Ken Hall

More P3Dv2 screens

50 posts in this topic

More shots, I was asked to try Salt lake city, I think thats where I took the more urbane shots, also theres another city in there, I think it's where Checkov was looking for the "Nuclear Wessells"   Is it Alameda all shots were either FTX Global or one of our FAT regions. Also a shameless plug for Walker airfield part of the 77S package.


 


CsSwJ.jpg


 


NgivH.jpg


 


KeHNt.jpg


 


i5G84.jpg


 


Jz4h9.jpg


 


JUnlN.jpg


 


oQCUN.jpg


 


XjIP6.jpg


 


FI0lP.jpg


 


7p4ix.jpg


 


FGqLS.jpg


 


AOad.jpg


 


t8Chy.jpg


 


uPIdy.jpg


 


Cheers


Ken


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, your shots are always urbane!


 


Now you're showing off, the shadows, the reflections and those beautiful (default?!) clouds


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, the LOD radius is incredible! What FPS are you getting?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, your shots are always urbane!

 

Now you're showing off, the shadows, the reflections and those beautiful (default?!) clouds

never saw that spelling error, yes they are default clouds

 

Wow, the LOD radius is incredible! What FPS are you getting?

I was getting about 20-25fps but the trade of was reducing the trees and buildings a bit but the new independant sliders for both trees and buildings separately gives greater control

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great shots Ken! Really looking forward this :)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ken, are you really getting those screen shots on a GTX285 GPU?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love to see if light bloom has been fixed, love it but always took a hit...


 


Great pics mate.


 


Paul


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ken, are you really getting those screen shots on a GTX285 GPU?

sorry bout that ,havn't updated my puter stats for a while

have a gtx 760 now and cpu does 4.2 gig

cheers

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GTX 760 and FPS from 20 to 25 !!!! there is no difference vs FSX


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ONly if fps is your only criterion.  Monsieur just don't buy it.  N'achetez rien.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't only look for FPS but the major issue today with FSX is performance, if P3D and the DX11 compatibility do not contribute to have better performance, i'm little bit disappointed


 


Monsieur, as you can see on my signature, I spend a lot and especially for FSX & Orbx, and I'm ready to continu with P3D but I have some expectations, better FPS on my system is one of them


 


You don't need to translate or to be arrogant


 


Thanks


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think P3D V2.0 will blow FSX out of the water at similar settings. It is only when you add  all the shadow eyecandy that FPS can drop below your expectations. And I can live without every tree or building casting a shadow.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are expecting P3D2 to scale well both CPU- and GPU-wise, exactly what FSX and P3D1.4 are unable to do, because they were developed with an old "CPU-centric" vision. So you change your card with one which is 2x more powerful and only gain a 15% improvement in frames. Not to mention microstutters and some horrible glitches like the popping scenery.


 


If LM are giving me an FSX with the same level of detail I have now, no microstutters, no popping, maybe a higher LOD, less OOM's, then I am happy.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About frames...One thing you will hear often from DX10 users is how smooth the sim is based on the fact that the frames stay grouped closer together and you dont get spikes which result in a less smooth sim, even microsutters of sorts. Add in auto gen pop and that too breaks the smoothness, something DX10 cant fix. I can only imagine how having groups frames and no to less auto gen pop will yield a very smooth sim. Even at low frames. 20-25 frames in FSXDX10 is not the same as in FSXDX9.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have it.


BUT. I will certainly turn off the 'reflective glass' water effects. It may look nice but how often is the sea or a river that calm.


 


Nice to have the choice though.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LM had mentioned having water that was calmer nearer the shore and I had envisioned it looking like you often see where water has these even patches of color interspersed with the more active water (which is where you see the sunshine sparkling on the water). I wonder if REX can do that now?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for sharing these shots. Ken!


 


One question, are the shadows influenced by the current weather? I mean, are the also there if the sky is ovecast?


 


Cheers, Wolfgang


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen and heard re P3D 2 so far does underwhelm me a little.It seems we have gone from a cpu intensive app only to a now Gpu intensive app only.The reason I say this is so far the videos and shots I see are good ...but it seems we still have to "trade off" something. Either shadows for this shadows for that or some other effect has to be toned down to get it to run smoothly.Well forgive me for stating the obvious, but that's what we have to do now in FSX.


I can see the obvious improvements I am not blind and not being a hater. I currently run both FSX and P3D V1.4. Mostly run fsx as the interface is much better and planes and some scenery I have are all ready in FSX and well it just runs smooth and looks good for me.I was (and probably still will) going to jump on V2.00  straight away but I do now have some doubts, it seems were back to yeah you can get it to run good but you need to forsake this or that and also to be realistic about what your machine is capable of(sound familiar?)


All first impressions from beta testers seem reluctant to categorically state how the fps and performance holds up in V2. This worries me (emperors new clothes syndrome?) so in conclusion its NOT or seems not to be the great leap forward just the same product but you now dont need to overclock the bejeebus outta your cpu but if you want to have it something like smooth you need to pay a small fortune put on a mega Gpu and hope for the best.I hope I am totally wrong, time will tell.


My own personal take not a beta tester just putting this out there.


