Jump to content

New Modern FS Platform


mealone

Recommended Posts

Hey there, I was planning on buying a modern flight simulator. As a +30y simmer, FSX has been my world for flight from the beginning. I have been looking around the net for comparisons in the sim world, I realise this is no easy issue to tackle.

 

btw, not really a newcomer, but by changing platform, it kinda is! So I'm in need of service advice.

 

To name but a few:

Infinite Flight: mobile sim (not for me) / X-plane 11: enormous and still tacky / FSW: same as FSX but with no add-ons / P3D: Can only look better with the add-ons even then it’s a FSX equivalent. (Same goes for the FSX steam edition).

 

I can’t seem to make up my mind.:confused: The only fault FSX has today is that it’s outdated and that’s why it can’t profit from the modern tech we now have. Let’s be honest, none of the Flight sims I found look good ‘out of the box’. So, I don’t really see the point of buying a new FS and start all over again with all the updates and add-ons needed to make the simulator as enjoyable as my now 33Gb FSX.

 

What I would like to see improved:

Full use of Graphic process as well as CPU, RAM and VRAM

Out of the box extreme Graphics included

User friendly settings and configuration

Full range of crafts to choose start with (one of each would be fine) not series.

Full cockpit control, all buttons and dials

Good feel to the flight. Audio, visual and comfortable stick control

Full ATC with environment sounds (cockpit and flight attendants)

Reasonable airport service and animation

Realistic weather changes

Fast global scenery (village, city, mountain, water, ai traffic ect)

Suitable maps, gps and flight planning.

Would be nice to have an ai co-pilot who helps out when asked (sort of like a visual AP)

FSX has users making plane versions, buildings and graphic enhancements (need to keep that!)

 

I would like any suggestions you may have to help me decide witch road to take.

I heard that FSW is coming out of beta, I will wait till then, if ever I can decide.

 

Cheers

Me

 

PS: As in FSX, most of the simulators (if not all) have a sharp horizon line, in real-world the scenery fades to grey as well as the sky, even in clear weather, why won’t this change? It would be better for the processing and more realistic in the long run (less chance of seeing buildings and trees popping into vision, but gradually appear from the grey shading). That’s why I prefer flying in misty or rainy weather and adjust to preferred distance and thickness.

FSX Rules!! :pilot:

What time's the next flight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've already made up your mind that P3D isn't much better than FSX, and you're looking for an awfully lot for $50-$60, so I don't see much out there for you. Note that FSX (and P3D) graphics are mostly better than what the airline folks have in their full motion, multi-million dollar simulators, and certainly more complete, since it covers the whole world, unlike those sims.

 

in real-world the scenery fades to grey as well as the sky,

 

Now that depends on where you ware and what the weather is doing. In the western US where the air is dry, and especially when the pollution isn't overwhelming, there often is, indeed, a sharp delineation between sky and horizon.

 

Full use of Graphic process as well as CPU, RAM and VRAM

 

P3D pretty much does that.

 

Fast global scenery (village, city, mountain, water, ai traffic ect)

 

I'm not sure what that means.

 

Larry N.

As Skylab would say:

Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you appear to have made up your mind I'm not sure what you need us for?

 

There is NO sim out there that meets your criterion out of the box. Only you can decide which of the options gets closest.

 

So let us know when you've got it all installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have so many great options these days. In fact, most of my simmer friends actually have 2 or more sims they use on a regular basis.

 

Flightgear is the lowest ownership cost and has made some great advances. A lot of helo simmers use it.

 

For next lowest ownership cost (but with limited future), stay with FS9, FSX, FSX-SE. Tons and tons of freeware, tons and tons of payware (although more and more developers committing to only newer platforms). This is also your best option if your computer hardware budget is very constrained.

 

I would personally recommend a modern, 64 bit platform (or two) assuming you have the hardware. The capabilities of all the 64 bit platforms far surpasses the FS9/FSX. Not only in terms of visuals, but the functionality in the add-ons.

