Reasons FSX Users Don't Move to P3D

[mmann]

There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

1. Compatible with the widest range of the latest and greatest addons.
2. The license allows for using the simulator as entertainment.
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.

[fsxar177]

Fun to see an 'opposing' thread. :)

While I do agree that P3D is moving us into the future, I still really wonder where the line is drawn on the licensing aspect. I know for myself, a developer license is self explanatory. However, others? Academic? I guess..

- Joseph

[Desert Rat]

Fun to see an 'opposing' thread. :)

While I do agree that P3D is moving us into the future, I still really wonder where the line is drawn on the licensing aspect. I know for myself, a developer license is self explanatory. However, others? Academic? I guess..

- Joseph

Business 101, make money. From their own point of view, the more sales the merrier. Only two things will affect this,
1: their licence from Microsoft and what it entails.*
2: Public perception.**

As long as the two criteria are not infringed, Lockheed P3D division will be happy to report to their bosses that sales are continuing, or even better, up. LM is still a business after all. Bottom line is EVERYTHING. Thinking otherwise is just naive.

Jamie

* Conditions of the source code useage may/or may not impact this, dependent on if MS gets a cut on the sales. Royalties, as such.
** Remember what happened in the news after 9/11? If similar happened from a weapons manufactures product, imagine how much stronger the public/media response would be. God forbid!!

[monk1]

Just personal preference of course but I don't want to spend more money on another 32 bit sim, not to mention all the add ons installing and set up. But for me that will change when it goes 64 bit. I'll be all over it at that point.

[CanadaKen]

But for me that will change when it goes 64 bit. I'll be all over it at that point.
Agree!!! FSX days will be over when P3D 64bit comes out. From what I understand that will be sooner than later.

CK

[JensOle]

There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

1. Compatible with the widest range of the latest and greatest addons.
2. The license allows for using the simulator as entertainment.
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.

No need for a heated argument over this, just some of my experience as a new P3D user:
(I had the same arguments as you for not getting P3D until I tested it... )

1. I would say that 90% or more of the addons we currently have for FSX works in P3D. A small % need some easy workarounds and a minimal % don't work. Almost all of the latest addons are fully compatible with P3D.
2. Who is stopping you from using P3D for entertainment (and learning)? I certainly are using it for both and I guess that is maybe the biggest marked for the academic version. Just LM that cant state it is actually doing entertainment.
3. You don't know how broke FSX is before you have tried P3D V2.5... that is my experience, it is so much better. The smooth and graphically much improved flight feeling in P3D has really been a revitalising of my simming.

Just my opinion.

[ejoiner]

There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

1. Compatible with the widest range of the latest and greatest addons.
2. The license allows for using the simulator as entertainment.
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.

This is the same set of reasons I stayed with FS9 until May 2014!

[DaveSHQ]

1. Use FSX how i want to
2. About 150GB of addons that i don't want to transfer over lol. Same reason my FSX SE is still Vanilla

[Naismith]

So tired of folks citing the licensing issue. Get over it folks. :encouragement:

[StormILM]

I'll admit I was stubborn as hell over moving from FS9 to FSX and that being because of how much I spent on FS9 addons but equally as important, PC specs and performance in the early days was pivotal to keep FS9 while easing into FSX. I agree, this type of discussion really isn't about creating any heated debate about which platform is superior, it's more about the direction of things and then eventual crossover to a superior/more evolved platform. Hopefully the Devs at all levels can help ease that transition for us users who've spent lots of hard earned money into all of this. I think P3D is the future(and add to that, perhaps other platforms) but FSX will still be relevant a few more years at least.

[joe bob]

So for us lazy folks who haven't taken the time to read between the educational only lines what is the deal. Is is a one time payment or a type of subscription? How much to pay for it and be done with it like the original FSX?
How solid is LMs deal. Can MS flex it's muscles if they think that it is successful enough that they want the whole pie? What if they tighten up the definition of educational?
Obviously I have not given this much attention, in fact I had hoped it would just go away so the FSX developer waters aren't muddied, but I don't want to be that guy, you know the one who says "will there be an FS9 version?" all the time.

[warchild]

There is another option. please see my post in the "Why users go to P3D" thread.

[skyhawka4m]

I've said it before I'll say it again FSX is my last flight simulator. If I do anything it'll be going over to DCS.

[airattackimages]

P3d is so much better that it's comical to watch people trash talk it.

[DaveSHQ]

P3d is so much better that it's comical to watch people trash talk it.

Which is funny since not one person has trashed talked P3D in this thread. However, it is turning into another P3D fanboi thread and should be moved to that forum.

[robert41]

My reason is that I already have FSX running very well. I am happy with it right now.
Good to hear that many older addons do work in P3D. This is a concern of mine.

[tommieboy]

There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

1. Compatible with the widest range of the latest and greatest addons.
2. The license allows for using the simulator as entertainment.
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.

For many of us, it's an issue of still running older hardware and OS's like XP Home for financial reasons. I've just bought a used 10" Galaxy notepad in anticipation on my desktop computer's demise; it is running on a wing and a prayer right now....once it goes, it will most likely be the end of flight sims for me. A new desktop computer is just not a priority in the coming years.....to many other things have been sitting on the back burner for too many years now. I've enjoyed repainting aircraft for FS9 and FSX for the past few years, but since Adobe Photoshop has gone to a yearly subscription service, that too is no longer an option. Hopefully I'll get my last couple of repaints for Virtavia's Martin Mars and R3Y Tradewind out before this computer kicks the bucket.

Tommy

[mmann]

Fun to see an 'opposing' thread. :)

- Joseph

Which is precisely why I started this thread. A subtle reminder that if I really wanted to consider P3D I would using the Prepar3D forum (with 8 Viewing) as opposed to the FSX forum (with 61 Viewing). :running:

[Navy Chief]

Which is precisely why I started this thread. A subtle reminder that if I really wanted to consider P3D I would using the Prepar3D forum (with 8 Viewing) as opposed to the FSX forum (with 61 Viewing). :running:

It is interesting to read both sides. I have had P3D since its initial release, but until this most recent version, I paid little attention to the sim. Really is amazing!

