Prepar3D v2.4 .vs. 2.5

O

OleBoy

Charter Member 2015
I've had v2.5 downloaded for some time now. Still running v2.4, but wanting to uninstall and start anew.
I hesitate to go through the motions and "step up", as I'm not sure of any benefits of doing so.

Your feedback will help me decide if the time involved to clean out/re-install is a worthy move.
 
If you're happy with 2.4. . .I would say stick with it. I have gone to the latest version of 2.5, but if I had it to do over again, given what I know now. . .I would stick with 2.4
 
falcon409 said:
If you're happy with 2.4. . .I would say stick with it. I have gone to the latest version of 2.5, but if I had it to do over again, given what I know now. . .I would stick with 2.4
Click to expand...

I'm just fresh into v2.5 and so far enjoying it . Just curious to know the downside .
 
I'm also sticking with the 2.4 for the moment, as I could never read any positive feedback that would be motivating enough to install it (and thus uninstalling the 2.4 completely).
The only thing that will eventually force me to install the 2.5 is the addons, which are slowly getting converted to match the new folder structure of the 2.5 (which differs from the traditional P3D/FSX/FS9 one).
 
I went for the full reïnstall. It does seem to offer some improvements in elevation of terrain in some places and I prefer the way it handles shine and reflections over 2.4.

Johan
 
One of the notable improvements in 2.5 is tha ability to have both cloud and land shadows cast on the ground while before it could be either of the two only. However my new 970 is finding it hard to deal with both so I again only have clouds on to ease the load.
 
I'm also on 2.4 thinking of moving to 2.5.

Do you have to uninstall all addons before uninstalling P3D, or can you just uninstall P3D and delete the remaining folders with addon stuff (much simpler)?

I have many orbx sceneries and a handful of planes. I will be reinstalling the addons back in 2.5, so hopefully the registry won't get confused.

Also, any word on 2.6, or is LM done with 2.x and focused on 3.0?

Thanks!
 
Well, I don't know for the OrbX sceneries because these are a bit of a special case... OrbX "replaces" some of the sim default files (autogen descriptions etc...) but that only happens when one sets the FTX Central to a region...
Those who use FTX Global and related products however, will for sure have to uninstall/reinstall everything.
Honnestly, I think that it's much safer to uninstall everything in a proper way (which means NOT deleting the folders manually) when reinstalling the sim. It's always better to start from scratch. If I have to uninstall P3D 2.4, then I'll make sure that nothing's left of it anywhere.

Concerning the 2.6, I would also be very interested to know... I don't spend much time on the LM forums but I don't remember seeing anything (written by LM's staff) about a 2.6 version... nor a 3.0.
 
mike678 said:
I'm also on 2.4 thinking of moving to 2.5.

Do you have to uninstall all addons before uninstalling P3D, or can you just uninstall P3D and delete the remaining folders with addon stuff (much simpler)?

I have many orbx sceneries and a handful of planes. I will be reinstalling the addons back in 2.5, so hopefully the registry won't get confused.

Also, any word on 2.6, or is LM done with 2.x and focused on 3.0?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Well, luckily for us, P3D is not at all like the dinosaur FSX in that respect.

I would however uninstall the addons too and clean the registry. But that is because I like things clean that way.

Johan
 
greenie said:
I'm just fresh into v2.5 and so far enjoying it . Just curious to know the downside .
Click to expand...
No true downside really, but I saw very little, if any improvements that just wowed me when installed. I'm sure they made some improvements and those are documented, but again, they weren't things that after installing you could look at and say. . ."That's waaaaay better than 2.4". There were also a few scenery design programs that took forever to come up to speed from 2.4 to 2.5. Also, if you have Orbx products, those are slow to improve to current P3D versions. Version 2.4 was solid, no problems, everything worked and all the design tools were current. . . .looking back, I really should have stayed there. . .there's nothing about 2.5 IMHO that makes it "over the top" better than 2.4.
 
I updated from v2.4 to 2.5 a week ago. The reason... I bought the Milviz P-38L which didn't seem to work in P3Dv2.4 (their web page does specify v2.5, but I didn't look too closely at the specs before buying it). After installing v2.5, the Lightning worked great, so I'm glad I updated.
 
Thanks for all the input, everyone. For the time being (everything works) I'll stick with v2.4. Maybe the next release/update will encourage my moving forward with them again.
 
falcon409 said:
No true downside really, but I saw very little, if any improvements that just wowed me when installed. I'm sure they made some improvements and those are documented, but again, they weren't things that after installing you could look at and say. . ."That's waaaaay better than 2.4". There were also a few scenery design programs that took forever to come up to speed from 2.4 to 2.5. Also, if you have Orbx products, those are slow to improve to current P3D versions. Version 2.4 was solid, no problems, everything worked and all the design tools were current. . . .looking back, I really should have stayed there. . .there's nothing about 2.5 IMHO that makes it "over the top" better than 2.4.
Click to expand...

