lukehall

On the whole things look nicer thanks to the HDR and lighting effects, I agree. The issue I'm talking about specifically is poor anti-aliasing and filtering which results in shimmering and less well defined cockpit gauges. The issue has been complained about widely on this and other forums. The quality and effectiveness of the FXAA is very poor compared to what can be achieved at Nvidia driver level, but unlike FSX, P3D seems to override anything you configure in the driver settings. I don't think I am... I have a very well configured and high spec PC - again, the FXAA quality has been widely discussed and slated as being poor in P3D. The PMDG VC looked stunning in FSX but not for me in P3D. Thanks - I have been using the entire internet as my knowledge base! Everything I've mentioned so far has a fairly high impact... It still comes down to poor FXAA performance as far as I can tell. Thanks for your input - I'll keep plugging away at it :-) Capt. Luke Adam Hall, ATPL, FI(unrestricted) CAA(FE/CPL) B.Eng.

I like P3D a lot - it's good that the platform is being developed and I sincerely hope that LM continue to make updates in the near future. I think that stutters are very much more apparent when looking sideways because the relative motion compared to your eye point is higher than looking straight ahead. I notice it when moving on the ground too though, sometimes. Again, i think it's probably because the motion of the ground when close up makes it more obvious. The biggest disappointment for me in P3D is the dreadful image rendering quality and the lack of options for improving it. With just minor driver tweaks using NI in FSX I was able to get an amazingly clean, crisp and well AA'd image with no major performance penalty. As has been well discussed, with everything turned up high in the 'in game' graphics settings within P3D, the image is quite poor in comparison. Shimmering, jaggies, poor shadow AA and vague soft VC in PMDG. I only fly PMDG and the quality of the VC rendering in P3D has been quite a disappointment, as has the lack of available options for improving it. I have been reduced to using high DSR settings on my GPU which does improve things but the performance penalty when things get cloudy is very high. I dearly hope they do something to address this very soon as it feels like I've gone back a few years in terms of pure image quality. Luke

Thanks Chris - helpful reply and pretty much confirms what I thought :-)

Hi, Briefly, in FSX I found that the 777 performed more smoothly and with slightly higher frame rates than the 737NG. I have since moved to P3D and currently only have the NG. I'm wondering if anyone else has observed the same thing in FSX and whether anyone using both in P3D can comment on their experience? Referring back to FSX, I presume that the 777 benefits from more optimised coding as it was a later development than the NG? It certainly seemed happier on my system in FSX than the NG, particularly when it came to smooth frame rendering. I find the NG in P3D is rather prone to lots of micro stuttering, which I find a bit jarring! Cheers, Luke

Rob, I think your comment here is fairly poignant - Based on the fact that the majority of 3rd parties have chosen not to charge for a distinctive P3D license and have provided installers to their existing users specifically for P3D demonstrates that the situation is open to interpretation. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of us discussing the matter on forums are using P3D for either "Academic" or "professional" purposes, and PMDG could achieve a level of parity with LM by offering an Academic license of their own. This would maintain PMDG's position whilst offering what I suspect is a significant proportion of their users a more achievable route to ownership. I remain very much "on the fence" from a personal point of view and am able to fully understand the perspective from both sides. As many have said, PMDG are perfectly justified in making the interpretation that they have and ultimately that's something anyone who wants to use their products will have to respect. It raises a question as to what has motivated 'most' other developers to openly offer their products specifically for P3D without going down PMDG's chosen path, and why such a disparity in stances exists. I wouldn't argue against the stance that P3D is a different platform to FSX - of course it is. Ultimately though, while there is room for developers to decide for themselves how to offer their products to P3D users, the market will decide. Best wishes, Luke

I wouldn't mind so much if the 777 for P3D wasn't so much more expensive than for FSX. I can't see what the reason for that is...