Although I uninstalled FSX-O, I plan to maintain FSX-SE on my system as well as I have SO many addons for it, both freeware and payware. As the number of developers grow who are updating their creations to work with P3Dv2.5, I believe so will the popularity of that sim. I could be wrong, but so far the indications (to me, at least) seem to point that direction.

FSX continues to evolve though. Consider the amount of adaptations/modifications it has gone through, I think it will "live" alongside P3D, DCS, and others for quite a while longer. NC

[JimmyRFR]

I have no issue with P3D. I've had it installed a few times since v2 was released, and have had (and let lapse) developer subscriptions a few times. If they continue to keep moving forward the way they have been, I will seriously consider switching at some point.

However, quite simply, I have no real strong urge to switch. I'd be switching simply for the sake of doing so. I've happily maintained my heavily-customized-via-symlinks FSX installation for quite some time now, going on two years I think, and everything is running really, really good. I lock at 30fps, and manage to maintain that in 99% of my flying, across a wide variety of payware aircraft and scenery. No stutters, no hiccups, no crashes, just start and go.

If I had problems with FSX, or if there were features strong enough to make me want them, then I'd reconsider.

Also in the back of my mind is some of the scenery that I've installed... My latest region to get a full 'makeover' is Hawaii. Installing the photoscenery, airport packs, FSDT airports, separate freeware autogen, and then making it all work cohesively together was a time consuming task. I have several regions like that were I have nearly every enhancement possible, with the time invested in making it all play nice together. I better have a damn good reason to do some of that over!! :)

[zswobbie1]

Cannot think of too many logical reasons as to why FSX users prefer to stick with an 8 year old program.

"FSX continues to evolve though. Consider the amount of adaptations/modifications it has gone through, I think it will "live" alongside P3D, DCS, and others for quite a while longer. "

This comment is a bit odd! FSx has not evolved at all, since Acceleration was released umpteen years ago.
Adaptions & Mods? Well, Apart from Acceleration & FSX: Gold ... NO evolution!
Yes, FSX:SE is the same FSX:Gold, but slightly modded for the Steam platform & Steam multiplayer.. An evolution/adaption/mod? Not Really! Will it live alongside P3D (modded/evolved/upgraded about 10 times since released? Well, will FS2004?

Maybe the only logical reason to stay are the tube liner add-ons that do not work (yet) with a modern sim.

FSX:SE was mentioned. Is this an evolution? I don't think so. Will it interest me to change?
My thoughts are that this has been re-released on Steam, the largest (?) gaming distributor, for the newbies, being a 'plug 'n play' install, with easy installable DLC's. It IS a bonus for the rest of us to have a game that we can install on-line, without disks, & with most add-ons working. Thanks, devs for climbing in & making your stuff work.

So, getting back to the topic...
Reasons why FSX users dont move?
1. Mmmmmm
2. Do I want PMDG? (personally, no!)
3. Get over the licensing ad nauseum debates.
4. Do I want a constantly upgraded sim?
5. ....

[Geomitrak]

Using the Estonia Migrator Tool, I haven't had a single problem so far with FSX add-ons in P3DV2.4 ( I stress 'so far' ). Even stuff like Accusim planes; the Stratocruiser with COTS, B-17, civilian Mustang, C-172 and Cherokee all work fine. FSX aircraft from Captain Sim ( 707 and 727 ) Alabeo and Carenado have no problems at all. Same goes for scenery, weather, Remote Flight apps, Plan G... no problem with any of them...so far.

[CG_1976]

Well since I got assigned to Vegas AOR by the USCG/USN, err dam desert land lock worse then Texas lol. I got a new computer AMD/ATI. I bought 4 Hard-drives cheap on the holidays, won a SSD drive from Poker at Gold Coast lol. So what did I do. Easy Re-installed Fs9 to one drive, then FSX/SE to another, P3DV2.5 and ekks first time the X-plane. They are all happy with W8.1. The only thing that throws a W8.1 fit is the Flight1 wrapper err. I went to FSX/SE due to W7 W8.1 support with potential for W10. P3D is the same. XP and Vista are scheduled for MS Execution Sentence soon anyway. Bottom line is I support all flight sims/payware supporting Window 7 and Higher. As for the term Academic, well that is wide open to define, my motto, "We never stop learning, if learning stops your Dead."

[Daube]

I am now an happy P3D user and I don't use FSX at all anymore. FSX is still on my hardrive but it doesn't work anymore, I've move so much files, messed some configs, etc.... it doesn't even launches. It's just a zombie sitting there for nothing but keeping some files.

However, I'd like to balance the arguments here a bit. P3D is not as perfect as some people say. Here is a little lit of big problems that FSX'ers should consider:

1- Addon compatibility:
Most FSX planes got converted or will get converted soon. Those who don't get converted are usually "simple" planes that just need to be copied in the correct folders. Situation is the same for sceneries.
So the FSX planes are not a problem. No, the real problem is the FS9 planes. They don't work at all anymore. They display nicely, but the virtual cockpit is not clickable anymore. So if you are a 2D pilot or a CTRL+E pilot, this won't be problematic. But the other pilots will have to forget about FS9 planes, which is quite sad.

2- Performance
I'll make it simple: over generic sceneries and photoreal sceneries, as long as you're far away from a complex piece of custom scenery object like a major aiport or anything like that, the performance of P3D is vastly superior to the FSX performance, provided you have a correct middle-range DX11 video card. But once you get close to heavy scenery, then the performance will drop down to a level possibly inferior to FSX. Yes, the performance of P3D in some place can be worse than the FSX performance. For example, if you fly over PNW from Orbx, and you get close to KSEA, or if you get close to a major city with FranceVFR 3DA technology, then the frames will drop to a very low level, much lower than what it was with FSX. This is due to the new P3D engine and the way it handles scenery and autogen objects. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't recommend P3D to a liner pilot who likes to fly his PMDG 777 over major airports with payware sceneries.

