FSX starting to look old

[domfliss]

 

Prepar3D is the same engine, therefore is still pretty conventional.  But it is being upgraded and the version 2.0 when it comes out should be a step much further.  However before I am flamed or drowned from the foaming mouths of the passionate, to use P3D does require you to consider the EULA both for it and any addon.

 

 

 

Good point Ian.

 

A lot of companies just look the other way though as long as they get a sale and couldn't really care.

 

P3D one or two isn't for me as I like to be in control of my software.   Having to email a company to ask for more activations when I've used up my allocated amount means I'm not in control, which is something I don't like.

 

This is one of the reasons why I like X-Plane.  X-Plane allows me to have multiple copied installed at once; in fact it even asks me if I want to install another copy.  I have one with my free photographic scenery of Europe and OSM and the other with default scenery and beta testing.  When FSX finally succumbs to old age; I'll either stick with X-Plane or go over to FlightGear, the wonderful and open source flight simulator.  It's development is coming along nicely and whilst not being as generally pretty as FSX; it does beat it in some areas.

 

Talking of free, do you remember Fly?

 

Well here's something you might like if you enjoyed the original: 

 

http://fly.simvol.org/indexus.php

 

Cheers

 

Dom

[birdguy]

No, Karol, I don't have any of that stuff and I don't want any.  I don't even watch war movies anymore.

 

As a veteran of 26 years of military service and having served directly in two wars and indirectly in a third I am pretty much sick of it all.

 

I don't mean to be political here, but I have seen enough of war and violence.  I don't have to replicate it as a hobby.

 

While I enjoy flying my F-86 it carries no bombs or rockets or bullets.

 

I'm not being critical here, just stating my preferences.

 

Noel

[Guest]

You echo my feelings exactly Noel.  Mine and my wife's experiences during world war two were not the best and my subsequent military service in the Far East  was less than enjoyable too.

 

I have no military aircraft at all and for fast jets make do with a personal/business jet or two and the Gates Learjet.

 

My interest in flying is simply to see and explore places in the world I'll have no opportunity of visiting in real life.  I know that land class sceneries are not at all accurate, but hopefully they give a flavour of what a place is like.  Where there is actually no photoscenery to be had, Orbx, I think is the best for that because it has a good proportion of photo real.

 

John

[domfliss]

 

My interest in flying is simply to see and explore places in the world I'll have no opportunity of visiting in real life.  I know that land class sceneries are not at all accurate, but hopefully they give a flavour of what a place is like.  Where there is actually no photoscenery to be had, Orbx, I think is the best for that because it has a good proportion of photo real.

 

 

 

Totally agree with you on that John.

 

It's the whole exploring thing which gets my attention.  I get the old Phillips out, close my eyes and open it.  Whatever page it opens up on; that's my starting point.  

 

From there it's just a simple case of looking for somewhere interesting to fly.  

 

Normally I just fly with default scenery with enhanced textures.  It just helps to keep that 32bit memory limit at bay; especially if it's on a long flight.

[Todd Harrell]

For me flight simulation keeps alive the history of flight for younger generations. Think about this: where else can you fly a modern day 737 NGX or Airbus A320 on an actual route in real time, then the next day fly Concorde across tje pond from Washington DC to London, then the next day fly a DC-3 on a short passenger/cargo haul, and then the next day simulate a corporate flight on a Citation X, then Bush fly to a remote Alaskan fish camp, and then the next day practice RNAV approaches in a Cessna 182 to minimums?

It's sad that flight simulation had decreased by 70% since the failure of MS Flight. As a former MSFS user and current P3D user, I hope LM continues supporting the flight sim community. Sure, I've read their EULAs, but I pay more attention to their actions. Just read the LM official P3D forums and you'll see how many Academic license-purchasing simmers post there on a daily basis with zero repercussion. LM isn't stupid. No way they will alieanate the very people and developers that are responsible for making P3D (read FSX-plus) a worthwhile risk. What business would buy a software with instant access to thousands of beta-testers who pay to test your product and them tell them all to go away? Microsoft already pretty much did that. LM likely signed an agreement with Microsoft that they would not compete in the entertainment market. Once Flight was DOA, it was fair game. My opinion is we will see a new resurgence in simming in the next 5 years. We have the many talented developers and hard core simmers (not gamers) to thank for that. I can't wait until my son is old enough for him to understand the marvel that is Concorde. He'll be able to see it at Udvar-Hazy then go home and hopefully see what it was like to fly it in FSX/P3D. What an educational experience that will be!

