Thinking about moving from FSX to P3Dv4?

[gman5250]

There have been quite a few discussions about hardware requirements when moving from FSX to P3Dv4. The main topic has revolved around GPU performance and minimums needed to take advantage of 64bit.

I shot this video at conservative, mid slider settings in V4 using my overworked, and rather tired EVGA GeForce GTX 780 3gig card. LM requires minimum 2gig, with 8gig recommended for best performance. I think the video speaks for itself.
For those members considering the move, and looking at their equipment, this might give you a visual frame of reference to gauge your decision.

The two sceneries are major heavy hitters, and built for 64bit DX11. Moving from one massive scenery to another would be a challenge in 32bit. No OOM's...ever in V4 and VAS stays well within the green.

Layer on the NVIDIA tweaks, weather, complex cameras, URP and other peripherals, I'm asking a ton from this aging card and getting very good performance across the board.


Reno/Tahoe International to NAS Fallon HD Scenery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMuinbOIghk&t=1243s

[jeansy]

exactly

Ive heard so many people state they're amazed in the increase in performance with their current system compared to FSX

the myth you need to upgrade is just a myth, its the exact opposite from what people encountered from fs2004 to FSX

98% developers are offering free updates and the list of compatible addons grows daily

yes there will always be FSX hardliners like there are today with fs2004

I recommend if your are pondering, try the $10 devs license for the month to install and see the difference first hand

[expat]

Was a very slow mover from FS9 to FSX and as of yesterday I have clean working install of PD3 V4. Tremendous immersion and smoothness getting 70-80 fps as with 64 bit it uses - finally - all of your CPU and GFX card hardware resources. Lots to tweak and install . .

[blanston12]

When I decided to move to V4 I read the requirements and though, "I need a new computer", so I ordered a new top of the line systems from dell to replace my now 5 year old mid range system. V4 was released before my new machine arrived so I installed it and fired it up and it ran much better than I expected. Base V4 ran better than V3 + ORBX. The old system was an i7-3720QM with a 2gb video card. It was a laptop so I could not upgrade the video, had I gotten top of the line video when I bought it I probably would have kept it, leason learned.

[Bjoern]

Would love to move over, but having to shoot for 100% native AI models and working around the compatibility issues of the Metroliner and Sky Simulations DC-9 and other models using old 32bit gauges is not going to be fun.

[RaFi]

Will the Academic License be sufficient for gaming as I know it with FSX, or do I need to look at Professional License?

FSX has reached its end and it is time to change flight sims. The benefit with P3D seems to be that most of the FSX add-ons will still work.

[gman5250]

Will the Academic License be sufficient for gaming as I know it with FSX, or do I need to look at Professional License?

The license is the dreaded third rail when discussing P3D.

I subscribe to the logic that says the Academic license is for legitimate students. I opt for the Professional license, the conditions of which I have read, understood and believe I satisfy. I'll add that this is the first version of P3D that I will actually purchase, rather than subscribing on a month to month.

[blanston12]

Will the Academic License be sufficient for gaming as I know it with FSX, or do I need to look at Professional License?

FSX has reached its end and it is time to change flight sims. The benefit with P3D seems to be that most of the FSX add-ons will still work.

As far as I can tell the only functional difference between academic and professional is the 'academic' watermark in the upper right corner of the screen. As gman said the topics of P3D licenses is a subject of strongly held beliefs. So the decision on which one to get is a personal one.

And for the record, I have Academic.

[icycle]

Would love to move over, but having to shoot for 100% native AI models and working around the compatibility issues of the Metroliner and Sky Simulations DC-9 and other models using old 32bit gauges is not going to be fun.

100% agree with you here. P3DV4 is very enticing to noodle around in, but the lack of AI is keeping from firing it up more often, and instead relying on FSX. In a "modern" environment, lack of AI ERJ-135/140/145 (for just an example) is a buzz kill. Don't even talk about a "retro" environment, no AI B707, DC-8, or CV-880's not to mention lack of AI most every prop airliner from 40s-60s/70s, really means FSX will be "kicking". At least for awhile, at least for me.

