Jump to content

Prepar3d, is it good?


Walter Almaraz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Deputy Sheriffs

The watermark in the Academic ($50) version is barely visible in full screen mode. I forget it after a while.

If you have the menubar visible it is a text on the menubar, a bit like the menunames. So one more text on the bar is not important to me. I don't like a menubar anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Hey guys thanks for sharing your views and some extra information about Prepar3d, well my decision at the moment is wait. (I hope that LM make a license for entertainment purposes only) :)

Regards,

Walter Almaraz

For sure that will not happen, they are simply not in that market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing P3D to Flight is a big no no. It just cant be done.

If you read carefully, you will see that i said "in term of perfomance". Microsoft did optimize FSX very well for MS FLIGHT. I think that, if we would have MS FLIGHT perfomance in FSX, there would be no more fps optimizing threads any more, because FSX made everybody to buy rediculously expensive computer, which can today handle nearly any application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

If you read carefully, you will see that i said "in term of perfomance". Microsoft did optimize FSX very well for MS FLIGHT. I think that, if we would have MS FLIGHT perfomance in FSX, there would be no more fps optimizing threads any more, because FSX made everybody to buy rediculously expensive computer, which can today handle nearly any application.

If you call removing many options 'optimizing' you are right. If you would add all functions of FSX and give it reasonable sight distances, it would most likely be as fast as FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call removing many options 'optimizing' you are right. If you would add all functions of FSX and give it reasonable sight distances, it would most likely be as fast as FSX.

Which goes back to me saying you can't compare Flight and P3D :lol:

Apples and Oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call removing many options 'optimizing' you are right. If you would add all functions of FSX and give it reasonable sight distances, it would most likely be as fast as FSX.

If you talk about the lack of AI traffic: fair enough. But I don't get thing about the sight distances.

I just made a comparison flight from Maui to the big island of Hawaii along the UPP 120° radial to see if there were any notable differences in the distance. But I simply fail to see that Flight is inferior to FSX in that respect. I have the scenery sliders in FSX set all the way to the right (except water effects and ground shadows). No matter at what location on the screen I look, Flight is either equal or more detailed compared to FSX.

Would be interested to see if Prepar3D achieves better results, since I hear that the autogen there has been refined.

52nm:

52fsx.png52flight.png

42nm:

42fsx.png42flight.png

35nm:

35fsx.png35flight.png

12nm:

12fsx.png12flight.png

7nm:

07fsx.png07flight.png

1nm:

01fsx.png01flight.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call removing many options 'optimizing' you are right. If you would add all functions of FSX and give it reasonable sight distances, it would most likely be as fast as FSX.

Well for me, in MS FLIGHT, there was like 3-4 times higher dencity autogen compared to FSX. There were other stuff like global shadowing (even from autogen and aircraft parts), moving trees, better lightning at night and other stuff. Proof is above.

You want to say that FSX has all that? FLIGHT just lacks an SDK and complicated GUI as flight sim had. But in FLIGHT you get 40-50-60fps in high dencity areas with full overcast and so on without sluttering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as said before, in order to achieve that, MS deleted most of the world :lol: along with all the AI :big_boss_s: Add back into the equation the AI and watch your FPS plummet. While were on about high density areas, on my rig in FSX at Mega Airport Heathow and VFR london at 5760*1080 resolution, JustFlights Traffic X set to 35% for both GA and Airlines, I can get a solid 30 fps, stable without stutters. Add to that REX and it will blow Flight out of the water every single day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Well for me, in MS FLIGHT, there was like 3-4 times higher dencity autogen compared to FSX. There were other stuff like global shadowing (even from autogen and aircraft parts), moving trees, better lightning at night and other stuff. Proof is above.

You want to say that FSX has all that? FLIGHT just lacks an SDK and complicated GUI as flight sim had. But in FLIGHT you get 40-50-60fps in high dencity areas with full overcast and so on without sluttering.

I would say that FSX has stuff like multi engines aircraft, turbine and turboprop engines (currently FLIGHT cannot handle that). I can also see Hawaii from 130 miles away(that's what I mean with long sight lines). The sea close to the islands looks a lot better as FSX knows about water depth and can show shallows. I also think it has at least 50.000 add-ons, a whole world to fly in, radio navigation, other traffic etc. If you look inside FLIGHT you get a good idea of the amount of simvars available (and most of those are updated all the time) and you find a very small number, Even stuff like the engines seem simplified (I have not seen any effect of temperature or air density (if FLIGHT even has that)). As most people say, it looks great but it is not really a flight simulator as we see it. And MS has been rather clear, there will not be an SDK, there will be add-ons but they will all be made under supervision from MS. We would be happy to make some for them of course. We like FLIGHT for sure, it is bringing in new young simmers and that is great.

