• We have to do a little server maintenance that will take the forums off line for an about 2-3 hours. Right now we are planning for Sunday night 9:00 PM May 25

Reasons FSX Users Don't Move to P3D

Cannot think of too many logical reasons as to why FSX users prefer to stick with an 8 year old program.

"FSX continues to evolve though. Consider the amount of adaptations/modifications it has gone through, I think it will "live" alongside P3D, DCS, and others for quite a while longer. "

This comment is a bit odd! FSx has not evolved at all, since Acceleration was released umpteen years ago.
Adaptions & Mods? Well, Apart from Acceleration & FSX: Gold ... NO evolution!
Yes, FSX:SE is the same FSX:Gold, but slightly modded for the Steam platform & Steam multiplayer.. An evolution/adaption/mod? Not Really! Will it live alongside P3D (modded/evolved/upgraded about 10 times since released? Well, will FS2004?

Maybe the only logical reason to stay are the tube liner add-ons that do not work (yet) with a modern sim.

FSX:SE was mentioned. Is this an evolution? I don't think so. Will it interest me to change?
My thoughts are that this has been re-released on Steam, the largest (?) gaming distributor, for the newbies, being a 'plug 'n play' install, with easy installable DLC's. It IS a bonus for the rest of us to have a game that we can install on-line, without disks, & with most add-ons working. Thanks, devs for climbing in & making your stuff work.

So, getting back to the topic...
Reasons why FSX users dont move?
1. Mmmmmm
2. Do I want PMDG? (personally, no!)
3. Get over the licensing ad nauseum debates.
4. Do I want a constantly upgraded sim?
5. ....
 
Using the Estonia Migrator Tool, I haven't had a single problem so far with FSX add-ons in P3DV2.4 ( I stress 'so far' ). Even stuff like Accusim planes; the Stratocruiser with COTS, B-17, civilian Mustang, C-172 and Cherokee all work fine. FSX aircraft from Captain Sim ( 707 and 727 ) Alabeo and Carenado have no problems at all. Same goes for scenery, weather, Remote Flight apps, Plan G... no problem with any of them...so far.
 
Well since I got assigned to Vegas AOR by the USCG/USN, err dam desert land lock worse then Texas lol. I got a new computer AMD/ATI. I bought 4 Hard-drives cheap on the holidays, won a SSD drive from Poker at Gold Coast lol. So what did I do. Easy Re-installed Fs9 to one drive, then FSX/SE to another, P3DV2.5 and ekks first time the X-plane. They are all happy with W8.1. The only thing that throws a W8.1 fit is the Flight1 wrapper err. I went to FSX/SE due to W7 W8.1 support with potential for W10. P3D is the same. XP and Vista are scheduled for MS Execution Sentence soon anyway. Bottom line is I support all flight sims/payware supporting Window 7 and Higher. As for the term Academic, well that is wide open to define, my motto, "We never stop learning, if learning stops your Dead."
 
I am now an happy P3D user and I don't use FSX at all anymore. FSX is still on my hardrive but it doesn't work anymore, I've move so much files, messed some configs, etc.... it doesn't even launches. It's just a zombie sitting there for nothing but keeping some files.

However, I'd like to balance the arguments here a bit. P3D is not as perfect as some people say. Here is a little lit of big problems that FSX'ers should consider:

1- Addon compatibility:
Most FSX planes got converted or will get converted soon. Those who don't get converted are usually "simple" planes that just need to be copied in the correct folders. Situation is the same for sceneries.
So the FSX planes are not a problem. No, the real problem is the FS9 planes. They don't work at all anymore. They display nicely, but the virtual cockpit is not clickable anymore. So if you are a 2D pilot or a CTRL+E pilot, this won't be problematic. But the other pilots will have to forget about FS9 planes, which is quite sad.