3- Rendering
This remark is for people who are still flying FSX in DX9 mode.
P3D rendering is superb. The autogen doesn't popup anymore, the HDR gives some nice lighting variations, and the scenery and cloud shadows are the icing on the cake. However, I'm still unable to get the same lovely colors I was getting with the ENB bloom tweaked by the REX guys (variant "SUNLIGHT"). The colors are a bit dull by default, even with all options enabled. I could compensate a lot by using SweetFX to boost the intensity of the colors a bit, and now it looks very nice... but not as nice as what I was getting with the ENB Sunlight mod.


These are the objective arguments I can think about for warning the FSX'ers. I can perfectly understand why somebody would want to stay with FSX, just like I could understand why somebody would want to stay with FS9 back when FSX came out. But for me, there's no way back now.

[PHo17]

There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

...
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.

You obviously don't have the size of FSX more than 230GB as I do. I've read that photo sceneries reserve memory permanently (loaded at the beginning) while using FSX. I have lot of sceneries and there are plenty of photo parts in them. So while using FSX (in spite of 64bit OS) the system memory knocks the "5G door" (and FSX it's door of heaven or hell 4GB :biggrin-new:) now and then. That's why I have now and then OOM errors and according to that CDTs.

I haven't yet changed to P3D because it's also a 32bit program and there is the same problem lurking somewhere. I've tried XPlane but didn't like it. There are some shortages like poor AI. The very day P3D is compiled to a 64bit program I'll change to it.

Old people die. Same do old programs. It's sad but it's fact.

Pekka

[hschuit]

And what about night flying? I have both FSX and P3Dv2.5 and there are several shortcomings in P3D compared to FSX:

- Distant AI traffic beacons/strobes are almost or completely invisible at night.
- Custom lights at addon airports do not show.
- Runway/taxiway lights are misplaced/hovering up to 3 Ft in the air at many airports.

[zswobbie1]

The Holy Grail is not out there...
64bit will not solve everything for everybody
I think it's great that people 'knock' something without even trying.
Do people realise that going 64bit means a whole new program? Add-ons being 64bit compatible?
What must be realised is that FSX & P3D MUST be considered as 2 different programs. One sold for entertainment & the other not! Yes, there is an exchange of add-ons, but not all!
The last version of one is 8 years old, since upgraded, the other, since upgraded, about a month old.

[Jafo]

The Holy Grail is not out there...
64bit will not solve everything for everybody.

A 64bit Sim will go a hell of a long way towards 'the Holy Grail' ....darn sight closer than Indiana got...;)

To have a maths-intensive program access more than a piddly couple of gig whilst cramming it all into one core....

I have 32 gig of 2.666 DDR4, a GTX980, an i7 5960x in an X99 LGA2011 v3 with the OS and FSX on a M.2 x4 [that's like a PCIe drive only faster] and still FSX wants to cram itself into one core...out of 16.

At the moment, other than a XEON and/or a second 980 in SLI you cannot get a faster/more powerful machine.

In a 'real benchmark' for gaming...namely the DX10 Benchmark ver of Resident Evil 5 it averages 250.8 fps.
My previous i7 920 with a GTX590 could only manage 144.4.

That's getting on towards double. FSX? Nope...could care less. Yes it's better, but not gob-smackingly so, thanks to an ancient program written at a time when modern hardware was sheer fantasy.

Any game I have loaded has easily run at max. I can even do it whilst running a VM of Win 7 Ult borrowing a quarter of the ram.

But not FSX. If it were aware of modern systems [and coded accordingly] it'd be utterly insane...

...and still be wanting more hardware thrown at it...;)

[SpaceWeevil]

So tired of folks citing the licensing issue. Get over it folks. :encouragement:

This does seem to be the prevailing view around P3D - it's just a bit surprising to hear it so bluntly expressed at SOH. I guess I worry too much...

[TeiscoDelRay]

For sure 32 bit cpu bound FSX is not really interested in going much faster with modern graphic horsepower. I have three 980's and with DSR at 4k can make it stutter and jerk at O'hare airport with minimum traffic. My 5930k cpu helps a little but even if I overclock it to 4400 FSX still laughs at it.

If P3D really does go 64 bit I would be first in line.

[Jafo]

If P3D really does go 64 bit I would be first in line.

...or you'll be standing looking at my back...;)

[stansdds]

I would make the jump to P3D, but Windows XP does not support DX10 and certainly does not support DX11. My computer is old, so old that upgrading is simply not a good option, so that means a new build and I cannot afford a new build at this time. Perhaps by the time I do build a new computer, P3D may have gone to 64-bit architecture.

[Dumonceau]

I would make the jump to P3D, but Windows XP does not support DX10 and certainly does not support DX11. My computer is old, so old that upgrading is simply not a good option, so that means a new build and I cannot afford a new build at this time. Perhaps by the time I do build a new computer, P3D may have gone to 64-bit architecture.

I beg to differ! Your PC will run Windows 7 64 bit easily! The only thing you would need is to double the RAM and at a later state a new GFX card.

BTW, Windows XP, although it is a proven OS, is a security menace nowadays!

Just my two € cents of course.

Dumonceau

[Dumonceau]

This does seem to be the prevailing view around P3D - it's just a bit surprising to hear it so bluntly expressed at SOH. I guess I worry too much...

Look at it like this: P3D is sold to anyone who can afford it. LM knows its being used for entertainment. MS just had the EULA written the way it is, because at the time, they still needed to sell the FS franchise. That has been done now.

The whole licensing thing is a dud. I can't see anyone ever being taken to court for using a damn sim for entertainment.

Johan

[Blackbird686]

My FSX install is pretty much stock, except for a few add-on aircraft. I fly Dino's F-35B, and Flying Stations Westland Wyvern fairly often, but that's it. FSX is just entertainment for me, My FS9 install is AWESOME, over 200 add-on aircraft and scenery packages and it runs like hot butter.

Flight simming is a hobby for me, not an obsession, so as it stands now, P3D isn't a consideration.

BB686:US-flag:

[mmann]

MS just had the EULA written the way it is, because at the time, they still needed to sell the FS franchise. That has been done now.

Johan

Except that Microsoft did not sell the FS franchise. They sold a license to the technology and the rights to sell an online version of FSX; just as they sold a license to the ESP technology. Microsoft still retains all rights to ESP and FSX and will probably see more future dollars by selling the technology to other large companies with deep pockets.