Gary.


Ps yes I can choose not to upgrade I simply hoped for more. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me if there is less stuttering, less autogen popup and better fog I am in! For scenery we have Orbx, for wx we have REX and for aircrafts there are many great devs so It looks good! :)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would already be happy if P3D 2.0 would run just as good as FSX does with similar (!) settings but without (for instance) autogen popup. Everything else is a nice bonus. Of course I would love to have all shadows enabled and things like that but I don't expect being able to have all sliders 'full right'.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for sharing these shots. Ken!

 

One question, are the shadows influenced by the current weather? I mean, are the also there if the sky is ovecast?

 

Cheers, Wolfgang

Yes, if its overcast shadows are muted.

From what I've seen and heard re P3D 2 so far does underwhelm me a little.It seems we have gone from a cpu intensive app only to a now Gpu intensive app only.The reason I say this is so far the videos and shots I see are good ...but it seems we still have to "trade off" something. Either shadows for this shadows for that or some other effect has to be toned down to get it to run smoothly.Well forgive me for stating the obvious, but that's what we have to do now in FSX.

I can see the obvious improvements I am not blind and not being a hater. I currently run both FSX and P3D V1.4. Mostly run fsx as the interface is much better and planes and some scenery I have are all ready in FSX and well it just runs smooth and looks good for me.I was (and probably still will) going to jump on V2.00  straight away but I do now have some doubts, it seems were back to yeah you can get it to run good but you need to forsake this or that and also to be realistic about what your machine is capable of(sound familiar?)

All first impressions from beta testers seem reluctant to categorically state how the fps and performance holds up in V2. This worries me (emperors new clothes syndrome?) so in conclusion its NOT or seems not to be the great leap forward just the same product but you now dont need to overclock the bejeebus outta your cpu but if you want to have it something like smooth you need to pay a small fortune put on a mega Gpu and hope for the best.I hope I am totally wrong, time will tell.

My own personal take not a beta tester just putting this out there.

Gary.

Ps yes I can choose not to upgrade I simply hoped for more.

I think its time to clarify.

I’m posting screenshots to show some of the new features, I’m not making any recommendations as to wether you should change or stay with FSX.

This is early days, and were looking at a beta version of P3D versus an FSX that has had years of upgrades, tweeks, you name it and people have tried to implement improvements to it.

LM has taken on an orphaned product and is working there butts of to give us something better, I said at the start when we first got news of P3D that if we want a better simulator then LM need to know that they have support, I’ve been paying for a developers liscence for 2 years giving my support.

If your happy withFSX then stay with it. Personally I want more, I know that there will be teething problems, I know that there will be comparisons to FSX and in some areas FSX might even look better to some, I can remember the HUGE dissapointment I had when our now beloved FSX was first released.

How things have evolved

The choice is yours, stick with the devil you know or take a chance that there is something better.

Cheers

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would already be happy if P3D 2.0 would run just as good as FSX does with similar (!) settings but without (for instance) autogen popup. Everything else is a nice bonus. Of course I would love to have all shadows enabled and things like that but I don't expect being able to have all sliders 'full right'.

One hundred percent yes!

I want what I get from FSX with more smoothness and no Autogen pop - that is all I want ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If your happy withFSX then stay with it. Personally I want more

 

Of course i want more, more performance to fly over heavy airport and sceneries without FPS problem and I hope P3Dwill be a good choice for that

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much taking time to share these shots with us Ken. 


 


 




All first impressions from beta testers seem reluctant to categorically state how the fps and performance holds up in V2. This worries me (emperors new clothes syndrome?) so in conclusion its NOT or seems not to be the great leap forward just the same product but you now dont need to overclock the bejeebus outta your cpu but if you want to have it something like smooth you need to pay a small fortune put on a mega Gpu and hope for the best.I hope I am totally wrong, time will tell.


My own personal take not a beta tester just putting this out there.


 




 


For FsX, we already need to pay small fortune for better GPU if we want to get out best from addons like Orbx regions etc. I had GTX 560 but it wasn't enough even with 4.5ghz overclocked ivy bridge. So, I paid a small fortune (for me) to buy GTX680. I don't think this is going to change. If you want best you still need powerful staff. 


 


However, if they can give me error-free, stutter-free sim, then it's a big time winner. There's nothing more frustrating than getting ctd during flight. I hate that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For FsX, we already need to pay small fortune for better GPU if we want to get out best from addons like Orbx regions etc. I had GTX 560 but it wasn't enough even with 4.5ghz overclocked ivy bridge. So, I paid a small fortune (for me) to buy GTX680. I don't think this is going to change. If you want best you still need powerful staff. 

 

Did switching GPU actually give you any gain at all in FSX? I had a GTX480 and switched to a GTX680 and didn't get any gain at all in FSX, only gain I got was less heat inside the computer... At least with Prepar3dv2 upgrading GPU would make a difference(so I've heard) as it's taking more advantage out of the GPU and not being completely CPU bound...

