Going from FSX(DX10) to P3D...the difference in my case:?

[greggerm 312]

 

 

here is what I have right now with FSX running in DX10 mode (by Steve's DX10 Fixer Program, latest build)

 

Mitch,

 

I'm like you. I will reload my OS, reload my flight sims, and reload EVERYTHING because I caught wind that one tiny problem was fixed in (INSERT FLIGHT SIM VERSION HERE).  I also like to use only one sim. For the time being, I've settled down on FSX w/ DX10 Fixer. I think I'll be here for a few months.

 

My FSX setup is all about very similar visual features to P3D, but without the worry of compliance. Yes, the P3D cloud shadowing is very attractive (and not too terribly costly), but I found myself longing for certain addons, aircraft, and scenery without having to jump through hoops to get it working. The amazing improvements P3D brings to the table ends up getting overshadowed by the knowledge that product X, Y, and Z either don't work, don't work completely, or need some big workarounds.

 

If it was base package to base package with no addons allowed, Prepar3D wins by an indescribable margin against all comers. Alas, that's not the world we live in. It's why X-Plane simply collects dust for me, and it's why P3D - even with it's very high degree of compatibility - still can't get over the hump for me.

 

Based on the posts I've seen from you lately, I think you're in a sweet spot.... like me!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Except you won't be able to migrate your FSX as 64bit will undoubtedly mean that every addon for FSX & P3Dv2 will no longer work as they are all 32bit.

 

64bit is going to be painful as anyone who uses it will be starting from scratch with probably nothing but the base product (which means default scenery and planes). I think that is going to be a big shock to those who are used to a flight sim brimming with addons. I can imagine people will be less likely to migrate to 64bit early on - at least now you can get a lot of FSX addons working in P3Dv2. This is why I don't expect to see 64bit from LM for a few years yet.

Actually...I expect LM to migrate to 64 bit within the next 18 months. It is the only way to go forward. Yes...I know that all my previous (32 bit FSX) purchases won't work..but for what I shall pick up by the 64 bit kernel...it will be well worth the re-investment to finally have, (like XPX) a Microsoft'esque flight simulator that can harness a modern O.S,.and the full RAM compliment of the User's system resource.  I also think that 3PD's will 'assist' with a migration price for those that have registered 32 bit applications of theirs.  I already have a 32 bit flight simulator...and can wait! (large smile). I want something truly that can be called, 'new, and not merely rehashed.  I'm excited by what, and where, P3D will go...and I will be a full bore supporter when LM drops the hammer on the number 64!

Mitch,

 

I'm like you. I will reload my OS, reload my flight sims, and reload EVERYTHING because I caught wind that one tiny problem was fixed in (INSERT FLIGHT SIM VERSION HERE).  I also like to use only one sim. For the time being, I've settled down on FSX w/ DX10 Fixer. I think I'll be here for a few months.

 

My FSX setup is all about very similar visual features to P3D, but without the worry of compliance. Yes, the P3D cloud shadowing is very attractive (and not too terribly costly), but I found myself longing for certain addons, aircraft, and scenery without having to jump through hoops to get it working. The amazing improvements P3D brings to the table ends up getting overshadowed by the knowledge that product X, Y, and Z either don't work, don't work completely, or need some big workarounds.

 

If it was base package to base package with no addons allowed, Prepar3D wins by an indescribable margin against all comers. Alas, that's not the world we live in. It's why X-Plane simply collects dust for me, and it's why P3D - even with it's very high degree of compatibility - still can't get over the hump for me.

 

Based on the posts I've seen from you lately, I think you're in a sweet spot.... like me!

Yeppers...with my system specs, and with the FSX. cfg file I posted last week....I HIT GOLD!  With flying around FSX with all of the DX10 goodies...about the only thing (as you say), that I am missing by not migrating to P3D right now...are ground based cloud shadows.  That being said...cloud shadows (that I do have on and over the water) is actually more important to me, as I really love the marine environment, flying slightly off-shore a land mass, so as to appreciate the wind-driven waves of DX10!   I fully intend, as stated on my other posts...to support LM and P3D...but, as also stated...when they hit the big 64 bit gong!  That will be my 'come to dinner' call...  And...I shall be THERE!   I can fly for hours and hours with not so much as a burp...with 64 bit XPX. I want no less an option...for P3D.  I'm done with 32 bit flight sims....they are 'past tense'.  I'll fly one..and put up with the pains of one...but only until there is a LM-P3D solution to retire it....

 

Cheers!

 

Mitch

[Guest tymk]

Hi Mitch,

 

I've also given a lot of consideration to migrating to P3D V2, but my FSX with the DX10 Fixer runs nicely, and my non-P3D-compatible add-ons (RXP in particular) are worth much more to me than the benefits from P3D V2 I've seen reported so far... However, there are two items which grabbed my attention in your initial post:

 

 

 

2. Cloud shadows upon the water bodies, with different color-tone for that water body as the sun is being blocked by the cloud, etc.