<link href="chrome://s3gt/skin/s3gt_tooltip.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">

[zswobbie1]

Simple... Microsoft licensed FSX to Dovetail for re-release as an entertainment product. So, Microsoft gets rid of an 8 year old game & saves on world-wide distribution, manufacture & inventory cost. & Dovetail cannot mode the core, unless to mod it for theSteam system.

Microsoft licensed ESP to Lockheed Martin for development, Not for entertainment. Thier EULA is written to differentiate between a game & a training tool. So, if you want to play a game, you go to a gaming distributor!

Obviously, Dovetail has released FSX:Steam as a precurser to their own sim, that some say will be based on Flight! & coming from a gaming distributer, is targeted to newbies that want a plug 'n play game. If so, my biggest worry is that this will be a closed game, with add-ons only via DLC's.

So, we have choices....
Stick with the old, change to the re-release, go for the latest.
Having said all that, there is still a huge community out there that are still using FS2004, (I am one of them, but also have P3d), & still will not change to anything else!

Actually, reading all the above, I'm realising I have gone off topic. Sorry for that.

[zswobbie1]

+10 to Blackbird686.

Same as myself, except I have P3D, but fly my FS9 as well as my Golden Wings version (regressed scenery & planes to 1930's low's & slows etc) far more.

For my, also a hobby.. although at times, I do get carried away & I keep telling myself, & others at my VA club.. 'Chill guys, it's only a game!'

[Bjoern]

I don't have a credit card.

[mmann]

'Chill guys, it's only a game!'

Not if you're a P3D user.

[airattackimages]

Which is funny since not one person has trashed talked P3D in this thread. However, it is turning into another P3D fanboi thread and should be moved to that forum.
This thread was started for adversarial purposes. I think it's funny to be so butt hurt about something that even seeing people talk about it angers some. There is still plenty that P3d has in common with FSX, so what's with the constant insistence that any mention of it should be banished to a subforum... 95% of FSX add-ons run in P3d, so you'll have P3d users continuing to pay attention and comment in this forum. If you don't like it, roll the little scroll wheel. I don't see why it's such a huge agitation for some people.

I'm not even running P3d yet, and it's never pissed me off to see people talk about it. On the contrary, I've enjoyed listening to what it offers... Nice to see the simulator grow into something that is supported and advancing rather than old, stagnant and dropped by its' creators. If it weren't for all the dedicated third party developers, FSX would have been completely written off as soon as Microsoft threw in the towel.

[zswobbie1]

True, Mike, but, at our VA, we do not use P3D.

[falcon409]

This thread was started for adversarial purposes. I think it's funny to be so butt hurt about something that even seeing people talk about it angers some. There is still plenty that P3d has in common with FSX, so what's with the constant insistence that any mention of it should be banished to a subforum... 95% of FSX add-ons run in P3d, so you'll have P3d users continuing to pay attention and comment in this forum. If you don't like it, roll the little scroll wheel. I don't see why it's such a huge agitation for some people.

I'm not even running P3d yet, and it's never pissed me off to see people talk about it. On the contrary, I've enjoyed listening to what it offers... Nice to see the simulator grow into something that is supported and advancing rather than old, stagnant and dropped by its' creators. If it weren't for all the dedicated third party developers, FSX would have been completely written off as soon as Microsoft threw in the towel.
Well said Mike. Nobody is making them read the posts, but just the idea that the post is on this forum seems to be enough to get the hackles up for some. Pretty funny really.

[mmann]

This thread was started for adversarial purposes.

Actually, it was started in reaction to the impression management tactics used by P3D adherents; and also because I thought it would be fun as a Reversal Theory exercise.

[Jafo]

I'm not even running P3d yet, and it's never pissed me off to see people talk about it. On the contrary, I've enjoyed listening to what it offers... Nice to see the simulator grow into something that is supported and advancing rather than old, stagnant and dropped by its' creators. If it weren't for all the dedicated third party developers, FSX would have been completely written off as soon as Microsoft threw in the towel.
It's what got me interested enough to purchase it...though I am yet to install...as FSX is still running whilst I'm reworking a paintkit...;)

[Double J]

Still waiting for a profile on Nvidia Inspector. Purchased it the day it came out deleted it after 2.2. The AA is disgusting on my system.

[clmooring]

I would switch but I understand that my lowly dell laptop would not run P3D v2 very well.

i5-3210m cpu @ 2.5GHz 2.5GHz
GForce GT 630M
8.00 ram
windows 7 Professional

I would appreciate any insights the group may have. I want to make the switch, but I am not in position to buy a new computer at the moment......

[Dumonceau]

I would switch but I understand that my lowly dell laptop would not run P3D v2 very well.

i5-3210m cpu @ 2.5GHz 2.5GHz
GForce GT 630M
8.00 ram
windows 7 Professional

I would appreciate any insights the group may have. I want to make the switch, but I am not in position to buy a new computer at the moment......

Well, for starters: your laptop isn't that lowly IMHO. For a laptop those specs look good. But I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to run P3D well. I imagine that no laptop would (except for those horribly expensive gaming laptops). But in all honesty, I wouldn't run FSX from a laptop either. FS9 maybe.

But the above is because I like to see my FPS at least in the double digits. The way I have set it up right now, FPS hardly ever drop below 30 FPS.

Johan

[Ferry_vO]

One simple reason not to switch for me: I don't want to get a credit card to buy P3D. If they would accept Paypal (Which they don't and have no plans to do so.) I would have bought it already.

[DaveB]

One simple reason for me too though if I think about it, there are more.

While my i5 2500K/GTX560Ti runs FSX at an acceptable level.. I really can't see it running P3D any better.

I noted early on that many P3D users ran for 4gig graphics cards (this seems to be a pre-requisite) and I can't justify buying one. So.. much of the smoother flying experience and improved graphics I read about has only been achieved by buying a new graphics card.

I'm not totally impressed by having to purchase each new 'full' version either. I know that incremental updates are free and it's nice to know that LM are in a position to listen to users and update accordingly but I really can't be doing with the hassle of a re-install every few months.