Bill

[greenie]

Will the Academic License be sufficient for gaming as I know it with FSX, or do I need to look at Professional License?
.
I think most of us should be using the Professional version unless you qualify for Academic as given here ...

Undergraduate Student - Training, Instruction Simulation, Learning
K-12 Student- Training, Instruction Simulation, Learning

[Stefano Zibell]

Does it have updated navigation data (airports, beacons, frequencies etc) or is it all still from fsx era?

Does it have updated elevation and vector data?

Being a pilot in training qualifies as a student?

[Desert Rat]

Being a pilot in training qualifies as a student?

I would hope so. But isn't a pilot always in training, there is always more to learn?

Also, don't dismiss FSW yet, 2 and a half months since release and 8 updates already, not including minor hot-fixes. True sky is awesome, ive never felt the sensation of being so lost and helpless in clouds before, try taking the super cub up in a rain storm and you'll understand. It's a game changer.

Jamie

[Daube]

I think most of us should be using the Professional version unless you qualify for Academic as given here ...

Undergraduate Student - Training, Instruction Simulation, Learning
K-12 Student- Training, Instruction Simulation, Learning

I think most of us are using the sim for personal usage/entertainment, so we're not allowed to buy the professional or academic licences anyways.

[hairyspin]

If your rig is as old as mine you'll need to upgrade: a DirectX 11 video card is a requirement to run V4.

[gastonj]

I think most of us are using the sim for personal usage/entertainment, so we're not allowed to buy the professional or academic licences anyways.

Ok, but what is the licence version you own?

JMC

[ncooper]

The bottom line is that FSX was sold to LM on the basis that it is developed for training purposes only.
FSX was also sold to Dovetail to be developed for entertainment purposes only.
Neither is allowed to licence their product for the other's purpose.

This has been debated to death on most flight simulation based forums.
There appear to be as many opinions as there are contributors
For this reason, most of those forums no longer allow this debate to survive,
as nothing new ever emerges.

[zswobbie1]

[QUOTE=ncooper;1094650]The bottom line is that FSX was sold to LM on the basis that it is developed for training purposes only.
FSX was also sold to Dovetail to be developed for entertainment purposes only.
QUOTE]

Actually, it was NOT FSX that went to LM, but ESP. (yes, we know that it was based on FSX) the professional/commercial version of FSX.
So, ESP went to LM for commercial/professional development, & FSX, being a gaming/entertainment product, went to Dovetail.

Subtle difference!

[ncooper]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.:friendly_wink:

[Roger]

Please remember guys that P3D eula debates do not belong here, but on the P3D forums. Such debates invariably end in tears:dizzy:

[DaveB]

I'm surprised no one has said they go for the Developers Licence.. especially Gordon. I've not read the detail in the EULA but would have thought the Developers Licence would be perfect for someone developing for the sim. Maybe there's more to it than that?

ATB
DaveB:)

[RaFi]

I apologize, I did not intend to start an debate on the the various versions of P3D.

The answer is one of those where you slap your head, because it is actually rather obvious.

[DaveB]

No mate.. it's interesting to see which version folk have gone for. I think all the people I know who have it have the Academic licence. In fact I've not known anyone go for a different version though to be honest, it matters not one way or the other:encouragement:
ATB
DaveB:)

[gman5250]

I'm surprised no one has said they go for the Developers Licence.. especially Gordon. I've not read the detail in the EULA but would have thought the Developers Licence would be perfect for someone developing for the sim. Maybe there's more to it than that?

ATB
DaveB:)


Ahhhh...the pitfalls of language when discussing contract.

In my prior quote I stated that I opt for the Professional license. I actually meant that I would buy the Professional license, but failed to clarify the statement, thus leaving myself vulnerable to carefully constructed cross examination!!!

I should have been more concise Sir, offering that I currently "rent" the Professional Developers package, and have done so for the last three years. I therefore remain in honor...contractually speaking.
At such time as I feel satisfied with the stability and reliability of the 64bit platform, I will purchase the perpetual license.