 

Do you mean 'reflections', or is there a way to get actual cloud shadows to work in FSX DX10?

 

 

1. No popping in of graphics, with graphics out to the horizon at a LOD setting of 5.5

 

Does this also include non-blurry textures on distant mountains, etc.? I've seen your reference to a published CFG file with modifications, but I cannot find the actual file... [EDIT: Please disregard that bit, I've just found it, I didn't go back enough in my previous search...]

 

Best regards,

Tym

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hi Mitch,

 

I've also given a lot of consideration to migrating to P3D V2, but my FSX with the DX10 Fixer runs nicely, and my non-P3D-compatible add-ons (RXP in particular) are worth much more to me than the benefits from P3D V2 I've seen reported so far... However, there are two items which grabbed my attention in your initial post:

 

 

 

 

Do you mean 'reflections', or is there a way to get actual cloud shadows to work in FSX DX10?

 

Actually, yes...the word should be 'reflection' I guess...but, more then reflections...for the water color changes dramatically to where the cloud is blocking the sun upon the surface.   It was fantastic, yesterday afternoon at KGIF, as the clouds played upon the lake surfaces...and the water colors were being supplied by REX 4 TEXTURE DIRECT.  Try my water settings (DX10 of course...)   

Water (Medium Default)

Wave Treatment: GLIMMER

 

You should also see how the water color changes within the blockages by the clouds..and they are changing hues in REAL TIME as you fly!  This is simply fantastic...and generates 'more' than a feel of just a spatial reflection. It is a 'shadow' upon the water, plain and simple!  See what you come up with.....visually.

 

 

 

Does this also include non-blurry textures on distant mountains, etc.? I've seen your reference to a published CFG file with modifications, but I cannot find the actual file... [EDIT: Please disregard that bit, I've just found it, I didn't go back enough in my previous search...]

 

Ok...I was about to give it to you here, again.   In fact Tym, I normally blow around the skies at a LOD of 6.5...but (are you sitting down...lol) it was TOO CLEAR out to the horizon..and looked fake. I had to 'dumb' it down by going to a LOD of 5.5.  Now...about 30 miles out from my x/y....does the tiles go to a soft focus...and then outward towards infinity.  With my .cfg setup (mind you...you MUST take into consideration my CPU and GPU...and that I am running in H.T. mode.  That explains my Affinity Mask setting of 84, which is DEAD on..for an H.T. enabled 8 virtual core run.  I also have done one more little tweak since publishing, sort of a 'hand polish...and that is....I went from a setting of FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.12   to a setting 0.15  and got even smoother around very heavy cloudbase, and;/or scud.  I also maintain between 27-29 (capped at 30) FPS under these conditions as well...   My .cfg file took years of farting around to put together...and for over a year...it has given me (with my system spec's) fabulous performance. That is what will allow me to hold off on P3D until the 64 bit roll-out.  Oh..in answer to your  'mountain' question. Yes...they are full and defined focus to about 30-40 miles from the airframe.  At a LOD of 6.5...too clear.  The 5.5 setting is just right with FSX-G and REX 4 Direct. It looks---------------->R.L.!

 

 

[Guest tymk]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, now I understand what you mean about the water and clouds. I've been experimenting quite a lot with wave animations, etc., and for now, I'm using "Subtle and Focused", which gives me the best compromise for flying higher above the water and landing on it (I'm currently exploring a bit of PFJ, SAK and Tongass in my Cub on floats... takes ages to get anywhere, but this plane is all about the journey...).

 

As for LOD, 6.5 works a treat for Alaska, and gets rid of distant blurries, but I have to reduce it to the default 4.5 when flying in the Orcas/Skagit area to keep frames at an acceptable level (not to mention Seattle, where anything above 4.5 is asking for OOMs). Mind you, my machine is not a performance monster, i.e. an i5 2500K @ 4.2 with a GTX 460 (this is an area that really needs an upgrade). I'll experiment a bit with LOD radius at 5.5 and see how it goes.

 

Thanks again,

Tym

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, now I understand what you mean about the water and clouds. I've been experimenting quite a lot with wave animations, etc., and for now, I'm using "Subtle and Focused", which gives me the best compromise for flying higher above the water and landing on it (I'm currently exploring a bit of PFJ, SAK and Tongass in my Cub on floats... takes ages to get anywhere, but this plane is all about the journey...).

 

As for LOD, 6.5 works a treat for Alaska, and gets rid of distant blurries, but I have to reduce it to the default 4.5 when flying in the Orcas/Skagit area to keep frames at an acceptable level (not to mention Seattle, where anything above 4.5 is asking for OOMs). Mind you, my machine is not a performance monster, i.e. an i5 2500K @ 4.2 with a GTX 460 (this is an area that really needs an upgrade). I'll experiment a bit with LOD radius at 5.5 and see how it goes.