2- Performance
I'll make it simple: over generic sceneries and photoreal sceneries, as long as you're far away from a complex piece of custom scenery object like a major aiport or anything like that, the performance of P3D is vastly superior to the FSX performance, provided you have a correct middle-range DX11 video card. But once you get close to heavy scenery, then the performance will drop down to a level possibly inferior to FSX. Yes, the performance of P3D in some place can be worse than the FSX performance. For example, if you fly over PNW from Orbx, and you get close to KSEA, or if you get close to a major city with FranceVFR 3DA technology, then the frames will drop to a very low level, much lower than what it was with FSX. This is due to the new P3D engine and the way it handles scenery and autogen objects. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't recommend P3D to a liner pilot who likes to fly his PMDG 777 over major airports with payware sceneries.

3- Rendering
This remark is for people who are still flying FSX in DX9 mode.
P3D rendering is superb. The autogen doesn't popup anymore, the HDR gives some nice lighting variations, and the scenery and cloud shadows are the icing on the cake. However, I'm still unable to get the same lovely colors I was getting with the ENB bloom tweaked by the REX guys (variant "SUNLIGHT"). The colors are a bit dull by default, even with all options enabled. I could compensate a lot by using SweetFX to boost the intensity of the colors a bit, and now it looks very nice... but not as nice as what I was getting with the ENB Sunlight mod.


These are the objective arguments I can think about for warning the FSX'ers. I can perfectly understand why somebody would want to stay with FSX, just like I could understand why somebody would want to stay with FS9 back when FSX came out. But for me, there's no way back now.
 
mmann said:
There are good reasons why the majority of flight simmers stick with FSX:

...
3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have never had an OOM, my frame rate clings to 30 (where I have it set) and my FSX runs very smooth.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have the size of FSX more than 230GB as I do. I've read that photo sceneries reserve memory permanently (loaded at the beginning) while using FSX. I have lot of sceneries and there are plenty of photo parts in them. So while using FSX (in spite of 64bit OS) the system memory knocks the "5G door" (and FSX it's door of heaven or hell 4GB :biggrin-new:) now and then. That's why I have now and then OOM errors and according to that CDTs.

I haven't yet changed to P3D because it's also a 32bit program and there is the same problem lurking somewhere. I've tried XPlane but didn't like it. There are some shortages like poor AI. The very day P3D is compiled to a 64bit program I'll change to it.

Old people die. Same do old programs. It's sad but it's fact.

Pekka
 
And what about night flying? I have both FSX and P3Dv2.5 and there are several shortcomings in P3D compared to FSX:

- Distant AI traffic beacons/strobes are almost or completely invisible at night.
- Custom lights at addon airports do not show.
- Runway/taxiway lights are misplaced/hovering up to 3 Ft in the air at many airports.
 
The Holy Grail is not out there...
64bit will not solve everything for everybody
I think it's great that people 'knock' something without even trying.
Do people realise that going 64bit means a whole new program? Add-ons being 64bit compatible?
What must be realised is that FSX & P3D MUST be considered as 2 different programs. One sold for entertainment & the other not! Yes, there is an exchange of add-ons, but not all!
The last version of one is 8 years old, since upgraded, the other, since upgraded, about a month old.
 
zswobbie1 said:
The Holy Grail is not out there...
64bit will not solve everything for everybody.
Click to expand...

A 64bit Sim will go a hell of a long way towards 'the Holy Grail' ....darn sight closer than Indiana got...;)

To have a maths-intensive program access more than a piddly couple of gig whilst cramming it all into one core....

I have 32 gig of 2.666 DDR4, a GTX980, an i7 5960x in an X99 LGA2011 v3 with the OS and FSX on a M.2 x4 [that's like a PCIe drive only faster] and still FSX wants to cram itself into one core...out of 16.

At the moment, other than a XEON and/or a second 980 in SLI you cannot get a faster/more powerful machine.

In a 'real benchmark' for gaming...namely the DX10 Benchmark ver of Resident Evil 5 it averages 250.8 fps.
My previous i7 920 with a GTX590 could only manage 144.4.

That's getting on towards double. FSX? Nope...could care less. Yes it's better, but not gob-smackingly so, thanks to an ancient program written at a time when modern hardware was sheer fantasy.

Any game I have loaded has easily run at max. I can even do it whilst running a VM of Win 7 Ult borrowing a quarter of the ram.

