Jump to content

Returning to the fold - if starting over, which FS software would you base your sim?


grwinski

Recommended Posts

After about 5 years of distractions, (and getting closer to retirement), I'm wanting to plunge into the hobby again.

 

I 'played around' with a few versions of Microsoft's Flight Simulator, and currently have the latest, X. But of course, Microsoft stopped supporting that line a while back.

 

At this point, I want to get a bit more serious with creating hardware (dashboards and separate controls) and create a simulator more 'authentic' than pushing function keys on a keyboard. (I do have a joystick and rudders, but want to step up the authenticity).

 

As I want to make this a retirement hobby that will go on for several years, I'm prepared to spend a few bucks to get (or build) a fairly high-end PC, dedicated to the simulator (so I don't have to re-configure a multi-purpose home computer every time I want to fly).

 

At this point, looking for some opinions on which FS software is the most promising going forward. While Microsoft X (and it's precursors) have a strong following (still?), I'm also concerned about longer term support. I want to be able to add hardware control panel functionality over time (and based on budget), and want to be able to eventually plug into the ground controller network. Also, being able to buy (or possibly create) new airports, weather conditions, etc. to enhance realism are all part of my goals.

 

Don't think I'm going to go crazy like buying an old 737 cockpit to install on the side of the house, but would like to be able to fairly accurately simulate some more sophisticated general aircraft (possibly as sophisticated as a learjet).

 

Thoughts on which software base to begin with (pros/cons)? I don't believe MS X supported multi-processors/threads. Do any of the newer simulators take full advantage of the better processors/GPUs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried both X-Plane 11 and Prepar3D v4 (both are 64 bit) and chose to go with Prepar3D v4 as there are a lot more commercial add-ons for P3D and if you have used Microsoft FS in the past, there is not much of a learning curve.

 

 

My two cents...

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For long term Simming you're probably looking at getting Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d. But its EULA says pretty much you need to be a student. But many don't follow it and just buy it anyway. FSX is the other option, but a lot of developers in their infinite wisdom despite P3D's EULA are making add-ons for P3D.

 

In your quest to make a cockpit, check out Project Magenta.

 

I haven't tried it yet, but here's a solution for virtual reality in absence of a full fledged cockpit. https://flyinside-fsx.com/Products

 

Just keep a puke bucket near by in case you do use it. :p LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, CXA001 and CRJ_Simpilot, for your thoughts. Looks like I'm probably heading down the P3D path. Is there an explanation as to why Lockheed doesn't want this to be purchased by hobbyests? Seems like even with that group, the market is fairly small. I'd think they would want to expand the ecosystem with their flight simulator.

 

I've seen comments about 'P3D' is NOT MSFS; however, based on CXA's comment, it sounds like they were able to get the source from Microsoft and build from there. Is that true?

 

I also saw a comment that P3D has probably the highest cost of ownership due to it's fairly high price and Lockheed's 'commitment to major turns every 2 years'. That makes me just a little nervous as I'd like to get started with something that will get support for a while. Also, the EULA makes me just a bit jumpy, although you said developers are ignoring the EULA and creating add-ons for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would start out with the simulator you have. Don't worry about the support to much. You have come to the right place for that. I would focus on the right computer. Get that up and running. And as far as P3d is concerned, if you are not ready to make a $199.00 commitment consider it carefully. Only point I am making is if you go for the student version and then later on (I think it is a 60 day grace period) decide to go for the professional version you lose the initial amount.

 

I would definitely be on the look out for FSX:Steam edition to go on sale and grab that. X-plane 11 is good, but it takes some getting use to.

GPU: GeForce GTX 1080

CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K CPU@4.2GHz

Memory: 16.00GB Ram

Resolution: 3840 x 2160, 30Hz Seiki 39†Monitor

Operating System: Windows 10 Home Edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as far as P3d is concerned, if you are not ready to make a $199.00 commitment consider it carefully.

 

You do not need to spend $199.00. The academic version has all the features that FSX had.

 

 

Regards,

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misquoted me by not including my full statement. Basically, yes it is a lot like FSX, but with two differences. One is that it is 64 bit and you have to consider the EULA (if you care to, your choice).