Todd

[FleetingThought]

No, Karol, I don't have any of that stuff and I don't want any. I don't even watch war movies anymore.

As a veteran of 26 years of military service and having served directly in two wars and indirectly in a third I am pretty much sick of it all.

I don't mean to be political here, but I have seen enough of war and violence. I don't have to replicate it as a hobby.

While I enjoy flying my F-86 it carries no bombs or rockets or bullets.

I'm not being critical here, just stating my preferences.

Noel

Interesting you mention this. While I have not had the misfortune of so much direct exposure to extreme violence, I have never romanticized war in any way.

What has always seemed a shame to me is that aircraft like the F-16, MiG-29, F/A-18, Su-27 have all been built for war, yet are such a joy to see, and fly in simulation, if you forget about their actual intentions.

So, for instance, I like flying Vrsimulations' F/A18E and TacPack, not to shoot things and enjoy destruction, but entirely for the flight experience. Ditto all of A2ASimulations' Warbirds.

I find large commercial jet simulation, while fascinating and impressive, is just too much like programming, compiling and hoping the results will fly to completion, to find it satisfying as a flight experience.

At the other extreme, ambling along in a Piper Cub at 50 knots over Alaska has me quickly awed at how Vast the world actually is, and I despair of ever getting the time to ever enjoy the entirety of my ORBX sceneries at that rate.

So, while I enjoy it all, in various measures, the one thing I love about A2A/Vrsimulations' level of fighter aircraft simulation is that it really gives you the balance of enjoying GA-style, hand-controlled flight, with the impressive systems simulations to engage in along the way as well. And, if you feel like dropping a few bombs or shooting a few missiles to see how the plane flies under a different configuration.... no harm done!

[birdguy]

I like to watch old WW2 warbirds in flight and attend Confederate Air Force air shows whenever they are in my neck of the woods. Sometimes I'll even drive down to their Midland TX headquarters and just walk through the museum.

They got PC and changed the name to the Commemorative Air Force but I still call it by it's old name.

Wars are a part of our history so they can't be ignored. I just have a personal thing about turning them into games. My grandkids play those more violent ones and I don't try to stop them, but I don't have to condone them.

Noel

[JamesIceland]

Not been much news on Prepar3d v.2 in recent months - I wonder if 2013 is still on for the planned release (believe this was mentioned by them before) and where they are with things right now...

 

So much invested in v1.4 which is great but dying to know what's in store and whether there may be some backward compatibility for old add ons. Or whether developers may offer discounted upgrades if v2.0 really does blow current generation sims out of the water. Be good to hear some fresh mid year thoughts on this!

 

James

[gjpollitt]

P3D 2.0 and Orbx.

 

I think it doesnt help with the new release of processers not upgrading the clock speeds.

 

Years ago when I bought my first pre-built PC it was a Pentium 2@ 233mhz. The 300mhz was just about to be released.

Since then there has been phenomenal increases in clock speeds and look at 2,4,6,8 core processers @ 3.6 ghz compared to my first PC.

Clock speeds seem to have been kept back now and currently there are no higher performing processers on the market hence the overclocking groups.

 

Im keeping an eye on the new AMD chips that are looking to be 5ghz out of the box. If they can give intel a run and give a big boost to FSX then that will be worth investing in. I think that the current performance of FSX, regardless of age, is stagnating with the amount of addons using resources which just affect performance.

 

I really am hoping that P3D 2.0 and a new cpu with a high clock speed @ stock and a titan gfx will give a whole new life to the sim

[DocBird]

JV has stated somewhere here in the forum that the ORBX add-ons should be compatible with P3d 2.0.

 

And my personal impression is that DX11 will have no problem with old add-ons since it tis “true†DX11 and not a “preview†like the DX10-preview in FSX!

