many have written various tweaks for P3D... a road I strongly want to avoid. The Brand-X sim does not require the config tweaks of any kind, and for _today_ meets my needs better than P3D. That could easily change if P3D makes the 2 changes I mentioned. I truly love the fact that P3D supports DX11 and SLI. And best of all, P3D is still under development... once the 3PDs start optimizing for it... (think Orbx/FSDreamteam/Flightbeam Studios/Rex/PMDG) I think P3D could prove to be the 300-lb gorilla.

Actually, I think the frames you are getting is about right for all the stuff you've loaded up. The trashed frame rates even on a PC as powerful as yours prompted me to take a strong look at P3D v 2.2 and the other sim from Laminar. The eye candy in FSX/P3D is to die for - and something I greatly miss in XPX. Not to mention the PMDG NGX. Still, when you pile all that stuff onto just ONE PC - no matter how powerful it is, you're asking a LOT.

AFAIK, there is "XPUIPC" which is the psuedo-FSUIPC for XPlane you mentioned...

i get the sense that 10.3 is 'primarily' going to refine the interface pipeline for the 3rd party developers - which in itself is a very good thing. As more and more products are brought to the table - XPlane can only continue to morph into our dreams fully-realized!

It might not hurt to extend an inquiry to the store manager about support for things you have bought there. Possibly your "account" could still remain accessible, regardless of the forum posting ban (?) I would certainly suggest reaching out and asking... Best of luck.

There is a fix for this - I had the same issue when trying out P3D. I can't remember it though :( If I do, I'll post it!

Purchasing software on the web is always problematic, particularly if there is no 'free trial period'. This is particularly the case in the simulation hobby- where the end-user's satisfaction (and expectations) are variable from one pilot to the next. Most of us have made a purchase of an add-on that didn't meet expectations. To be fair, I have had only very good experiences with the store mentioned in this post, and find their site to be of great value to my X-Plane flight operations. I am comfortable dealing with them. I have purchased products through the site's store as well as downloaded a great number of free items from their download area. The fact that a full refund was promptly given to the OP seems like a terrific and quite fair outcome.

Yes, you're right, of course. It's really a tough situation.

Richard- here is a short video featuring the FlightDeckSolutions MCP/EFIS unit.

Yes, this is a mess, and a horrible distraction for Austin, who has taken the suit against him to heart. Unfortunately, as many find out the hard way, you can spend stupid amounts proving you're totally innocent - only to 'lose the war' because you bankrupted yourself fighting the suit. Most attorneys tell their clients to settle out of court, because regardless of which side 'wins' the suit - both sides bleed huge legal fees - and that's just the twisted state of the business of jurisprudence. Attorneys will argue they are necessary to protect people from evil-doers, and our justice system is set up to compel all but the foolhardy to appear with paid counsel. I urged Austin to consider settlement at the beginning of this mess, not because I thought he did anything wrong, but because of my deeply held fear that he might lose the world defending himself. I also advised him to try to compel Google to defend the suit, but apparently that argument won't work. "I didn't know the patent existed" is not a valid defense, and I worry that after fighting tooth and nail, Austin may learn just how twisted our court system can be. If in fact it can be shown that the anti-piracy copy protection used by Laminar in their Android version of X-Plane falls under a patent owned (now) by Uniloc, Austin and company likely will be sad at the end of the case. The patent system is out of control, and the sheer volume of software patents that exist are likely unknowable. Apple sued and beat Android, and I wouldn't be shocked to see the little guy "Laminar" beaten by Uniloc. Every time someone passes a new law, a cash register rings somewhere in the nation. In the case of software patents, it is completely out of hand. The idea is to protect against intellectual property theft. Some things in programming are so commonplace, it is inconceivable to think someone could own the 'right' to a given software code process. It's actually more than inconceivable. It's depressing -and- terrifying at the same moment. In such a situation, innovation is clearly the victim. Only the monster companies with the deepest of pockets can afford the luxury of going to court to prove their point. Companies with huge market capitalization, like Microsoft, Apple or Google. They have their own army of attorneys. A smaller company paying per-hour legal fees? $200,000 sounds like a lot in fees, but I'll bet at the end of the case Austin will have spent at least twice that amount, and likely will lose. I don't want to see that happen. Austin is a good guy, and X-Plane is a terrific product. I suggested a settlement idea to Austin, that he share revenue from the Android version of X-Plane with Uniloc. Is it fair? No. Is it just? No. But does it protect Laminar's future? YES. Since the technology was used only in the ANDROID version of X-Plane, the other versions of X-Plane should remain exclusively under the control and inure to the benefit solely of Laminar. My one hope is that Austin see the wisdom in putting this case in his rear-view mirror. The peace of mind alone would be priceless.