P3D has promise for sure but not for me.. yet;)
ATB
DaveB:)

[Tim-HH]

If you look at the essentials of every flight simulation - flightdynamics, weather system, simulation of the aircraft core systems, ATC - P3D offers absolutely no improvements compared with FSX. So for me it looks like P3D is just FSX with some makeup. But sure, if you consider cloud shadows a must a change to P3D might be a worthwhile option.

Greetings
Tim

[roger-wilco-66]

One simple reason not to switch for me: I don't want to get a credit card to buy P3D. If they would accept Paypal (Which they don't and have no plans to do so.) I would have bought it already.

A bit OT but since I read this frequently: you don't need a "real" credit card for that. There are services with "one-time" (single use) virtual credit cards out there.


Cheers,
Mark

[zswobbie1]

If you look at the essentials of every flight simulation - flightdynamics, weather system, simulation of the aircraft core systems, ATC - P3D offers absolutely no improvements compared with FSX. So for me it looks like P3D is just FSX with some makeup. But sure, if you consider cloud shadows a must a change to P3D might be a worthwhile option.

Greetings
Tim

Hi Tim,

You had a look on the P3D site to see how much P3D has evolved? (About 11 major mods as compared to 0 with FSX?) FSX:SE has been tweaked to work with Steam & modern PC's.

So, if you think that P3D is just FSX with cloud tweaks, maybe you should read up a bit more.

[Dumonceau]

If you look at the essentials of every flight simulation - flightdynamics, weather system, simulation of the aircraft core systems, ATC - P3D offers absolutely no improvements compared with FSX. So for me it looks like P3D is just FSX with some makeup. But sure, if you consider cloud shadows a must a change to P3D might be a worthwhile option.

Greetings
Tim

I'm sorry Tim but:

Flightdynamics: vastly improved
Weather system: improved quite a bit
Aircraft core systems: take a look at the F-22 RADAR in there if you will.

Apart from overall smoothness and vastly improved graphics through the use of DX11, all of the above represent a major step forward when compared to the dinosaur technology FSX... And when P3D becomes 64 bit, all of this will improve even more.

It's a bit like comparing CFS3 to Cliffs of Dover. No contest whatsoever. Mickey$oft gave up on the flightsim community and they're never coming back. Hell, they kicked us where it hurts after decades of customer loyalty. But that is probably a good thing. New people from the aerospace industry have taken over. Where FSX is a game, P3D is a simulation.

Johan

[Daube]

Why should FSX or P3D bring anything to the aircraft core systems ?
It's not the simulator task to handle these. Instruments are handled by the addon itself. The sim simply offers that addon an interface to express itself in the virtual world.
FSX does not support weapons at all. Yet we got TacPack, right ? Same goes with any system. There are almost no limitations at all.

[noddy]

I have both as well FSX-SE which I have yet to download, however to be honest I have not fired up either sim for some time. I seem to playing with War Thunder and Assetto Corsa now, guess when Project Cars is released that will take more of my time.
So I am sure at some point I will get back to the flying and download 2.5 P3D.

[TeiscoDelRay]

Just found out that P3D does not have a full screen mode so that is a problem for me because I use Nvidia DSR and it only works in full screen.

[odourboy]

P3D does not have a full screen mode.

Is this true?! :grey:

[Creepy847]

I use DSR with my 980 and it works full screen mode in P2.5. So I don't know where you got that information.

Creeps

[hschuit]

Just found out that P3D does not have a full screen mode so that is a problem for me because I use Nvidia DSR and it only works in full screen.

What LM calls full screen mode is not the same as the full screen exclusive (FSE) mode in FSX. P3D uses a simulated fullscreen mode. This means that NVidia Inspector 1/2 refresh rate Vsynch does not work in P3D. The result is that for many people it is impossible to fly turns without screen tearing.

DSR has nothing to do with this, it works with P3D, just make sure you have in game Display - Graphics "Black out desktop" and "Auto fill main view" checked.

Here is a good explanation of the difference between windowed, simulated fullscreen and FSE:
http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/topic/why-not-also-a-true-full-screen/page/3/#post-50294

[TeiscoDelRay]

Thanks, I was under impression that DSR only works in true full screen but if you guys have it working in P3D's version of full screen than that is good enough for me.

[odourboy]

I like this thread! :encouragement:

Regarding the 'full screen mode' aspect of P3D, let me ask in a different way. I'm using FSX in Full Screen with 1/2 refresh rate set in NI (otherwise I do get screen tearing), DSR and DX10 Fixer. Good looking screen, pretty smooth, not hitting any VAS issues with my add-ons (basically a happy camper). Will P3D2v5 offer me an equivalent image quality experience? Would I give up anything? Would I gain anything?

[Daube]

I have no VSync issues in P3D, despite the "fake" full-screen. I also use the DSR to improve the quality of the antialiasing, and that works quite well. Additionally, I'm using Sweetfx to improve the colors. The HDR effect coupled with the new "fog" effect and the cloud shadows give a very enjoyable rendering.
As I wrote earlier, the only thing I'm missing is the special colors from the ENB bloom, but that doesn't work in FSX DX10 either, so it's off-topic for your question.

[Tim-HH]

Flightdynamics: vastly improved
Weather system: improved quite a bit

Could you maybe be a bit more specific? From what I know LM has not touched the flightdynamics or the weather system. All they have done in this area it to make it easier for developers to use a own custom flight model. But if you have other informations, I would be interested to know them.


Why should FSX or P3D bring anything to the aircraft core systems ?
It's not the simulator task to handle these.

Of course it is! While developers like A2A or PMDG program all aircraft systems from scratch, most other developers do rely on the FSX/P3D default aircraft systems. Unfortunately these systems are only very basic (e.g. the autopilot) and/or full of shortcomings (e.g. the bad simulation of the turboprop turbine). So an improvement of the core aircraft systems would have a positive impact on almost every addon aircraft.

All I wanted to say is that LM so far has mainly focused on improving the visual side of the simulation. The rest is more or less identically to FSX. Which is not bad as it means that we can use most of our addons in both simulators. But some new features to the core of the simulation like a weather system with moving fronts or a realistic helicopter flight model would make it much more appealing to switch to P3D.

