Im not convinced (yet)

Hi: I bought a new computer. Its time to install MFS Gold edition - OR - Prepard 3D. Im not having clear the pros and cons of both. Iv being using MFS for the last years, but a see many changes or new alternatives available. Please, give me a hand on this decition.

Thanks, kiri.

P3D is more expensive but is essentially the same as FSX, just better graphics.

Only you can decide which one you prefer.

+1

I like your system specs.

What kind of computer did you buy exactly? Can it handle P3D?

And how many payware FSX addons do you have? Not all addons are compatible with P3D (in fact only a few are at this moment - and developers sometimes charge a second time just for the P3D compatible version).

P3D is way more expensive than an FSX Gold that you already have. As kingnorris wrote, both FSX and P3D are built on the same platform. I am in the process of building up a P3D V3 installation just now, to get it close to the level that my FSX is on. The jury is still out which one I prefer. I find P3D V3 to be a little unstable, lots of unexpected crashes. Most likely these are caused by the addons - but I only added those that claim to be compatible. Go figure.

I would stay away from FSX. It is Junk in my opinion.

One person's "JUNK" is another's treasure!;)

Hi Folks,

Hardcore FS9 user also looking at which to jump to...

Real PRO's and CON's of each would also help me...

From watching videos - it seems P3D has a darker - less color saturated environment...

Are there any really new features in P3D other than the graphics ?

Better frame rates ?

For $8.00 I just purchased the "stream" version of FSX...

P3D always has a watermark ???

SANDY BRIDGE - OC 4.5 Ghz || Intel Core i7-2700K Sandy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 3000 BX80623i72700K || GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UD5H-WB LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard || CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 || EVGA 025-P3-1579-AR GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) HD 2560MB 320-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card || Noctua NH-C12P SE14 140mm SSO CPU Cooler || PC Power and Cooling Silencer Mk II 750W High Performance 80PLUS Silver SLI CrossFire ready Power Supply || (2) SAMSUNG 830 Series MZ-7PC256B/WW 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Regards,

Scott

OK. thanks. For those that aqsked my new comp. main spects are:

CPU Intel Core i5 4590

VGA Gforce GTX 960 2GB DDR5 ZOTAC

16 GB RAM 1600 MHZ Kingston

HD SSD Kingston 240 GB V300

The main addons I have are:

ORBX - Global - Vector

Boeing 757 from QW.

Boeing 737 from MPDG

Thanks for help.

kiri.

Steam is coming out with a new Flight sim. I can't wait. But I think the boxed version of FSX is dying if not dead. P3D is 64 bit, but with the graphics you will need to overclock most processors. Steam has improved FSX a little, but still has issues. FS2004 is the best sim on the market today. Very stable and frame rates are great.

If you're going to give advice, you should get your facts straight. P3D is NOT 64-bit...maybe you're referring to Xplane? Where in the P3D specifications does it require you to overclock your processor? I know several people, including myself, who run P3D just fine with their stock processors. What metrics indicate your 13 year old sim platform is currently the "best sim on the market today"? Perhaps your frames are better because you don't have access to modern add-ons (e.g. PMDG, HiFi, ORBX...), which strain the sim capabilities. Vanilla FSX and P3D frames are comparable to FS2004. If you choose FS9, you're going to be locked-out of of the most innovative and rewarding add-ons available. Also, all the available marketing data and surveys indicate that FSX is still the predominant sim used today. It's really not even close; although I suspect P3D and/or Xplane may close the gap this year. Almost everything you said is just plain wrong....

Are there any really new features in P3D other than the graphics ?

 

Better frame rates ?

On my 5 year old core i7 960, with a GTX570, I noticed improved fps, even at considerably higher graphics settings (slider positions), along with smoother operation, and a little improvement (at similar settings) even in the big city areas, though it's still not fun. I do run all the ORBX NA regions, and it's gorgeous at mid range settings with a decent (25-30) fps except around big cities. I'm at P3D 2.4.

I recently swapped my GTX 570 for a GTX 970, and now, except in the big cities, can run with almost everything maxed, even with most weather, and have 2-4 fps increase over the GTX 570, too. And even in big cities I have improved performance,though I have to return some things to mid or low range settings to avoid a slideshow -- still it's lots better (for my system, at least) than FSX was.

From watching videos - it seems P3D has a darker - less color saturated environment...

That's probably with HDR turned on, though that too can be brightened somewhat. But HDR is easily switchable. With it off, the scenery brightness/saturation is similar to that of FSX.

