Prepar3d / P3D v2 Review and impressions. Should I jump ship from FSX? 

+Rollo Tomasi Thanks. I have actually moved over to P3D Professional fully now because I found Steam to be limited performance wise compared to P3D. I'm not sure as a home user it's £120 better, but given that I make RU-vid videos, anything which can off load processing to the GPU is good. Huge thanks for the support.

Same here. It is, like you said, quite a bit of money but technically it is the better simulator imho. If only because it has moved on where FSX has stopped. Let us hope v3 is going to be 64b! :)

From what I hear, probably not 64 bit, more like v2.6 apparently. Which of course may be another $200.

No problem, glad it helped.

***** Glad you enjoyed it, thanks :-)

flightsim481 Should I get the 19$ version? or save for the 60$ I have 40$ right now?

Thanks :-)

I agree, I think there is potentially a bit more life in FSX with the 'debugged' Steam version now getting more support. P3D does have superior graphics and rendering abilities but the accessibility of Steam, the new audience and the ease of updating and potentially downloading add ons may be of benefit increasing the sim enthusiast population.

Thanks, means a lot.

Have you got rex 4?

+patrik streng Yeah Rex Texture Direct and Active sky next for weather, good combo.

Fsx and p3d are identical

I will have a guess at both, but who knows.

Thanks Rob, You are quite right of course . FSX is a dead end road, but then so was Windows XP and that hung on for years. P3D's biggest attraction is that for a leisure user who has invested hundreds of pounds into FSX add ons over the last 6-8 years there is a good level of compatibility. As you say, an apparent natural progression. Even though I am dabbling with X-Plane, the transition to new platforms, with the corresponding need to buy new add ons, is a painful one which P3D mitigates. I have used FSX/ESP in an EASA approved CRJ200 sim when training for my CPL/IR and subsequently have used P3D V1.4 fixed base sim with a training company which trains in 737's and 747's. LM are clearly targetting the commercial sim market and consequently, I doubt that they will have too many reservations about legacy add on compatibility if and when they develop a 64 bit next gen sim. In the mean time P3D V2 will appear in some commercial sims, but I am bemused by LM not offering upgrades from V1 to V2, but instead requiring a complete new licence to be bought. What I am waiting for is to see Dovetail's plans. I hope their plans are more significant than just changing the distribution platform to Steam. Ps. Nice videos on your channel btw.

Dovetail have clarified their position in regards to updating FSX ... check out their post on Steam Hubs ... quoted "We will be acting as a publisher for Microsoft in relation to FSX. We have a license to re-release FSX on Steam and this does not extend to making product improvements. Ultimately overall direction for the product remains with Microsoft." LM are targeting anyone who is interested in flight be it academic or commercial and willing to buy it ... if one happens to be entertained during the experience that doesn't violate the EULA. I have passed the various versions of the EULA to my lawyer ... cost me $365 to do so. In his opinion (remember lawyers aren't the law, they only represent a legal opinion, a judge is the ultimate decider of legal interpretation - the law) and he assured me no "end user" need fear legal action based on their usage of this product. I dabble with XP10 too and I continue to dabble with it, but unfortunately it's still just dabbling ... just isn't complete enough of a product yet. Claims of XP10's major selling point is the better flight "physics" ... but to be frank, the flight physics just aren't any better than a good quality aircraft in FSX/P3D. Look at how the 747 reacts in XP10 ... kinda silly with flapping wings. The harsh reality is that flight physics are given a small amount of CPU time because to emulate real flight the physics involved would take much much more processing power than available in any PC ... the computational requirements of moving air over a mass as complex as an aircraft would render at minutes or even hours per frame (definitely not frames per second). FSX/XP10/P3D are all huge compromises of real flight physics ... so when folks compare flight physics across platforms it's comparing a needle in a hay stack to another slightly different needle in a hay stack. They do their best and live within the confines of today's and tomorrow's hardware.