But not FSX. If it were aware of modern systems [and coded accordingly] it'd be utterly insane...

...and still be wanting more hardware thrown at it...;)
 
For sure 32 bit cpu bound FSX is not really interested in going much faster with modern graphic horsepower. I have three 980's and with DSR at 4k can make it stutter and jerk at O'hare airport with minimum traffic. My 5930k cpu helps a little but even if I overclock it to 4400 FSX still laughs at it.

If P3D really does go 64 bit I would be first in line.
 
I would make the jump to P3D, but Windows XP does not support DX10 and certainly does not support DX11. My computer is old, so old that upgrading is simply not a good option, so that means a new build and I cannot afford a new build at this time. Perhaps by the time I do build a new computer, P3D may have gone to 64-bit architecture.
 
stansdds said:
I would make the jump to P3D, but Windows XP does not support DX10 and certainly does not support DX11. My computer is old, so old that upgrading is simply not a good option, so that means a new build and I cannot afford a new build at this time. Perhaps by the time I do build a new computer, P3D may have gone to 64-bit architecture.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ! Your PC will run Windows 7 64 bit easily! The only thing you would need is to double the RAM and at a later state a new GFX card.

BTW, Windows XP, although it is a proven OS, is a security menace nowadays!

Just my two € cents of course.

Dumonceau
 
SpaceWeevil said:
This does seem to be the prevailing view around P3D - it's just a bit surprising to hear it so bluntly expressed at SOH. I guess I worry too much...
Click to expand...

Look at it like this: P3D is sold to anyone who can afford it. LM knows its being used for entertainment. MS just had the EULA written the way it is, because at the time, they still needed to sell the FS franchise. That has been done now.

The whole licensing thing is a dud. I can't see anyone ever being taken to court for using a damn sim for entertainment.

Johan
 
My FSX install is pretty much stock, except for a few add-on aircraft. I fly Dino's F-35B, and Flying Stations Westland Wyvern fairly often, but that's it. FSX is just entertainment for me, My FS9 install is AWESOME, over 200 add-on aircraft and scenery packages and it runs like hot butter.

Flight simming is a hobby for me, not an obsession, so as it stands now, P3D isn't a consideration.

BB686:US-flag:
 
Dumonceau said:
MS just had the EULA written the way it is, because at the time, they still needed to sell the FS franchise. That has been done now.

Johan
Click to expand...

Except that Microsoft did not sell the FS franchise. They sold a license to the technology and the rights to sell an online version of FSX; just as they sold a license to the ESP technology. Microsoft still retains all rights to ESP and FSX and will probably see more future dollars by selling the technology to other large companies with deep pockets.

<link href="chrome://s3gt/skin/s3gt_tooltip.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
 
Simple... Microsoft licensed FSX to Dovetail for re-release as an entertainment product. So, Microsoft gets rid of an 8 year old game & saves on world-wide distribution, manufacture & inventory cost. & Dovetail cannot mode the core, unless to mod it for theSteam system.

Microsoft licensed ESP to Lockheed Martin for development, Not for entertainment. Thier EULA is written to differentiate between a game & a training tool. So, if you want to play a game, you go to a gaming distributor!

Obviously, Dovetail has released FSX:Steam as a precurser to their own sim, that some say will be based on Flight! & coming from a gaming distributer, is targeted to newbies that want a plug 'n play game. If so, my biggest worry is that this will be a closed game, with add-ons only via DLC's.

So, we have choices....
Stick with the old, change to the re-release, go for the latest.
Having said all that, there is still a huge community out there that are still using FS2004, (I am one of them, but also have P3d), & still will not change to anything else!

Actually, reading all the above, I'm realising I have gone off topic. Sorry for that.
 
+10 to Blackbird686.

Same as myself, except I have P3D, but fly my FS9 as well as my Golden Wings version (regressed scenery & planes to 1930's low's & slows etc) far more.

For my, also a hobby.. although at times, I do get carried away & I keep telling myself, & others at my VA club.. 'Chill guys, it's only a game!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top