To FSX or not to FSX, that's the question...

[Duckie]

FSX Gold exclusively.

[PRB]

The "new version every couple months" issue with P3D is definitely a factor for me. It's an interesting problem. If they don't come out with new versions, then it gets old and falls behind. Like FSX. But setting a new flight sim environment, scenery, planes, weather, controller assignments, is not a trivial thing. P3D looks nicer than FSX, but not nice enough for me to go through all that setup every time a new version comes out. I guess I'm stuck with FSX for a while then!

[Tim-HH]

I'm still with FSX as well. I bought P3Dv4 but my computer is a bit too weak for it. It sure looks nice but I can't say that it impressed me in a way that I feel the desire to buy a new computer and rebuy most of my addons. Especially as all the core parts of a simulation e.g. the weather system, flightdynamics, ATC, etc. are still the same as in FSX. So as long as all the the interesting addon aircrafts will be available for FSX too, I think I will stay with FSX for the time being.

Greetings
Tim

[magoo]

When it first came out, FSX was simply too demanding to run well on most home computers.

Just about the same time, we were really beginning to maximize FS9 in long strides, all sliders maxed. The range of creative addons (freeware & commercial) was amazingly broad and diverse. (It still is!!)

But knowing that time would go by, and we'd be able to run FSX at speed...eventually.....I started squirreling away FSX downloads as I cherry picked the FS9 stuff.

Presently, the current computer setup runs FSX with a surplus of juice, and for me is wonderfully tweaked and fine tuned with Nvidea Inspector, Steve's DX10 Fixer, and his most excellent cloud shadows. Easy stuff....now.

I have just entertained a flight in Lago/Aniserial's lovely Fiat CR.32 that was originally created for FS2002.....now running in FSX, thanks to Steve's DX Fixer....with kinetic shadows in the cockpit. (Huh.......)

That model probably won't work to any satisfaction in P3D V4.....and that's just scratching the surface regarding nearly a decade of FSX stuff yet to be unpacked.

...Mehhhh....there's time yet. Maybe I'll load up P3D V4 (or it's successor) in a few years, when I've finally gone through my FSX wharehouse to some satisfaction.

......And........FS9 still exists on my HD. It gets fired up when I want AI filling the air like somebody just swacked a wasp nest with a big stick.

[manfredc3]

I "ticked" FSX, but Purchased P3Dv4 just a few weeks ago, and have been focused on that since.

I will certainly be flying in FSX for some time due to the add-on's I enjoy there, that are not compatible with P3Dv4.

I have found myself visiting both the FSX as well as the P3D forums, and don't have a problem with that.

I do agree that there should be a dedicated P3Dv4 forum, as it's platform is so different from FSX/P3D1,2,3.

[roger-wilco-66]

P3D V4.1 here, and only that. I switched to P3D as soon as it was released in it's V1.4 version some years ago. Never started FSX anymore since then, and don't even have it installed.
It's not that I think it's bad, I'm just too lazy to administrate two sim installations.


Cheers,
Mark

[PhantomTweak]

I fell in love with FSX:SE. I bought it the day it came out. I was just curious what the big deal with FSX was, and for $5.00 I could afford it if I didn't like it. Having said that, the first time I took the default F/A-18 out and found a carrier, that was actually MOVING, well, I never looked back. I got Javier's carrier, and AICarriers to start, then found the FSDT FSX BA Hornet, and I was in love. Since then I've added every ship I can find, military or not, especially including all of Mr. Henrik Nielsen's I could lay my hands on. Every iteration of the FSX BA F/A-18C too. I can modestly even say I helped with some of the development of that amazing bird.
Anyway, I do still use FS9 for some of the RWR plane's, but I mainly stick to FSX:SE. I really enjoy that sim.
I may try out a version of P3D, if someday it's ever sold for $5.00, but, as they say, figure the odds. I know Lockheed. Worked for them for nearly 10 years, and I don't see their sim ever being sold for that price. They're too greedy...money-hungry...

Have fun, whatever you use
Pat☺

[PierreF]

P3Dv3 because my system is to weak for v4 and I'm not sure all the installed add-ons will work on v4.
Two solutions :
- hoping having money for a top system
- back to FSX (or to buy Steam if still compatible with the add-ons)

PIerre

[scotth6]

My main sim is P3D V3, although I do still have FSX Steam installed and use it regularly. I would say I use P3D V3 75% of the time, but I still use FSX for aircraft that only really work in that sim. I have Flyinside (for Oculus Rift) installed for P3D V3 and FSX.

Other sims I have installed and still use include DCS World (lots), Aerofly FS2 (sometimes), and Rise of Flight (infrequently right now).

