P3D V4- What are your thoughts?

[jring2]

The thing is, it's still FSX, more than ten years later. Look at the difference between FSX and FS95, there was a huge amount of advancement.

 

 

You also have to consider the increase in computing power from FS95 and FSX was a whole lot more than the gains in the past few years. I checked purchases and found I am using the same processor I bought almost four years ago. There are only minimal gains for large investment in processors. I have upgraded mother board, memory and graphic cards and its helps me keep up the framerates in the gains in the simulators. P3d v4 is way faster with my same equipment and add-ons in v3. FS95 was built for a single core and way less memory. I have used P3d since its inception and can attest it is a whole new animal now from its FSX beginnings. I still have some aircraft that haven't crossed over, but once the aircraft selection for V4 improves, I will clear my FSX and free up its SSD.

 

Just an interesting thought. Flight is flight and pretty much as it was ten years ago. GPS and instrumentation is improving, but get in the cockpit of a C-172 in RL is about the same experience as its was 10 years ago. Not sure what you think a computer can do for you. Still, thanks for weighing in. It generates a lot of fervor. :)

[RatRace]

Even from the beginning there were people saying it was fsx with extra stuff. It was not, is not and never WAS FSX. It was based on ESP. FSX was based on ESP [my bold] and there were a lot of similarities but under the hood, it was quite different.

Vic

 

... sigh ... This is such an extremely common misconception (as recently pointed out to me by someone whose name I can't remember, sorry).

MS FSX preceded MS ESP!

In actual fact, the Microsoft ESP (Enterprise Simulation Platform) product is (or rather was) the commercial-use version of "Flight Simulator X SP2". ESP is (was) thus an offspring of FSX.

 

LM licensed the ESP code, and whatever they did with it afterwards, technically speaking P3D is (indirectly) based on FSX code.

 

Which also explains why out-of-the-box P3D scenery has such an eerie resemblance to FSX scenery, all later improvements notwithstanding.

[jmig]

In my opinion comparing PD3 V4 to FSX is like comparing humans to monkeys. Humans and monkeys may share 90% DNA but humans are (well most of us) way more capable and adaptable than monkeys. So it is with PD3 and FSX.

 

With PD3 V4 I think Lockheed Martin has given us a strong base platform. They are wise enough to allow the developers the latitude to stretch their personal envelopes in coming up with new and exciting products for us simmers. FSX just can't do it. It is the Neanderthal of flight simulation. FSX will slowly die off because it can't evolve much more and other products will surpass it. This is not to say it isn't a good program or platform. Unfortunately for FSX users, its time has passed.

 

PD3 V4 is very smooth and provides without any add-ons a very realistic (as far as a $60 flight sim program can provide) flight sim experience. PD3 V4's autogen is superior to FSX and even (IMO) the 32 bit versions. I am excited and can hardly wait until the developers start to push it and give us an even better flight sim experience.

 

Again I want to emphasize that I think LM has given us a base platform. Think of it this way. If you were Bill Gates kind of rich and you went to Boeing (or Airbus for Europeans) to buy a personal jet. Boeing/Airbus sells you a base airplane. You then have it fitted out with the equipment and paint scheme you want. Well LM is Boeing in this case. The developers are the avionics, upholsterers, and painters who will personalize your new airplane.

 

The developers will make PD3 V4 (and follow up versions) a benchmark other sim platforms will try and match. We have gone from the prop to jet age.

 

I am very happy with PD3 V4 in its base configuration. It will only get better. If you are on the fence and can afford the $60 plus upgrades to your favorite add-ons, I suggest you take the leap. I don't think you will be sorry.

[vgbaron]

... sigh ... This is such an extremely common misconception (as recently pointed out to me by someone whose name I can't remember, sorry).

MS FSX preceded MS ESP!

In actual fact, the Microsoft ESP (Enterprise Simulation Platform) product is (or rather was) the commercial-use version of "Flight Simulator X SP2". ESP is (was) thus an offspring of FSX.