Al in all, I have much smoother overall performance, visually, with higher graphics settings than in FSX, and even at lower frame rates (big cities, etc.) the jerkiness is easier to take (I no longer get vertigo in Seattle, for example) for being smoother, more evenly spaced jumps (at, say 7-12 fps).

P3D makes much greater use of the graphics card capabilities.

All that being said, there are still things that don't quite max, or even require low settings, depending on where you are in the sim, and which aircraft you are using. All the above, for my system, includes either being in multiplayer with one other player or having my air and water traffic set below 30% (I don't even want it high, anyway) between frames.

Steam is coming out with a new Flight sim. I can't wait. But I think the boxed version of FSX is dying if not dead. P3D is 64 bit, but with the graphics you will need to overclock most processors. Steam has improved FSX a little, but still has issues. FS2004 is the best sim on the market today. Very stable and frame rates are great.

I've heard about this vapor ware for a very long time. I'll believe it when it actually shows up. Till then, I am thrilled with all I can do with my boxed FSX Gold! Using lots of FTX software & default planes I usually keep the sliders except water & road traffic pegged. With no frame rate issues at all.

I was pretty unimpressed with P3D.:( I haven't even fired it up in months.

My computer has an i7-4770 Processor run at 3.90 GHz and a GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card.

Compared with FSX (which I can lock at 30 fps), P3Dv3 has to be locked at 20 fps and even then it drops to 15-17 fps when in clouds. FSX has better antialiasing (using NVIDIA Inspector) but P3Dv3 has less stutters.

Steam is coming out with a new Flight sim. I can't wait. But I think the boxed version of FSX is dying if not dead. P3D is 64 bit, but with the graphics you will need to overclock most processors. Steam has improved FSX a little, but still has issues. FS2004 is the best sim on the market today. Very stable and frame rates are great.

This is complete nonsense. Steam will have a new sim "maybe" "someday". Have you ever heard of vaporware. P3D is NOT a 64-bit application. There is no need to for anyone to overclock anything with P3D. In fact, most folks get a bit better performance with P3D than with FSX - either boxed or Steam. And you are really showing your lack of knowledge by proclaiming FS2004 to be the best sim on the market. You need to do a little more homework before posting such misinformation again.

Doug

My computer has an i7-4770 Processor run at 3.90 GHz and a GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card.

 

Compared with FSX (which I can lock at 30 fps), P3Dv3 has to be locked at 20 fps and even then it drops to 15-17 fps when in clouds. FSX has better antialiasing (using NVIDIA Inspector) but P3Dv3 has less stutters.

I'm running a 2011 i7 at 4.6Ghz with DDR4 2400 ram and a Radeon 7800 GPU. My experiences are about the same as your except I don't normally have any stutters. And I don't set a frame rate, it just works.

What I really hate about P3D is no matter how I tweak it, it just looks kinda blueish. I've heard several people's suggestions to make it better to no avail. I like pinks and reds in my world too!

I like both FSX:SE and P3D (2.5) and have both. FSX:SE has some memory fixes over the boxed versions and Dovetail has also done some other bug fixes. FSX:SE is a good program and especially when you add aftermarket scenery and aircraft, it's really nice. It does still suffer from predominately using just one CPU core, though, so it's kind of CPU bound. I don't know that it really uses much of new graphics card capabilities either. With the talk of Dovetail coming out with a new flight simulator I have to wonder how much in depth support and future there is for FSX:SE though. But it's still really good just as it is with some aftermarket enhancements.

Lockheed-Martin is actively improving and supporting P3D and it is probably going to continue evolving. With compatibility for a lot/most scenery and aircraft between FSX and P3D, it's an easy move for those who care to do it. LM has fixed a lot of things in the old FSX code and added a lot of new features - one of which being better use of multi-core CPUs.

I have found performance to be significantly better in P3D because of that and watching core use on Windows' System Monitor is revealing compared to FSX. LM also works with the FAA to certify P3D for flight training (if using approved hardware and the appropriate licensed version of P3D). Their aim is realism and accuracy.

If you go with the educational version of P3D the prices aren't a whole lot different though snagging FSX:SE on sale can make that more dramatic.

I think the selection of aftermarket scenery and aircraft, especially freeware, is possibly better with FSX. There is still a lot that works with P3D too.

Someone interested in ultimate realism and being serious about flight simulation for the longer term might want to go with P3D. P3D, at least for me, seems to perform better in VR as well. For more casual use, FSX:SE may be better though the performance being generally CPU bound is a consideration.

For me I prefer P3D, but for flying multiplayer, FSX wins just by the number of people who do that.