Greetings
Tim

[n4gix]

I'm not totally impressed by having to purchase each new 'full' version either. I know that incremental updates are free and it's nice to know that LM are in a position to listen to users and update accordingly but I really can't be doing with the hassle of a re-install every few months.
Allow me to make two point here:

1. How is having to license a new 'full' version any different than the case of FS8, FS9, FSX, etc.? The next major version v3.x is not likely to be released for many, many months, so that's not too much to worry about.

2. Beginning with the current v2.5, 'full installs' will no longer be required. L-M have promised a more traditional, incremental patch update from now on.

[AnotherOneJustGreat]

My reasons:
- If I'm honest about the license I need to buy, its simply too expensive for me, especially considering that
- I'd need to almost re-buy the A2A aircraft and some others I like with appropriate P3D licensing
- In addition, Flight1 is stubbornly refusing so support the sim last time I checked, and I really like their KingAir and C182 a lot

If P3D goes 64bit, and a majority of the addons I like will support that, that might be the incentive I need to spend all that additional money.

[falcon409]

. . . . . .But some new features to the core of the simulation like a weather system with moving fronts . . . . . . would make it much more appealing to switch to P3D.
Greetings
Tim
LM's position on "Weather" in general has been (and I think it remains so at this point) that they are staying out of the weather generating business and instead leaving that for the various weather programs available within the community.

[DaveB]

Allow me to make two point here:

1. How is having to license a new 'full' version any different than the case of FS8, FS9, FSX, etc.? The next major version v3.x is not likely to be released for many, many months, so that's not too much to worry about.

2. Beginning with the current v2.5, 'full installs' will no longer be required. L-M have promised a more traditional, incremental patch update from now on.

Quite easy to respond to both really. You use FS8, FS9, FSX as examples. With these.. you got a whole new sim.. for better or worse. With P3D (thus far as far as I can see).. LM run incremental updates for a given period (I don't know what that is) then release a 'new' version. The new version is (again, as far as I can see) more of the same.. some things broken.. others fixed. It could be considered another update to all intents and it is. Don't get me wrong.. I've nothing against a sim growing and being improved. I'm more against less and less of what I currently use no longer working. Money IS an object here. In the grand scale of things.. I've only recently moved to FSX and am not yet ready to start forking out for things that are P3D compatible. When P3D becomes more 'final release' (if it will ever reach that point) and importantly.. WHEN I have a system capable of running it, I'll reconsider.

As for the second point.. all well and good:)

ATB
DaveB:)

[Tim-HH]

LM's position on "Weather" in general has been (and I think it remains so at this point) that they are staying out of the weather generating business and instead leaving that for the various weather programs available within the community.
Thanks for the info! But that are two different things as the FSX/P3D weather system sets the boundaries for all these weather tools. The weather tools are injecting their weather into the FSX/P3D weather system and therefore they can't overcome its deficits.

Greetings
Tim

[Hdguy]

Is this true?! :grey:


Yup.. True

[pilottj]

Its a matter of cost-fun analysis for me, my current rig is about at it's limits with FSX, P3D would require a new system, so figure about ~ 1000USD + P3D and addon licenses. Being that I hold FAA pilot certificates, I would be 'obligated' to buy pro licences not only for P3D but any corresponding addon.

I don't see the need to invest that kind of money into what would be a marginal increase in 'fun'. With A2A/RealAir/PMDG/F1...etc addons, ASN, REX, Orbx Scenery, DX10 fixer, most FSX deficiencies are well covered. I don't see going from FSX to the current form of P3D to be the same as going from say FS9 to FSX. FSX still has plenty of life left in it. The day A2A announces they stop supporting FSX products, then I will consider it. Perhaps then P3Dv3 or 4 will be on the shelf, and the jump will be much more worthwhile.

:biggrin-new:This is coming from someone who still uses a flip phone. I see no need to pay $$ for a smartphone when the dumbphone is fine for making phonecalls and the occasional text message.

Cheers
TJ

[Jafo]

most FSX deficiencies are well covered.

FSX is a 32bit program whose core has not been improved in about a decade.
When hardware [and its OS] is very much going 64bit by the minute FSX will always be a dinosaur [and only become more so as time progresses]

Nothing will make FSX multi-core aware or capable of addressing ram beyond the 32bit threshold. Getting it to be 'high memory aware' is a bandaid fix...sort of wet, soggy bandaid that slips off...;)


If MS were to rewrite it in 64bit I think people might then realise just how clunky it is/was ...;)

[clmooring]

Well, for starters: your laptop isn't that lowly IMHO. For a laptop those specs look good. But I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to run P3D well. I imagine that no laptop would (except for those horribly expensive gaming laptops). But in all honesty, I wouldn't run FSX from a laptop either. FS9 maybe.

But the above is because I like to see my FPS at least in the double digits. The way I have set it up right now, FPS hardly ever drop below 30 FPS.

Johan


Johan although it is only a 13" screen, it runs fsx pretty well. I was flying around (through) the las vegas strip tonight at about 30fps with dx10. Other than it is a laptop, is there any reason to think P3D v2.5 would not run about as well as fsx with dx10?

[fsxar177]

"...While developers like A2A or PMDG program all aircraft systems from scratch..."


I cannot speak for PMDG, however A2A hardly develops the aircraft systems from scratch... Their Flight Models are based nearly entirely on stock FSX code, and a build-up of that code. Probably less that 5% rely on some genius 'outside' program.

- Joseph

[Dumonceau]

Johan although it is only a 13" screen, it runs fsx pretty well. I was flying around (through) the las vegas strip tonight at about 30fps with dx10. Other than it is a laptop, is there any reason to think P3D v2.5 would not run about as well as fsx with dx10?

Well, that is pretty amazing! If your run FSX with DX10, and your GFX card is DX11 capable, you could (I say COULD) run P3D.

I'm actually pretty curious about the results! :jump:

Johan

[harrybasset]

Reading these for and against threads I am not sure of the point of the discussion. Is it that P3D is superior to FSX or that the users of P3D see themselves as superior to users of FSX?

[mjrhealth]

Why I havnt moved to P3d.