 

LM licensed the ESP code, and whatever they did with it afterwards, technically speaking P3D is (indirectly) based on FSX code.

 

Which also explains why out-of-the-box P3D scenery has such an eerie resemblance to FSX scenery, all later improvements notwithstanding.

 

Technically, you are correct but we're into semantics here. Yes, FSX came first - ESP was derived from the core functions of FSX, it was not a portover copy that was renamed ( and no, you did not say it was) - P3D was based on the core functions of ESP but, as many claim, it was NOT FSX. The similarities must be here, they are both simulators and used the same databases etc.

 

My point being, there were significant differences between P3D and FSX from day one and they have grown considerably since then.

 

Vic

[zswobbie1]

Content deleted

[mallcott]

In my opinion comparing PD3 V4 to FSX is like comparing humans to monkeys. Humans and monkeys may share 90% DNA but humans are (well most of us) way more capable and adaptable than monkeys. So it is with PD3 and FSX.

 

With PD3 V4 I think Lockheed Martin has given us a strong base platform. They are wise enough to allow the developers the latitude to stretch their personal envelopes in coming up with new and exciting products for us simmers. FSX just can't do it. It is the Neanderthal of flight simulation. FSX will slowly die off because it can't evolve much more and other products will surpass it. This is not to say it isn't a good program or platform. Unfortunately for FSX users, its time has passed.

 

PD3 V4 is very smooth and provides without any add-ons a very realistic (as far as a $60 flight sim program can provide) flight sim experience. PD3 V4's autogen is superior to FSX and even (IMO) the 32 bit versions. I am excited and can hardly wait until the developers start to push it and give us an even better flight sim experience.

 

Again I want to emphasize that I think LM has given us a base platform. Think of it this way. If you were Bill Gates kind of rich and you went to Boeing (or Airbus for Europeans) to buy a personal jet. Boeing/Airbus sells you a base airplane. You then have it fitted out with the equipment and paint scheme you want. Well LM is Boeing in this case. The developers are the avionics, upholsterers, and painters who will personalize your new airplane.

 

The developers will make PD3 V4 (and follow up versions) a benchmark other sim platforms will try and match. We have gone from the prop to jet age.

 

I am very happy with PD3 V4 in its base configuration. It will only get better. If you are on the fence and can afford the $60 plus upgrades to your favorite add-ons, I suggest you take the leap. I don't think you will be sorry.

 

Nope, disagree completely. P3D is still FSX/ESP derived. For it to qualify as going from `prop to jet age` they need to advance the FDE's redesign the display engine completely, properly integrate SLI and multicore computing and optimise the whole package for tomorrows hardware. not todays.

 

So far, all that's been achieved is a conversion to 64-bit and a lot more overhead for VRAM. Hardly anybody's `jet age`, but it is an order of magnitude beyond FSX and the other derivative sim, which seems to be struggling to optimise its optimisations, much less introduce new features.

[Bobsk8]

Nope, disagree completely. P3D is still FSX/ESP derived. For it to qualify as going from `prop to jet age` they need to advance the FDE's redesign the display engine completely, properly integrate SLI and multicore computing and optimise the whole package for tomorrows hardware. not todays.

 

So far, all that's been achieved is a conversion to 64-bit and a lot more overhead for VRAM. Hardly anybody's `jet age`, but it is an order of magnitude beyond FSX and the other derivative sim, which seems to be struggling to optimise its optimisations, much less introduce new features.

 

You left out, and no backwards compatibility whatsoever. .

[dwaintr]

Hey guys,

 

My system is i7 3930 @ 4.5 GHZ, 1080 GTX and 16 GB of RAM.

 

Would it make any difference if I changed my CPU with 7700 in the FPS performance? Would it be worth?

