Anyone else getting great FPS like this over the American Southwest just East of LA?  P3D 2.0 makes me very happy.

 

Just to be fair this is an FSX shot since I can't get P3D 2.0 to run on my system but wanted some feedback from those that can.

 

Regards

jja

<p>I was on FSX Release day.  I have gone through all of the add-ons, good and bad, purchased equipment, tweaked and enjoyed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The day has come after I just now completed my first complete flight on P3D using Ultimate Traffic, AEX, Radar Contact, FSrealWX and an ACARS when just looking at the beautiful and smooth graphics from my window without tweaks, I realized my FSX days are limited.  The flight also gave me 20% higher FPS   I have onc major VA who stands by the position that it is Entertainment and P3D prohibits entertainment so must keep it around for those flights. </p>

Anyone else getting great FPS like this over the American Southwest just East of LA?  P3D 2.0 makes me very happy.

Just to be fair this is an FSX shot since I can't get P3D 2.0 to run on my system but wanted some feedback from those that can.

 

Regards

jja

 

I'm from the other end of the country, and I'm not familiar with this area, but I gave it a try. This is south of March ARB [KRIV], looking towards Newport Beach, with Santa Catalina Island in the far distance. Most of my settings are one notch below max, and I have FTX Global installed.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-144526-0-76312800-1386220422.jpg

I hear a lot of guys tossing away FSX...

I am not going to be that guy. I am blazing a different path.

FSX will remain on this computer. P3Dv2 Pro Plus is currently being tested on this computer as well. Once I learn its hardware limitations, I am building an dedicated P3D computer and server; just like my FSX counterpart.

However, instead of three 23.5 in. Widescreen Monitors, I will be using two 40 in. LED monitors.

Still trying to find a house to put that one in.... refuses to put it in the garage.

 

 

However, instead of three 23.5 in. Widescreen Monitors, I will be using two 40 in. LED monitors.

What a view you will have with that.  

I am a little confused with the performance. Though I have an old mid range pc, with workload shifted to gpu I was expecting to get atleast 'some' fps/smoothness gain for the same addons/detail I have in fsx. But all I see different is more ram/vram usage with cpu core1 reaching 100% as in fsx but bottlenecking at somewhat lower performance. For a more equal comparison I put FFTF=0.1, disabled pools and switched to fsx type autogen which helped but still not as smooth as fsx. Another negative is I get long freezes with AI enabled as vram usage maxes out.

 

Maybe that what has been shifted to gpu might not be what is bottlenecking for my hardware and fsx setup.

After alot of trail and error I've come to the conclusion that I will not leave FSX, nor will I abandon P3Dv2. I've decided I will slowly change from FSX to P3D when add-ons become 100% compatible with native P3Dv2 installers. P3D will be great as long as we let it mature a bit. So far, I only use FTXG and Twin Otter Extended in P3D as well as the default Carendo plane, so for all other flying, I use FSX:-)

I think I am. Having reinstalled FSX last night I find it simply works better for me at this point, and the only major downside coming off P3Dv2 is the poor agn batching, and the lack of the new shadow features. I like the highly detailed way I can customize to look of FSX with FSWC, SHADE and ENB along with nV Inspector; I have a far more beautiful flying environment than I can currently achieve in P3D with its spinning clouds, bugged custom weather and weird terrain lighting/shadowing.

 

There are also products that don't work correctly, or I cannot use legally, which may or may not change.

I will keep it until it nears the 60day limit for a refund in the hope things improve in certain areas, though I can't see me ever making the jump entirely regardless. It will also take very good sales of P3D to make developers put the time and money into making fully compliant products, or supporting it as the lead platform; time will tell I guess.

Hi everyone,

 

After reading through the entire thread and really following it since the inception, it just goes to show again that people are different and want different things.   I simply don't care about shadows in the clouds and between the buildings or shadows moving around in the VC.   I don't care about the shape and grass textures on the golf courses, because when I fly this low, I usually pass overhead this item in the midst of an ILS approach and/or listening to ATC instructions over the radio online.

 

I don't care about photo realistic airports - I just make sure that the runways and taxiways are up to date.   I care about a smooth flying experience and being able to land on the right runways and being able to follow ATC instructions for putting the aircraft in the right parking spots.

 

I don't care about volumetric clouds and fog and the like.   I have my head buried in the instruments during take off and landing, since this is my goal in FS.   My settings for display (FSX that is) is medium high on mostly all levels, apart from the fact that I tweak my hardware settings to the proper resolution, DX settings and the like.   I am not a scenery junkie :-).

 

I get excellent performance with complex add-ons (aircraft that is) in all situations, not less than 28 fps at major airports.   What am I saying?   P3D has a bright future but FSX is doing everything for me I need right now and until that changes, then I will make a jump for good, not before then.

 

Kind regards.

I am a little confused with the performance. Though I have an old mid range pc, with workload shifted to gpu I was expecting to get atleast 'some' fps/smoothness gain for the same addons/detail I have in fsx. But all I see different is more ram/vram usage with cpu core1 reaching 100% as in fsx but bottlenecking at somewhat lower performance. For a more equal comparison I put FFTF=0.1, disabled pools and switched to fsx type autogen which helped but still not as smooth as fsx. Another negative is I get long freezes with AI enabled as vram usage maxes out.

 

Maybe that what has been shifted to gpu might not be what is bottlenecking for my hardware and fsx setup.

 

I have exactly the same system as you (o/c [email protected]) and I get exactly the same results..

The 560Ti has only 1GB VRAM which renders it practically unusable for P3Dv2. Too many stutters, even with FFTF=0.1, BP=0.  The same system runs FSX pretty smooth though.