I barely feel brave enough to chime in here but hey, here goes... I have recently swapped years of FSX flying for a new P3D set up and now that I have it running sweetly, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a far better platform - one which will hopefully offer us an improvement and development path for years to come. I own the 777200 & 300ER and the NGX and fully appreciate that they represent the epitome of detailed flight simulation on a home platform right now. They were fully worth the price I paid considering the sheer level of work which has obviously gone into them. I only fly PMDG in P3D (and the same went for FSX) so the first thing I purchased after upgrading was the NGX. It cost me around £50. Despite keeping my ear close to the ground, their promotional offer for FSX users completely passed me by because other commitments kept me completely out of the loop for several months and I simply didn't know it was happening. That's OK - I didn't mind paying the full price for the NGX. I got a shock though when I calculated that to purchase the 777 & 300ER for P3D is going to cost me an additional £100 because it is considerably more expensive than the NGX. I'll never use FSX again or the PMDG aircraft I purchased for it. I completely accept that PMDG have priced P3D products as they have as it is their prerogative and their business. They are unique though because I have been able to migrate the hundreds of pounds worth of other scenery/utilities etc for no additional cost - all of which were also created by businesses. Despite not being able to take advantage of it, offering a discounted upgrade path was bang on but making it time limited (for existing FSX owners of the 777 & NGX) was disappointing and will deter me from purchasing a new 777 for the time being or at all - not because I can't afford it but because it feels a bit like I'm over a barrel, and that's only because I'd really like to own it in P3D! :-) I would certainly like to see PMDG shift a little further into the middle ground with regard to offering an upgrade path - even if it is not as generous as the original offer. I am sure that the measure of good will and positive PR will more than cement future loyalty and pay for itself in the long run. It is after all a 'feel good' hobby! I have read the debates and understand the reasoning, so don't attack me because I'm merely thinking out aloud, not complaining! Best wishes, Luke

To quote and old aviation cliché: "Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgement to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills..." The demands made on commercial pilots, particularly those flying passenger jets, have changed significantly in many ways during the past 20 years. However, many operational aspects of the job and the skills/mindset required to do it well have not. I listen with interest when I hear people blaming the proliferation of automated systems for a deterioration in basic flying skills and nearly always find myself disagreeing with the simplicity of the statement. Good and thorough training is of course a bedrock of eventual pilot competence but equally, so is mindset. It might be said that there is a fundamental conflict between the mindset and character that the job demands compared to that which it attracts. I have worked with many pilots over the years - some of whom exhibit a real flair for procedural competence but lack 'seat of the pants' skills and visa-versa. By 'seat of the pants' I don't mean show-offs, I mean people who have a natural affinity with aircraft and the composite engineering as a whole and who have plenty of natural capacity to operate an aircraft both physically and procedurally simultaneously. It is widely accepted that a good airline pilot is a 'stable introvert' personality type, however, there is a slight irony in the fact that the nature of the industry happens more often than not to attract quite the opposite! It has been interesting for me to watch an increasing demand for cockpit automation and gadgets simultaneously in both the real world and that of home simulation. As technically fascinated people, the allure of ever more complicated and impressive technology is difficult to resist, which I think is fine, provided new technology is regarded within the context in which it most effective. Automation and gadgets must always be considered as tools to enhance the overall effectiveness of the job in hand, and not as a replacement for anything. For example, I once had to terminate an aerobatic display practice during perfect weather conditions when the pilot of an SR22 flew directly into our box (which was subject to a 5 day NOTAM) and despite being advised by a radar controller 10 minutes previous to the incident. The point was that despite being a gin clear day, and my aircraft being nicely silhouetted against a clear blue sky, he decided to look for me on his TCAS rather than looking out of his cockpit. I saw him miles away and watched with interest (despite being in the middle of a sequence) as he grew ever closer, and informing the ATC unit on several occasions that he hadn't yet got me in sight. No prizes for guessing why I didn't show a return on his beloved TCAS! And so I knocked it off. It's not the fault of the technology. Indeed, in different circumstances and used properly it is a massive aid to spacial awareness and safety. His mis-use of it on this occasion was highly detrimental to flight safety. Automation and gadgetry are tools - no different from any other element of the aircraft and it's equipment. A good pilot will make the most effective use of the most appropriate tools to get the job done safely. The notion that automation or/and gadgets are there to replace a task or to make life easier is a misplaced one and in some cases has proven to be dangerous. A pilot's misunderstanding of this concept has been an increasing training challenge of late and one which the industry has not always responded to particularly effectively. Basic flight training regimes have shown a fair degree of 'mission creep' in recent years. This may be because aircraft have become better designed and easier to fly (note: being easy to fly and flying it well are two completely differing concepts). Another issue is that as cockpit of aircraft both large and small have become increasingly populated with navigational automated support, some of the training emphasis which once focussed on sound handling of a simpler aircraft, has inadvertently shifted towards deeper understanding of the systems. However, no level of familiarity will sweeten the pill if you fly into the ground whist doing something very clever with it. Aircraft large and small will continue to evolve as will their systems. What won't change though is what the job requires from an individual. The cockpit may change and some things will get harder and some easier. What you replace with automation on one hand, you add to in terms of the need to fully understand a system. It's all give and take. What won't ever change is the ability of a good pilot to understand their environment in its entirety and to master all of the tools available to them. This is as true for light aircraft/recreational pilots as it is for commercial large or medium sized aircraft pilots. Both judgement and skills are needed in equal measure. Good judgement won't always prevent you from requiring goods skills because there is always the chance that something unforeseen or unpreventable will happen. However, good judgement should be considered as a prerequisite skill in itself and not a replacement for it. That means knowing what you need to know and practising what you need to practice and most of all, doing it objectively and with balance. Luke

