FSX... i think i want a Divorce !

[fabs79]

If you are having trouble with microstutters or blurries in V2.2, I recommend the Prepar3d V 2.2 installation and tweaking guide you can find at simmershome.de

I used almost exactly the settings recommended there and my sim runs smooth as silk now with most settings on very high or ultra. Those who don't speak german might want to try Google translator.

Oh and BTW, the move from v2.1 to v2.2 made a huge difference for me, never had an OOM ever since and no need to tweak anything except for the few ones mentioned in that guide. I'd never go back to fsx, although I miss a few addons which are not compatible anymore.

Cheers, Fabian

[superdelphinus]

Pros:

Better performance generally, and seemingly getting better and more consistent with each update

More advanced graphics

A developing piece of base software

Most(?) fsx things will work with it

Cons:

Some of the modernness is a little emporer's new clothes

You'll either have to pay a lot of money or act unlawfully to use it (how is that sustainable I ask myself?)

It's not 64 bit (yet), which although not uncommon in the wider video game sense, is out of step with most modern simulation platforms, including (whisper it) x plane

[VAL067]

I didn't quite hear that... what did you say did you say X PLANE.? ..quick someone shoot him before he says it again ..my ears are bleeding. .

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Adam Howarth]

You'll either have to pay a lot of money or act unlawfully to use it (how is that sustainable I ask myself?)

 

I understand the point your making and without trying to start another licence debate, can I simply say I agree its not sustainable. However what I predict will happen is a positive outcome. With all the change going on into the core engine, P3D into the future will end up being so different to the legacy code that its really a different product. When it is a different product and given how loose LM define or not define the notion of a "student", I see a happy future.

 

Heres a post that expands on critical thoughts about LM licensing from a FSX addon developer - I dont agree with his views but nonetheless his views can be found at

 

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12730

[Venturi]

without REALITY XP and PMDG....P3D will not see a dime from me    

 

It really is important to consider the type of flying your in to and there is no right or wrong here. For me its all about complex simulation and to be honest it suits me fine to never leave FSX whilst Im getting silky smooth performance.

 

Isn't P3D just a dressed up FSX? its still a 32 bit platform and ooms are just as bad or have I got that wrong

[superdelphinus]

It's funny but p3d v2.2 gives me fewest (I.e none yet) OOMs out of the three, though to be fair x-plane ones tend to be VRAM ones because I've gone over the 3gb of my card and I've not really balanced the settings yet.

I agree the licence issues are tedious and not really that complicated. I can just imagine a scenario in the future where p3d has pretty much replaced fsx (say when windows 9 or 10 is ubiquitous or something and fsx doesn't work anymore) and something happens like a variant of mh370 where flying simulations come under a lot of pressure. What's to say the mega company Lockheed Martin don't get jumpy and start tightening up their checks? In one event you'd probably see huge amounts of the payware sector just vanish unless they're like carenado or aerosoft or something and have eggs in several baskets.

[superdelphinus]

I understand the point your making and without trying to start another licence debate, can I simply say I agree its not sustainable. However what I predict will happen is a positive outcome. With all the change going on into the core engine, P3D into the future will end up being so different to the legacy code that its really a different product. When it is a different product and given how loose LM define or not define the notion of a "student", I see a happy future.

 

Heres a post that expands on critical thoughts about LM licensing from a FSX addon developer - I dont agree with his views but nonetheless his views can be found at

 

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12730

Good 'article' that one. I read something by the head PMDG guy about development support on all three platforms and why that was making them keen to expand; FSX - non existent (obviously), p3d v2 - they were being asked to post issues they were having in a public development forum, or being ignored, xp10 - almost immediate responses and a general keenness to help them out (you can understand that one I think, pmdg onboard there will be a big pull to the platform for many.

[John Lovell]

 

Default FSX and default P3Dv2.2 water looks very similar, it is just a shame v2 does not respond to adding textures and animations via REX in the same way as FSX does... you can improve it for sure, but not to the same degree.

 

One thing FSX can't do with water is using tessellation to create a 3D surface that responds to wind direction and strength, which can look impressive, esp when close up.

 

 

And this is why I love the new platform so much.

 

 

 

Wow!

 

How do you get your volumetric fog to behave like that?

 

If I use it, the effect is too much and puts a fog on everything. 