I own the Jetmaxx MCP/EFIS from FlightDeckSolutions (of Canada) - and I'm totally happy with it. Also own their Pro-Max CDU and the Sim-Avionics software. Flying in XPlane 10, networked, with 3 PCs/Monitors for the visuals, an all-in-one HP Rove for the Glass Cockpit, and an i7 for the Sim-Avionics Server. It all works flawlessly. FlightDeckSolutions is quality - all the way. I'm completely satisfied and recommend them to you without hesitation. Check my YouTube videos to see their stuff in action. I haven't shot film of the MCP/EFIS yet, but plan to soon!

Yup. Some other platform... P3D 1.x or whatever works... I'm satisfied with XP 'for now' - though I will re-visit P3D once the playing field gets leveled and hopefully LM adds more robust networking for 'scalability'.

precisely so. If only LR had never released an Android version... (sigh)...

I can only say that the migration from 32-bit product to 64-bit product in XPlane was NOT instantaneous by simply flipping a switch in the code compiler for many of the common add-ons. Not to say it couldn't happen as you suggest, just that it didn't in all cases. There was way too much lag time for some of the add-ons to be released in 64-bits if it were nothing more difficult than a code compiler setting. If what you suggest is indeed that simple, I cannot fathom the amount of resistance being put forth against 64-bits. Honestly, why in the world would any person want to totally DISREGARD the vast amount of system ram that almost EVERY pilot now has under his/her hood by compelling them to remain in 32-bit 4GB VAS Max Headroom? Even most happy-meal systems now come with 8GB. And many others have 16 or 32. Why toss that aside? It means "NOTHING"? I don't agree with that. I can agree that 64 bits all by itself is no cure-all, and again, if you ask ONE computer to 'do it all' and then put enough plug-ins and add-ons on it-- you can bring even the most powerful of PCs to its knees. We all saw that in FSX. Lockheed's P3D 2.2 out of the box looks and flies great. The problems come when the add-ins are plugged in. Yes, sloppy code is clearly a bad thing, you can't fix bad code. Yes, 64-bits won't fix bad code. But still, give the USER a break. Those who PAID FOR a ton of system ram should have the OPTION to use it in their flight sim. Finally, can anyone honestly say they 'enjoy' tweaking settings just to make their flight sim look pretty without stumble-rendering? I'll bet most sim pilots would much rather just FLY than switch (settings). It's what drove me firmly away from FSX, and while P3D is drop-dead gorgeous, I have experienced horrendous frame rates (6 fps) in the LA basin approaching FSDreamteam KLAX in P3d v 2.2 with Orbx Global, Vector 1.1, NorCal and PNW on my setup. As I've said before, likely suspect is ortho scenery - most probably in the KLAX airport from FSDreamteam conflicting with tiles in P3D. I don't know for certain. I do know it was enough to move me off P3D 2.2 at least for the short term.