 

Next up in terms of ownership costs is FlightSimWorld. FSW is a great price point for medium hardware and general aviation simming. Some FSX freeware can be adapted to it. The developer is continuing to add features and overall, it is a very pleasant and satisfying flightsim VFR GA platform for a simmer who doesn't need advanced features such as real weather and ATC.

 

Kinda big price jump to the next tier of sims.

 

DCS is next in terms of ownership costs and hardware requirements. The base platform is free and comes with 2 fully functional, very complex aircraft. It is, however, primarily a combat simulator so very short of civilian aviation equipment, scenery and procedures. However, the flight dynamics are probably (for the aircraft represented) are the best of all these sims. DCS is frequently a second sim for P3D users who do helos (great flight model in DCS) or are military P3D simmers.

 

XPlane is next to highest in ownership costs and hardware requirements. The latest version, 11, needs some powerful hardware to run at top of the line visuals. It does have a great freeware community especially with scenery, although freeware aircraft is on a declining trend. Luckily payware aircraft are increasing in variety and complexity. Carenado has historically invested in XPlane and many of their models are in the sim. Warning, a computer more than 3 years old may not be able to handle it.

 

Prepar3d is the most expensive platform to own and has hardware requirements similar to XPlane. Contrary to popular belief and some comments in this thread, P3D is NOT FSX. The latest Version 4 is 64 bits. NO FS9 addons and many, many FSX addons (scenery or aircraft) will not work in V4, resulting in very degraded performance or crashing the sim. Anyone who has used both FSX and P3Dv4 will attest to the extreme advances in V4. It really is a beautiful and powerful platform. Unfortunately, Lockheed Martin is committed to changing the platform, new major versions, every 2 years. This means, not only, are you re-buying the sim at no discount, you are also paying upgrade fees to many of the addon developers. This development cycle combined with the hardware requirements are what make P3D the highest ownership costs.

 

As I mentioned, many simmers use either FSX or P3D for their tubeliner work, then use XPlane or DCS for helos.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, thanks for reply

 

Larry:

I'm not trying to down-tread other sims than the FSX, I'm just saying with the tech we have today, why is it that the software developers are struggling to make a fully functional flight simulator that looks, feels, sounds and more complex than what we had back in the day. Is this the reason why MS dropped the simulation in the first place? (No more water to squeeze out of this stone).

 

I take it your a P3D fan and that's great! Everyone has their preference. It's not a matter of what you have, but more of where you started. And that brings me back to my reason for posting this thread. I have FSX with all the frills I saved up over the years. All I'm looking for is a Better, modern flight simulator software that I can sink my teeth into for the next +30 years.

 

Looking back, we were limited in CPU speed, 128 cache, 16Mb RAM, Voodoo cards, 8-16bit soundblaster, 1Gb HD and yet MS was able to make a Simulator as real as possible with only a limited amount of speed and capacity. (granted the desert ground was everywhere)

When you compare to the Tech we have today, there is little improvement in the flight simulation.

The one's I've been looking into seem to be exactly the same as what we had back then with a slight improvement in plane texture, wing movement, the 3d effect cockpit, fluffy clouds and wavy water effects.

 

I tried the X-plane11 at a friends house, apart from him not being very interested in Flight Simulators. When I finally got the plane in the air it felt just like my FSX but heavy and exaggerated in places that weren't that important to start with. One thing I did remember was the cockpit buttons jumping around, making it harder to adjust the settings with the mouse.

 

You stated in the US there is a place that has that sharp horizon look. Why do you need to see that far in a plane at 30.000ft? Save on the graphics and grey-mist it out. In my experience, anything further than 80 miles isn't a necessity when flying an Airbus at 300knots. But that's just me!