Hung with my own rope!!! :very_drunk:

[DaveB]

hahahahahaha.. most certainly not mate:encouragement:

I've yet to dip my proverbial toe into any version of P3D but I'm tempted by this version even though my system is woefully mediocre. The main stumbling block for me is that it's download only and my overhead copper wire broadband would struggle. I don't have the will (nor time) to let it run for hour upon hour I'm afraid. This said, a friend has suggested a possible workaround which would effectively leave me to purchase a licence. Before any of that.. I need room to install it!:dizzy:

ATB
DaveB:)

[Roger]

I shall be joining you all but in the winter months when it's cold and damp outside and I'll need something to cheer me up. Hang on it's cold and damp now in Manchester...16°C brrrr.

[YoYo]

"Thinking about moving from FSX to P3Dv4? (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/106801-Thinking-about-moving-from-FSX-to-P3Dv4)" :biggrin-new:

Dont think a lot!

I changed FSX/P3Dv3 to P3Dv4 few days ago and Im very happy with this platform: full FPS, no CTD, crashes, blurries, OOM's ect.

Maybe not all addons works yet but I have what to do here.
Bye bye "old" sims.

:wavey:

http://s10.ifotos.pl/img/Prepar3D-_qpqwxhq.jpg

http://s5.ifotos.pl/img/Prepar3D-_qpqwxrp.jpg

[blanston12]

I'm surprised no one has said they go for the Developers Licence.. especially Gordon. I've not read the detail in the EULA but would have thought the Developers Licence would be perfect for someone developing for the sim. Maybe there's more to it than that?

ATB
DaveB:)

Very good point dave. Anyone who does any sort of add on work, which I think probably includes all of us, can certainly get a developers license with a clean conscience.

[DaveB]

Gordon re-qualified his original comment Joe and he is indeed on a Developers licence. It does actually say on the LM P3D site that anyone can be a developer which as you say.. kinda opens it up for all of us (though many will fiddle rather than develop):very_drunk: I think the stumbling block for many is the cost of such a licence.. $9.95pm for Pro Dev and $19.95pm for Pro Plus Dev. $59.95 (outright) for the Academic licence is rather more palatable even though few actually qualify. LM don't seem to care much one way or the other which is a bonus to the simming community;)
ATB
DaveB:)

[cavaricooper]

Yo-Yo

Your screenshots are ALWAYS SUPERB!

I have uninstalled all my other sims and am only using v4. This is the sim I was waiting for.

Best- C

PS- Is that the Lionheart Pacer??

[Bjoern]

I'd blast me some good, old fashioned, anti-authorian punk rock while I buy an academic license, despite developing and being a professional engineer.
Any LM employee checking my purchase and imaginary credentials (not required for purchase) will shake his head in disappointment, mumble "Not another one." and wipe his tears with my virtual $60 before transferring an hour's worth of salary to the company account.

[blanston12]

I know a lot of virtual pilots look at the 'Not entertainment software' statement and think it means it a no go zone. But I simply look at it as P3D is not a game or a toy, Just as those power tools in the garage are not toys. I may use them for things I get great satisfaction and enjoyment from, but they are not toys.

And of course anybody can be a developer, even if you never plan on releasing your modification to the public you are still developing or release it as freeware. Even if all you are doing is helping beta test something someone else is working on, as a tester you are vital to the software development process and are therefore part of the development team.

[bbrz]

Has LM fixed the immersion killer bug ? ... when you are looking out of the window that instead of the shadow of your airplane you only see the crippled fuselage?

[gman5250]

Has LM fixed the immersion killer bug ? ... when you are looking out of the window that instead of the shadow of your airplane you only see the crippled fuselage?

The plane shadow is created from the interior model. Many developers include an outside shell of the entire plane with the interior model to compensate for this shortcoming. If the developer only includes the visible interior "capsule", then the shadow will not be of the entire plane.

Not sure why the architecture is set up this way, but as of today....it is awaiting a resolution.