Thank you Falcon
 
2.5 was a disaster for me. Lots of graphic corruption, which I never had in 2.4. I'm running old drivers, but really don't want to change since everything else is running so well.
 
Snurdley said:
2.5 was a disaster for me. Lots of graphic corruption, which I never had in 2.4. I'm running old drivers, but really don't want to change since everything else is running so well.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it. Software and drivers evolve. If you refuse to evolve yourself, because "everything else is running so well" then you can forget about moving over to any sim that will eventually go 64 bit.

The best decision I ever made in my simming world, was ditching the dinosaur FSX and moving over to Prepar3D. because it evolves and gets better.

That is of course just MHO.

Johan
 
IMHO

Running a state-of-the-art simulator is rapidly becoming a serious commitment. The technology is advancing almost as fast as we can update our systems. It can be intimidating.

Moving into 2.5 is the first step towards integrating into the next phase of LM simulators. The file structure is quite different than anything previously encountered by long time sim enthusiasts and requires some dedicated study to understand it's structure. If anyone intends to remain current, it will be imperative that the step eventually be made.

I installed 2.5 after a major system catastrophe (not P3D or sim related) requiring industrial grade disk wipes of three drives, so I had no lurking nasties to corrupt the install. I downloaded the current version...no patches. I updated all of my drivers, most importantly Nvidia.

My experience in 2.5 has proved to be the best so far with Prepar3D. I immediately noticed major fixes in terrain anomalies that have been with FSX since the early days i.e. huge terrain craters where there should have been none. Overall performance smoothed out with excellent integration of all of my various peripherals...ASN, Aivla Soft EFB, Rex, Opus etc. There are, of course stragglers, but it should be remembered that all of the various developers have been straining to keep up with the numerous incremental builds.

I no longer experience CTD's and I have to push the system extremely hard to get any negative impacts. I'm running hyper dense concentrations of autogen (two times normal + sliders maxed) at four times the stock accuracy settings. I'm really asking a lot from the software, and it delivers without a whimper.

My best recommendation is to go with your comfort level, but realize the 2.5 is the first plateau in the development curve. It will be necessary to eventually take the plunge if you want to take advantage of 64 bit down the road.

Hyper dense autogen annotations, tweaked to 2x saturation @ maxed sliders. 45-55 FPS typical.
 
Last edited:
gman5250 said:
Thanks Johan. Not Corsica....Eastern Sierra's, California. This is one of the areas that was plagued by mesh anomalies, but now better with 2.5.
Click to expand...

ok, but that scenery definitely isn't just just stock! Please elaborate!! :jump: Mesh, textures, Landclass??? I'm dying to know!

Johan
 
Dumonceau said:
ok, but that scenery definitely isn't just just stock! Please elaborate!! :jump: Mesh, textures, Landclass??? I'm dying to know!

Johan
Click to expand...

Since the discussion here was about the benefits of 2.5, I thought an illustration would be valuable.

This is a shot from my WIP airport/scenery project(s), due for release this year.

Mesh: FS Genesis here, but works equally well with Global Vector.

Landclass: I'm using both stock P3DV.2.5 and FTX Global...neither is visible in this shot. My scenery will be color adjusted to integrate with either. FTX Global landclass is greener than stock in certain desert terrain, so it's necessary to use different PR for each application.

Texture: High definition photoreal, color adjusted and enhanced for accuracy. The PR and and autogen are fully seasonal.

Autogen: Hundreds of hours hand annotating with attention to accurate trees for location and altitude. Many, many single placements. The detail work is what really brings the scenery to life.

System: Tweaked autogen settings to produce very dense & accurate coverage, sliders all maxed. No terrain shadows used until LM refines the engine a bit more. They tend to pop and I'd rather have a more seamless display when flying close to terrain.

I've been working on the process for over a year, beta testing in P3D to find the sweet spot in performance and display. Currently, I'm locked 30 FPS, but when I go unlimited I see 55 to 60 across a few hundred square miles of terrain I've completed at this detail level. I'm going to the GTX 970 soon and FPS should not be an issue at all.

The whole experiment is aimed at developing scenery to take max advantage of P3D lighting and other aspects unique to the LM platform. The final scenery will be hyper saturated for high end systems, but with flexibility to de tune for average systems.



 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top