[pracines]

My thoughts on P3Dv4 are; its very good to finally have a 64-bit simulator that is so very well supported by the flight sim community and my favorite third party developers. We are only about a week into this and I have so many official updates to products that cost me nothing except the few minutes time to install them.

 

This transition from V3 to V4 has been very pleasant for me, and many thanks to the people at Lockheed Martin and all the 3rd party developers who went and continue to go the extra mile here.

[vgbaron]

Hey guys,

 

My system is i7 3930 @ 4.5 GHZ, 1080 GTX and 16 GB of RAM.

 

Would it make any difference if I changed my CPU with 7700 in the FPS performance? Would it be worth?

 

Well it's several generations newer. I'd say you'd get a noticeable improvement but as to whether it's worth it? That's purely your call.

I upgraded from a 3770 to a 7700 and there was a good improvement. To me, it was worth it cuz you're looking at new CPU, Mobo & RAM just for starters.

 

Vic

[dwaintr]

It may not be worth doing it for me because I don't think it'll improve my game/simulation experince for now. But I'm still open to any other ideas.

[muzomart]

Been using v4 on my very old system Windows 7 64bit, 8Gb RAM, nVidia GTX1050 2Gb. I have tried to use my ORBX EU but I have to turn the sliders down so no real gain there. However astonishingly I loaded my Just Flight Photographic Scenery and it is the best I have ever seen. Sliders all the up, except autogen as it's not needed. Gettting 50 - 60 fps most of the time and lowest with weather 40 fps. It is so smooth and no blurry texture. I flew VFR from Birmingham to Liverpool following the A5 road by sight all the way to the Menai Straights and landed at Liverpool. Then flew back again at dusk and the lighting in the towns and villages was great. I'm going to stick with the VFR for now even though it's outdated as it looks superb!!

[muzomart]

How did you manage to install the aircraft. I've done scenery but not aircraft, thanks

[zswobbie1]

Nope, disagree completely. P3D is still FSX/ESP derived..

 

As a Ford Mustang is Model T derived!

[mallcott]

As a Ford Mustang is Model T derived!

 

Actually no.

 

Name ANY parts common to both?

[RatRace]

Actually no.

 

Name ANY parts common to both?

 

What surprises me the most is that FSX/P3D still uses the BGL format. Now, as we all know (or should know), BGL stands for BAO Graphics Language, where “BAO” refers to the original developer of Flight Simulator, the Bruce Artwick Organisation,

 

Code will surely have changed over the years, but to what extent has the actual BGL file format undergone changes? I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be very similar to the authentic format concocted by Bruce Artwick decades ago.

[HardCub]

Hello friends. I've been watching this new release of Prepar3D v4 with great interest. My quick question is this: Will my current system run this new platform? I'm running FSX:SE with most display settings near maximum with pretty good results of 27-70 fps, depending on location. I use all of the Orbx products, FSGenesis mesh, REX Texture Direct, ActiveSky, A2Asimulations and many other GA aircraft payware brands, etc. Many many titles of payware airports too.

 

I also still enjoy and support use of FS9 and of course it is max'd out on everything... runs liquid smooth and is rock solid always.

 

Specs are:

Windows 10 PRO 64-bit OS

Asus 970 ProGamingAURA MB

AMD PhenomII X4 965 BlackEdition 3.40Ghz CPU

EVGA Nvidia GeForce 650GT 2GB DDR5 (1920x1200x32m res)

8GB DRAM Corsair

2TB WesternDigital Black Caviar SATA3 64MBcache HDD

 

Thanks for any ideas. I am considering a upgrade in the near future as this new version of Prepar3D v4 looks absolutely beautiful & stunning. ~Glenn

[vgbaron]

Well, you can run P3D4 but not very well. You only have 2gb ram on the video card - P3D4 really needs at least 4. You eed your cpu to be at least 4ghz.

 

If you can upgrade, P3D4 really is breathtaking.

