addman

Ouch!

Thinking about picking it up since I fly low and slow a lot. Does the trees shimmer a lot though? I use 8xMSAA but no FXAA because it smudges edges too much. Also, what's the consensus on performance in P3Dv2.5? better, worse or not much of a difference? Feedback would be much appreciated. Cheers!/Andreas

I have a good PC, it's just that P3Dv2 will require a BEAST PC to enjoy what new bells and whistles it comes with in my own experience. My specs are as follows, and I consider them to be well above average in everything except P3Dv2: i7 4770 non-K 8GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws 1600MHz Asus AMD R9 280 3GB DDR5 Kingston 240GB SSD Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1 But as you said each to his own, there is no definitive answer to this type of question. What I wrote is just my experience. That's why I recommend trying the monthly thing first.

I find that aesthetically, FSX can have nicer water and I agree, REX Sparkling is the very best. However, I think with REX 4, bright textures and cinematic animation set, it looks more convincing. It's hard to explain, I appreciate both but they are very different in how they display water.

I get high frames in P3Dv2 but motion is very jerky and stuttery even if I limit frames, use V-sync etc. Doesn't matter where I fly, it still "rubberbands" on me. LOD isn't as sharp as I would like even if I increase it. Clouds are an absolute framerate killer, especially when passing through some of them. Water is very nice, especially with REX 4. So I'm actually still using FSX:SE as my primary flight simulator and it will be so for a time I reckon. I'm not going to make this a sim vs sim thing but I have to say, it is true, FSX:SE is the smoothest experience you'll have in a flightsim atm. I can run SSAA without any major performance penalty WITH maximum cloud coverage using ASN. If I would do the same in P3Dv2 it would absolutely tank my PC and that's not even with cloud shadows, autogen shadows turned on. This is where it matters to me, I don't really need cloud shadows but I do need realistic and thick cloud cover when and where it is supposed to be and this is what it comes down to. If you don't mind scaling back a lot of settings then P3Dv2 MAY be something for you but on the other hand, what's the point if you can't have dense autogen and it still isn't performing well? In the end, you'll have something that looks marginally better (except for AA) than FSX but performs worse. I do find myself occasionally coming back to P3Dv2 to see where it's at and enjoy the eye-candy for a bit but FSX is still my main workhorse. Bottomline, you have a beefy rig? try it out! if not, the might as well stick with FSX for the time being because you won't get much out of it, especially not performance-wise. Also, I have a lot of FSX stuff that I refuse to "re-buy" so there's that too. P.S I recommend you try out the "Professional Developer License" $9.95 per month thing, that way you can try it out for a month to see if it's for you instead of splashing out $59.99+ right away.

If I can't play a round of Angry Birds while taking off, I'll (rage) quit flying! hmpff!!

Sounds good to me! I actually have the 182 but to be honest, I still like the Cherokee best...sshhhh! don't tell lady Skylane. P.S Have a look at that snug fitting 650 in the Cherokee. Looking forward to that accu-sim update.

Thanks for the useful feedback guys, I found the following thread over at A2A: http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=46234 It's a preview of the upcoming accu-sim updates with integrated GTN support and it looks great! I doesn't say if the 172 or 182 will support a single GTN 650 setup, there is a screenshot showing the Cherokee having a single GTN 650 however. I'll have to ponder on this some more though, good news -at least for new customers- that worldwide terrain map coverage is now supplied with the package.

So yeah, I'm not the most educated GPS expert out there but I recently read that A2A are going to make it possible to fit the new GTN's in their Piper Cherokee 180 and Cessna 172 with the next update. I was getting pretty tired of using the archaic default FSX GPS so I thought it might be time to get some real hardware for my favourite GA aircraft. Now, I know, after reading up on the subject, about the major differences between the 650 an 750. Screen size being the most obvious difference of course but the 750 is also superior to the 650 in almost every single way. My question is then, since I won't be paying for both of them and they're priced the same: is there ANY reason to get the 650 over the 750? I don't really need all the extra functions that the 750 offers. I use my GPS to get from A to B basically but getting all that extra screen space at the same price as the 650 seems like a no-brainer, why WOULD you buy the 650 over the 750 really? if it was cheaper sure! Also, there seems to be quite a bit of extra work to set these things up, training software, buying DVD's etc. How does it work? Explain it to me as if I was a 4-year old (little Denzel Washington reference for you there) Any feedback/advice is much appreciated. Cheers!/Andreas

The fact that FSX has been updated AT ALL so long after it's original release is a miracle in itself. Any updates from here on out are just bonuses bonuses bonuses IMO. Btw, I installed FSX:SE for the first time yesterday even though I bought it almost immediately after release last year. So far I'm happy with it, works fine with my Orbx, ASN, REX Texture Direct, A2A etc.etc. Frames seems high but I was a little surprised because it stuttered quite a lot every time a new "batch" of autogen was loaded in-flight. So I did something I never used to do with my boxed FSX, set the frame limiter to 60 fps. Seems to have solved that little niggle but it was weird because some users have reported "smoother" performance with SE and it certainly wasn't smoother when autogen was popping in. Happy camper so far, main reason being the improved VAS usage even though I very rarely OOM'ed before, install time on a 10 Mbit/sec DSL connection isn't anything to write home about though. Well, at least I don't have to use my dodgy -but unscratched- DVD's anymore, they started playing up on me last year see. Oh yeah, I uninstalled my boxed FSX before installing SE and removed any traces of it. I would never have both versions installed at the same time, that's just asking for unwanted troubles.