To make a 32-bit product 64-bit compatible, the underlying code would have to be re-written. Now if someone is going to do a re-write and still do a poor job of programming - that's inexcusable, but the 'word' would get out... I can think of some add-ons that people have gone away from because of unreliable or unpredictable behavior, and I'm willing to bet you can think of one or two in the 32-bit realm that you've chosen to 'do without', yeah? Sure, it'd be wonderful if they revamped their 32-bit stuff to work properly and remove the sloppy address-releasing... but still, if you hang ENOUGH on a 32-bit program, no matter how well it's written, you're going to eventually bump your head on the 4GB VAS hard-deck. In 2014 - there just is no good reason to persist with 32-bits. Laminar with all its faults and foibles, was wise to bite the bullet and make the BIG leap. Still, their limited financial-resource pool and the distraction of the Uniloc lawsuit is stymieing XP reaching a parity level in eye candy with the competitors. Lockheed has the huge resources to easily accomplish a port to 64-bits. Someone just has to have the managerial courage to pronounce the Emperor deserves and in fact is BEGGING for new clothes. P3D in 64-bits would remove the last roadblock. Most of the devs I have spoken to are in favor of 64-bits. None of them relishes the amount of very hard work it would involve to migrate their 32-bit product line to 64. Clearly, it's a BIG job - and as a programmer, no one wants to think about completely rebuilding a successful 32-bit product solely to transition to 64-bits. Thus there is a lot of negative opinion in the 32-bit dev world clawing to remain in 32-bits. If LM came with 64 bits, it would FORCE THE ISSUE. In XP, many pilots refused to fly products that had not ported over to 64 bits. So the market will drive the migration to 64-bitness - but Lockheed needs to code the platform over first. Your position that 64-bit "hides" software flaws is valid, but denies the logic of giving pilots full unfettered access to their RAM investments of 16-, 32- or more GB and chain them forever to 4GB max Virtual Address Space (VAS). It's like telling a guy with a V-8 engine that his engine computer can only run 4 of his 8 cylinders. Sure, the car RUNS. But it doesn't FLY. Trying to maintain full backward-compatibility means a good platform is being held back from greatness. You may be right about the certification process I proposed. LM would have to take a view that they wanted the aftermarket stuff to be top-drawer or not be marked as P3D-2.x compliant. Where Microsoft went wrong was setting the price for certification. Because flight simulation is a FAR SMALLER market (your argument), Lockheed would not NECESSARILY have to charge stunning amounts to put the P3D logo on a product. Also price breaks could be given for major players with a known track record - think Orbx, FSDreamteam, REX, Active Sky, etc. The big boys would get low or no-cost certification pricing. I don't think it's the 300-lb gorilla issue that it was when certification to run on an OPERATING SYSTEM was at stake. Microsoft had to price certification very high to keep the process manageable by their software compliance team. The smallness of sim market argues for a substantially lower certification price point. "Shared Cockpit" means "shared airplane" in Multiplayer mode in P3D. It's a band-aid approach - and it does NOT function well across a gigabit network with all AV stuff off. My videos of both XP and P3D clearly show a difference especially in pitch movement, where the horizon "breaks apart" in P3D 2.2 and remains aligned in the other platform. Of course this is not an issue if you're trying to run everything including a bunch of monitors and the sim itself all of just ONE pc. Been there, and honestly prefer multi-pc/mulit-monitor via network. It's just not working well for me (yet) in P3D.

The release of P3D has doubtless lit a fire over at Laminar. While FSX was stagnant, LM has breathed life back into a platform that has a wide following. In addition -some- of the really nice add-ons for FSX have been ported over to P3D which as always, is a double-edged sword. The temptation and desire to have ever-better and ever more realistic scenery and weather has led more than one happy P3D pilot into the familiar quagmire of declining frame rates and the rebirth of stutters. While it is undeniably true that LR has been taking a -long- time to release important and long-overdue fixes, the double-edged sword that has spilled blood amongst the P3D 2.2 pilots has not reared its ugly head in the XPX skies (as yet) in large part -because- it is (relatively) hard to hang too many add-ons onto XP in its 'current' form. There is a world of difference between P3D and XPX, and in terms of sheer beauty I think P3D has the edge, helped immeasurably by the Orbx stuff (Norcal especially) and the astounding airports from FSDreamteam, Flightbeam Studios and LatinVFR. Plus, iFly updated their NG for P3D 2.2 (although you get to purchase it all over again) and there still remains a shortfall in the XP camp in terms of complex jetliners. I dodged the impact of the shortfall by going with Sim-Avionics' glass cockpit and XP flight model, and the 180-degree FOV with no fisheye came true for me via triple pcs / triple monitors / networked XP. Thus far, I'm overall happier with my pre-P3D setup, but ever hopeful that LM will continue to refine their stellar offering.