 

Vic

[deansalman]

Not much of anything works so as long as you use scenery and no added aircraft or hardware P3D v4 is great. I went back to 3, maybe 6 months from now developers will catch up

[jring2]

I am a little confused that I am hearing about install problems with FSX and P3d v3 addons. Hasn't been my experience at all. I've installed purchased add-ons with the install.exe file, simply changing the destination. My FSX add-ons I have used so far work fine (I added the FSX.exe to the root directory for those looking for FSX). My Orbx addons work fine. My REX worked fine it would seem to me. So far I have added six of my purchased aircraft and a number of my add on scenery (OzX for one) and have not seen any problems. Frame rates increased in V4 with no hardware changes and I even maxed out the autogen. Honolulu drops to about 18 in downtown, Maui flight through the gap does a slide show with trees maxed, but otherwise the islands bring in pretty good frame rates with maxed autogen. No problems in New Zealand or Australia. There is still a lot of flying to be done in V4 but no disappointments so far.

 

I am curious which add-ons have given trouble? Is there something I'm not seeing in my experience? Where is the biggest source of issues?

[mallcott]

I am a little confused that I am hearing about install problems with FSX and P3d v3 addons. Hasn't been my experience at all. I've installed purchased add-ons with the install.exe file, simply changing the destination. My FSX add-ons I have used so far work fine (I added the FSX.exe to the root directory for those looking for FSX). My Orbx addons work fine. My REX worked fine it would seem to me. So far I have added six of my purchased aircraft and a number of my add on scenery (OzX for one) and have not seen any problems. Frame rates increased in V4 with no hardware changes and I even maxed out the autogen. Honolulu drops to about 18 in downtown, Maui flight through the gap does a slide show with trees maxed, but otherwise the islands bring in pretty good frame rates with maxed autogen. No problems in New Zealand or Australia. There is still a lot of flying to be done in V4 but no disappointments so far.

 

I am curious which add-ons have given trouble? Is there something I'm not seeing in my experience? Where is the biggest source of issues?

 

No they are not `working fine`. You just haven't noticed what isn't working, is all.

 

All .gau and .dll files will have to be recopmiled for 64-bit and DO NOT WORK with v4.

Scenery is not compiled to comply with the new installation guidelines, nor will any .dll-based addons within that scenery function - NONE of the ORBX sceneries that use PeopleFlow and ObjetFlow are functioning in v4. You might think they, but it just shows what you are not seeing.

 

As of time of writing, ONLT FTX Global, the OPen LC's and the specific Regional sceneries are functioning - except for the aforementioned modules. If you THINK they're working then probably best to stay quiet and stop promoting our opinion on things about which you know little, with issues you are unable to spot.

 

The fact that the modules are needing time even after FTX/ORBX involvement in the v4 Beta tells you that it is not as simple as recompiling for 64-bit. There are a myriad of small things that have to be implemented and some large ones - Dynamic Lighting for example.

 

I could go on, but as usual the advice is simple: If you wait until `certified v4 compliant` installers and files are converted you run the best chance of not having probkems necessitating a complete reinstall.

 

As for FTX/ORBX, ONLY install the sceneries that are noted as `available` in the FTX Central that has been updated for V4.

 

FACT: If you haven't re-run the migration tool for v4 your V3-ported sceneries are NOT working properly, no matter what you say.

 

C'mon moderators, lets put a stop to this misinformation claptrap right here, right now.

 

I expect better of Flightsim.

[alverthein]

I am sure it is a fine product but on my machine the fps with PMDG are under 10...with the default planes fps are in the teens and sometimes low 20s....probably need to upgrade my machine but the V3.4 runs better on my older machine and I not being a computer person don't even understand what the 64 bit means...my machines are 64 bit...not the programs...everyone seems to have a different experience

[vgbaron]

 

C'mon moderators, lets put a stop to this misinformation claptrap right here, right now.

 

I expect better of Flightsim.

