P3D v1.4 / FSX default scenery comparison

[pete]

Here are some comparisons between Prepar3d v1.4 and FSX (default sceneries)
(as you will see, and not surprisingly, they are virtually the same)

It would be interesting to see if there is any change in P3D V2


Prepar3D LAX





FSX LAX





Prepar3D Seattle




FSX Seattle




Prepar3D NYC





FSX NYC





... and when you try to start FSX when P3D is already running ..

[Daube]

Pete, the scenery content in Prepar3D v2 is still the same as FSX and P3D v1.4
The only differences you'll spot may be the denser autogen, the better fog, and the pseudo-HDR effect that is not so visible anyways...

[pete]

yes I know that Daub .....


The point of my post is to demonstrate this to anyone who is wondering what P3D is -- and what it is compared with FSX. (only about 1 in 50 MSFS/site users know much about FS (or care enough to go beyond anything that is easy) and it's good to inform them ..)

[Hawkeye07]

Thanks for the comparison pix Pete. It's nice to actually see this in a head to head comparison instead of wondering if a conversion is worth it or not BEFORE you buy. Personally I suspect I'll probably hang on to FSX as long as possible.

Hawkeye

[G.K.]

I thought the main advantage with P3D was supposed to be in frame rates and smoothness while running...........no? ( I could be wrong)

My PC is 10 yrs old and I can still crank up the sliders to max on FSX and get a decent screen shot.....it doesn't run very well though.

My point is: a screeny doesn't represent how well it runs or demonstrate advantages or disadvantages.

[Fozzer]

I thought the main advantage with P3D was supposed to be in frame rates and smoothness while running...........no? ( I could be wrong)

My PC is 10 yrs old and I can still crank up the sliders to max on FSX and get a decent screen shot.....it doesn't run very well though.

My point is: a screeny doesn't represent how well it runs or demonstrate advantages or disadvantages.

"Smoothness".... ..... is one of the most important things for me...especially in the demands of FSX!

My present hardware will never achieve that!

Paul.... ...!

[OldAirmail]

I've just now been able to program my yoke, throttle, and rudders so that I can fly well in Prepar3d.

Can anyone believe that the throttle lever on a Saitek throttle quadrant is programed in Prepar3d TO OPPERATE THE F#$%^$&$ AILERONS!!!!



At any rate, I can now program it the way that I want. And in spite of all the problems that you read about it, the basic Prepar3d sim is pretty good.

The biggest improvement that, I immediately noticed, was the shadows cast inside the plane.


FSX does have shadows, somewhat. But the dynamic shadows in Prepar3d V2 are MUCH better.

FSX


Prepar3d V2 These shadow, for the most part, flow smoothly across the interior of the plane. The sense of real movement is greatly enhanced.




FSX


Prepar3d V2





Out side of the plane they have a different elevation mesh too, although that is mainly noticed when you compare pictures from the same spot.

The Bern Airport in Switzerland, in this case.

FSX


Prepar3d V2

[Daube]

In FSX, the cockpit shadows will appear only in DX10 mode. They are not visible in your screenshots, though...
In any cases, yes the P3Dv2 shadows are much better than the FSX ones. This is especially valid for the shadow of the plane on the ground:
- in FSX, the plane shadow is just a flat 2D object which is always horizontal. So everytime the ground isn't perfectly flat, then a good part of the shadow simply dissappears.
- in P3Dv2, the shadow is a real shadow painted on the ground. So if the ground is a slope, then the shadow is STILL appearing correctly

But honnestly, the biggest improvement is really the terrain textures update speed.
In FSX, I can't really fly a military jet, because I get a lot of blurries at low altitude is my speed exceeds 200 knots.
In P3Dv2, with the same computer, I could fly past Mach 1.5 almost without blurries.... over 1m photoscenery with 4.75m mesh and maximum autogen density.

[pegger]

FSX does have shadows, somewhat. But the dynamic shadows in Prepar3d V2 are MUCH better.

Not really a major selling point....

In P3Dv2, with the same computer, I could fly past Mach 1.5 almost without blurries.... over 1m photoscenery with 4.75m mesh and maximum autogen density.

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Those are worthy comparisons.

What I find funny is that the P3D hasn't updated the airports apparently. Isn't there 3 runways at Seattle? They just took what it was and went with it. Did P3D update any navigational data, or the magnetic variance, or anything other than the eye candy aspect. Not much of a training tool if it isn't up to date...

[OldAirmail]

@ Daube

Too many add-ons had problems with DX10. In the end it wasn't worth remembering when to turn it on or off.

That won't be a problem, of course, with P3D unless I bring in FSX planes. Which I probably will.

As to the shadows inside the plane, I do think that it adds a greater "feel" to banking. Had I known that, I might have used DX10.