1. FSX in DX10 is fine. Still same install for 5 years.
2. I have too much money invested.
3. FSX doesnt change so developers have a fixed playing field.
4. P3D is just FSX rebooted. Just like steam version, when they change things , some things break and developers have to go back to drawing board.
5. Some developers charge same price for FSX and P3D others charge more, still havnt figured out why. If it is a licence issue, than all developers would be / should be charging more.
6 Its stll 32 bit, when it goes to 64 bit, we will start the circle all over again.
7. P3D has cloud shadow, yes they look nice but i have being without them for this long I can wait.
8. Am considering Xplane 10, but that too has its problems. need CD etc etc. Every time a major revision need to repurchase unless im wrong.

Is P3D better, looks that way, I have no arguements with that. But im happy with FSX.

Smile and have a lovely day

[dhazelgrove]

I note that both of these for/against 'discussions' are taking place in the FSX forum.

Have we nothing better to do?

Dave

[zswobbie1]

FSX is a 32bit program whose core has not been improved in about a decade.
When hardware [and its OS] is very much going 64bit by the minute FSX will always be a dinosaur [and only become more so as time progresses]

Nothing will make FSX multi-core aware or capable of addressing ram beyond the 32bit threshold. Getting it to be 'high memory aware' is a bandaid fix...sort of wet, soggy bandaid that slips off...;)


If MS were to rewrite it in 64bit I think people might then realise just how clunky it is/was ...;)

Well, we know that MS will not rewrite it in 64bit, as the license for FSX is with Dovetail.

[zswobbie1]

Why I havnt moved to P3d.

1. FSX in DX10 is fine. Still same install for 5 years. - You have compared your install with?

2. I have too much money invested. - You spend money for a game, you do not 'invest'.

3. FSX doesnt change so developers have a fixed playing field. - a few inovations, TacPac etc

4. P3D is just FSX rebooted. Just like steam version, when they change things , some things break and developers have to go back to drawing board. - You MUST be aware of the 10x upgrades & versions?

5. Some developers charge same price for FSX and P3D others charge more, still havnt figured out why. If it is a licence issue, than all developers would be / should be charging more. - Some do charge a professional/traing price for a professional/training add-on.

6 Its stll 32 bit, when it goes to 64 bit, we will start the circle all over again. - YUP, as it will be a different sim. We will all start from scratch again.

7. P3D has cloud shadow, yes they look nice but i have being without them for this long I can wait. - It has a lot more than just cloud shadow. Have you seen that, or any other differences?

8. Am considering Xplane 10, but that too has its problems. need CD etc etc. Every time a major revision need to repurchase unless im wrong. ?? re the needing CD etc? FSX also needs the DVD in to play, unless it has been illegally patched. X-plane comes with 10 DVD's & costs a lot more. Your reasons for considering X-Plane? & Yes, it IS a 64bit program.

Is P3D better, looks that way, I have no arguements with that. But im happy with FSX.

Smile and have a lovely day :jump::biggrin-new: You too

[zswobbie1]

I note that both of these for/against 'discussions' are taking place in the FSX forum.

Have we nothing better to do?

Dave

Not really, this is fun!

[Dumonceau]

Nothing wrong with a good discussion! In fact this thread is quite educational! :D

[DaveB]

8. Am considering Xplane 10, but that too has its problems. need CD etc etc. Every time a major revision need to repurchase unless im wrong. ?? re the needing CD etc? FSX also needs the DVD in to play, unless it has been illegally patched. X-plane comes with 10 DVD's & costs a lot more. Your reasons for considering X-Plane? & Yes, it IS a 64bit program.


That's incorrect I'm afraid. FSX doesn't need a no-cd patch.. it runs quite happily without any DVD's and always has done;)

ATB
DaveB:)

[Jafo]

That's incorrect I'm afraid. FSX doesn't need a no-cd patch.. it runs quite happily without any DVD's and always has done;)

ATB
DaveB:)
Yes, FSX does not need the CD [other than for the install - obviously] ..;)

These discussions are definitely educational....not ever user is au-fait with the intricacies of either or both or all three...whatever...;)

[zswobbie1]

That's incorrect I'm afraid. FSX doesn't need a no-cd patch.. it runs quite happily without any DVD's and always has done;)

ATB
DaveB:)

Ooops, sorry about that. I was getting it mixed up with FS2004. Phew, my memory @ my age!


:banghead:

[T6flyer]

For me....FSX will be my last simulator. I purchased P3D for my local aviation museum as they have a sim to educate the public as to how an aeroplane flies etc, but its not for me. The shadowing was very nice, but as I have said before I have my FSX setup just as I like it, with local scenery and autogen and on which I 'fly' the aeroplanes that I fly and experience in real life. I'm not interested in 64bit this and whatever, I have a simulator that I believe is close to the real thing, gives me great satisfaction when used and enjoyment at the same time. Isn't that what it is really all about?

I this morning (before I pop off to work) have spent 30 mins flying around my local area and taken in the sights, knowing full well that I won't be able to do it tomorrow as the weather looks poo. And enjoyed every minute of it.

Besides this, I still have a house and car to run, and know that in the future, that there will be other complications thrown my way. So, I'm sticking with what I know and appreciate and when its all over, will be able to look back and think of how good the sim was a worthwhile refresher and training aid. P3D looks wonderful, but I simply am 1) not interested or 2) can't see myself forking out for something that I have already and enjoy using. Just my person thoughts.

Best wishes,

Martin

[jankees]

To be honest, my Fsx runs just fine, and I see no need at all to change. Yes, p3d may run better, yes, it may have cloud shadows ( though I have them for fsx too), but fsx has all I need for the moment. I don't know why I would pay another $60 or so for what is essentialy an upgrade and then spend several hours reinstalling all my addons. Heck, I just spent quite a lot more to keep this forum afloat....I can spend the money only once...

[mjrhealth]

5. Some developers charge same price for FSX and P3D others charge more, still havnt figured out why. If it is a licence issue, than all developers would be / should be charging more. - Some do charge a professional/traing price for a professional/training add-on.
Missed the point. Orbx provdes a FSX P3d installer, one price both sims. Some provide teh same plane for FSX and P3d with the P3D version being mowe expenxve even though it is the same addon. It is ame plane not professional add on. And i still havnt figured out why.