Hi Mike, Thanks for the suggestion and the encouragement. I never did try your suggestion-because I've already removed P3D. I regard P3D as a very forward-looking platform, and I truly believe that it will become something really exceptional in the near future. I applaud Lockheed's efforts, and encourage them to do four very important things: 1. Develop a "P3D v. 2.x CERTIFIED" logo for all hang-on / add-on software 'designed for P3D/1&2 or something a little like that. In this way, prospective add-on purchasers could be assured that the product being offered met rigid performance standards set by LM, and was properly coded to release memory addresses as appropriate. Since memory space in the 32-bit world is very much limited, such a program could only enhance flyability and reliability. Presently a dev can 'represent' their product as 'P3D v. 2-capable' with no testing and no certification. Problems, if any, lay on the doorstep of the end-user. This hodge-podge approach is so 1980s. In today's world, the overall reputation of a colossus like LM is at risk via poorly-coded aftermarket products not made nor warranted by LM. Much as Microsoft has had success with "Built for Windows 7, WHQL-certified Drivers, etc", Lockheed could enjoy a methodology that would protect and enhance their product line. Better for their business, especially when trying to appeal to larger corporate or government entities. 2. Develop SLI capability for those willing to invest in multiple GPU cards. (I am aware this is imminent) 3. MAKE P3D in 64-bits! This is a huge one- and a game-changer. Looking forward towards government/military training, it would be a huge boon to totally eliminate the threat of out-of-VAS-memory errors once and for all. In turn, such a move would also force 3rd party developers to get real and build for today's modern systems. Sloppy code that has migrated from primitive FSX roots over to the P3D world likely would need to be refined and re-engineered to operate in 64-bits. End-users would enjoy more reliable platform support, free of the worry of VAS overload. 4, Re-introduce "multi-channel" support back into P3D v. 2.2 and forward. In other words, develop a robust, and extremely easy-to-set-up NETWORK support system for multiple monitors. Allow and encourage 3, 4, 5, 6 or more monitors to be driven by 3, 4, 5, 6 or more PCs. Those willing to invest in a high performance and fully-scalable sim platform would be REWARDED with greater performance, instead of stymied by the convoluted "Multi-Player" system presently offered. In plain language, P3D is a pretty girl, but she needs to have some enhancements beneath the skin to make all of her beauty easier to implement and control.

I thought I was the only one. I got -extremely- disturbed when I hit single digits with triple monitors on triple pcs in multi-player mode with FSDreamteam KLAX. No lie, as I flew into the LA basin from San Francisco, the frames hit 6 (SIX) frames per second. UNACCEPTABLE. In addition, the triple-displays break sync when I make a severe pitch up or down - the displays don't match evenly on the horizon...not great! I removed all traces of P3D and all the hang ons. I will reconsider when the next update of P3D comes out. I'm STUNNED that it is indeed possible to realize the horrid performance of the baby-brother sim (FSX). Granted, it MAY LIKELY be a third party hang-on (I had Orbx Global, Vector 1.1, NorCal and PNW loaded, but the orbx should have been no more than GLOBAL with vector in LA. May be a problem with FSDreamteam's upgraded airport. My point is I believe P3D 'as shipped' is GREAT, and very pretty. There are a couple refinements I'd love - especially like it if MULTI-CHANNEL returned to the party (it was there in 1.x, then removed in 2.x). Guys like me with multi-pcs and multi-monitors that's a deal breaker not having robust network support for our displays and glass cockpit. As someone suggested, the culprit quite likely is one of the hang-ons. I'm sure it will shake out a revision or three down the road, and I'll likely revisit with a fresh clean all-P3D-certified install with all-P3D-approved hang ons. For now... I'm flying an alternate platform. And I'm kicking myself having bought Orbx Vector 1.1, NorCal, Rex Texture Direct 4, iFly 737 NG for v 2.2, and some other stuff. I had a lot invested in Flightbeam/FSDreamteam/LatinVFR payware airports from FSX days. I could live without my PMDG... as I fly Sim-Avionics glass cockpit... but I can not and will never tolerate a constantly-stuttering slideshow from ANY sim platform. For ANY reason. Period. Been there, got the DVD -and- the T-shirt.