Rob Ainscough I hadn't checked the Dovetail position via the Steam Hubs. It's quite apparent from what they say that Dovetail only have a licence to distribute and that without further developments on the part of Microsoft's stand point FSX will not change. LM have created a bizzare situation with their licencing stating P3D can be used for simulation (graduate or undergraduate) but not for entertainment. From an outsider's point of view, quite a few of the add ons now supported seem to be more appropriately suited to entertainment. The EULA seems to me to be somewhat strange because the term 'simulation' seems very open ended. As one says, you can't stop someone from being entertained whilst using a simulator, and I suspect someone who is entertained isn't just going to turn the computer off because they should be miserable. I'm just wondering now if the wording of the EULA is more to do with the agreement between Microsoft and LM. There is a similar situation in the UK where you can buy race exhaust silencers which fit road bikes. They are illegal to use on the road but all the vendors have to do is make the purchaser aware. Just because it shouldn't be done, doesn't mean it won't. If the buyer then decides to use it on a road bike on the road, then that is their decision and any responsibility is theirs and theirs alone. There is no doubt that LM make good money out of the sales of P3D to people who do use it for entertainment and I strongly doubt they would wish to dent those sales unless forced to do so by some external influence. XP10 has limitations, as does any other sim. None are perfect. The quality of an aircraft in any sim is down to the designer. There are plenty of poor aircraft in FSX/P3D/XP and likewise, a good designer can work around the limitations of any given sim to replicate the true handling of an aircraft. FSX/P3D doesn't use blade vane theory, but you can sure as hell bet the Majestic Dash 8-400 has a very accurate flight model. IMHO, the blade vane theory in XP10 probably helps small scale designers, but it's not perfect and not the only means to accurately replicate flight dynamics. Personally, I don't think any desktop sim can replicate the handling of an aircraft, most of which is experienced through the seat of the pants experience. Even the available combat sims can't begin to approach the experience of low flying in military jets. Flight sims are great, and I enjoy them, but I have yet to experience the same buzz as when I am actually flying (they are the next best alternative though). And that for me is the key. We should all be open minded about all of the sims. XP10 does have some great features and marvellous aircraft coming through the pipeline, supported by significantly by Aerosoft, who....have just released a nice Airbus A318/9 for FSX/P3D. If anything, the slow but predictable demise of FSX is re-invigorating the flightsim market and people are looking at alternatives. All sims have die hard fans but the key is to find the sim one enjoys and to fly it for pleasure. It is after all a hobby and thus entertainment. :-)

flightsim481 Yes the wording in the EULA is everything to do with the agreement they have with Microsoft's ESP. I think the more interesting debate would be at what point has enough "changed" in the product such that the agreement with Microsoft is no longer valid and either can be dropped or new agreement negotiated. I suspect 64bit will be that turning point and may also be why new "major" versions require new licenses. The "Pro" version $199 is technically the version the masses should purchase as it's valid for "learning" and anyone qualifies for "learning". The "Academic" version is actually not the correct version for the masses but I suspect it is the version most purchased by the masses. Agree, real world flight is definitely the top of the experience chart. But the cost of real flight can be prohibitive for "the masses" so flight simulations help keep the dream alive and who knows, maybe motivates some to move into real world flight ... it did for me. Agree, no flight sim platform is perfect and they never will be in my life time, maybe for the next generation after I die (processing power needed is pretty staggering). I've tried just about every flight related simulator for the PC/Mac platforms since 1980 ... I'm currently focused on P3D but I do dabble in XP10 also. XP10 3rd party is improving, SkyMaxx, Carenado, FSGRW, and more. I do try to avoid comparisons between Flight sim products because they all do different things for different desires/goals ... it's all good as far as I'm concerned ... even FSX it fits a desire/goal. Whatever keeps people motivated to flight simulation. P3D's progress has certainly caused Laminar Research to get motivated about XP10 again which is good news for simmers. FSX will never die, it'll fade just as FS9 faded and FSX took over majority share ... the same process is happening now with FSX to P3D ... slow migration. I know many seem to distinguish a sim platform by "eye candy", but the reality is everything is eye candy from realistic MFDs to gauges to yokes to scenery to shadows to cockpits to clouds to the knobs to and buttons ... it's all eye candy ... flight is and will always be about eye candy ... and that's a good thing. Cheers, Rob.

X-Plane feels very diffrent from P3D \ FSX, if there would be a scenery at the level of FTX products for X-Plane it would be awesome Most of FSX users will go with Prepar3D because they already know this envoriment, Less FSX users will move into P3D but also flying in X-Plane (like me) and much less FSX users will only use X-Plalne

+34RogerB Solution: Get rid of the drop tanks and reduce internal fuel to about 1k lbs or recommended weight. Fly AOA and glide slope.