 

Im using Opus weather engine

[shermank]

Better the devil you know ..... and to tame her (if you wish) try DX10 with Steve's fixer before spending a lot of time on P3D. I shelved P3D after going over to FSX DX10, but my options are open when P3D becomes less problematic. Your decision now is not set in cement, so give it a whirl - after initial setting up DX10 is far less problematic for me than DX9 or P3D, performs better with no more bad days.. just a continual honeymoon... and may all your problems be little ones.

I agree that you should try the dx10 fixer. With that said, people I know who have P3D love it. However, I did some side by side screen shots with one of those friends on the forum at my VA. We focused on the area around Redding CA over to Mt. Lassen using the NCAorbx scenery. I really could not see enough difference to make me rush to P3D.

I have to say that for me to migrate would involve a major reinvestment in a computer upgrade which I am not really compelled to do so long as FSX with Dx10 performs a well as it does.

sherm

[Mark Abdey]

Wow!

 

How do you get your volumetric fog to behave like that?

 

If I use it, the effect is too much and puts a fog on everything. 

 

Im using Opus weather engine

 

I'm setting my weather manually, so to get a fog layer like this I set a low level visibility layer, something like - 0 to 300 asl - and set the distance to a mile or lower... obviously it does depend on location, and your starting altitude, but here the location was close to sea level. I guess if you're using a weather engine, you have to take what you're given.

[anfield ace]

Well guys, I've had a major re-think about purchasing P3D v2.2!, Although I think P3D v+ may be the way ahead in the future for the progression of FSX as a platform, and I will eventually have to port over, I have spent too much time and expense in the old girl, which still runs good for my use, even with all the tons of Orbx addons + others installed! And with my modest rig, as reported by shermank previously, I would really need a major upgrade, and investment to CPU and GPU to run it anyway!

 

Cheers,

[OmniAtlas]

Well guys, I've had a major re-think about purchasing P3D v2.2!, Although I think P3D v+ may be the way ahead in the future for the progression of FSX as a platform, and I will eventually have to port over, I have spent too much time and expense in the old girl, which still runs good for my use, even with all the tons of Orbx addons + others installed! And with my modest rig, as reported by shermank previously, I would really need a major upgrade, and investment to CPU and GPU to run it anyway!

 

Cheers,

 

Why don't you trial P3D 2.2? There is a return money policy if you're not happy. 

[teecee]

"Well guys, I've had a major re-think about purchasing P3D v2.2!, Although I think P3D v+ may be the way ahead in the future for the progression of FSX as a platform, and I will eventually have to port over, I have spent too much time and expense in the old girl, which still runs good for my use, even with all the tons of Orbx addons + others installed! And with my modest rig, as reported by shermank previously, I would really need a major upgrade, and investment to CPU and GPU to run it anyway!"

My thoughts exactly.. as I have said. I have prepar3d 1.3 and it does not impress.. so I am with Anfield Ace on this one. I have to say this though.. those of you that keep raising the license issue.. Let it drop, LM would let you know in no uncertain terms if the academic is or even could be a problem, so why not just shut up about it? Teecee.

[shipdriver]

Your comment on Grandma being dressed up for modeling photo shoot is spot on.. its the way I felt when I installed DX10 fixer and right before my eyes I see those wardrobe malfunctions and makeup disintergrating... but after spending $40 you just want to believe and it does its job to a point but I felt a bit ripped off..its way over priced considering its nearly 50% of the purchase price of P3D and could have bought me more ORBX scenery. The jury is still out with me on DX10 fixer its why I haven't reviewed it yet on FSS..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Does the academic version still have the watermark?

[VAL067]

I don't know ...dont even know what version to purchase. .and qhat the difference is but water mark is pushing the friendship a bit..lol

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[jpreou]

<snipped> I have prepar3d 1.3 and it does not impress.  <snipped>

 

Teecee, this is the second time you have mentioned you have, or have tried, P3D v1.3

P3D v2.2 is much better, even than 2.0 let alone 1.x    Maybe it is time to take another look if your rig can handle it.

Even so, if you are happy with FSX then all power to you; its all about enjoying the simming you do, but don't just 'write off' a product based on a version that is 4 steps and a major version behind.

Personally, for what I fly, either would be fine and I don't demand a lot from my sim. I went P3D primarily because my laptop died forcing a re-install of windows and everything, and I decided the time was right to make the jump. After all, I still own FSX and if P3D was pants then I'm no worse off as they was a 60-day refund available. As it turns out, it was good enough to pursue, and through two point updates has got better and I won't look back now.