 

But I kinda agree with jrrbolkin about that it would be nice to get some more info about the performance of P3Dv2, e.g comparing how p3dv2 performs versus FSX at similar settings, if the stutters are completely gone etc. Most info from the beta testers seems to be about all the eyecandy, and almost no info about frames, smoothness compared to FSX, how much its needs to be tuned down to hold a steady 30 FPS in the most demanding areas with payware airports and more than a default plane etc etc. I'll switch anyway, but it would be interesting to know more about the performance part of this new sim....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did switching GPU actually give you any gain at all in FSX? I had a GTX480 and switched to a GTX680 and didn't get any gain at all in FSX, only gain I got was less heat inside the computer... At least with Prepar3dv2 upgrading GPU would make a difference(so I've heard) as it's taking more advantage out of the GPU and not being completely CPU bound...

But I kinda agree with jrrbolkin about that it would be nice to get some more info about the performance of P3Dv2, e.g comparing how p3dv2 performs versus FSX at similar settings, if the stutters are completely gone etc. Most info from the beta testers seems to be about all the eyecandy, and almost no info about frames, smoothness compared to FSX, how much its needs to be tuned down to hold a steady 30 FPS in the most demanding areas with payware airports and more than a default plane etc etc. I'll switch anyway, but it would be interesting to know more about the performance part of this new sim....

Actually, it helped a lot. I have a triple monitor setup and gtx560 wasn't simply powerful enough to carry out 5760 x 1080 resolution. I was experiencing constant texture blurries, virtual cockpit white-outs etc. I don't know how much of Gtx680's capacity is being used now, but if v2.0 will utilize GPU more effectively, then hopefully I can experience better performance with my current rig.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it helped a lot. I have a triple monitor setup and gtx560 wasn't simply powerful enough to carry out 5760 x 1080 resolution.

 

Ah, off course that explains it, it certainly helps when having more than 1 monitor ::)  and high resolutions like that. Sorry my bad, in single screen setups it's almost no difference from getting better GPU's, maybe sligtly "subtle" performance gains in heavy weather and high AA settings..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting effects . Thanks for posting Ken . ( cant wait to check the water out and shadows for that matter )


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the most important aspect of P3DV2 is the memory management. Many of us struggle with OOMs in FSX because of it's poor management of memory and virtual address space. I sincerely hope that LM have solved that problem. In other words, I expect scenery that has been left far behind to be removed from memory/VAS, so that we do not get into the ridiculous situation of suffering an OOM because a complex airport addon that we departed two hours ago has not been removed from memory. I have never understood why FSX was designed like that. If LM have solved this problem, then they can count me in as a potential customer.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should consider a few things in all these discussions.


 


1. Some small company came up with the crazy idea to pimp up FSX. LM did it. I would have never thought that Microsoft Flight Simulator will ever face a kind of renaissance or upgrade after MS dropped it. Now we the sim community will get a sim that is constantly being updated and that will get better and better. As Kosta stated on his blog the community asked for this and that LM listned to us and built it. Think about the factor time in relation to development. There was P3D 1.3 then 1.4. Now there is P3D2


 


MS wasnt able to give FSX such an upgrade in such a small time. As we all know upgrading to a faster CPU is a bigger hastle than switching to a faster GPU. Getting the relieving the CPU by letting the GPU doing more work is a big step ahead.


 


2. we should wait till we get our hands on P3D2 to make up our own minds.


 


3. LM is working on SLI for P3D2 as Wes Bard stated. MS should have done that years ago.


 


4. I´ve never seen betas being blown away by a product in such a way. ;) By the way Thanks Ken for the screenies of Salt Lake City.


 


5. Lets wait and see what is coming in the near fututre :) P3D2 will be there. Imagine where we will be in 12 months from now on. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some small company came up with the crazy idea to pimp up FSX. LM did it.

 

Did you just call Lockheed-Martin "some small company"? Was that ironic? :D :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems were back to yeah you can get it to run good but you need to forsake this or that and also to be realistic about what your machine is capable of(sound familiar?)

You have to admit though that this is fundamentally not a bad thing:  it's good to have a sim that can be 'dialed up' to the point it makes modern hardware begin to not keep up.  If that sort of scalability wasn't there when the hardware improves it could potential blow right by the core app (FS2004 by today's hardware standards for example) and the app will have nothing more to offer.  It will be many many years, maybe decades, before what amounts to 'Full Reality' will be able to run on any PC:  that would be essentially full pixel resolution right down to point blank range and beyond.  That is, an LOD that approximates the real world.   Scalability is a good thing:  you will always have to compromise--that is just the state of affairs for the foreseeable future.  Learning how to cope w/ a fantasy reality that isn't yet possible is what's needed, not less potent software.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you just call Lockheed-Martin "some small company"? Was that ironic? :D :D

Right on man :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m posting screenshots to show some of the new features, I’m not making any recommendations as to wether you should change or stay with FSX


Yes Ken and I do appreciate you doing so and it was rude of me not to thank you in my post above.


Regards.


Gary


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

May I ask the question how you made the sreenshots?

As far as I read there is no full screen modus anymore, but I can not see any frame , only the very first image one could think there is a little part of a frame...

Could you confirm wether or not there is a full screen modus?

Thank you, because it is important for me as I m using a curved screen and are using a software which works only in full screen modus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.