There is some debate about the licences. In theory, P3D is not licensed for entertainment so that then really leaves 2 categories. Assuming one is a student, studying either academics, or some form of education, I think that qualifies for the academic license. If it's being used by graduates or for 'professional' flight training, then I think the professional licence is necessary. The wording on their site isn't clear as to what qualifies for flight training, and what you need to be a graduate of. At one time, there was wording in the EULA stating that studies needed to be in sciences or engineering biased subjects. Being a student is easy to grasp, as is a professional flight training organisation, but the grey bit in the middle is awkward. Where does a qualified pilot studying for an LPC or new type fit? Personally, I'm not 100% sure, and it's such a confusing issue that Lockheed Martin even stated in their forums that they no longer answer questions about it! Sadly, the safe answer is the professional version, likewise the P3D PMDG stuff is also more expensive than the FSX variation. But, I'm not aware of anyone being pulled up by LM for buying the wrong version, and I suspect until the EULA is challenged/defined it's currently not entirely enforceable. Not sure that helps, but it's my unqualified thoughts on that particular quandary.

flightsim481 Very much thanks for your answer. It seems like most of us thinks it's a bit fuzzy. And the Q&A at their website doesn't say much either. But the thing may be that it's not the purpose of the game to fly around in a pmdg from A to B in the first place. It's more for studies, but I don't know. Maybe it will be more clear in the future :)

No problems, I just wish the demarcation line between licences was more defined.

+Ricky Petersen Yes they do and it's the full price.

Don't think so.

Yes, if you had version 2, as a colleague of mine did, there is no lower upgrade price. So to get version 3 you have to pay the full price again. No doubt the same will happen if/when we get version 4.

Alright, I'm wrong then.

Smaff FlightSIM I don't personally think Dovetail's plans are of any relevance to the FSX vs P3D argument. FSX and P3D are both desperate for a revamp and move to 64 bit, and as has been the case with many MSFS products before, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of add ons will readily port across. We have to look at what we have, not what may be developed because you cannot cannot guarantee compatibility in either case IMHO. Which is better is a matter of personal preference. FSX is cheaper, easier to set up and easier to update but P3D has better visuals. If it's any indicator, I'm currently using FSX Steam more than P3D, but that's not always going to be the case. The main reason is that more of my add ons are compatible with FSX than P3D.

well,that is enough to persuade me,i can keep my fsx.thanks for the info :)

If your FSX is working fine, it's a lot of money to jump to P3D.

i'm just gonna stick to FSX,thanks for the help(financial) anyway:D

+the true gaming life If money is a consideration, then I'd suggest not changing until FSX/P3D goes 64 bit. Just my opinion.

You know what some ppl say..you only live once..so live and be happy! get what you want while you can...that's what changed my mind from my original comment :)

Yah the graphix still look like crap to me.. not realistic at all.. look very R/C airplane. I mean heck different combat sim's have better graphics.

At the end everyone is going to switch from FSX to P3D, its like FS9 and FSX P3D is better than FSX for those reasons 1. Performance are about 10 - 50% better (at least for me) 2. It looks a little bit better - Yesterday I was flying in FlyTampa Hong kong, and then I saw a video of FlyTampa Hong kong scenery in FSX, and it looks better in P3D (god this scenery is fucking awesome) 3. No more crashes 4. Modern UI 5. You can ALT-TAB even in windows 7, wowowowow 6. Most of FSX addons work in P3D, expect for PMDG 777 - which they are already working on converting it to P3D According to the rumoes they will release they 64 bits version in P3D 3 I mean there is no much reasons to stay in FSX and not move to P3D, I bet they dont really care if you bought if for entertainment or not? how would they know? and if they do know, what are they going to about that? take your license? and btw you can always download it from torrent, so the price isnt that big of a deal

CowardAgent Amen, thx

storkman אמן haha 5 months later

***** Don't you have to have proof though of your occupation?

Maybe it has something to do with not wanting terrorists to know how to fly, or they want to look good by only selling it to pilots?...

zachand dragon I assume you mean in terms of being able to use the academic licence. If at any stage you intend to use it as a game, that would be breaching the EULA. However, if you study and intend to use it for flight simulation then that would appear, on face value, to fit with the conditions of the EULA.

999jay999 I strongly suspect the EULA is worded as it is because of the licencing agreement between Microsoft and LM. There are sections in the EULA that are vague. What exactly counts as 'flight simulation' and what does not? What do they mean by 'entertainment'. After all this time, I suspect it is worded as it is due to the contract between the 2 companies, and to allow Microsoft to define and sell 2 separate licences; 1 to LM for 'training' and 1 to Dovetail for 'entertainment'. I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted over misuse of P3D. If anyone else knows different, that would be interesting to hear of.

Can you imagine though, prosecuting a customer for buying your game... rediculous !

A SEPARATE FLIGHT SIMULATOR WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS FSX!