 

And with regard to CPU speed: If P3D 2.0 can be written in a way that the GPU can handle all the graphic and rendering work that should give the CPU a lot of head room to work on the other issues like flight physics, AI, etc. And if LM could manage it to dedicate some of those tasks (AI-traffic, etc.) to other cores than the future is bright even with “only†4 ghz.

[Kosta]

DocBird, this is exactly how I think of it. Recently I read some posts about P3D 2.0 not being 64bit, but they more concentrating on optimizations and DX11, which might mean better graphics and more on the GPU, which in the end might mean more power for aircraft like NGX, 777 etc... in the end hopefully reaching good frames in all situations with a normal high end PC, without the need for 7Ghz ;-) It's a wish, and hopefully they are working that way...

 

OT though, I find myself flying more rarely lately, and the reason is simple: coming from other games, which simulate graphics way better than FSX, and having better lighting, shadowing, hdr and all that stuff, FSX starts to look really bad. However no other game simulates what FSX does... (lets exclude XP now, since the addons counted above are not nearly available on XP), and there is nothing else.

 

So, here is a *cheers* for upcoming P3D 2.0 and a hope for more *oomph*!

[Mickey]

+A1

[birdguy]

I've dated a lot of MSFS ladies and they all seem to age.  But so do I. Approaching my 80th year  I don't date Playboy Bunnies anymore.  I date a certain mature lady with skin blemishes.  But I gotta say Orbx covers up the blemishes pretty good.

 

My father once told me the secret to happiness is being satisfied with what you have as opposed to always wanting something 'better'.  I'm pretty satisfied with old lady FSX especially when she puts on makeup and wears a bit of jewelry.

 

Noel

[DocBird]

DocBird, this is exactly how I think of it. Recently I read some posts about P3D 2.0 not being 64bit, but they more concentrating on optimizations and DX11, which might mean better graphics and more on the GPU, which in the end might mean more power for aircraft like NGX, 777 etc... in the end hopefully reaching good frames in all situations with a normal high end PC, without the need for 7Ghz ;-) It's a wish, and hopefully they are working that way...

 

OT though, I find myself flying more rarely lately, and the reason is simple: coming from other games, which simulate graphics way better than FSX, and having better lighting, shadowing, hdr and all that stuff, FSX starts to look really bad. However no other game simulates what FSX does... (lets exclude XP now, since the addons counted above are not nearly available on XP), and there is nothing else.

 

So, here is a *cheers* for upcoming P3D 2.0 and a hope for more *oomph*!

 

Please imagine, what the FSX/P3D-world would be like with a state of the art graphic engine:

If I understand it correctly the hard impact of high water settings (2.x) is mainly a result of the CPU needing to re-calculate the whole scenery for a second time in order render the mirroring objects effect.

Also the impact of a lot of building in a city is owed to the fact that the CPU needs to calculate all the visual effects (not yet talking about shadows or reflections...). If the GPU could handle both effects (as well as trees) that would be a huge step forward.

I think one can see what would happen if you set a plane (which ever you like) into the flat desert of e.g. Texas in good weather. Not many objects to render for the CPU, no water to render, no cluds: You will likely find your fps at 60+.

[Dukester]

After reading this today there may still be life in the old gal yet.

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-rise-and-fall-of-ooms.html

I know I'm going to resurrect FSX once Steve Parson's DX10 scenery fixer tool is released.

http://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/dx10-scenery-fixer/

[Indy511]

Ooh you are a shat stirrer Dom!

I am a sim-whore as you know. So yeah, I know what you mean, eg War Thunder, its graphics poo all over FSX. But I'm loving P3D while waiting for the V2 and hidden sims revolution! And my jaw still drops at some p3d scenes I see. Maybe you need to buy a new PC with a new 770 card )

War Thunder is a blast!

[JimmiG]

After reading this today there may still be life in the old gal yet. http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-rise-and-fall-of-ooms.html I know I'm going to resurrect FSX once Steve Parson's DX10 scenery fixer tool is released. http://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/dx10-scenery-fixer/

 

It's a very temporary solution however. If we want to keep evolving the detail of the scenery and aircraft, 64-bit is the only way forward. An extra 2-300MB (it says "up to" 400MB) of VAS isn't going to unleash a new era...

It's too bad that P3D 2.0 will still be 32-bit initially, but hopefully the move to DX11 will be enough to keep VAS usage under control until a 64-bit version comes out.