 

But the poor Q9550 has been tortured enough so a new i5-3570K (@4.5) is on the way, along with a Z77 board and 8GB ddr3. :lol:

Hi everyone,

 

After reading through the entire thread and really following it since the inception, it just goes to show again that people are different and want different things.   I simply don't care about shadows in the clouds and between the buildings or shadows moving around in the VC.   I don't care about the shape and grass textures on the golf courses, because when I fly this low, I usually pass overhead this item in the midst of an ILS approach and/or listening to ATC instructions over the radio online.

 

I don't care about photo realistic airports - I just make sure that the runways and taxiways are up to date.   I care about a smooth flying experience and being able to land on the right runways and being able to follow ATC instructions for putting the aircraft in the right parking spots.

 

I don't care about volumetric clouds and fog and the like.   I have my head buried in the instruments during take off and landing, since this is my goal in FS.   My settings for display (FSX that is) is medium high on mostly all levels, apart from the fact that I tweak my hardware settings to the proper resolution, DX settings and the like.   I am not a scenery junkie :-).

 

I get excellent performance with complex add-ons (aircraft that is) in all situations, not less than 28 fps at major airports.   What am I saying?   P3D has a bright future but FSX is doing everything for me I need right now and until that changes, then I will make a jump for good, not before then.

 

Kind regards.

 

Some very good points.  If I disable Light Bloom in FSX I get slightly improved performance in FSX over V2 running very high settings, though still enjoy superior autogen populating in V2.  So in it seems most ways, it's the eye candy that you are using V2 for, really.  It's compelling in itself, but as I say you have come good practical points.

Werner, Sounds like your describing FSX to the T.

This post is not to denigrate P3D 2.0 in anyway but rather to describe a few differences between FSX and P3D.  The flight I chose to test was between KORS and KAVX.  Starting with P3D (note I currently do not have any ORBX scenery loaded for P3D) the general FPS are in the 70's.  My AC is the RealAir Turbine Duke.  First thing that i noticed is that the Duke had no external lighting.  Not sure what causes this but could be a dll or something that was not installed correctly. Second, FPS was good in the 70's.  Plane textures seemed good but some of the external textures were not quite up to par.  Overall I was quite pleased with P3D and the RealAir Turbo.  Things that seemed a detriment were how the props reacted to propeller settings as they reacted quite differently in P3D compared to FSX.  Not sure what would cause this.  Also the ATC Flight path did not show in the GPS.

 

On to the scenery and graphics.  I liked the default ground textures and cloud formations but was greatly upset that there was no realtime weather in P3D as I use it regularly in FSX.  That said the volumetric clouds were nice.  Finally I had no ATC activity in P3D although there were many AI AC in the Air.  The end of the P3D test was because of some unknown crash. 

 

Back to FSX.  Since I have all of ORBX scenery loaded in FSX the land textures seemed more realistic.  Also FSX realtime weather resulted in a much better Sky experience. FPS were generally about 30FPS higher in FSX with an unlimited FPS setting and using FSXAssist AF and Priority settings of 254 and RealTime for FSX.  Since EZdok is working in FSX I cannot say enough about how much it adds to the realism factor but if you have it working in P3D just discount it for the sake of this comparison.  As for water textures both P3d and FSX were nice but still am preferring those in FSX at this point for the better wave action 

 

 Overall I am defaulting back to FSX in the meanwhile before I can get P3D to a point of equality as I feel that P3D it is a better sim functionally but FSX still wins out practically at this stage.

 

Regards

jja

My experience has been much different than yours. I now have FSX relegated to a slimmed down version that is designed strictly to support VRS TacPack. Not only is P3d2 superior in almost every way to FSX, it is stable enough for me to uninstall P3d 1.4. ORBX FTX Global looks much better on P3d2 than on FSX, even if you have the DX10Fixer app installed. OPUSFSX works fine, as does REX, FSUIPC and almost all add-on aircraft. TrackIR is much smoother at higher IQ settings than in FSX. The shadows in P3d2 are nice, as is volumetric fog. Unlike FSX which needs tinkering and tweaking just to keep it from stuttering, showing scenery glitches, blurries and crashing, P3d2 is stable, at least for me. It also uses eleven of my twelve physical  cores by default. I can run smoothly at higher IQ settings than in FSX. And that's without any video card upgrade. A GTX 680 4 GB seems perfectly suited to handle P3d2, as long as one doesn't slam every slider to the max. 

 

Now the bad news. First, the water animations and textures in P3d2 are not as realistic as in FSX. It doesn't matter whether I use the REX water textures or not. Second, some aircraft, AI traffic and scenery add-ons need to be manually installed. This is a major problem, but certainly not a fault of LM. I'm confident that most 3rd party developers will catch up fairly soon. The new P3d2 pseudo-full screen mode has bugs that affect complex aircraft. This is presently more of an annoyance than a serious problem, as various P3d2 users have posted temporary workarounds for aircraft like the A2A C172. The Nvidia Inspector doesn't work properly with P3d2, but since most of the settings that used to be tweaks in FSX.cfg are now part of the P3d2 UI, it probably doesn't matter all that much.

 

All in all, P3d2 is the way to go.  I should add that I have stopped using XP10 altogether, as my main reason for using it over the past year was that XP10 was extremely stable and needed little or no tinkering (which still puts XP10 in a class above FSX).

 

Everyone has their own hardware and opinions. Both tend to be costly to change.

Are the cloud shadows on the ground supposed to come in the next update (2.1) or is this unknown right now?