StackableGold Its been out longer then the steam edition.... there's more going for this. Its way more stable.... and is better with newer hardware. Its also dx11... not 10 preview or dx9. Also has drawn shadows, hdr. My steam edition was gifted and ive been setup with Prepar3d for a long time. I tried it and guess what... crash.!!! OOM... stupid network problems still. This allows me to fly where every i want all over! I don't have crashes anymore, and ive been using alot of FSX addons. Ive also bought ActiveSky for P3d.

It's funny how it says for professional use only when it is the exact same as fsx

LM don't let you upgrade from p3d v1 to v2 so you can guarantee you'll need to buy any 64 bit version.

flightsim481 Which was part of my point. When we get to that point FSX users will have a decision to make as, more than likely, their add-ons will not work in a new 64-bit environment. With the rate that X-Plane is getting developers/publishers creating add-ons for it, and new developers/publishers adding to that list, X-Plane will be a real alternative with an accessible license. Of course the relative unknown is what Dovetail will do with FSX.

Stephen Westrip What about a proper scenery product for X-Plane? I mean.. I cant stand the awful terrain in X-Plane, and it doesnt seem like someone is devoloping a scenery product for X-Plane at the level of FTX X-Plane is not a substitute to FSX by anymean, it really feels different from FSX \ P3D For me it is an addition to Prepar3D, but I doubt it will ever be able to replace P3D as my main simulator

CowardAgent I agree that X-Plane needs an FTX equivalent. I am seeing more commitment towards airport scenery, both payware and decent freeware. Now we need a worldwide terrain mesh.

Stephen Westrip Just imagine X-Plane with a proper shader for aircrafts so it wont look like plastic, and FTX level product for terrain.. this would be awesome with the upcoming IXEG 737 Yesterday I flew in Aerosoft A321 in P3D from EGKK to EGGD, with FTX England + UK2000 sceneries for both airports, then I flew the same flight in X-Plane with JARDesign A320, I just couldnt stand the terrain.. it was awful in X-Plane

beepIL it depends on your rig m8. You dont want to plan a entire flight and be 30mins into a checklist and being training someone and as your rolling out your game OOM's or crashes. ..that is a major downside.... I have had boxed edition for longest time, i eventually jumped to P3d. Then along came fucking steam edition...which is horrid!!!!!!! Lucky it was a gift... I have had crashes in both stock and steam edition. My P3d 2.5 runs like butter! 6core i7 4.8ghz, watercooled 32gb 2133mhz 250gb ssd evo, 1tb raid, 500gb 770gtx 4gb. 1050w corsair. PMDG, Captainsim, BlueSky, Orbx, Rex, UT, EzDok, other payware also.

beepIL Try to squeeze some quality, with scome scenery or payware and you will get crashes. If you want just fly with that garbage basic look of FSX you can and you probably wont have crash that is right...

Izmael1310 I use ORBX FTX global scenery with ORBX vector, several FTX global airports, REX 4 texture direct HD and fly exclusively payware aircrafts (mostly A2A really).... maybe i am just lucky... dunno, but i cant remember FSX ever crashing on me.

beepIL I have pretty stable FSX right now too but even with great/strong piece of HW at some scenery I cant squeeze more than 7 fps shame :(

Izmael1310 Shouldnt be the case... may i suggest a facebook group that helped me a lot? These guys are FSX.CFG tweak experts, you can send them your fsx config, your full system specs, and they will custom tweak it best for your system... i get like constant 50-60 ftps with awesome graphics thanks to these guys, that is their group: facebook.com/groups/FSX.Professionals good luck!

Dimas Rahadian Yes, this was made not long after I first installed P3D and so I had not quite finished setting it up to my preferences.

will look forward for your optimizations then :) keep us posted

That's Lockheed Martin for you. Look what they are asking for the F 35. ;)

Where's the watermark?

an mos good luck in finding that frame rate in any flight simulator

an mos Yeah we should have this in 2015. But nobody wants to make new simulator which would contain payware quality textures, scenery, mesh, and at least 2 aircrafts.

