Opinions, please - P3D or FSX for me?

J

jschall

Charter Member
Like so many of you in this Forum, I have invested a lot of time, effort and money getting FSX to run reasonably well. With my new PC (Quad-core, Haswell at 3.4 GHz, Radeon HD R9 270, 256 GB SSD, 2TB HD, 24GB RAM) I get smooth graphics at 70+FPS.

I have just installed Prepar3D v2.1 on the same SSD as FSX. The only add-ons I have installed are FSForce and FSTramp. The only Tweaks to Prepar3D.CFG are TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096 and WideViewAspect=True.

I have not much explored P3D as yet, but my first impression is that to get an experience similar to FSX, I have to add programs like SimStarter and Active Sky to easily create scenarios and get real-world weather.

So I am wondering whether I should continue to spend energy and cash to improve my experience with P3D, putting FSX on the back burner.

I have read many reviews and opinions saying P3D is "more stable" than FSX, without any concrete benchmarks. Are there any scenarios you could reccommend that would reveal P3D's improved "stability" vs. the same scenario in FSX? For example, I have installed the A2A C172 in both sims. If I fly it over a default area like New York City/KJFK in both sims, will the difference become apparent?

I'm sure many of you have asked yourselves the same question months or years ago. What convinced you to throw your energy and cash behind Prepar3D?

Thanks for any suggestions.
 
Wait until patch 2.2 is available for P3D. Then you can start testing seriously.
At the moment, P3D is anything but stable.
Now is not the time to take decision. P3D is evolving quickly. FSX is not. Now is not the time to compare them.
 
Daube said:
Wait until patch 2.2 is available for P3D. Then you can start testing seriously.
At the moment, P3D is anything but stable.
Now is not the time to take decision. P3D is evolving quickly. FSX is not. Now is not the time to compare them.
Click to expand...
I agree Daube!
 
Daube said:
At the moment, P3D is anything but stable.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Daube and Ed. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. But what do you mean by "anything but stable"? Compared to FSX? Compared to P3D v1?

I've only flown P3D v2.1 in the 172, around the block. What would reveal its instability?
 
jschall said:
Thank you, Daube and Ed. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. But what do you mean by "anything but stable"? Compared to FSX? Compared to P3D v1?

I've only flown P3D v2.1 in the 172, around the block. What would reveal its instability?
Click to expand...

P3D 2.1 has many problems regarding the usage of the memory. From what can be read on the forums, if you manage to fly for more than 15-30 minutes without a crash to desktop, you can consider yourself lucky :)
As soon as you install addons, complex sceneries, and you push the graphic details a bit, the memory consumption of the sim becomes problematic.
LM was fully aware of that and made some very important fixes in the next patch, which will be number 2.2.
So for the moment, we're all waiting for that new patch, which is supposed to appear somewhere in the next 7 to 10 days.

In any case, for the moment, it's all about analyzing and making tests. We can't really take a decision like "that's it, I don't need FSX anymore". See what I mean ? :)
 
Thank you, gentlemen. I guess I'm just lucky - I flew around Manhattan for more than a half-hour before landing at Newark with no problems. Stock scenery was terrific, my only add-ons being FSForce and FSTramp.

I will look forward to 2.2....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top