GPU: GeForce GTX 1080

CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K CPU@4.2GHz

Memory: 16.00GB Ram

Resolution: 3840 x 2160, 30Hz Seiki 39†Monitor

Operating System: Windows 10 Home Edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the that the academic version puts a watermark in top part of your screen. Is that true?

This is true. It is a very small 'Academic Version' that is in white on the top right corner of the screen.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fsx was made using the fsx-sdk. The fsx-sdk was derived from the esp-sdk.

 

P3d was made with the p3d-sdk. The p3d sdk was also derived from the esp-sdk.

 

So no, p3d was not derived from fsx. It was made using a separate sdk.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

I used FS2004/FSX many years ago, bought lot of addons and hardware.

Now I'm back to flight sims, and have to make the same choose between P3D and X-plane.

And going with X-plane.

 

My reasons:

- I have changed PC, and need to buy new addons. All addons are more expensive to P3D then XP.

- P3D is based on an old platform. Even if the new P3D.4 is 64-bit, probably still much old code is used. It can be very expensive and hard to change this. I'm not sure Lookheed will do this.

- XP is made by a company (Laminar Research) who's main business is flight simulators. And I don't need to buy license to use XP. With P3D you need a license and fake you are student (I'm not). All the developer options and license are ridicule expensive.

- P3D is manufactured by Lookheed Martin, and major military manufacturer. Flight simulators is minor business for them, and I'm not sure if flight simulators is a future for them. And I don't want to support the military industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, CXA001 and CRJ_Simpilot, for your thoughts. Looks like I'm probably heading down the P3D path. Is there an explanation as to why Lockheed doesn't want this to be purchased by hobbyests? Seems like even with that group, the market is fairly small. I'd think they would want to expand the ecosystem with their flight simulator.

 

I've seen comments about 'P3D' is NOT MSFS; however, based on CXA's comment, it sounds like they were able to get the source from Microsoft and build from there. Is that true?

 

I also saw a comment that P3D has probably the highest cost of ownership due to it's fairly high price and Lockheed's 'commitment to major turns every 2 years'. That makes me just a little nervous as I'd like to get started with something that will get support for a while. Also, the EULA makes me just a bit jumpy, although you said developers are ignoring the EULA and creating add-ons for it.

 

P3D will be the most familiar, but if starting from scratch take a good look at X-Plane 11.

 

But as has been said why are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? FSX continues to have addons developed, even if the core sim is long outmoded!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used FS2004/FSX many years ago, bought lot of addons and hardware.

Now I'm back to flight sims, and have to make the same choose between P3D and X-plane.

And going with X-plane.

 

My reasons:

- I have changed PC, and need to buy new addons. All addons are more expensive to P3D then XP.

- P3D is based on an old platform. Even if the new P3D.4 is 64-bit, probably still much old code is used. It can be very expensive and hard to change this. I'm not sure Lookheed will do this.

- XP is made by a company (Laminar Research) who's main business is flight simulators. And I don't need to buy license to use XP. With P3D you need a license and fake you are student (I'm not). All the developer options and license are ridicule expensive.

- P3D is manufactured by Lookheed Martin, and major military manufacturer. Flight simulators is minor business for them, and I'm not sure if flight simulators is a future for them. And I don't want to support the military industry.

 

You clearly don't understand what is happening in the P3D space. Laminar Research are still using much `old code` even in the latest version of X-Plane. L-M have made more steps in the last two versions than FSX/ACES managed in two years.

 

`All` addons are NOT more expensive than XP anymore than they are for FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I like I said, I'm returning sim user. If you compare the number of P3D and XP user, the former group is much bigger. And also the number of add-ons are much bigger for P3D then XP. And you can use old add-ons you bought for FS2004 and FSX. The latter is important for those who upgrade to P3D, instead to XP or something else.

 

I can't comment about the cost of new add-ons for P3d. "Others" say in general it cost more for P3D then XP, but it's of course about which specific add-ons you want and buy.