 

For those running P3D and loving it: great!

For those running FSX and loving it: great!

 

Choices: whatever works for you, yes?

 

Blue skies and tailwinds boys, see you up there ")

[Cal]

Hi Val,

 

I also am weighing whether to migrate or to keep buying pretty things for the old girl. You'd be wise to remember where that cupboard is but I am seeing increasing confidence in this community toward P3Dv2. I purchased P3D early but never even installed it so I can't help you there. Maybe next year I'll make a move. 

 

 

 

 

good flights, Cal

[teecee]

"Teecee, this is the second time you have mentioned you have, or have tried, P3D v1.3"

Sorry, I had the audacity to think that these forums were about opinions.. Teecee.

[zamb]

FSX runs perfect for me, heck I never even got a single OOM (what on earth are people doing with their machines to have so many issues???). 

 

Prepar3D has the future, but it hasn't matured yet, even developers feel like they're constantly chasing it.

 

 

Sorry, I had the audacity to think that these forums were about opinions.. Teecee.

 

In all fairness, Jpreou has a point though, because again you're sharing your opinion about Prepar3D (based on Prepar3D 1.3), when they're almost at 2.3.

[skyflash]

Prepar3d v1.3 is not even a valid product at this point in time. Its about as crappy as it can get compared to Prepar3d v2.2.

 

FSX is also crappy compared to Prepar3d v2.2. The only reason not to move to 2.2 is if you do not have the money to upgrade.

[bonchie]

Good 'article' that one. I read something by the head PMDG guy about development support on all three platforms and why that was making them keen to expand; FSX - non existent (obviously), p3d v2 - they were being asked to post issues they were having in a public development forum, or being ignored, xp10 - almost immediate responses and a general keenness to help them out (you can understand that one I think, pmdg onboard there will be a big pull to the platform for many.

 

 

Which begs the question of what is the problem with that? LM's strategy is to be open and interactive with the community. 

 

XP10 has had a long history of basically ignoring major community requests or being downright hostile to them. I'm sure they are nicer to PMDG, but good luck long term having that platform evolve to where it needs to be. 

 

"Well guys, I've had a major re-think about purchasing P3D v2.2!, Although I think P3D v+ may be the way ahead in the future for the progression of FSX as a platform, and I will eventually have to port over, I have spent too much time and expense in the old girl, which still runs good for my use, even with all the tons of Orbx addons + others installed! And with my modest rig, as reported by shermank previously, I would really need a major upgrade, and investment to CPU and GPU to run it anyway!"

My thoughts exactly.. as I have said. I have prepar3d 1.3 and it does not impress.. so I am with Anfield Ace on this one. I have to say this though.. those of you that keep raising the license issue.. Let it drop, LM would let you know in no uncertain terms if the academic is or even could be a problem, so why not just shut up about it? Teecee.

 

P3D 1.3 is not even close to what 2.2 is. 

 

1.3 is basically a worse performing FSX. 2.2 is an entire new evolution.

 

I understand the point your making and without trying to start another licence debate, can I simply say I agree its not sustainable. However what I predict will happen is a positive outcome. With all the change going on into the core engine, P3D into the future will end up being so different to the legacy code that its really a different product. When it is a different product and given how loose LM define or not define the notion of a "student", I see a happy future.

 

Heres a post that expands on critical thoughts about LM licensing from a FSX addon developer - I dont agree with his views but nonetheless his views can be found at

 

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12730

 

The thread starter there (the VRS developer) seems to be completely ignorant to the fact that P3D offers another license option besides the academic version.

 

Namely the professional version, which can be bought by anyone simply to be used as a simulator or for learning (non-academic learning). 

 

Developers can do what they want, but the purposeful misrepresentation by some companies is dumb.  There seems to be an ax to grind by a few while the majority are jumping on board. I'm not sure what's at the core of it. 

[Venturi]

FSX runs perfect for me, heck I never even got a single OOM (what on earth are people doing with their machines to have so many issues???). 

 

Prepar3D has the future, but it hasn't matured yet, even developers feel like they're constantly chasing it.

 

 

 

 

Zamb

 

i will give you an example

 

REX 4 HD

OPUS/ASN 

TEXTURE MAX LOD 9

GRAPHICS 4098

PMDG

 

Now take off from YBBN-YBCS over all of oz

 

you wont make it. 