 

Fast global scenery (village, city, mountain, water, ai traffic ect)

loading times. in most sims you see graphics disappear behind and suddenly appear in front. Autogen, that's it! I know it has lots to do with fine tuning the graphical settings and what the system can handle, but with a i7 16GB RAM and 2Gb on Graphics card, you'd think that would be unnoticeable these days.

 

Thanks for the reply Larry :)

 

il88pp:

I have tried it, maybe the settings were off or something, It didn't give me satisfaction (for lack of another word) so I removed it.

It was a long time ago though, they may have improved the sim, thanks I will look into that one.

 

Thanks for the reply kiddo :)

FSX Rules!! :pilot:

What time's the next flight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm looking for is a Better, modern flight simulator software that I can sink my teeth into for the next +30 years.

 

Such a thing has never existed.

 

Looking back, we were limited in CPU speed, 128 cache, 16Mb RAM, Voodoo cards, 8-16bit soundblaster, 1Gb HD and yet MS was able to make a Simulator as real as possible with only a limited amount of speed and capacity. (granted the desert ground was everywhere) When you compare to the Tech we have today, there is little improvement in the flight simulation.

 

If that were the case, you could happily fire up FS95 or FS98 and not notice a difference.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, thanks for reply

 

Larry:

I'm not trying to down-tread other sims than the FSX, I'm just saying with the tech we have today, why is it that the software developers are struggling to make a fully functional flight simulator that looks, feels, sounds and more complex than what we had back in the day. Is this the reason why MS dropped the simulation in the first place? (No more water to squeeze out of this stone).

 

Why aren’t the current sims fully functional? They can be made to look pretty good, and have the important sim functionality. Part of the reason they don’t keep up with AAA games in terms of visuals is that there is far more to do under the hood, and a far larger area to render. And on the CPU side, multi-core support is hard to do for many computing tasks, including games and desktop sims. Even many of the latest games still only use a couple of CPU cores at most.

 

Overall, the sim market is relatively small, and the cost to build what you want from scratch are enormous. Take a look at what the latest GTA V game cost and how small of an area it includes compared to FSX/P3D/X-Plane et al. The options are either start from an existing code base a la P3D and Flight Sim World, or take a very long time to catch up like Aerofly FS 2 (great start, but a long way to go yet for many people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated in the US there is a place that has that sharp horizon look. Why do you need to see that far in a plane at 30.000ft? Save on the graphics and grey-mist it out. In my experience, anything further than 80 miles isn't a necessity when flying an Airbus at 300knots. But that's just me!

 

I commented on that because of the P.S. in your original post, just wanting to correct the misconception that everywhere always had a blurred line there. Visibility in the southwestern US (and much of the mountain west will often exceed 150-200 miles*. BTW, I don't fly at 30,000 feet or at 300+ knots, except on rare occasions -- I'm usually within a couple of thousand feet of the ground, very rarely above 10,000 MSL except in the highest terrain -- so note that not all of us are airline buffs.

 


* I live on the north side of the Denver metro area, and most of the time (barring some clouds or smoke from forest fires) I can see Pikes Peak, around 75 miles south from my house. Sometimes it's hazy, sometimes pretty clear, sometimes it feels almost as if you could reach out and touch it.

 

Larry N.

As Skylab would say:

Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live on the north side of the Denver metro area, and most of the time (barring some clouds or smoke from forest fires) I can see Pikes Peak, around 75 miles south from my house. Sometimes it's hazy, sometimes pretty clear, sometimes it feels almost as if you could reach out and touch it.

 

A couple of years ago I was on an airliner from Oklahoma to Denver (connecting on from there). The skies were so clear I could see the snow covered mountains west of Denver for most the flight. It was a beautiful day to fly. If one wants a sim that's as real as it gets, then rendering the outside view accurately would be part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, thanks for reply

 

Thanks for the reply kiddo :)

 

Many of your comments about visuals and performance would indicate a lack of experience with good hardware and sims besides FSX. I am not an AeroFly FS fan but my (and others) experience with it contraindicates most of your criticism of "modern sims".