 

It's difficult to say which is the best way to go for a new sim user. P3D, XP or something else. The forums are full of such threads. But it's a question about what you want and not what others says is the "best".

 

I feel the XP-path is the right way for me. May I'm wrong, but time will show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be quite simple..

FSX .... development long frozen

FSX:SE... development long frozen.

P3d ... very much ongoing development. Originally based on Microsoft's ESP version of the sim, a commercial use version. Now on version 4.3

 

You most certainly do not have to fake anything. Just buy what you want!

Also, whenever you buy ANY software, you have a license to use it. P3D is no different to FSX, XP, or any other software.

 

Have you actually looked at the P3D site to see the upgrades so far?

Lockheed Martin sells P3D as a training tool to the military, training schools & others.

 

You do not want to support the military????? They support you! Thank goodness.

Anyhow!

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- P3D is manufactured by Lookheed Martin, and major military manufacturer. Flight simulators is minor business for them, and I'm not sure if flight simulators is a future for them. And I don't want to support the military industry.
It's the 4th of July and re-reading this just ticks me off - not just because I'm an American military retiree.

 

The premise is fallacious, the reasoning convoluted and the conclusion borders on being obscenely obtuse.

 

Lockheed Martin's P3D codebase was originally bought from Microsoft. Microsoft. It started as the same codebase that Dovetail originally sold as the FSX:Steam Edition. Both eventually developed/began to develop 64-bit versions. Both made improvements over the original codebase according to multiple sources. What has that got to do with being a company that is part of the "military industrial complex".

 

L-M's primary business is making money and one of the ways it does that is P3D, a program used by numerous commercial, non-military business - flight schools, universities and even secondary schools. Yes, it might be used underneath some military flight sim applications... Um, ever heard of Ray-Ban? Are you not going to buuy their sunglasses because military pilots wear them?

 

Better buckle up buttercup and do some research buckaroo. There are sooooo many companies that supply products to the military you're going to have to choose just how determined you are to avoid supporting such companies. P&G, GE, Microsoft, Google, and many, many others supply products across the consumable and consumer spectrum - be sure not to buy from any of those companies either. Ever.

 

In any case, not buying P3D because it is expensive makes sense. I haven't for that very reason myself. Not buying it because L-M produces products used by the military..... Senseless. Absolutely senseless to me.

 

You have a great day - your freedom to make senseless choices having been guaranteed to you and others by the very military in whatever country you live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 9, 2014, Dovetail Games, the developer of Train Simulator, announced that it signed a licensing agreement with Microsoft to continue development on FSX and the production of new content. On December 18, 2014, the FSX: Steam Edition version of the simulator was made available through digital distribution via Steam. The updated release of FSX includes support for Windows 8.1 and later, along with updated hosting of FSX multiplayer features through Steam.

 

So, Dovetail could only make very small modifications of FSX, according to the licensing agreement with Microsoft. All future development of FSX:Steam Edition has been frozen.

 

In May 2017, Dovetail Games announced their new flight simulator, Flight Sim World, which released later that month. However, a year after release, Dovetail Games announced it would stop development of Flight Sim World and remove it from sale in May 2018. FSW was also based on the FSX core!

 

In 2009 Lockheed Martin announced that they had negotiated with Microsoft to purchase the intellectual property (including source code) for the Microsoft ESP (Enterprise Simulation Platform) product. Microsoft ESP is the commercial-use version of "Flight Simulator X SP2". On May 17, 2010, Lockheed announced that the new product based upon the ESP source code would be called Lockheed Martin Prepar3D. Lockheed hired members of the original ACES Studio team to continue development of the product. Version 1.1 was released in April 2011

 

After releasing Version 2 in 2013 and Version 3 in 2015, the team released 64-bit Version 4 in May 2017, & we now are up to Version 4.3.

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ve a great day[/b] - your freedom to make senseless choices having been guaranteed to you and others by the very military in whatever country you live in.

 

I think it's important to note that he said he doesn't want to support the *military industry,* or in the more common terms, the military-industrial complex. I.e., he doesn't want to support the commercial businesses which profit when the military is deployed into combat.