I'm running a 2011 i7 at 4.6Ghz with DDR4 2400 ram and a Radeon 7800 GPU. My experiences are about the same as your except I don't normally have any stutters.

The stutters in FSX are micro stutters when the PAPI lights textures show and when the LOD's of AI aircraft change. I haven't tried any AI in P3Dv3 as my frame rates are already as low as I care for!

Hi Folks,

 

Hardcore FS9 user also looking at which to jump to...

Real PRO's and CON's of each would also help me...

Same sim base, different looks. Pro P3D: it is actually being developed. This is also a con, every iteration breaks addons. P3D is expensive, not only the base license (unless you are a schoolkid or student) but addons too.

From watching videos - it seems P3D has a darker - less color saturated environment...

Not anymore. In V3 this (HDR) can be adjusted.

Are there any really new features in P3D other than the graphics ?

Nothing obvious. Software/folder architecture has improved, memory handling, graphics engine. The features remained the same as ever. Which is not entirely true. P3D has been "weaponized" but there is no addon using this yet. At least not for us.

Better frame rates ?

No. But as all new sim installations do, it feels a lot better in the beginning. And you can actually see some improvements on beefy hardware, i7 @ +4 GHz, Maxwell GPUs.

P3D always has a watermark ???

No, only the Academic version has a watermark.

Regards,

Oliver

OK. thanks. For those that aqsked my new comp. main spects are:

CPU Intel Core i5 4590

VGA Gforce GTX 960 2GB DDR5 ZOTAC

16 GB RAM 1600 MHZ Kingston

HD SSD Kingston 240 GB V300

The main addons I have are:

ORBX - Global - Vector

Boeing 757 from QW.

Boeing 737 from MPDG

Thanks for help.

kiri.

The computer will run P3D Ok-ish.

PMDG 737 NGX you will have to buy again for P3D.

QW 757 is not compatible officially and won't be updated.

I've never had Prepar3d and know zilch about it.

All I know is that if we glance at the "Viewing" figures for all the forums on any day, FSX is always head and shoulders above all the rest which speaks volumes for its popularity, and since its release on Steam more newcomers are continually swelling the numbers.

Here's a screenshot I just took-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-popular2_zpswrxecirz.jpg~original

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-popular1_zpsrzpsmqr6.jpg~original

This is complete nonsense. Steam will have a new sim "maybe" "someday". Have you ever heard of vaporware. P3D is NOT a 64-bit application. There is no need to for anyone to overclock anything with P3D. In fact, most folks get a bit better performance with P3D than with FSX - either boxed or Steam. And you are really showing your lack of knowledge by proclaiming FS2004 to be the best sim on the market. You need to do a little more homework before posting such misinformation again.

 

Doug

Fs9 is easily the best sim on the market. Has been for some time. Nothing works as flawlessly and as easily. People mentioning the high post counts for the FSX forum. Over at the other place the P3D forum is getting a lot of attention.

Same old same old. Oom's, low fps, won't run etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Anyway, I'm using the new (and amazing) iFly 747-400 fly into into payware airports with 100% AI in real time and without a OOM in site.

Gotta love fs9. The King of all Flight Sims. :)

Are there any really new features in P3D other than the graphics ?

Have you actually gone to the Prepar3d site to see what new features there are?

+1 JSMR

I love my FS9 of which I have 3x installs, including 'Golden Wings'.

The is no Holy Grail out there, just far to many 'experts' & urban legends.

FS9 just works. FSX & FSX:SE need so many tweaks to get it running smoothly.

It really is the 'Vista' of flight sims.

I chuckle when I see the comments of the high number of posts in the FSX forum. Most of them are for help.

Oh, just look at what the freeware guys have done for FS9.. Milton's aircraft, Garry & Ed at http://www.ford-tri-motor.net/, the list just goes on..

Remember as well that a 64bit version will need the add-ons to be re-written (mostly), & will be of benefit because...?

..Gotta love fs9. The King of all Flight Sims. :)

I loved FS9 to bits, but later tried the FSX demo and was hooked by the slightly better scenery graphics, so I've stuck with FSX for the past 8 years and it runs fine on the several different PC's and laptop i've installed it on over the years. I'm a PC dummy, so if it runs for me it'll run for anybody..;)

PS- Flightsim.com is not dedicated to only FSX, it's for ALL flight sims like it says on the tin- "The ultimate flight simulation site for FSX, FS2004, X-Plane, Prepar3D and more.", and as I mentioned, FSX gets more views and posts than all the others.