 

 

P3D 2.0 and Orbx.

 

I think it doesnt help with the new release of processers not upgrading the clock speeds.

 

Years ago when I bought my first pre-built PC it was a Pentium 2@ 233mhz. The 300mhz was just about to be released.

Since then there has been phenomenal increases in clock speeds and look at 2,4,6,8 core processers @ 3.6 ghz compared to my first PC.

Clock speeds seem to have been kept back now and currently there are no higher performing processers on the market hence the overclocking groups.

 

Im keeping an eye on the new AMD chips that are looking to be 5ghz out of the box. If they can give intel a run and give a big boost to FSX then that will be worth investing in. I think that the current performance of FSX, regardless of age, is stagnating with the amount of addons using resources which just affect performance.

 

I really am hoping that P3D 2.0 and a new cpu with a high clock speed @ stock and a titan gfx will give a whole new life to the sim

 

It's great that AMD is at least trying, but unfortunately it's not enough to challenge Intel. Intel has a huge advantage in terms of IPC (Instructions Per Clock). The only time AMD's 5 GHz, 8-core chip is even competitive with a quad-core Intel chip at stock speeds is when it can utilize all 8 cores fully. The problem with high clock speeds is power draw and heat. This is why Intel is improving IPC instead - according to some tests done in the AVSim hardware forums, a Haswell @ 4.3 GHz performs the same as Ivy Bridge @ 4.77 GHz and Sandy Bridge @ 5 GHz. When Haswell-E comes out next year, it will hopefully bring back the high overclock speeds (solder instead of thermal goop between the CPU die and heat spreader), combined with the IPC improvements, for those who can afford it.

 

The way forward for flight simulators is the same as for other "games" - rely on the GPU for everything related to graphics and scenery. GPUs are still evolving at a great pace - there's a huge difference going from the GTX 280 - 480 - 580 - 680 - 780 - not in FS, but in games that take advantage of modern GPUs.

[cvearl]

Nothing.. (think about this a sec)...to this day... can simulate an entire globe with real world weather system, day/night etc like FSX can

 

Old perhaps, but rivaled?... no not yet, not even close.

 

Cheers

Tim

 

I really needed to +1 this.

 

+1

 

A $1000 computer runs the HELL out of FSX with REX+ORBX+(aircraft addon of your choice) and it looks quite modern. Only time people get in trouble is stretching FSX beyond it's means. LOD 6.5, aftermarket AI generators and Ground crew addons cranked up and maxed sliders and FSX is like wha? WTF!. 

 

Bottom line. A few key eyecandy updates (again REX and ORBX and some HD planes) with settings somewhere in the realm of what MS realistically intended as Ultra and it runs fantastic but more importantly looks really slick.

 

C.

[macca22au]

The nVidia Titan is around, but not in common use, and not even in this country.  But it does seem the first of the super card.

[domfliss]

Nothing.. (think about this a sec)...to this day... can simulate an entire globe with real world weather system, day/night etc like FSX can

 

Old perhaps, but rivaled?... no not yet, not even close.

 

Cheers

Tim

 

Have to kind of disagree with you a bit there Tim

 

I'm running X-Plane 10 with HDR and global shadows, and I must say the default X-Plane weather engine does an amazing job at creating weather systems.  

 

I use some great weather cams located at different Alaskan and Canadian airfields to check out the weather before flying and it's always X-Plane (with it's default weather engine) that trumps my FSX installation with my add-on AS2012.  

 

Just flying and watching the cloud shadows on the ground is amazing. You can see them roll across the landscape....wow!! 

 

We all have our opinions on the matter; but with global shadows (amazing) and HDR I think X-Plane does a great job at creating realistic weather. 

 

Cheers

 

Dom

[John Venema]

Dom, please no more XPX religious arguments on our forums, I have given you some levity over the past month or so but now we're all tiring of it and we don't tolerate XP vs FSX arguments here.

Orbx is an FSX/P3D developer and until we embrace any other platforms we're just not interested in debating the pros and cons of them.

I have taken the liberty of removing the XPX logo as your avator image also.

[John Venema]

Ok my request was ignored, more XPX stuff was posted, topic is now closed, warning points given.