 

You can still support the soldiers in the military while not supporting corporations who lobby for putting the military in harm's way whether it's a national security need or not. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but it's not correct to assume that opposing the guy who wants to sell more bullets is also opposing the guy who's getting shot by them.

 

Back to the actual topic of the thread, I'm in the same boat as OP. I just grabbed XP11 when it was on sale for $40, and while there are parts of it that are really, really good, there are other parts that are just laughably bad. ATC, ground handling, complete loss of realistic engine characteristics at high-cruise altitudes...

 

The ATC requires you to be on an IFR flight, and when you are on one, it's on rails. i.e. it will tell you to do something stupid, like turn final right when an AI plane is also on final. And when you refuse to crash into that plane, ATC gets mad and terminates your IFR. Or it will fly you straight through a mountain, which happened occasionally in FSX, but happens all the time in XP.

 

Oh, and speaking of crashing into that airplane on final... Actually you don't because from what I've seen so far nothing is solid in the game except the ground. I've flown through airplanes, driven through buildings and trees while taxiing, etc. On one hand this is a good thing because at a lot of the airports, the taxiway markers are stuck right in the middle of the taxiway instead of in the grass on the side where they're supposed to be. On the other, it's just stupid.

 

On the ground handling, the controls are stupidly sensitive. I discovered that you have to increase their sensitivity in order to make them less sensitive, but even at 100% sensitivity, I move the rudder pedal maybe 1 inch and the nosewheel deflects fully. That's bad enough when you're understeering all over the place while taxiing, but on takeoff it's almost impossible to keep the plane pointed straight because you can't help but overcorrect.

 

And then we get to the performance at altitude. Forget a normal cruise at 40,000 in an Eclipse 550, because the engines are weak as hell up there. Heck, I loaded the default Blackbird and barely managed to get it past Mach 1. The fastest plane in the world, and in Xplane it's just barely faster than a Citation X. Supposedly this is being worked on but until it is, if you're interested in jets, Xplane is going to make you mad.

 

All that said, looking at P3Dv4, it looks pretty much the same as FSX. Visuals are important, and Xplane wipes the floor with the FSX/P3D series. The planes look like real, physical planes, with individual parts riveted together. The jetwash is absolutely beautiful. While the plains areas are, well, fairly plain, and the urban density mapping is bad where it exists at all (I live in a suburb of a large metro area, and Xplane apparently thinks I live in the middle of farm country) if you fly in the Rockies it's really, really gorgeous. Absolutely nothing I ever saw in FSX, defaut or payware addon, can touch it.

 

The clouds easily rival even the payware addons for FSX - REX weather doesn't hold a candle to the weather effects in Xplane - unfortunately, the actual *weather* engine leaves much to be desired, as it updates very infrequently, and uses only METARs as its reference, and METARs don't generally get granular enough for actual weather simulation, which means that you can look at the NWS's Level3 radar data and see that there's a rotating supercell with 70mph winds and 1.5" hail, and then you go fly there and in sim it's a little rainstorm with some lightning and a bit of light chop, and meanwhile in the real world the storm moved out of the area 45 minutes ago but you're still flying in it in-sim.

 

And my other problem with P3D is that even though I'm fully aware that the "no-fun-allowed" license is just a wink and a nod to comply with an agreement that both LM and MS knew was stupid and wouldn't be followed (I mean, really, how many people on an academic P3D license are training to fly the F22 that is advertised in P3D's own promotional videos?), it's still important to me to at least try to follow intellectual property requirements. Maybe now that Dovetail's FSX replacement crashed and burned they'll rework the license so that entertainment purposes are OK, but until then I'm just reluctant to bite.

 

 

Really the stopping point for me with Xplane is the absolutely miserable ATC implementation - as much as we all complained about the native FSX ATC, that ATC feels about 5 generations newer than Xplane's, and the complete lack of performance up top. If they'd fix those two things I'd have my FSX replacement, but until then I'm still looking, and not really seeing anything out there that will scratch the itch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks, ShadowFax -- ugh, your comments reinforced my suspicion that there's no 'best path' right now -- if you want graphics, choose Xplane -- but it has it's own set of problems including poor support for ATC.

