Realistic Visibilty

[G.K.]

...not sure if this forum is the correct one for P3D screenies????

I've always had an issue with FSX real time weather (when it worked) because it would usually stick in a visibility layer that looked terrible, sharp edges against terrain with no graduation. Unlimited visibility was an unrealistic option so I would usually customise the weather and give it a 10-30 mile vis layer that went up to 50000 (depending on what I was flying) or so, again unrealistic but the best compromise for me.

Prepar3D volumetric fog is brilliant.....clouds look better too.....No popping autogen either but that's a different story.

[Bass]

Thanks for showing G.K.
I'm following these P3D posts in here very closely!
Still, to me, it looks very "dark" and not so clean and crisp like FSX!!
Maybe its just me.

[Fozzer]

Thanks for showing G.K.
I'm following these P3D posts in here very closely!
Still, to me, it looks very "dark" and not so clean and crisp like FSX!!
Maybe its just me.

....certainly very dark...(depressing).... ...!

I'm spending most of my time trying to achieve more and more; "sunny brightness" in my FSX!
...its getting better!

Paul.... ...!

[G.K.]

.....I did have HDR lighting switched on. It looks much brighter with it off. The settings required to produce this pic gave me consistent 30 fps, that'll drop though given some complicated scenery. I suppose it is less sharp than FSX, it could be graphics settings AA and all that. There is more control within P3D for adjusting various graphic settings and I'm still not sure if Nvidia Inspector would be a better option for controlling these.

In FSX some edges looked too sharp IMO, autogen, shadows and the like. So I guess it's a case of personal preference, I do think P3D overall does look a lot better, more depth, contrast and better colouring. I like it.


also I do have an advantage on you: I'm an old fart and my eyesight is shot

[G.K.]

Here's one to demonstrate the difference between HDR and not. The DC3 pic above was taken at 7.00 am. The Cessna comparison shot was taken at Noon. Both in the Alps.

[Bass]

Thanks again G.K.
I'm glad you like it.
The clouds and sky are looking good, but still, the rest is too soft IMO. No details on the Cessna and the city ground textures reminds me of an older FS!
Not into any argument, i think you know that, just expression my view on the subject.
I know it will get much better, and thats why i'm monitoring everything regarding P3D.

[Fozzer]

Thanks again G.K.
I'm glad you like it.
The clouds and sky are looking good, but still, the rest is too soft IMO. No details on the Cessna and the city ground textures reminds me of an older FS!
Not into any argument, i think you know that, just expression my view on the subject.
I know it will get much better, and thats why i'm monitoring everything regarding P3D.

I suppose the only way we are REALLY going to know the difference between FSX and P3D, is by purchasing P3D and running them both on our existing machines as a comparison.

At the moment I cant see any problems with my FSX, running flat-out, smoothly, on my Super-'Puter, with various scenery, etc, add-ons....

..in fact, I never cease to marvel at the FSX scenery before me, when comparing it with real photographs of the same areas!

I'm not too concerned with wonderful cloud formations, as I mostly avoid them in my VFR flights. Its the excellent ground scenery at low level which I look for.

OrbX FTX (with its Koorbygen buildings), and Ultimate Terrain USA (FSX), make my FSX really shine as regards to ground scenery!

Paul...Memories: It took me years to swap from FS 2002 to FS 2004, and then from FS 2004 to FSX, so from FSX to P3D is probably sometime in the distant future...so far!....

[papituwall]

P3DV2 first impressions concerning nice images can be deceptive until it is discovered that you can not adjust the antialiasing.

There is a conflict with antialiasing, Nvidia and P3DV2, the result is that the image clarity is worse than FSX (and FS9 his grandfather).
You can neither override nor improve the internal application settings (which are in some cases ineffective) except one that is the solution (see below).
As LM says that the conflict is because DX11 and Nvidia says nothing, don't expect a short term solution. I don't know what happens with ATI.

This has worked in my case (i7 only 2.8 GHz, Nvidia660, 8gb memory):

THE MOST IMPORTANT:

EXTERNAL ADJUSTMENT SGSSAAx4= AA_MODE_REPLAY_SGSSAA_4X AND IMPORTANT, MSAA must be also 4 in game.
This value is key and luckily can be set with with Nvidia Inspector, the image is improved, perfect in VC, great external views, but surprisingly runway lines bad (the only fault I get). I feel close to FSX with DirectX10.
I got conflicts with the shadows (pixeling) with the last NVIDIA driver 335.23 and had to reinstall 327.23 and perfect.

OTHER:

FXAA: Without hesitation OFF. With ON the numbers in the panel are blurred.
TEXTURE RESOLUTION: Except for "frame eater" aircraft, you can put ULTRA.
VSYNC: It is a "frameeater". I do not notice anything on airplanes that go smooth, so OFF.
MIPMAP PANELS: I do not appreciate anything, so OFF.

HDR darkness may be a question of personnel taste, and depends on the plane, some are too dark.

[G.K.]

Thanks for those settings papituwall, I will give them a go.

[papituwall]

My best wishes, please inform us about the results.