But it is good to see there are still people enjoying and discussing FLIGHT. After the initial attention it seems to have faded back into a very low interest level. We saw an effect on sales that lasted less then a week in in our latest market survey only 10% of our customer told us they used FLIGHT in the last 4 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt,

But as said before, in order to achieve that, MS deleted most of the world :lol: along with all the AI :big_boss_s: Add back into the equation the AI and watch your FPS plummet.

that's just an assumption, not a fact. There were speculations that the AI was removed from Flight because it would need to be synchronized among all players in the session. You don't get AI aircraft in FSX multiplayer either (not sure about road traffic atm).

While were on about high density areas, on my rig in FSX at Mega Airport Heathow and VFR london at 5760*1080 resolution, JustFlights Traffic X set to 35% for both GA and Airlines, I can get a solid 30 fps, stable without stutters.

Good for you! I can't comment on that because I don't have all of the said products, but I suppose it wouldn't be solid 30fps for me.

Add to that REX and it will blow Flight out of the water every single day.

The fair weather theme in Flight sucks, granted. But the other weather themes will actually blow REX out of the water (that might change with REX essential though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Btw looking at your images I think you got detail range set to a low setting as I get way and way more autogen the your images show. Even so, with the far nicer water close to the island I actually prefer the FSX images. If you would use higher water settings even that will look almost as good as FLIGHT. And I get would get 40+ fps on my sub $1000 machine on all those images. Even with a complex aircraft like the Bronco (that has at least 30 different systems FLIGHT can's use, lol). As other said, apples and pears. The moment you can land an airliner with ATC, real time weather, AI traffic on an big detailed airport we can really compare. Right now we are comparing apples and pears. Fine apples and fine pears, but not comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can also see Hawaii from 130 miles away(that's what I mean with long sight lines).

Not I get what you mean. Haven't tried that as it wouldn't make much sense for me at the moment to fly that far away from the islands.

Btw looking at your images I think you got detail range set to a low setting as I get way and way more autogen the your images show.

These are my scenery settings:

fsxscenerysettings.png

But the problem of popping autogen in FSX is well known (it also happens in Flight, but only in dense areas). I have FSX locked to 30fps in the display driver and applied some config tweaks to actually give more CPU time to the scenery engine. But FSX still has a hard time to display autogen in the distance. That's why I was asking how this would look in P3D.

Even so, with the far nicer water close to the island I actually prefer the FSX images. If you would use higher water settings even that will look almost as good as FLIGHT.

Both sims run smooth for me, most of the time. They have different sets of features. In Flight I have no AI traffic, but ground shadows, cockpit shadows and all kinds of other stuff that would kill frame rates in FSX.

I don't want to side-track the discussion any further with Flight vs FSX comparison. The initial question that led to it: What did Lockheed do in the last 3 years??? And what are they going to do in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that FSX has stuff like multi engines aircraft, turbine and turboprop engines (currently FLIGHT cannot handle that). I can also see Hawaii from 130 miles away(that's what I mean with long sight lines). The sea close to the islands looks a lot better as FSX knows about water depth and can show shallows. I also think it has at least 50.000 add-ons, a whole world to fly in, radio navigation, other traffic etc. If you look inside FLIGHT you get a good idea of the amount of simvars available (and most of those are updated all the time) and you find a very small number, Even stuff like the engines seem simplified (I have not seen any effect of temperature or air density (if FLIGHT even has that)). As most people say, it looks great but it is not really a flight simulator as we see it. And MS has been rather clear, there will not be an SDK, there will be add-ons but they will all be made under supervision from MS. We would be happy to make some for them of course. We like FLIGHT for sure, it is bringing in new young simmers and that is great.

But it is good to see there are still people enjoying and discussing FLIGHT. After the initial attention it seems to have faded back into a very low interest level. We saw an effect on sales that lasted less then a week in in our latest market survey only 10% of our customer told us they used FLIGHT in the last 4 weeks.

Thanks for discussion.

That's not our fault, that there are no ME aircraft in MS FLIGHT. If Microsoft got SDK availibile, there would be many addons already.

The reason why I compared FSX to MS Flight is because MS did achieve much better perfomance and improved the image quality. Stuff like water is up to textures, and i agree the it's not that good in Flight.

The conclusion for me is that P3D should be something close to MS FLIGHT (I say again: "in terms of perfomance" as well as engine improvements) in order to get most of the simmers to buy it.

Anyway, we will see what comes in v2.0 version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SDK will never be available, MS have stated that already. And, the better preformace was at the cost of removing most of the world, AI, RNav well pretty much everything really. SO to quote Mathijs, Apples and Pears - they just cant be compaired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the Prepar3D SDK never be available? How can it be then, that Im actually about to install this right now???

By the way I think the prepar3D is an exellent simulator. FPS is about the equal to FSX with the identical settings, but for instance water, much nice rendered and FPS is more floating. Its like You dont see drop in FPS...

I look forward to enjoy this simulator in the future while develope addons for it.

/Claus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gonçalo Carvalho

If you want/need any help getting Aerosoft scenery and or planes into P3D give me a shout.

Awesome! :P Did you try to port Airbus X to P3D? And NGX? If yes what is your results about FPS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...