Thanks Spin737 - I must admit that I failed to follow the check list fully and omitted to operate the fire handle for the engine in question. I just tried to recreate the problem and without success - So I guess I'll chalk it up to 'one of those things'! Thanks for your help though. :-) Luke

No fire handles were pulled as there were no fires! :-)

Hello, (P3d V2) It's not a big deal but I thought it may be worth mentioning... I recently practised a programmed engine V1 cut, then after landing I shut down the good engine (2) and left the aircraft powered up with the APU. I then cleared the failure via the CDU PMDG menu. However, I noticed that the engine number 1 engine driven HYD pump low pressure annunciator light was not illuminating - even if the EDP switch was selected to the OFF position. I can't imagine a scenario where this could happen unless the annunciator bulb had failed (I don't think this is modelled but I tested it via the lights TEST switch anyway and it worked!) Also, accumulator pressure in both systems was fully depleted, not that it should make a difference. Everything was fixed again following an aircraft and scenario reload. Has anyone else seen this behaviour? Best wishes, Luke

Thanks to everyone for these informative and helpful replies :-) I think that on balance, the combined weight of what you've all told me probably confirms my expectations - namely that the Airbus is very good at what it is designed for but doesn't quite match the PMDG for in depth simulation. I think based on that, I'll hold off and hope a full blown 'study sim' Airbus hits the market before too long! Thanks again! Cheers! Very helpful. :-) Luke

Hello, Firstly, I wasn't sure where to place this topic but as I've been dragged kicking and screaming over to P3D, I thought I'd start here... (despite the cost of buying lots of stuff again, I'm glad I did though ) Briefly, I'm a die hard PMDG NGX/777 user. I only use them because they are the only simulations which offer a sufficient level of fidelity to keep me interested - I'm also an avid DCS and PSX user for the same reason. For me, depth of systems modelling and realism in conjunction with performance and procedural authenticity are the things that immerse me and PMDG has provided that hands down. However... I am also fascinated by the Airbus philosophy and would really like to broaden my horizons with a new aircraft. I have read many reviews of the AS Airbus X platform, and a fair bit on the latest rendition but there is very little out there which gives an in-depth review on the latest SP3 offering. Importantly, the reviews never offer up an evaluation in the context of how it compares to the PMDG aircraft when it comes to simulation fidelity. most agree that it's a great simulation, but the question in my mind is "compared to what?" Has anyone here got experience of both and willing to offer me an objective opinion? Will the latest Airbus float my boat in the same way, or will I be frustrated by lack of depth, realism and inaccurate or missing systems modelling? By the way - I don't want to enter into a Boeing/Airbus debate! It's purely about how detailed and accurate the simulation is! :rolleyes: Very best wishes, Luke

I guess it depends on how much your CPU is holding things up and how often. I have a 3770K running at 3.5 with a GTX680(2Gb) in P3Dv2 with the NGX and for average conditions the GPU is running at between 50-80% capacity, whereas the CPU cores are always very busy. The only thing which seems to max my GPU out is heavy cloud cover. I manage a comfortable FPS range of between 20-40 with most details turned up full. The slowdowns occur during cloudy approaches to detailed airports but still remain smooth down to 20 FPS, so I'm reasonably content. Having said all of that, I'm on the verge of replacing my GTX680 with a GTX970 to get a smoother ride around the clouds as well as a bit of system future proofing! I think the reality is that P3D and FSX are never going to perform as well as a platform built from the ground up nowadays (such as DCS2) because despite all of the tweeks and updates offered by P3D, it's fundamentally an old platform using look-up tables for physics etc. Cheers, Luke

Does the GFexperience bundled with the new driver contain an optimisation profile for P3Dv2?