I tried the high speed, low altitude, turns, and it did bring my FPS down.

But with what I like to fly, and how I like to fly, low & slow, That is rarely going to be a problem.



So far, my settings are in the same position as when P3D was loaded.

The flights behave well, better in some ways, than FSX.

The ground textures and elevation look a little better than FSX.

Land class is no better than FSX

The planes definitely behave as if they have mass.

Sudden acceleration makes your viewpoint move back as it should. Suddenly pulling back on the throttle, and your viewpoint moves forward as your body would in real life.




@ pegger

As far as I'm concerned, Prepar3d is still in the development stage. This is a "general" environment built upon some older software.

When used for training in a particular area (say Groom Lake, Nevada), that area will be developed as add-on scenery for BIG bucks.

We, the public, may never see some of the areas that they'll be paid to create. Especially the scenery for the government.



@ pete

I never had Prepar3d V1.x, and from your shots it looks pretty much the same as basic FSX.

Perhaps you, or someone, could post a few shots comparing V1.x & V2.

Today was my first real day with Prepar3d V2. I think that the aircraft "feel" different when you're flying them. Not as different as X-Plane 10, but still different.

I do think that LM is going in the right direction.

[papituwall]

Just to add a comparison between simulators I made for myself. Not all P3d 1.4 are the same as in FSX, example Mount Vesuvius (volcano):

FSX DX10



P3D 1.4



X-plane 10.

[Daube]

@OldAirMail:
Concerning the FPS hit, there are two main tricks that you absolutely need to be aware about. I'm referring to P3Dv2 here of course, not P3D v1.4.

1 - When switching to full screen, you won't get your full "FPS power" until you actually click on the screen (anywhere). This is a bug. It happens everytime you switch between full screen and windowed mode, or when you go into the various menus of the game. Some gauges might cause this as well, from what I saw. It's some kind of "loss of focus" bug, see what I mean ?

2- If you have a quad core, the affinity mask is not usefull anymore (unlike FSX). However, once the game is launched (in windowed mode), you should go back to your windows desktop and call the task manager. From there, select the Prepar3D.exe process, right click on it, and select "define affinity". There, you will notice the "core0" is unselected. Click on the "all cores" checkbox to ensure all cores are selected. Now close all of this and get back to the P3D window. Enjoy the difference.

Concerning point 2 above:
I've got an i7 960 CPU, overclocked from 3,2 to 3,6 GHz. (yes I know, I'm not good at this, but my hardware is a bit old now...).
If I do not set the affinity via the task manager, then I get a lot of blurries, just like in FSX. It's impossible to go past 200-300 knots without having autogen appearing too late, or extremely blurry ground textures etc....
If I set the affinity to "all cores" after I launch the game (which means, when Prepar3D.exe appears in the list of processes), then I can fly Mach 1.5 (a bit more in fact) without problems. Only problems are the stutters due to scenery loading.

Now, I really need to transfer my Accusim planes in P3Dv2. Once this is done, I can safely delete FSX.

[OldAirmail]

From the Capodichino Airport in Naples looking toward Mt Vesuvius.


FSX




Prepar3d V2



Prepar3d V2 is definitely using a different mesh.



Prepar3d V2 Top of Mt Vesuvius. It may need a little improvement.




BTW - FTX Global isn't fully compatible with Prepar3d V2.

[papituwall]

As said Mt. Vesuvius is not the same in FSX as in P3D, being FSX more accurate in this case, because in reality there are no houses in the slopes of the mountain so P3D looks horrible, big mistake.

This picture is taken from FS2004, with FSglobal mesh correction and fotoreal free scenery. No houses in the slopes.
Watch the picture I´ve posted above from X-plane and this particular área looks more similar to reality, but X-plane has not seasonal textures so is always the same.

[OldAirmail]

At the moment, I'm still primarily an FSX guy.

A good part of that is because of all the add-ons that I've put into it.

Prepar3d V2 has some good points, but is too new at this point. The houses and buildings, both on the slopes and in the caldera of Mt Vesuvius prove that beyond any doubt.

On the other hand, the mesh elevation is (sometimes) undeniable, especially when looking at Vesuvius from the runway in Naples.



That mesh elevation isn't so pronounced in some areas of the world.

I was spending a bit of time flying around Rio de Janeiro, comparing Prepar3d V2 to FSX.

The mesh was better there too, but the land textures were horrible. Not that the original FSX textures were probably any better.

I think that the LM Prepar3d team is hoping that Orbx, or someone will come to their rescue for scenery.


As to that scenery.

Yesterday I installed Orbx Australia into P3D and it was almost as good as it is in FSX. You can only notice it by switching between P3d & FSX at the same location.

Not that FSX always won. In a couple of places P3D/Orbx Australia was a little better.



All that stuff probably belongs in it's own post, though.