In my personal experience, the fps limiter -both in FSX and P3Dv2.5- is only a good thing if you have good fps overhead already. If your frames fluctuate all the way down to the teens in some areas with fps limiter set to unlimited then I would strongly advise not using it. I haven't used it for years and I particularly have no benefits of using it for P3Dv2.5. These are just my personal observations and they are of course tied to my particular PC setup so arguing over this is rather pointless unless everybody has the exact same PC. All I can say is, if you have a lot of FPS overhead, especially in more FPS intensive areas and in bad weather conditions, use it! otherwise steer clear.

Crumbs! I missed it!

Very good video Oblivion! I'm planning on buying the Citation soon and your videos are the best I've come across so far. Most other FSX youtubers are blabbering too much nonsense and go OT too often but your videos are concise and to the point. I will be subscribing to your channel and I'm already looking forward to more of your videos. Cheers!/Andreas

For me, the problem of FSX requiring quite powerful hardware (P3Dv2.5 is worse though) isn't the bigggest issue I have with it. The biggest issue is what you get in return for that powerful hardware, there are games out there that basically has real-life grahics on far less potent hardware than what FSX and P3Dv2 requires. Both FSX AND P3Dv2, IMO, still look antiquated (they are, of course, also technically antiquated) by todays standards even with all the best "make-up" add-ons out there put on. P3Dv2 for me is a nice compliment to FSX but not it's replacement even though it looks better, looking better than FSX is not much of an achievment though. I have an academic license of P3Dv2 but it get's about 12% of my total simming time. I keep coming back to it after there's a new update released but it usually only takes a short while until I go back to FSX again. Biggest problem with P3Dv2 is performance, even if I pull back sliders and disable effects and features it is still a stutter-fest so what's the point? The other problem I have with P3Dv2 is that updates keep screwing with add-ons and compatibility so every time there's and update you just pray that I won't mess up half of your add-ons. If it does screw up add-ons then you have to wait at the mercy of third-party developers to update their stuff, some doesn't even do it. Worst case was the lates 2.5 update, it wasn't even a patch, I had to re-download the whole simulator and re-install! It wouldn't be such a big issue if I actually got something out of these updates but personally, I have the same stutter-fest as in 2.4. So again, what's the point of P3Dv2? The usual argument for P3Dv2 is "You should be thankful that LM are working on it and updating it etc." It's total BS, what good is an update if it does NOTHING for me performance-wise except screwing up compatibility and requiring full re-install? Still, I love flightsimming and last night I flew a lovely flight with my A2A civilian Mustang from Catalina Island (aerosoft/limesim freeware) to 29Palms....KTNP. True flightsimming nirvana, I just wish there was something new and great on the horizon...

Landvetter airport is the airport I've flown to and from the most on my travels because I used to live not too far away from it. Needless to say, I've been waiting some time for a proper FSX rendition of ESGG. I'm just happy somebody made it and hey, it's not like Flytampa, flightbeam or any of the other bighitters are gonna make one, eh?

Having FTX global vector installed doesn't help performance nor VAS usage, just saying.

Nvidia goes where the money is, and money isn't in niché simulators, it's in blockbuster PC games like Evolve. Why would they spend time and resources on a small simulator install base when there are loads of huge mainstream releases that requires their attention. Most of performance increases in new nvidia driver releases are for the biggest titles, most smaller titles will have to make do with smaller fixes. I have an AMD R9 280 3GB and while I'm happy with it I have no illusions that they will do ANYTHING for LM and P3dv2. So no, don't get your hopes up with AMD, they'll probably care less than Nvidia. Sorry to be a party pooper but I find it almost amusing that people think Nvidia or AMD are bothered about boosting P3Dv2 peformance in their respective driver releases.

Personally, I'll just wait this one out. Some developers are quick with updates but others can take ages or maybe in some cases not update at all. My 2.4 is working ok so no need for updates really, unless there are major performance and anti-stutter fixes, which I doubt. Guess my advice is, if your installation is working satisfactory, wait until your essential add-ons have been updated before installing 2.5.

I was actually thinking about getting volume 1 because of Gdansk. I actually already have EPKK and yes, it's a fantastic airport! very well designed by DD.

So Drzewiecki Design is having it's annual Valentines Day sale atm so I thought I'd snag one of the Polish Airports volumes up. Question is which one of the 3 volumes is the "best"? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Cheers/Andreas

Finally! A PMDG plane for P3Dv2. I would also like to use this post to thank every other FS developer out there that doesn't have the same INSANE pricing policies that PMDG have. Enjoy!

I have both, Skiathos I amazing. The terminal texturing for example is out of this world. Mykonos is also very nice even though it's a bit older than Skiathos. If I were only to buy one, then Skiathos is an easy first choice.

Exactly! REX deals with pretty much all textures except buildings so Zinertek HD Airports is a nice compliment to REX4. As mentioned above, just re-install your REX4 runway textures after installing Zinertek HD Airports if you're not happy with the latters runway textures. For me personally though, I'm not too bothered about textures or their resolution of airports but rather correct geometrics and layouts of buildings, objects, taxiways and runways so unfortunately Zinertek HD Airports don't do much for me. For me correct depiction of airports are more important than aesthetics. I guess that's where FTX "freeware" airports does a better job for me.

I think that's the case, your product will enhance everything default that isn't already FTX enhanced. In other words, no compatibility problems

I'm pretty sure that FTX freeware airports use their own building textures and objects from their own Orbx library.