[harrybasset]

To be honest, my Fsx runs just fine, and I see no need at all to change. Yes, p3d may run better, yes, it may have cloud shadows ( though I have them for fsx too), but fsx has all I need for the moment. I don't know why I would pay another $60 or so for what is essentialy an upgrade and then spend several hours reinstalling all my addons. Heck, I just spent quite a lot more to keep this forum afloat....I can spend the money only once...

Very well said! I am happy with FSX, it does what I want it to do. :untroubled:

[Dumonceau]

Very well said! I am happy with FSX, it does what I want it to do. :untroubled:

And that really is the bottom line! If you're happy with your sim, by all means DON'T change over. I was never happy with FSX, which is why I have moved over to P3D.

We can conclude that we agree to disagree! :very_drunk::biggrin-new:

Johan

[zswobbie1]

Missed the point. Orbx provdes a FSX P3d installer, one price both sims. Some provide teh same plane for FSX and P3d with the P3D version being mowe expenxve even though it is the same addon. It is ame plane not professional add on. And i still havnt figured out why.

Not really missing the point... I did say SOME, not all!


:banghead:

[odourboy]

For me, the motivation to move comes in part with the realization of improved performance. 'Performance' meaning; smoother motion (even frames), higher FPS, lower VAS. So, at risk of going ever so slightly off topic, the question I'd really like to get answered this: Assuming they are set up as similarly as possible, will I get better performance from FSX-SE with DX10 Fixer, or P3D2v5?

FSX-SE has better VAS performance (proven) as does DX-10 with standard FSX. Do they provide even more improvement together? Users claim improved FPS and smoothness with both DX-10 and FSX-SE, but this seems anecdotal as I have not seen any measured results from a properly controlled test to support this. As for P3D, I haven't followed it as closely, but again, users seem to agree that VAS usage and smoothness is improved. Not sure about FPS.

Thoughts?

[harrybasset]

I've just looked on the LM P3D site at licence options and see I am red crossed as a mere personal entertainment consumer.

[mmann]

I've just looked on the LM P3D site at licence options and see I am red crossed as a mere personal entertainment consumer.

As one would expect from a simulator based on Microsoft ESP and not FSX. I took one look at ESP (when it was first announced by Microsoft) and realized it was not aimed at the same market as FSX.

[glh]

And that really is the bottom line! If you're happy with your sim, by all means DON'T change over. I was never happy with FSX, which is why I have moved over to P3D.

We can conclude that we agree to disagree! :very_drunk::biggrin-new:

Johan

I would agree with that, 100%. If you like what you have, keep it. If it doesn't satisfy you, explore elsewhere.

[dhazelgrove]

Just do as I do: run all 3 sims.

Dave

[Dumonceau]

Just do as I do: run all 3 sims.

Dave

I'm afraid my SSD isn't big enough for that!

[mmann]

A quote from another flight sim site:

"I'm actually getting really tired of the constant changes in P3D. Especially because this time a whole reinstall is required. I dont want to do a fresh install now, so I´m not updating to v2.5 and if I needed to do a fresh one, I would seriously consider FSX."

Of course if P3D ever becomes a 64-bit sim; the troubles will multiply faster than tribbles.

[big-mike]

That`s the main reason,why i do not use P3D.
Mike

[DaveWG]

People complain that M$ stopped developing FS. People complain that LM are developing FS. Can't win!:biggrin-new:

[pilottj]

I am staying with FSX, but I am quite happy that LM is developing P3D, it means this hobby will continue for a long long time. Yes FSX will eventually phase out for most people here, even the diehard FSX users, and it is great to know that we will have some options when that time comes. I say let LM keep developing P3D, let Dovetail keep going with their plans for FSX Steam.

We all have our 'events' that trigger us to move to the next sim, just like we did from FS9 to FSX. For me it was RealAir releasing their Spitfire Mk IX that made me jump on the FSX bus. If down the road, A2A says XX project will only be done for P3D V.whatever, and if it was a project I was really excited about, then I would seriously consider jumping on the P3D wagon. In the meantime, Turbine Duke, Legacy, 182, Cherokee, warbirds, tubeliners, FTX scenery and such continue to keep me happy.

If you have already switched to P3D and are happy, that is excellent and more power to you.

Cheers
TJ

[mjrhealth]

People complain that M$ stopped developing FS. People complain that LM are developing FS. Can't win!:biggrin-new:

Not complaining at all. Its a good thing LM are developing P3D can only hopefully come to better things. As for the entertainment issue. why do people fly real aeroplanes, because its fun, entertaining and they learn stuff. Now if anyone can fly in P3D and not "learn" something than they have real problems. So in the end if you use P3D you are being educated,one would hope.

[Hdguy]

I bought a 30 day trial of P3D..

On first install I had tons of set up to figure out. To include in sim and in my CCC.. We all know that takes a while, trying to figure it all out and get stability. I do get good frames and now it runs very smooth.

BUT to me it just doesn't look this good. I mean the scenery to me is lacking, and I have sliders full right .

Now.. FSX that looks this good to me is just hard tohttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20010&stc=1 leave

[Hdguy]

OK.. So I don't understand the new Attachment thing here.. sorry for the goof up!

[falcon409]

Did you miss a few shots? Do you have daytime shots that didn't post? I would hope you aren't judging a sim's worth by night time screen shots.

[Hdguy]

Yes. I missed a few shots Falcon... Will try again.

And no, I am not judging anything on night time shots per say!http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20018&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20017&stc=1

[CanadaKen]

People complain that M$ stopped developing FS. People complain that LM are developing FS. Can't win!:biggrin-new:
+1 :-)

I agree....damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If you do a "right out of the box" install of FSX and P3D there is no comparison. Where I live in BC it's VERY green yet
a stock FSX installation made BC look like a desert. With zero tweaking P3D is smooth as silk.

I completely understand some people sticking to FSX until P3D runs the add-ons. ie Weather and Traffic.
There is still a fairly large community of FS9'ers. More power to them.

I predict a year after P3D goes 64 bit FSX will be all but dead.

CK