You are quite right about all of the graphics flaws but as I highlight in the video, this software is really targeted at professional users/organisations. Much of the excitement about it comes from the 'entertainment' users who are not the target audience from what I can establish. In my opinion, it is not, and never was, intended by Lockheed Martin to replace FSX. A commercial user will most likely just use one specialised aircraft model with a purpose built cockpit whilst many professional users will most likely be focussed on the practical airmanship aspects of operating a limited fleet of specific aircraft in particular civil or military training environments. Lockheed Martin's product information includes a lot about military mission planning, tactical environments, underwater environments, easier multi computer and multi user set ups and a mission director section. For commercial users, I can see why they might want the ability to allocate more than one key to a single action, which is the odd control set up menu you describe. In those cases, I guess customers don't care about the poor menus, and bizarre texture loadings swapping aircraft or views because they aren't after a pretty product and will often use the same aircraft and scenery every time it's booted up. Indeed, if one is using it as the basis of an IFR trainer, as many organisations will, then they spend most of their time with a grey/white screen! They do however demand a stable, reliable program, which P3D generally delivers to a better standard than FSX for most users. It is not however devoid of stability problems for all users. I haven't seen huge changes in frame rates or graphics that would demand a change to P3D and the underlying fact is that it still uses the core 32 bit framework limited to 4 Gb of Ram. I have still experienced some crashes. I recently spent some time with a commercial fixed base flight simulator company, and they still had problems with software crashes. It's not perfect, and in my opinion does not fix many of the underlying flaws of FSX, but it is potentially an improvement for it's target audience.

flightsim481 *"They do however demand a stable, reliable program, which P3D generally delivers to a better standard than FSX for most users"* I had FSX installed on 3 different systems and it has been really rock solid so far. FSX only started to get a bad reputation when people started to edit system files and pushed VAS to its limits with extreme third party add-ons. A prime example of instability related to editing system files is the instability caused by users who decided to edit bufferpools and LOD. If users decide to take a fully packed PMDG 737 and add FS2Crew, FTX scenery, REX 4 clouds with high resolution, Ultimate Traffic 2 and try to land on a large, extremely detailed Aerosoft airport, I'm sorry.... but then these people are just asking for trouble. But even under those circumstances they shouldn't have any issues, as long as their AI traffic, texture sizes, animated ground objects, number of 3D models, etc are kept under control. No, instead people just push it to the limit and then complain that's unreliable. I had FSX running on a 6 year old Q9450 processor and 6 year old 9800GT... I seriously never had any OOM or CTD when flying with a PMDG 737, REX 4 + OpusFX, UT 2, FTX Region, EZdok, VacSystem, etc all at the same time and with all settings on max, except for ground AI, water (2xlow) and second scenery slider (2nd highest). To me that's a testimony to the product when it comes to reliability. On the other hand, if you're treating a 32 bit product as a 64 bit product, then pay for the consequences, but don't complain about the product. The main reliability issues I have with FSX are not related to FSX, but are related to the add-ons. I had more reliability issues with P3D *before* I even added a single add-on. In that context I clearly don't understand how you can claim that they made a stable, reliable program. *"In those cases, I guess customers don't care about the poor menus, and bizarre texture loadings swapping aircraft or views because they aren't after a pretty product and will often use the same aircraft and scenery every time it's booted up"* I'm a heavy user of Photoshop, a product that considering its price is clearly focused on professional users, even more than P3D which is considered relatively cheap in comparison, yet Photoshop not only looks like a professional product, but it also handles like one. It's the same with Cinema 4D that I also use at work. You and I clearly have a different idea about the definition of a "polished product". The only reason why Lockheed Martin gets away with it, is because there is hardly any competition. That's why they get away with the outdated menus, the stutters, the bugs, the slow 3D models, 32 bit, the poor flight model, the poor weather model, etc, etc and it's not because customers don't care. *"and in my opinion does not fix many of the underlying flaws of FSX, but it is potentially an improvement for it's target audience"* You said it right, "potentially". Lockheed Martin gets away with the issues, because their customers have no other choice. The complete foundation of P3D is outdated and all the team has been doing so far is adding band-aid solutions. We are encouraged to buy faster systems to get the most out of the product. Why? To compensate for poor developer skills? I have a 4790K running at 4.4Ghz and even that's not enough. Is P3D pushing it to the limits? No, a single core is heavily used, yet the other 3 (or 4 if you include HT cores) are sitting there doing nothing most of the time, regardless of any affinity mask settings. Even my fast Nvidia card doesn't get over 30% usage and that's with 8xSQ and 2x Sparse Grid Supersampling! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that if my video card is running at 42 degrees Celsius while using P3D, that P3D isn't quite pushing it, when most modern gaming titles generally push it to 60 degrees Celsius. Sure, P3D has improved the situation slightly, but if you disable the new features that do tax the GPU, then you'll notice that even P3D is still not pushing limits and then I haven't even started about the lack of 64 bits. I have Photoshop, Cinema 4D, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Illustrator, Office, etc installed on my computer and all of them are 64 bit, yet a company like Lockheed Martin, who had a $45.358 billion and $2.981 billion profit last year can't deliver 64 bit to a product that truly needs it? C'mon hey... that's not a sign of customers who have no needs, no... that's a sign of customers who lack alternatives and a company like LM that is aware of that. Nevertheless, you're wandering off...your little reads *"Should I jump ship from FSX?"* , so you're clearly addresssing the traditional FSX user and with that in mind I personally say *"no"* based on my experiences so far and mind you, that's even *before* I installed any add-ons, because when we start talking about running our favorite add-ons in P3D, then things are really starting to get ugly. I'm not trying to be intentionally negative, I'm really stating my sincere opinion. I have nothing against P3D and I, as someone who truly loves to fly planes, would love to see the product to succeed, but I have seen nothing but an evolutionary step, band-aid solutions, more bugsr and an substantially increased number of issues with add-ons and add-on breaking patches, while still seeing the same problems that FSX users are facing, like slight stutters, 32 bit limit, poor performance, etc. I *might* switch to P3D when the time is right, but not right now... I can't imagine dealing with all these issues while I managed to setup a really well functioning FSX setup after al these years so that I can focus what in my opinion truly matters, which is.... *~ F L Y I N G ~* .