 

My sense is you haven't tried very many other sims and your hardware is getting some age.

 

PS You get what you pay for, hardware wise, as Luke pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Microsoft tried to get back into the flightsim fray with Flight,

a really half-hearted, almost lame attempt. Perhaps that was, at the time, that MS was lacking

some direction as a company? Today, they are more healtny. They certainly have the resouces for

a new, more sophisticated sim. Will they? Probably not, with all the new sims out there...

Too bad. But hey, ya never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Henrystreet

 

Prepar3d is the most expensive platform to own and has hardware requirements similar to XPlane. Contrary to popular belief and some comments in this thread, P3D is NOT FSX.

 

I'm not looking for expensive or cheap, or even free. I don't have the ultimate, super fast rig either (i5, 16Gb mem, 2x SSD 256Gb, HD 2Tb) compared to how I described earlier in the thread this should more than do the job. I refuse to take out a loan to buy a PC just to fly a virtual plane "As Real As It Gets" (copyright MS for FSX).

 

I don't recall saying P3D is FSX, I did say it's an equivalent to FSX (same ATC, same sounds, same ground photo, and so on) not the same software, that would be stupid.

 

But your right I didn't check the V4, until just now on youtube. And I also read comments like here from people who experienced the

software for longer than a few weeks. I can not afford to buy and install every FS on the market, so I use alternatives.

 

I don't live in the US, But what I'm trying to say is Flight Sims are getting so large and heavy loaded graphically, that I don't need to see the Eiffel Tower as soon as I take off from Gatwick or Heathrow (LONDON). All that's needed is 70 odd miles for VFR. All I'm saying is "It doesn't need to be so detailed so far out. less is sometimes more, or better in this case". If I wanted the Real thing I'd be cheaper off to get a license and rent a plane.

 

Hey luke,

You might laugh, but I still have those versions of FS. But, why stop there? I can also install the MSFS 4.0 I still have the diskettes.

I'm not looking to go backwards, that's not the reason for this thread.

 

Starting to get the feeling I'm not content with what I have, I think Henrystreet made a good point when he said "stay with FSX".

Then wait for FSW. I honestly believe they are on the right track, just give it time! So that's what I will do.

 

I am sorry if I upset anyone here, I didn't mean to ruffle feathers or cause any friction between the competition.

 

I grew up with MSFS and stayed with them till the present day. It would be nice to have something new. But what?

FSX Rules!! :pilot:

What time's the next flight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Henrystreet

 

It's pretty human to want exactly what you want at exactly the cost you want it. There is a lot of experience, knowledge, and expertise in this and other forums that can offer much in the way of advice before someone makes an investment into a whole new platform.

 

What is probably not ok, is to opine about the lack of options when you have done almost no research yourself AND have obvious prejudices (NOT simple hobby preferences) at the outset of questions. In the end, it makes folks who offered honest advice feel like they have wasted their time when the questioner is simply taking up rhetorical space.

 

My advice to you, if you are truly ready to switch platforms (though fairly obvious you are not) is 1) get your hardware together 2) research the various platforms. Regarding the platforms, you will find perhaps 6-10 companies that have successful and profitable sim platforms that are based on a lot of user market research. Who knows, you may fit one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't live in the US, But what I'm trying to say is Flight Sims are getting so large and heavy loaded graphically, that I don't need to see the Eiffel Tower as soon as I take off from Gatwick or Heathrow (LONDON). All that's needed is 70 odd miles for VFR. All I'm saying is "It doesn't need to be so detailed so far out. less is sometimes more, or better in this case". If I wanted the Real thing I'd be cheaper off to get a license and rent a plane.