Of course you can fly your whole life at default settings and never get an OOM

 

P3d has been much worse with OOMS than FSX has although this may have improved with V2.2 but it still only has a VAS4g capability and a lot of folks just are not aware of that

[bonchie]

Zamb

 

i will give you an example

 

REX 4 HD

OPUS/ASN 

TEXTURE MAX LOD 9

GRAPHICS 4098

PMDG

 

Now take off from YBBN-YBCS over all of oz

 

you wont make it. 

Of course you can fly your whole life at default settings and never get an OOM

 

P3d has been much worse with OOMS than FSX has although this may have improved with V2.2 but it still only has a VAS4g capability and a lot of folks just are not aware of that

 

P3D 2.2 is far better with VAS usage then FSX. 

 

The problems with 2.1 have been completely fixed and they re-designed how vegetation autogen works in the engine. 

[Venturi]

P3D 2.2 is far better with VAS usage then FSX. 

 

The problems with 2.1 have been completely fixed and they re-designed how vegetation autogen works in the engine. 

The differences between the 2 are relatively minor and FSX was built in 2006 LOL.

 

Water is woeful in P3D and that alone is a deal breaker

[bonchie]

The differences between the 2 are relatively minor and FSX was built in 2006 LOL.

 

Water is woeful in P3D and that alone is a deal breaker

 

No, they aren't minor. There's a reason pretty much no one is having OOM errors in 2.2 and it's not from a lack of trying. 

 

The water is worse unless you use Ultra. Of course there's a dozen+ other visual features that surpass far surpass what FSX can do. But to each his own. 

[Venturi]

Yes but the "visual features" you speak of come at a  huge FPS hit and stuttering is a major problem that crosses out Vas advantage. And they are oly running default. Can you Imagine full ORBX with PMDG?

 

Here is a thread of Kostas Blog on the new release. He likes the first impressions but read on down where lots of the users are having FPS/stutter problems on high end machines.

 

http://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/prepar3d-v2-2-is-out/

[bonchie]

Yes but the "visual features" you speak of come a  huge FPS hit and stuttering is a major problem that crosses out Vas advantage.

 

Here is a thread of Kostas Blog on the new release. He likes the first impressions but read on down where lots of the users are having FPS/stutter problems on high end machines.

 

http://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/prepar3d-v2-2-is-out/

 

Don't care what Kosta says, although I don't see him saying much in the comments except positive things. I actually own P3D2.2.

 

Yes, you can't slam cloud shadows and vegetation to max and expect good performance. So what? FSX doesn't even have those. I can have volumetric fog, HDR lighting, better terrain paging, much better VAS usage, cockpit shadows, tessellation, virtually no autogen popup, all with similar or better performance then FSX gave me though. And I didn't have to tweak a thing.

 

I actually had FSX running well, but I'm not going to sugarcoat how much freaking tweaking and head slapping it took. 

[VAL067]

I think thats the point right there..they may be on par visually and performance but it takes alot of work to get FSX to that level and its fighting you all the way..where as ehat I can mske out P3D is tuned to perform by the developer and he alone takes responsibility to get it up to our expectations. So maybe its not perfect now but it might be soon where as FSX will still be at the same level being pushed beyond its capabilities just to try and compete where P3D will just be at idle level doing a better job..Thats the whole point why I started this is im tired of pushing something thats resisting me all the way..when I can see in front of me that its tired its not ment to have all these bells and whistles on..its carrying a load beyond what is was designed for.. I Love NickN install bible ..he puts it straight and too the point our expectations of FSX is beyond its capabilities...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Adam Howarth]

To add to Vals problems he describes. no amount of user tweaking or naked rainbow weather dancing around your workstation will overcome code limitations. Most software (some malware does) doesnt change its own code. FSX will never thread well because MS never finished that job with Intel before the Aces studio was axed. FSX will never use DX11. DX10 and DX9 are no substitutes for DX11.

[VAL067]

All I can see is that LM have to start talking and dealing with NVIDIA and Intel if they do that then the future is looking good.. the day when they tell me that P3D is SLI and HT compatible I will be dancing naked around my desktop..because that will be a significant step forward in the FS world..And from what I read from Kostas article mainly is cfg tweaks are basically nil in 2.2 which to me sounds like LM are on the right track... its not up to the user to compensate for a programs short comings by spending hrs tweaking the cfg file and testing. .boot and fly is all I ask for especially in 2014..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[jpreou]

"Teecee, this is the second time you have mentioned you have, or have tried, P3D v1.3"

Sorry, I had the audacity to think that these forums were about opinions.. Teecee.