Again, well-said. Sloppy coding is something that's never good, particularly egregious when you have a pilot on a multi-hour flight that suddenly crashes due to VAS overload. 64-bits doesn't 'fix' the sloppy code - but it can appear to by 'hiding' the problem, as you correctly postulate.

I went 3 pcs 3 GPUS instead of trying to stretch it across 3 monitors from 1 graphics card. Using Multi-Player (as LM removed "Multi-Channel" from 3PD AFAIK). On YouTube, I have the camera.cfg files posted for all 3 monitors (1 file for each of the three pcs).

Ed is quite right. 64-bits simply allows a program to access the entirety of SYSTEM RAM, be it 8GB, 16GB, 32GB or more... and thus obviates the danger or likelihood of "OOMS" in the VAS (Virtual Address Space). However 64 bits itself does nothing for texture mapping, which is generally a function of the VRAM (Video Ram) on the GPU card(s). Thus a card like the GTX Titan with 6GB of VRAM becomes much more important in P3D or XPlane10 than the raw issue of 32-bit vs. 64-bit operating systems and accompanying programs. The migration to 64-bit will definitely have some VALUE long term, as machines continue to sport more and more system memory. My own system has only 16GB of RAM, but 64-bit XPlane allows me to use almost all of it for programs (minus some for the Operating system and drivers), while the VAS inherent in 32-bit programs is limited to around 4GB or so, MAX. When the graphics card has more VRAM available (Titan=6GB) than the underlying program (32-bit FSX or P3D), there is something to be gained by moving up to 64-bits. But the poster is quite right, 64-bits ALONE will NOT be 'the magic bullet' that many pilots envision. It just removes one of the uglier bottlenecks (VAS OOM-errors). If the work of drawing (rendering) the sim with all the add-ons can be divvied up via a network and spread out amongst several different PCs, I believe that is a great way to get more 'oomph' out of a simulation - I don't personally believe SLI-setups ALONE would be as robust as multiple PCs with individual CPU/GPU setups being tied together to render the airplane, scenery, instruments, and flight dynamics. A mini rendering farm, if you will. One of the P3D competitors has a great facility to divide work up over TCP/IP networks, and my great hope is that ultimately the LM team will fully implement such a scheme within P3D. If that were to happen, the likelihood of a huge crush in pilots moving to P3D would be exponentially increased, IMHO. Why? Because happy-meal PCs (say i5's with 1 PCI-e Slot) can be purchased, and upgraded to say a nVidia 4GB GTX 770 card and upgraded PS for about what a single GTX Titan costs (about $1000 USD). Build 2 of those to supplement an i7 OC'ed to 4.7 or more Ghz, and you have a great graphics trio. Then almost anything can run the glass cockpit server and say an all-in-one for the instruments/gauges, and you have a very flyable setup for something south of 5 figures. And this can be built up over time, so you don't have to acquire everything all at the same moment. So much as 64-bits has some appeal, the greater issue is to build a simulator that is easily scaled up to more component pieces, so that the overall task of rendering everything in real time can be shared among more than just ONE CPU! Once the SLI-stuff comes online, the huge bottlenecks will be VAS, and the CPU, and in my mind, the CPU is going to be crushed by trying to do ALL the lifting on just ONE system. As Rob Ainscough rightfully suggests, one still needs to turn a 'blind eye' to some portion of the sim experience, it simply isn't CGI-quality in real time YET. That said, when you see a sim rendering in 48fps and above, you begin to become greedy and think about 'more spectacular' effects. I can live without cloud shadows, though they are cool, no doubt. What I really want is butter smooth 180-degree FOV across triple monitors at 1080p or higher, with all the eye candy and upgraded mesh, airports, yada yada! Right now, for sheer beauty - P3D is the clear winner. Hats off and Kudos to LM for this product, which is drop-dead gorgeous.

Hear, Hear!

You're kidding, no? Whatever LM is spending on R&D for P3D is a DROP IN THE BUCKET in terms of their defense sales and support plans. Building a viable training platform for air/sea/land (P3D) is more than a 'whim' - it is an objective. I wouldn't expect them to abandon P3D for -any- foreseeable reason.