Kmlvox You've hit a huge issue in your comments. People are spending hundreds, if not thousands of pounds on a computer to run FSX, a 10 year old £40 program. I can't think of any other area of software development where there has been so little progress made with progression of the core program. What is disappointing is that LM have the resources to completely overhaul and update the program but with X-Plane being the only competition (negligible at that), there is no real need for them to do so. Current hardware profiles are not being used effectively, and once the best way to improve performance is to manually adjust the config file, then that is a big clue that a program is seriously outdated and in need of significant work. I agree that many of the problems with FSX are not with the program, but occur once a raft of add ons are added. I have had minimal problems with FSX on my old PC because I adjusted the settings to reflect the performance of my PC and chose my add ons selectively. For me, P3D is not a successor to FSX. Some may find it more stable, and some will be able to get slight improvements in performance, but for me it's not currently a game changer. Your comments are not negative. I'm sure some will disagree greatly, but I feel it's nice to have a counter balance view point and it's also refreshing to hear something other than the "P3D is amazing" statements. I stated in my video that whilst there are improvements, they are not huge and neither do they make FSX obsolete. Both can be poor if badly set up and both can disappoint if expectations are unreasonable. I've not been won over by P3D, and in fact still use FSX more than P3D. I haven't suffered too many problems with P3D. I haven't tried it, but I strongly suspect that loading lots of FSX targeted add ons onto P3D could cause far more problems than in FSX because they are not optimised for P3D. Indeed, I don't think PMDG officially support P3D with any of their current add ons. I am aiming the video at FSX users because the temptation is to blindly jump from FSX into buying a $200 simulator thinking of it as a modernised but compatible version. But $200 of add ons to FSX can make a huge difference to that sim. For that money, you can buy a substantial amount of FTX scenery which has far more impact on the visuals and terrain in FSX than changing to P3D. I stand by my remarks at the end of the video, that unless someone has a very specific reason for changing to P3D I see little point. It is ultimately FSX with slightly different rendering engine and arguably worse UI. Thank you for your remarks. Our opinions do differ, but that should be considered a good thing because it affords constructive discussion. Your final statement is one of the most pleasant to see but the most often missed. All we should be worried about is enjoying our aviation passion in the way that suits us best.

flightsim481 You make a very good point with that $200 (FSX costs $32 at Amazon) and you're right, P3D doesn't feel revolutionary. Now let's assume that we have 3 computers with around $200 of software installed. Computer A with P3D Computer B with FSX and Global FTX, REX 4 and OpusFSX Computer C with FSX and Global FTX, REX 4 and a RealAir Duke B60 V2 Computer D with FSX and Global FTX and a PMDG 737 or 777 Computer E with FSX and Global FTX and copies of Orbx Alaska, Pacific North West and Northern California Someone comes along who wants to buy spend $200 on a Flight Simulator and he doesn't know P3D or FSX and we demonstrate all the software installed... I think you get my point. I say it again; we buy a simulator to *FLY* and in that context adding a PMDG 737 to FSX makes the flying more revolutionary than switching from FSX to P3D. Sure, it's nice to have cloud shadows, tessalation, better fog, trees that don't pop into the scenery, but is that truly the reason why we buy a flight simulator? I can only talk for myself, but I get joy out of starting with a cold/dark plane and using a flight planner, instruments, ATC and struggling with the weather to get a plane safely on the ground at a different airport while enjoying the changing landscape, a landscape that impresses me more if it's a $22 copy of Orbx Pacific Northwest, than looking at default scenery with cloud shadows, better fog, non-popping trees. When you own a copy of FSX and Orbx Northern California for $69 and have enjoyed flying in Nothern California (better scenery, better airports, object flow, hand placed trees, photo-realistic textures in some locations, better lighting, more accurate roads, rivers and coast lines, more hand placed objects, etc) and then switch to a $200 product like P3D that shows default scenery, then it feels like going back 8 years in time and I'm dead serious.