 

I think I'm still leaning toward P3D just because it follows the FSX stream (somewhat), provides 64 bit support, and is pretty robust in flight dynamics. Perhaps I'll be able to find some scenery and weather add-ons that get it closer to realistic -- I want to ultimately create a fairly immersive experience, and having smooth, photorealistic graphics is part of that.

 

Can anyone point me to a thread that discusses hardware (PC) performance 'sweet spot'? Before I got distracted, it seemed that the more MIPs the better, along with the fastest graphics card you could find. Now it appears that there might be an asymptope in this area. I was thinking that I might want to invest in a Xeon multi-chip workstation, but am wondering if that might be overkill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry there isn't better news for you. I'm actually going back to FSX as my main sim. I'll do VFR stuff in Xplane, but man... simming flight plans over there is just...

 

Just be sure to check out the p3d forum - I'm hearing that some people are having very annoying problems with v4. I suspect, though, that if you get it working well and are willing to fork out the cash for good scenery, p3dv4 will be your best bet since it can use a lot more ram than previous versions/fsx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, any reasonably modern PC will run P3D. How it runs it is another matter, even the very best PC will start to complain a bit performance-wise when you start adding everything including the kitchen sink to the base program and then start moving all those graphics, traffic and effects sliders over to the right. I'd defy any PC to be able to run massively high frame rates in P3D V4 with VFR France's Isle de France add-on, with everything graphically maxed out, Active Sky on full tilt, AI traffic on full flying a fancy payware airliner going into a nice LFPG add-on airport. It's just not going to happen. But...

 

I can get P3D V4 running satisfactorily on my laptop which only has 8Gb of DDR4 RAM, AMD Radeon R3 GPU and an AMD A4 CPU. The key word here is 'satisfactorily'. Obviously my desktop, which has more RAM, a faster CPU and a much better GPU can run it with more of the pretty options turned on. Note that in order to do this by the way, I needed TWO Prepar3D V4 licenses, one for each installation of it, which means it can get pricey. What we need to bear in mind here, is throwing tons of add-ons at a base sim and then complaining that it doesn't get spectacular frame rates is like putting a 6.0 litre engine into a Nissan Micra and then complaining that it doesn't get 50 mpg like it used to.

 

So, the really important word here is satisfactorily. What that means to me is a decent interpretation of the weather, some reasonably realistic ATC, some believable AI traffic and a fairly realistic aeroplane (all of which can be achieved with payware add-ons in P3D). If I can have pretty graphics, then great I won't say no to that, but if not, I'll sacrifice that eye candy for realism any day of the week, because I'm wanting a flight simulator, not a pretty picture simulator. This is why even though I have pretty much every flight sim ever made, and why even though I completely agree that XP11 looks waaaaay better than P3D with fancy add-ons, the one which ticks the boxes for me as far as feature I want goes, is P3D. This does not mean that I pray at the holy shrine of Lockheed Martin and won't acknowledge that some other flight sims do some stuff better than P3D does, for example, the runways are better in XP11 and Condor 2 is a vastly better gliding sim than either XP or p3D, so I fly in that when I want to do simulated gliding stuff and occasionally I crank up XP11 because it's still the only sim with a decent payware Airbus A350.

 

So personally, I'd say if you want to go mad on systems and aviation infrastructure realism, then P3D is the way to go (or FSX-SE if you want a cheaper option), if you want to enjoy beautifully scenic VFR flights, then either XP11 or AeroFly FS2 will be better choices. If you wanna soar like an eagle, Condor 2, and if you want to shoot anything that moves with a warplane, DCS world.

 

Thus my recommendation would be to not limit yourself to one choice of sim. Flight sims and the fact that you can own several of them, are one of the few things in life where you really can have the best of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing fsx, but if I started out today I would give Flightgear a go. I tried it a year back, in Linux. Great scenery. I'm planning to install it again soon, in Windows this time. (once my Ssd gets a little bigger.;) )
[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
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...