GCBraun

Looks really good. Hopefully this will also be achieved with the built-in system sooner than later.

Having adopted P3D in 2012/2013, I still remember how hardcore FSX users would promptly dismiss it. Therefore, I have the same right as anyone else here to express my opinions about how the sim should (or not) evolve. One thing is certain: a P3Dv6 that is perhaps a 5.3 with minor improvements won’t bring users or add-on developers back. Just look at this forum…some years ago a topic like this would be booming.

I thought the goal of the topic was to discuss a *future* P3D version.

If this issue would be as severe as you would say, the market situation would be completely different than what it is. The online functionalities introduced two and a half years ago were absolutely disruptive and the very reason why flight simulation came back to mainstream. Just like 2D cockpits, landclass scenery, service packs and snail-pace updates every two years are a thing of the past and a robust server capability is the only practical way to offer a modern SaaS flight-sim.

On a GPU-bound scenario, sure. The X3D still may have an edge in populated hubs, though. Based on different reviews, I will probably wait until the 7800X3D is released to see how things play out. Frame Generation has given such a boost to my fps on big airports, that I might postpone an upgrade indefinitely.

Sure. That is not what the majority of simmers want, though. My posts are about P3D’s relevancy on the domestic flight simulation market.

I know that, but there is an obvious loophole that allowed myself and almost everyone here to use P3D for 10 years without any intention of getting real world training. They could keep doing this and just offer an evolutionary update, but I'm afraid this won't bring many people back. That is what I am suggesting that they should break with the ESP-shackles and offer something truly new that could rival with the competition. What we have today can't and the numbers don't lie.

Offline usage is currently possible in all major sims, but who wants that? I would assume that P3D fans would not enjoy flying without proper weather generation and/or add-ons that require connectivity for license checks. I would take mandatory online usage over FS98 DLL dependencies any day...don't even remember the last time I could not fly due to connectivity issues. As for P3D, number 3 listed below would be, in my opinion, the only way that LM could get their HOME/FOR ENTERTAINMENT usage back. This is the relevant market for 99.5% of flight sim users and winning that crowd is essential to lure add-on developers. MSFS did not have any major third-party support in the initial months, but that did not stop the massive market transition to occur.

Why DX11? Just like me, he has a 4090. I have been using DX12 + TAA + Frame Generation and the result is marvelous. Yesterday I departed EGKK with locked 120fps on the Fenix and have not experienced crashes in over a year.

All (non-content related) updates being compulsory, specifically OS, drivers and sim, is the ideal scenario to optimize support and maximize stability. I am glad we are very close to this, if not there already.

Seems that they are aiming to offer a more dramatic cloud representation, similarly to MSFS' approach. With the recent improvements on default XP12 WX generation, I will refrain from purchasing this one. If only it would solve the cloud artifacts issue, but I don't think a plugin would be able to solve that.

Who said I don't like it? I am just pointing out that there is room for improvement.

I just think that such a huge disparity in user base will lead to a decrease in the numbers of quality add-ons developed for XP, just like it happened with P3D. Hope to be wrong.

Are you really comparing MSFS to Ford and XP to Porsche? A typical Porsche costs around 10x more than a Ford, whereas MSFS and XP cost the same. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are both fighting for the same market here. The roadmap for new advanced aircraft that I want to fly in MSFS is huge and I wished the same was true in XP's side.

Where did you get that impression? The majority of Navigraph users are MSFS users. As a “hardcore simmer” I use MSFS, XP12 and DCS and each have their advantages/disadvantages.

Why don't we just use the Steam numbers to compare the popularity of sims? Yes, I believe it is true to say that most people using MSFS do it via Game Pass on PC/Xbox, but it should also be true that a majority of X-Plane 12 users (like myself) have purchased the sim directly from Laminar. The current numbers are not that good for XP12 imho: X-Plane 11 is currently 3x more popular, but it also seem to be loosing users recently: When MSFS was released, the P3D market almost completely evaporated in a few months, even though that meant that many add-ons would not be transferable. Why this migration is not happening at a more accelerated pace within the XP ecosystem? I would have expected that XP12 would be more popular by now.

So, I did my first long-haul with the new beta and I think there is overall an improvement on the cloud formations, even though I still see weird pyramids and some pretty bad artifacts. On climb it looked like this: While on landing... Still a lot of work to do, but it is moving in the right direction, I would say.

It handles 4K@120fps fine on my end. XP's AA is evidently lacking when compared to other sims and games that I use, but I am perfectly fine with waiting until a good fix is found.

Keep that black magic coming, @Nvidia! 💕

I am not aware of any serious game developer recommending turning HT off. Having multiple threads is a hardware capability, and it is up to modern software to make use of it. Registry hacks, core prioritization or BIOS measures such as turning HT off may work with legacy software like P3D but, thankfully, are a thing of the past now. With that being said, it is clear that CPUs like the 13900K are approaching their envelope limit. Therefore, turning off HT may help reducing heat generation, but should not, provided that a proper cooling solution is in place, have any significant effect in MSFS.

Sure, but crashing the whole sim just because a plug-in stops working sounds like bad design. XP should offer the capabilities to allow those Apps to run externally.

Yes, but that communication can be made through an integrated solution. Multiple apps for MSFS work without any external plugins like FSUIPC. It would be great if XP offered a similar built-in communication process, as most of my CTDs are plug-in-related. Or perhaps it does?

Lately I have been experiencing multiple crashes using the XPRealistic plugin. Unfortunately, the way that everything works today in XP, a plug-in crash == a sim crash. Considering that I also have some Apps like FsEconomy or Xpliot running externally, I believe it should be possible to have those advanced plugins as external executables that communicate with the sim. On MSFS the similar FSRealistic runs outside of the sim and I think this is a much better approach. Is it technically possible to have plugins injecting camera effects and sounds to run externally in XP12?

Oh yes!! 😍

The LG OLED TVs do have Gsync support. The issue is actually better with FG activated, considering that it is mostly caused by low fps when using 120Hz+ screens.