[Bjoern]

I know a lot of virtual pilots look at the 'Not entertainment software' statement and think it means it a no go zone. But I simply look at it as P3D is not a game or a toy, Just as those power tools in the garage are not toys. I may use them for things I get great satisfaction and enjoyment from, but they are not toys.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Check_mark_23x20_02.svg

[bbrz]

Not sure why the architecture is set up this way, but as of today....it is awaiting a resolution.
Thanx for the info. That's too bad. v4 has such a nice graphics engine:(

[Naismith]

Has LM fixed the immersion killer bug ? ... when you are looking out of the window that instead of the shadow of your airplane you only see the crippled fuselage?
I would like to see an example of this if anyone can take the time

[awstub]

Well, despite any issues P3dv4 may have at the moment, if it weren't for the fact that Tacpack is not available for it I would have kicked FSX to the curb and not looked back.

My P3dv4 is installed on the same PC as my FSX and it completely out performs it in every way.

No CTD's
View settings are higher
Frame rates are higher
Controls work better
TrackIR works better

[gman5250]

I would like to see an example of this if anyone can take the time

Here's an example of the interior model, viewed from the outside. The shadow, when viewed from the interior is created from the interior "shell" model.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4348/35959645940_da96b3698a_o.jpg

[hairyspin]

I wouldn't call that a bug, more a limitation of the modelling process. The developer can build a complete exterior as part of the VC model if wanted, but is that really necessary? YMMV.

[bbrz]

I wouldn't call that a bug, more a limitation of the modelling process. The developer can build a complete exterior as part of the VC model if wanted, but is that really necessary? YMMV.
Why would the developer need to do this? It works perfectly in every other sim including FSX. As the aim of LM was with v4 to improve the graphics, this would have been an important item.
If you flare with the sun behind and you suddenly see a jaggy weird shell shape rapidly closing instead of your airplane, it is definitely necessary IMO.

[hairyspin]

That's how the sim works. External views show the external model, VC views show the internal model. It's up to the developer what to include and what to omit. I'm not apologising for L-M, just stating a fact. (and the same can happen in FSX depending on how the developers built their models)

[jeansy]

Here's an example of the interior model, viewed from the outside. The shadow, when viewed from the interior is created from the interior "shell" model.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4348/35959645940_da96b3698a_o.jpg

its a relatively easy fix if your willing to experiment, most models can have the shadow changed in MCX, open the vc mdl, and in the properties and then the select shadow from the external view, that way you will the 100% air frame shadow

you even go go as silly as adding a 747 shadow to a cessna 172

however Ive only found one or 2 models so far that dont work well by changing the shadow properties, the R66 isnt one of those

[jeansy]

sorry I should post where to find the add custom shadow option

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2017/08/04/Image21.png

[bbrz]

That's how the sim works. External views show the external model, VC views show the internal model. It's up to the developer what to include and what to omit. I'm not apologising for L-M, just stating a fact. (and the same can happen in FSX depending on how the developers built their models)
That doesn't make sense as the identical planes have the correct shadows in FSX and only the crippled ones in P3D.
The old Aerosoft F-16 e.g. has full shadows in P3D simply because they didn't care about the polygon count in the VC back then. But that's only the case due to inefficient programming.

[rvn817j]

I switched to P3D v4 several weeks ago (due to OOMs in FSX because of too much FTX scenery) and have been very busy looking at all the eye candy. I may have even been too busy looking at that eye candy to look at aircraft shadow issues. If there is an aircraft shadow issue, I have not noticed it and now I am going to have to look.

The other thing I'm looking for is FTX / Orbx to release more NA airports in P3D v4 compatible format. I have the FTX Global products and NA areas that are v4 compatible installed and they look terribly good. Many aircraft are now v4 compatible (or the older versions install without issue).

Bottom line, I don't think FSX will see much of me anytime soon.

And a BIG thanks to all of you that offer a "peek behind the curtain" that allows me to modify my P3D v4 install confidently!

[Naismith]

Thanks Gman & Jeansy

[gman5250]

Thanks Gman & Jeansy

:encouragement:

[hairyspin]

That doesn't make sense as the identical planes have the correct shadows in FSX and only the crippled ones in P3D.

I think Matt has indicated the answer in his posts above.