flightsim481 I totaly agree with KMLVOX I have in the past like all fsx users added tweaks I now use only one Wide aspect =True Not had a OOM/CTD since

As soon as you say you are learning to fly a plane and intend to use it for simulating flight, then it could be considered that you are meeting it's licencing criteria of using it as a flight simulator. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't explicitly state where, who or how someone meets those criteria and there isn't a definition of what does or does not meet the classification of flight simulation. My understanding (and please don't take it as anything other than personal opinion) is that using it as a flight simulator rather than as a game should meet the criteria listed. But as I say, that's simply my understanding/opinion.

flightsim481 ok because I have fsx but I find there is more realism in prepar3d based on the videos I seen so I kind of want to get it but Im not understanding there requirements.

+Alan Rhodes Just view it as education, I do. I learn from flight sims as well as it being enjoyable but I don't consider it a game. To me the Academic license if fine, I don't expect people in white suits to come knocking on my door about it. People knock paying $59 when in reality, if FSX were to be rereleased with updates and improvements they would do exactly the same thing. It rocks.

Apparently, it can be improved by turning off HDR lighting or adjusting the gamma settings but I haven't got around to trying that yet.

***** I agree with you. There seems to be a process going on where LM keep updating their sim without ensuring the compatibility of pre-existing products/add ons. Likewise, the add on creators are no doubt unhappy that they need to keep updating their products just to work with the latest version of P3D. In reality my concern is that the need for continually assessing and updating add ons takes staffing and financial resources away from future development work of the developers. In LM's defence, they distribute the sim predominantly for a 'professional' marketplace, unlike Steam's entertainment distribution, a subject often overlooked with regards to P3D. Whilst I and many others may be frustrated by LM and their approach to updating P3D it's always worth considering what their priorities might be, and that they might differ considerably from the home user community. It may or may not be deliberate, but either way I'm quite sure that their decisions are biased on the business model that they perceive to be the best for their company. Personally, I find it irritating that I spend considerable amounts of money on the lottery of add ons. Ironically, I have had fewer problems with a clean install of FSX Steam than with P3D. I appreciate that the FSX graphics aren't as good and the performance is weaker in many respects, but I just want to fly. P3D is the better sim overall, but that is offset by ease of use, for which I find FSX Steam far better. IMHO.

***** Hi Myntz. I have to say here, that whilst our reasoning might differ slightly, our overall stance is mighty close. I own FSX (Legacy and Steam), P3D and X-Plane. I use FSX more than P3D and as I have previously said, I have found no huge performance benefits on my machine. I would also whole heartedly agree that the quality of an add on can provide more immersion than any other single thing. However, the FTX scenery always amazes me with the quality of experience I get, even using lowly FSX. and A2A's and Real Air's aircraft are simply excellent. My statement was simply in relation to the fact that I don't personally know what LM's business plan is, no matter how flawed or otherwise it is. I don't really use P3D now because I simply don't want to keep reinstalling my software, I would rather spend that time flying. I am also unhappy at the disparity in cost for the same add on on the 2 different sims. For some who's hardware is better served by P3D, there may well be benefits, but people still get OOM's with long flights in P3D. I find it hard to believe that after this many years, we still haven't seen the FSX platform redeveloped into 64 bit despite the hardware having been available for quite some time I still fly FSX rather than P3D because with my average system, I suspect I am no different to the vast majority who simply can't access the 'features' added by P3D, and for where there may be a performance improvement. But is that performance improvement worth $200 of add ons? As a normal member of Joe public with finite amounts of money, FSX is by far the better set up financially. I won't get into the legality of the EULA of academic vs professional P3D because that is a considerable subject in it's own right. I fly X-Plane for helicopters and the fact it doesn't weave it's way into my registry when I update it. I fly FSX because I already have lots of add ons which I know work with it, and I prefer not to have to reinstall everything every time there is an update, as is the case with P3D. DCS is moving from strength to strength and is updating their platform with the up and coming DCS World 2, likewise their incremental updates have never caused me grief. X-Plane is continually developing without breaking all of my add ons and in my opinion, it's not in competition with FSX/P3D because it offers a different approach to the same passion. I own the 4 key sims yet mainly fly FSX, DCS and X-Plane. I appreciate that for some, P3D is the better platform, but it's not worth the $200 price tag for my system's specs. The limit is often the hardware and for me that means that FSX and P3D performance is similar on my machine. My remark concerning the LM development was purely to remind people that P3D never was, and is still not an designed to be an entertainment product, and that's always worth remembering. Consequently the fact is that LM's attitude may not be to support the home user. Thanks for your comments, as ever it's always good to hear people's well reasoned opinions, Rich