 

I think all of the current sims already do this with LOD radius settings. It's not something that's easy to balance for everyone, and much of the increased load comes from add-ons pushing the limits of what's drawn within that radius. Airliners flying at FL300 don't really need to draw much more than the base scenery tiles as you can't see individual trees or finer terrain detail at altitude anyways. On the other hand, when flying low level VFR, you do need to give more detail as it is possible to see the finer details. Then again, when the airliner drops down for approach and is still doing 200 knots, there is a significant load on the CPU trying to figure out what to draw as the plane is moving relatively fast over the ground. Again, this is something the developers are aware of and do try to handle as best as possible.

 

If simming were as popular as games like Call of Duty or GTA V, there would be a lot more money and resources available to put towards all of this. As it is, the existing developers do the best they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't hear any thing bad you said about any sim. None is exactly got everything you want. Nothing wrong with feeling that of course. And hard to judge the sims you never tried. Also no more then perfectly normal.:)

Very sensible to keep the limits of your pc in mind. I think you approach this very sensibly.

I think with the small flightsim userbase it's actually surprising there are so many flightsims.

Only one thing you said I disagree with slightly. Fsx does run much better on fast modern pc's then on old slow ones. Yes, fsx only uses one core. That's true. But addons that run with fsx, and also background programs use another core. With my old single core 2005 pc it really ram much worse. On more then 10fps ever with small props. The 737 and 747 were not an option. (single core pentium and AGP 256mb videocard with 768 or maybe 1024mb ram.)

No biggie.;)

 

Enjoy! That's the main thing.:)

il.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey il88pp

I have always enjoyed flight, missions and even repainting a few myself over the years. FSX has been running great for the last 10-15 years, it's also true that the add-ons over the years reduce graphic speed. My point is FSX ran on single core for years and is only 32bit most of the other FS are 64bit and have up to (these days) 18cores. I don't expect FSX to run any better with the modern tech because of the age. I was glad to hear that STEAM jumped in the drivers seat when MS decided FSX was a lost cause. I knew then, there is still chance of upgrades to my fav FS, although I have never been a fan of steam games. Have not changed to steam as yet, but if that is my only option, I will. Then I can still use my add-ons and graphic upgrades I have saved up over the years. (as well as my own stuff)

I hear they might also work in FSW. hmmm

 

I do and always will appreciate the effort, time and cash the developers contribute to the Flight Simulators. Where would we be today if they all just stopped making them.

 

A few years back I spoke to mike about the X-plane10 and how it compared to FSX. A discussion I will cherish for a long time. I think even then we talked about the pros and cons of the sim world and the modern hardware.

I have done loads of research over the years, but software changes, upgrades and gets better. Am I then wrong to ask the FS professionals for advice on what they think is best for me. I even made a list of points I would like to see in the new "an improved" Flight Sim (to give a rough idea what I'm looking for).

Nice suggestion though on flight Gear, it seems they have a co-pilot who will do the job for you. Even though I don't have trouble flying and landing choppers, it's nice to know she can take over the controls when needed. (that gives you time to look around and enjoy the view or relax your wrist on long journeys from island to island)

Cheers

 

I read somewhere (long ago) and tried it myself, and it worked. Changing the Affinity settings to use multiple cores. That goes with tweaking the graphic settings in FS, benchmarking and using external graphic enhancements. Huh, and they say my i5 is too old for modern day Flight Simming.

FSX Rules!! :pilot:

What time's the next flight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere (long ago) and tried it myself, and it worked. Changing the Affinity settings to use multiple cores.

 

Limited support for multi-threading (aka multi-core support) was added in FSX SP1, and doesn't require the addition of the affinity mask setting. On its own the sim will use as many cores as it can for loading scenery and terrain data, when needed. The affinity mask setting just allows you to control the cores available to the sim, which may help limit conflicts between the sim and the OS or other programs.

 

With the increased development the future of simming is looking pretty good. Between newcomers like Dovetail (not Steam) and Aerofly, and continued development of X-Plane and P3D, many of the limitations in FSX are being overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...