[jeansy]

purely p3d v4.1, and havent had fsx installed since v3 first came out

95% of addons are now supported, and i can run everything like scenery and aircraft without OOMs

there are only a few addons that im waiting on ie QW787, AS A320 & A330 and instant scenery other than that im happy I have 671GB thats just in P3d folder alone (70GB is just global ultimate next gen mesh) not including all the files in the my document addons folder or programs like rex and UT2 Live and their contents

in fact I think I have more installed in P3Dv4 than I did with FSX

[nigel richards]

If it has wings, I'll fly the dang thing - whatever it's called...

Couldn't find the FS 2004 lever

edit: I've always found the Scandinavian folk incredibly wise in such dilemmas; smørrebrød

[BendyFlyer]

Voted FSX. Only have FSX-A. I have a 64bit O/S (Win7). FSX can be clunky and you spend more time on admin that simming sometimes but most of the time it runs just fine (There will always be the odd gremlin make itself felt but I have come to expect that with FSX). I like the technical aspects of P3D V4 (64bit coding) but I have spent years (and way to much money) adding on scenery etc and just cannot justify buying a new PC and then finding half of my addon stuff will not work (I have checked). So it will be FSX until this PC stops working (when it does not if, I am now at a point where I am not sure I would do this all again on P3D, just take my mirror of FSX and put it on a new PC. I am sure P3D is very good but it is not affordable for me to do basically what I do in FSX anyway.

[awstub]

Since I do a lot of testing, I currently have FSXA, P3Dv3 and P3Dv4 installed on the same system.
I have to say that all three have co-existed on my system fairly well.....however FSXA doesn't quite work as well as P3Dv3 and neither of these two hold a candle to P3Dv4.
P3Dv4 runs silky smooth on my system.

[gastonj]

Voted FSX...i try to create some models for it but i have also FSX, FS9 and last but not least Xplane11.

JMC

[Daube]

P3Dv4 mainly, and P3Dv3 for everything that doesn't work in v4 yet (Accusim planes, TacPack planes...).
Occasionally I like to use XP11 as well.

[gray eagle]

P3Dv4 for flying and R&D.

When I post to FSX, I only post content that shares common denominators between all sim platforms. Skins, models, scenery etc.
As we don't have a v4 specific thread, I don't share much 64-bit content. I'm sure that will change as we migrate in that direction.

I would agree with Jan. I think a dedicated P3Dv4 thread is appropriate at this point, as the SDK and 64-bit techniques are so different than 32-bit. I'm not sure where we would fit in PBR, but there are a number of us who are deeply immersed in PBR modeling, and feel that it is prudent to master the tech...just in case we end up heading in that direction eventually.

PBR?

[gman5250]

PBR?

Physically Based Rendering.

PBR is a more efficient workflow and file "stacking" modality that makes much better use of rendering engine resources in many simulations and games. It requires less texture files to convey more information to the simulation, thus improving performance.

Modeling in PBR lets developers use programs like Quixel that create a 3D workspace inside Photoshop. An object can be painted, shadowed, bump mapped, specular mapped, occlusion mapped in real time, and in three dimensions. The brushes will go around corners and align various UVW maps, which may not be in proximity to each other on a texture sheet. Brush strokes will always meet up perfectly.

PBR programs will output the art into formats that are compatible with many games. P3D is not one of them. The challenge at the moment is to efficiently render the texture layers from PBR programs into a "stack" that FSX/P3D can interpret. Some of us are working on that as we speak.

One great thing about PBR is that bump mapping is much more flexible and artistic. Bump hardness, smoothness, edge resolution and a thousand other variables are completely flexible. If you want fasteners to display with harder edges than rivets, it is a simple brush adjustment in the PBR software. Skin wrinkles or fabric textures can be brushed in where you need them. The 3D interface can be set up with nearly unlimited display variables that let you see the work in real time, as you paint. It's awesome.

Because PBR is so radically different, and doesn't realistically apply for FSX or even 32-bit P3D, the need for a P3Dv4 or PBR specific threads become more and more relevant. Either or both would be extremely educational and entertaining, even for simmers who have no interest in development.

Hope that all makes sense Butch.

Abrams P-1 Explorer Throttle in PBR

[falcon409]

. . . . . . .The reasonable simplicity of FS9 is what I like. FS9 needs just one texture which includes the alphas, compared with FSX which needs 3 texture files (texture, bump and spec) all with their own alphas to do more or less the same.
Cheers,
Huub

Agreed Huub, even when I do liveries for FSX Aircraft I revert to the "simple" method (no bumps, no specs), one texture with realistic rivets and panel lines. . .can't beat it for speed of completion and overall appearance.