What are you talking about? Almost every addon (expect for PMDG 777) is working perfect in Prepar3D, and also PMDG is already working on covnerting their 777 to Prepar3D What problems are you talking about? I fly heavy aircraft in P3D as much as I did in FSX Frame drops?? what? My frame rate in P3D is about 10% - 50% better than what I had in FSX I guess Prepar3D and FSX will be like FS9 and FSX, everyone will switch to P3D at the end

CowardAgent yes pmdg are thinking of releasing a 777 version for p3d but as now scince p3d can't decide wether to go 64 bit pmdg have shelved the idea until p3d make their minds up. But pmdg have already stated if they do ever make a 777 version for p3d it will take p3d licence's into account, so if like most have the academic license you will only get a cut down version of FSX pmdg 777 and even that cut down version will cost you 200 pounds. If you want the full version of 777 that you get for FSX you will have to purchase the professional version of p3d "200 dollars" and then purchase the professional version of pmdg 777 "200 pounds". So due to p3d licence s to get the same version of Pmdg 777 that I have already you will have to fork out 200 dollars for p3d then 200 English pounds for 777!! Hahaha hahaha it's what's known as milking your bollocks. Pmdg must be Pissing themselves laughing. Would you really pay that much for a 777? It's good but it's nowhere near that good.

Mark Smith Do you have some kind of intellectual disabilities? PMDG has already posted images from their 777 on P3D, and it will be released for 32 bits, and when 64 bits comes out they will also make a 64 bit version About the license, you can buy the 60$ version of Prepar3D, I doubt they can know what are you doing with Prepar3D, and if they do - they dont care, they prefer you to buy it instead of downloading it. About the PMDG 777 price I dont care, thats why we have Kickass TPB(which is coming back in 6 days wowowow) or any otther torrent \ downloads site And what about the fps drops you said people having with P3D? This is just bullshit you made up

Mark Smith 1. I never used the 777, so I dont really care, and If I would I would use FSX when I want to fly the 777 2. Which addon? "Mark Smith dream aircraft" there is barely any addon for FSX that doesnt work in Prepar3D 3. If you got a decent PC there shouldnt be any FPS Drops, and btw can you give me a link to the video about FPS Drops?

CowardAgent Hahaha hahaha you have asked me for link to videos of p3d with frame drops!! I'll give you a clue, have you watched the video on this page your already on!! What a Fucking plenty you are. Try listening to this guy as well and he mentions "don't expect all FSX add-on 's to work in p3d as they do not". You have answered your own question s just by watching the video on this page Hahaha I can't believe it. What a bellend.

You might want to go make your own video.

+71BoJangles That's silly, I've had every version of FSX since v2 and the migration to P3D is better still. Steam version was good when it came out, but I hadn't tried P3D at that point, been my favourite since 2.5. No point arguing why but those that have moved to it are generally not going back.

+oo0Spyder0oo bullshit.. if you don't have a top high end pc you can't enjoy p3d, the casting clouds shadows are still broken even in the 3.1 version, there's no support again with the half refresh rate, so..you if you can't sustain 60 fps you'll get stutter, and for reaching that goal you have to turn off eye candy, so you'll get fsx standard visuals... the only thing that work is the volumetric fog, but I don't give a f..., still better fsx until LM fix the above issues permanently specially for the half vsync stuff

+Daniele Leso It's not bullshit actually. I don't have any of the problems you mention so you might want to sort out your computer. It's way better than fsx, stick with a dead sim if that's your thing.

+oo0Spyder0oo in my oppinion fsx should not be forgoten its really good

Iriina Zoueva Never said not to use it or forget it but if you want a sim that's still evolving then go P3D. Why stick with something that's behind the times?

If you add shaders, it'll look amazing