The Endless Struggle Continues....

[TheFamilyMan 280]

I am really excited about the cloud shadows P3D offers, and I consider it my only motivation for owning P3D (currently I don't own it).  Yet when in comes down that exact feature, I read this: a quote of Wesley Bard from this article

Shadows are a perfect example of a new feature that takes advantage of modern day graphics cards. The faster your graphics card, the less fill-rate bound you will be and the more graphics card dependent features you can employ. The cloud and terrain shadow distances available in the UI might seem unattainable now, but in a year or so the graphics cards out then might be able to handle them with ease.

 

And I get a sick feeling that it's FSX all over again, as in "someday hardware might be capable".  Reading this, and reading people's other problems with this feature, puts me back in "wait and see" mode about owning P3D.  Fortunately I am totally happy with FSX at the time (that is, if I ignore its lack of cloud shadows :().

[vonmar 124]

Well, like the quote you posted ... just check back in a year or so.

[rparson99 32]

The fact that p3d has room to grow does not make it fsx. Sure, it's renicent of fsx from the outside listening to the commentary. But, take one look at your monitor and let your eyes do the talking, and you realize this is different. P3d is an order above in terms of reproducing the environment when it comes to lighting and shadows.

 

Also, the engine works differently in that the gpu plays a much greater and more efficient role. Now everything isn't nirvana as the temptation is to jam the sliders to the right only to have reality reciprocate! So, you might wait and see... .things will surely get better and better. Or, you can also see while you wait. I prefer the latter personally.

[pmanhart 176]

That's why LM provided a slider to choose how far out and how well drawn the shadows are. It's not like it's an on or off feature without any control over the rendering...

 

Would you rather LM didn't give us the option of making it work across a wide variety of systems and instead said that we were SOL until we upgraded our graphics cards?

 

Not sure what the beef is?

[greggerm 312]

 

 

And I get a sick feeling that it's FSX all over again, as in "someday hardware might be capable".... Fortunately I am totally happy with FSX at the time

 

Well, if you're totally happy with FSX, don't fret too much. You're happy! (*this is a good thing!)

 

With its enhanced use of multicore processors and GPUs, Prepar3D is far better tailored to future hardware advances than FSX ever was. It's not flawless, but nothing ever is. I look at P3D in much the same way as I looked at the FS2004->FSX change so many years ago. If the only two measures of a sim were "system performance" and "graphics quality"....

 

• Generally speaking, P3D can give you better system performance for the same graphics quality of FSX.  (eg: If you make P3D look like FSX, it will be smoother and have higher FPS)
   
• Generally speaking, P3D can give you better graphics quality for the same system performance as FSX. (eg: Set P3D up to have the same smoothness and FPS as FSX, and you'll end up with better graphics quality)

 

Considering there's room for further improvements with hardware changes, and I think we have a solid contender. 

 

Historically, it seems that we sim users often forget that new and exciting features don't come "for free". The processing power needed to create new vistas and realistic effects has to come from somewhere, and there are only so many ways to squeeze out more processing cycles from our already taxed CPU's. Code optimizations are usually just for fine tuning... not miracle workers.  (*with the exception of Lockheed's work on the autogen memory usage. Wow.)

 

-Greg

[DylanM 1,069]

OP, I looked at your system specs - you should be more than capable of turning on the eye candy in P3D and still get acceptable frames. But if you're happy with FSX, maybe that's best for you.

 

It's really not a huge investment to try it for yourself - you can try it $10 and get a refund if doesn't work out. 

[bonchie 2,305]

In reality, the "hardware" FSX needs doesn't exist and may never exist.

GPUs will continue to get better and better. That's the difference.

[TheFamilyMan 280]

My comment (or argument if so interpreted) is directed at Mr. Bards comment.  It's nice to know that there is "future proofing" within P3D, it just that adding features which currently "tanks" top end hardware (gpus included) with the idea that "maybe in a year or so hardware will catch up" is scenario we've been too accustomed to for years now.  BTW, I am still really excited about P3D and someday the grief of moving to it will be worth the end results (tri-SLI 980s perhaps :lol:), IMO of course.

[virtualstuff 770]

My comment (or argument if so interpreted) is directed at Mr. Bards comment.  It's nice to know that there is "future proofing" within P3D, it just that adding features which currently "tanks" top end hardware (gpus included) with the idea that "maybe in a year or so hardware will catch up" is scenario we've been too accustomed to for years now.  BTW, I am still really excited about P3D and someday the grief of moving to it will be worth the end results (tri-SLI 980s perhaps :lol:), IMO of course.

 

Well Rod nothing new after all those different version of FS we went through.

remember FS98 > to FS2000 for example stories there to tell...

But I can choose other examples to before or after lol

[Jimmy Angel 19]

I'm running with cloud shadows enabled on my moderately powerful system and performance is awesome. Much better than FSX. Super smooth, and no crashes.

 

I am running cloud shadows at only 10,000 meters, so I have plenty of room to move the slider to the right -- but heck, they look beautiful and since P3D has shifted the load to the GPU, a moderate upgrade in a year or two will actually do something. FSX is entirely CPU dependent, and I am currently running a 3 year old CPU at the same speed (albeit without minor architecture improvements) that I would get from something brand new off the shelf.

 

If I fly in complete overcast, I do have an alternate config with cloud shadows off, but I haven't found myself using it lately. Cloud shadows in moderate clouds is 60 fps + over Orbx Australia. Overcast it drops to maybe 30fps, and 20fps in spurts. Still better than I was doing in FSX with any clouds.

 

(Caveat and disclaimer: I don't fly super-complex commercial airliners)

 

So, yeah, you can't run P3D all sliders to the right on current hardware. Keep in mind that moderate slider settings still have better visuals than FSX (it seems to me that Dense Autogen in P3D for example, is > than dense autogen in FSX, though I haven't done a side-by-side comparison).

 

And, the good news is, next time I upgrade my hardware, I won't be wondering why I can't eek any more performance out of an old platform.