 

Oh, sorry if that came across the wrong way Teecee; I often value your opinions and no offense intended.

Was just suggesting that it might be worth looking at the newer version in comparison to FSX, rather than the old.

Have fun with your choice either way

[VAL067]

We all love you Teecee..and trust me its water of a ducks back for an Aussie.. we love a good debate and can cop it aswell as give . I am really proud of you guys here this has been a fantastic insight to where we are all at and the thing I love about this forum is everyone leaves their dickhead badge in the cupboard.. Its like a good family get things out in the open and work for the good of all even though there is no total consensus we can all agree to disagree and be civil about it..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[jpreou]

To those that suggest that if you wind up all the detail enable all the new visuals in P3Dv2.2 and suffer a big performance hit .... well, yah! Its called progress.

If you believe you should be able to get more and more fidelity, accuracy, visuals and everything else without an increase in resources being necessary ... my friend, you're living in the wrong universe!

L&M have openly stated they are coding for capability beyond current hardware, so why does it seem to continually surprise people that they have issues trying to run everything maxed out?

If you are not bothered about that then there are dozens of earlier versions of various flight sims that you can run at max detail with *no* FPS loss and *no* stutters, *no* tearing, *no* OOMs and that is entirely your choice, and if you are happy with that then you are winning all the way

Good luck with whatever sim you have, and remember to have fun always; that's why we are all here, right?

Won't be following this thread any more ... I think it is done.

To the thread starter: good luck in what ever choice you make... have fun with whatever ... as long as you are doing that, its all good.

Blue skies.

[Venturi]

Guys this is from the linked Kosta Blog further down. For those that dont care what Kosta says then you should, he has helped thousands get the most out of their machines and is credited in the PMDG777 manual for their fSX settings

 

 

"But I will tell you one thing from couple of runs and comparisons I did: 2.2 is way faster and better than 2.0 ever way, however when compared to FSX with FSX addons, it is same speed or slower. When I put FSX addon on it, it usually has shown same speed. Only 1 product I came across actually performed better.
So, as long as you have FSX addons and want best performance, I would prefer staying with FSX, but if you want to experiment and yes, P3D really offers many things FSX doesn’t, then go that route. P3D is next generation and I see that 3PD are moving towards developing for P3D, so I guess it’s only a matter of time.
Lastly, Nvidia still doesn’t support P3D, so you are left without 1/2 refresh, which is vital for smoothness, but if you monitor supports 30Hz, well, then you have everything you might need."

 

 

Im not bashing the product I hope they take it to the next level and then I will gladly hop on board but for now at the current stage P3D has taken Mutton (fsx) and dressed it as Lamb

[Adam Howarth]

My problem with those posts from Kosta is that those criticisms are mostly related to old revisions thats since been fixed. I was highly critical of LM's performance in release 2.1 as well. Things have moved on and for the better.

[VAL067]

I think he was talking about 2.2 but then you will hope that LM take this on board as he is one of the so called gurus of the FS world and I have met alot of them in this quest and one thing for sure is that they all contradict each other.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Adam Howarth]

That couldnt be more true. Thats why telemetry data is useful because "once the flag drops the BS stops"

[DylanM]

Zoran, these are my hands-on observations. P3D is 10-40 fps faster than FSX in heavy scenery on my system, and 5-20 fps faster with the eye candy on (cloud shadows, HDR, cockpit shadows, ultra water, etc.). This is on my 680.

[VAL067]

Well I have just reinstalled FSX basic DX9 for now... Have my addon Aircraft and thats where im leaving it for now..Have Rex and Ftx ready but not in a rush..Taking this slowly one step at a time. .Hopefully soon I can get it back to where it was. .but like all failed relationships you have to build the trust level up again.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Hotspot]

Well I have just reinstalled FSX basic DX9 for now... Have my addon Aircraft and thats where im leaving it for now..Have Rex and Ftx ready but not in a rush..Taking this slowly one step at a time. .Hopefully soon I can get it back to where it was. .but like all failed relationships you have to build the trust level up again.

 

 

Taking LM at their word that  "they are coding for capability beyond current hardware" , it makes sense to some to await the future hardware development if they are quite happy to play with FSX in the interim, so maybe I'll hang around with DX10 for a while.