 

 

You have misguided information as to the function of a moderator. Were we to "authenticate" each post it would be ridiculous. It's up to the members of the community to provide insight and, where possible, the mods can chime in with advice in their areas of expertise. Other than that we try to keep things legal and civil.

 

Vic

[jring2]

No they are not `working fine`. You just haven't noticed what isn't working, is all.

 

FACT: If you haven't re-run the migration tool for v4 your V3-ported sceneries are NOT working properly, no matter what you say.

 

 

Poor Mallcott.. . All in a lather! :)

 

Somehow the thought I asked a question rushed you to conclusions not in evidence? Of course the aforementioned add-ons (orbx, rex, etc) are installed according to instructions. Not sure why you would assume procedures would be missed. Perhaps you ran into that? And about Orbx. The ones listed for V4 still change the autogen to a poorer class of construct, but the benefits outweigh the loss.

 

Thanks for clarification on the guages even if done bloody cheeky. I will look for that and ignore your lack of class. :)

[jmig]

Poor Mallcott.. . All in a lather! :)

 

Somehow the thought I asked a question rushed you to conclusions not in evidence? Of course the aforementioned add-ons (orbx, rex, etc) are installed according to instructions. Not sure why you would assume procedures would be missed. Perhaps you ran into that? And about Orbx. The ones listed for V4 still change the autogen to a poorer class of construct, but the benefits outweigh the loss.

 

Thanks for clarification on the guages even if done bloody cheeky. I will look for that and ignore your lack of class. :)

 

My, my. Some people do seem to have a need to be right.

 

John, I am like you. I have installed many of my favorite PD3 V3 sceneries and aircraft into V4 and I am enjoying it thoroughly. Maybe the people aren't walking around. No matter, I have never tried to talk to them anyway. I just taxi up, shutdown, and exit PD3.

 

mallcott, I am not trying to pick on you. You obviously know a lot about the mechanics and insides of flight simulation software. And you are correct in your assertions of things not being 100%. However, success, truth, morality, and flight simulation is related the the point of view of the doer, observer, or, in our case, simmer.

 

I am a few months short of 70 years old. I have two stents and a pacemaker. So, not everything is 100% in my body. That doesn't stop me from enjoying life and my two hobbies, nature photography and flight simulation. I travel a lot and often hike to where I can get the picture. Mind you, I can't hike like I use to. Somethings I will never see and photograph. Still, I enjoy and love what I do see and photograph. Flight simulation is a lot like life.

 

I was also a real world pilot. I have flown high performance jet fighters and small GA aircraft. So, I think I know what is a good simulation from a pilot's POV. I love PDd V4, even with it less than perfect V3 sceneries and aircraft. It is not perfect. No simulation is. Yet, that doesn't mean non-perfection can't be very enjoyable.

 

The fun in simulation is in suspending your disbelief. In other words, can the simulation make you feel that you are really in the aircraft. It has for me. Sometimes flying something like the VRS F-18 or either Milviz or Simworks F-4s gives me deja vu. Granted I am in a actual fighter cockpit with a 85" X 48" inch projection onto a DIY screen. Don't let that give anyone the idea you can only get suspense of disbelief with a several thousands of dollars cockpit and projectors. I first started MSFS when I returned to flying after a multi year layoff. I was fascinated by what I could simulate. I used it to prefly new business flights and practice possible approaches at my destination.

 

Again, it wasn't perfect. However, if there was a lake to the northwest of my attended airport in MSFS, it was there in real life. Anyone who has ever tried to find a small airport buried in trees without the aid of GPS, knows how hard it can be. MSFS helped my confidence tremendously that I wouldn't make a fool of myself. That was 20-25 yrs ago. Today, it is even better. Not perfect, mind you, but wonderfully exciting.

 

I will stop. Writing this has made me want to fly. I will go fire up my less than perfect V4 and fully enjoy the flight. My advice is that we all do the same. Forget about perfection. Embrace what we have now.