 

Thanks again,

Tym

You're most welcome, Tym.  Truly, there is no 100 percent 'do this or that' with this hobby.  Everybody's expectations for output...and their unique system, makes all that hyperbole.  I guess we all putz along, until we finally come up with something personally acceptable.  A bit of 'this n' that', huh?  

 

Cheers, 

[s0cks 116]

I also want to point out that you are not just missing out on cloud shadows, but also volumetric clouds, which is actually a pretty big deal. Flying through clouds has never been this good! It's probably the main reason I'm reluctant to go back to FSX, despite my yearning for addons that don't work with P3D yet...

[Novation 534]

 

 

but also volumetric clouds

 

P3Dv2.2 does not have volumetric clouds, it still uses the same flat bitmap images as FSX. It does however have volumetric fog, which is used for visibility layers, and this does look outstanding, esp when you have a low lying layer, that softly laps against the terrain or buildings. Along with the cloud shadows and genuine pop free autogen, its one of V2's stand-out features.

[DylanM 1,069]

I also find the default HDR effects more appealing than what I had with SweetFX, as are the glimmer effect, darkening effects after lookng at the sun, and snow blindness. Don't forget the cockpit self-shadows take the experience to another level (it even adds so much more polish to  older / freeware aircraft).  

 

And no hours of fiddling about with lumasharpen settings in a cfg... ^_^

[rparson99 32]

You can't tell by a screenshot! Fsx on its best day only hints on what p3d provides now in spades. The sheer amount of atmospheric nuance can only be appreciated in flight and under variety of conditions. Then the difference is night and day and it will only be more so.

[Noel 4,496]

I never used DX10 fixer but I do know after installing P3D V2.x I never could complete a flight again in FSX--and I really enjoyed FSX and especially the PMDG T7.  Even in that context I find P3D so compelling that after 4 months of having both sims running in my PC I finally decided to uninstall the very complex install of FSX and of course, quite apparently, don't miss it at all.

 

The waiting for a 64 bit version, as long as the entire reason is financially based, makes decent sense I think.   Unfortunately a 64-bit version won't offer a whole lot in terms of performance per se, and I think this is why LM continues to prioritize performance in their development scheme.  When they get this fully nailed down they will then port the project over to 64-bit.   At that point, when you jump in, you will be playing a waiting game for 3PDs to bring in 64-bit add ons.  This is going to take some serious time IMO--years, several of them, after the sim becomes 64-bit.   On this basis then, that in my estimation it will take maybe 3-5 years to begin acquiring P3D add-on content that not only is 64-bit compatible and this is key--are optimized to exploit the rendering engine differences that are unique to P3D--and so to stay out of P3D to wait for this to ensue is something I'd rather not do.   Despite the very good perf I had w/ FSX, it could not compare w/ what P3D brings now in terms of smoothness and a much more immersive experience--but then again, I never used DX10 fixer.  But I agree w/ your approach, it's as good as any if you're happy w/ FSX w/ DX10.

[eminyilmaz 17]

Please correct me if I am wrong but majority of those saying nice things about P3d 2.2 have very powerful system and monster screen card like gtx titan. My performance is very poor with P3d 2.2 because I have gtx 680. I also have i7 processor overclocked to 4.5ghz but as everyone says gpu power is more important now.

 

So, my conclusion is this; if you have titan or something equivalent go for it, otherwise stay with fsx.

[Novation 534]

 

 

So, my conclusion is this; if you have titan or something equivalent go for it, otherwise stay with fsx.

 

Totally disagree with this... I have a similar spec to you and get great performance, and I don't compromise too much on settings. I get more or less the same fps in P3D as I do in FSX but with far more going on visually; even high stress areas like Seattle are within 3 or 4 fps and manage to -just about- stay on my 20fps cut-off as an unacceptably low frame rate. For the most part I am always on my lock of 30fps and am happy with that. I fly mostly VFR in small GA AC's in fairly rural areas, though I do like flying around citys too. Fly 100% Orbx scenery with FTXG and v2 regions.

[s0cks 116]

You can't tell by a screenshot! Fsx on its best day only hints on what p3d provides now in spades. The sheer amount of atmospheric nuance can only be appreciated in flight and under variety of conditions. Then the difference is night and day and it will only be more so.

 

Agree with this. Over the weekend I went back to FSX simply because I enjoy flying in my home country with decent scenery (Orbx NZ). The difference in lighting is quite stunning and I'll definitely be going back to P3D once Orbx have released a triple installer.

[DylanM 1,069]

What are your settings Emin? I have a 680 and have very good performance with the SFX enabled.

 

Are you using Nvidia Inspector and have any tweaks within the cfg?