garrett_frank

Huge thanks for the tool. Similar to RSP, this tool is great and these sort of tweaks really improve the look of the sim.

Predrag: could you puhlease update RSP for P3Dv3.3?? It was the perfect, one-stop shopping for shaders and effects and I think, now, there are others that are just as confused as I am with all of these other PTAs, SweetFX, etc. Let us know what your price is. Willing to pay!

If you're going to run a poll then I feel like it's at least owed to us whether you or someone you know actually has decision-making power? I mean, does this poll serve nothing more than to satisfy your own personal curiosity? Are you affiliated with the developer in any way? I don't think it's fair to the community to ask such a cryptic, loaded question and then immediately and preemptively quash the sort of follow-on questions that you know people want to ask. But yes, I'd pay $60 for a P3Dv3-compat MD80.

21:9

Ha! I noticed that too and it always bothered me!

Not with that monitor but I recently bought a Samsung curved 29" (S29E790C) and it's great. I could never go back to flightsimming on a 16:9 monitor. If you *only* have 1 monitor, let it be a 21:9. The curve is cool but is likely the case on that LG, it's pretty subtle. It doesn't really give you a wrap around field of vision like, say, having 3 monitors, but it is a nice touch.

I may be a P3Der, but if I was *any* sort of flighstim scenery developer, I would get on down to Cape Town.

I think it's just part of the reflection texture they baked into the window modeling to add a little more realism. Sorta like putting some of the smudge prints on the display screens...

Yeah but that's base clock OCing.

Well, if it does, then you're in good company.

Bought the 1011 last night against my better judgment. I wasn't aware a heavy tri-jet could nose dive at ~ -8000 ft/min and still lose airspeed when the spoilers are extended...

Why am I still using P3D? Anyway... On another note, will SLI ever make it to XP? It seems like, if/when it does, the flightsim performance barrier would finally be broken...

I'll echo NaMcO's sentiment but also add that the FPS is reasonably low since CS modeled the entire cabin. Lots and lots of polygons. I will admit that the cabin modeling is cool (I know lots of people, including developers, make fun of those of us that like having cabins) but the toll on performance is definitely there...

I, and I'm sure many others, would be supremely happy if the remaining v3 iterations did nothing more than improve performance, primarily with respect to CPU bottlenecks. With the injection of SLI and more powerful GPUs, GPU performance is now simply a matter of budget and not tech limitations. CPUs, on the other hand... Now that the frothing-at-the-mouth transparent ATC window crowd won their lottery, what else do we need other than better perf?

SLI also requires some CPU overhead. So if you're in a scenario where you're normally CPU-limited, expected slightly lower performance.

I guess I don't understand why PMDG couldn't just port the MD11 over to P3D with as little effort as possible. Redirect the installer and registry items, maybe update some of the cockpit textures and there ya go. Maybe even give it sub-$50 or 60 price tag to lure skeptics. The hard work has already done... just a few hours of work and bam, new revenue stream. But they seem like smart folks so I'm sure I've missed something...

People use IE?

The airport ground poly isn't compatible.

There's really not much to do, although surely others will disagree. The only thing I suggest is some SGSS. I currently have 2 780 TIs that have been overclocked and I can get away with 4x. While that generally leaves me with a lot of headroom, I like to have it in case I encounter a bunch of ASN cloud layers (I use enhanced overcast and detailed thunderstorms) since it can amount to a lot of particulate...

Also keep in mind that GTA--and every other mainstream game--doesn't bear the same burden that flightsims do. Sure, any one of us could make a prettier flightsim, with graphics and visuals akin to all of the modern FPS death simulators out there. But the fact is that all of the in-depth addon aircraft that we love so much requires so much continuous calculation power that we can't have it all. Flightsim attempts to not only render the entire world in realtime but also wildly complex aircraft addons in all their glory and with all of their instruments. Now, if we only wanted a flightsim that was all graphics and all visuals--but with a Sopwith Camel--we could do it. But then again, as numerous other posters have pointed out, this hypothetical becomes just that--a hypothetical--when faced with the commercial reality that no one wants such a sim...

Lol. When I first saw the title of thread, I was hoping the poster was joking. I gave it a try last week too finally and saw my CPU benchmarks drop significantly. And not only benchmarks; when I finally got to "real-world" (pardon the pun) sim usage, the benchmarks had correctly foreshadowed the [slight] declines in performance...

It really depends. I recall installing KMRY without NorCal and it was a mess. But I can't remember if I had vector installed or not...

Oh believe me, I totally get that. I own 5 of their products and I wouldn't have any qualms buying more. But the arrogance is tough to swallow sometimes. Hope you get it solved.

Haven't seen that one before and I've seen all sorts of couatl / addon manager errors. Definitely make sure you've downloaded the latest version (sounds like you have) because Flightbeam even had a notice on their page that addon manager was throwing errors. Just be sure to have thick skin on if you go to the FSDT support page; surely you're a computer-illiterate moron who isn't smart enough to appreciate their python programming... This is all totally your fault and FSDT shouldn't be held responsible and the fact that you even implicate them is reprehensible! Ok, all done. Sorry.

Recently added another 780ti to my system so that I could SLI into SGSS 8x goodness but nope... with any serious amount of cloud cover, it's a no-go. And, on top of that, SLI requires ever-so-precious CPU headroom. I don't have much experience with FSX nor any with Steve's DX10 fixer but I heard a rumor that he built in a feature whereby some AA functions excluded clouds and particulate. If that's true, we need that. Bad...