FSX or P3Dv4? Your opinions please

[warchild]

Apparently they couldn't replace you since IRIS did steal FDEs from other companies and/or used great parts from FDEs from other companies, like in case of the Grob 115.
Btw, the Christen Eagle was really great!

Indeed it was.. I cant take credit though. I started the fde and then fell ill so it was taken over by my associate who actually proposed the eagle to david.. i do hope you;ll forgive me but i can no longer remember the gentlemans name.. So I dont know where you heard that they stole from other companies.. The grob came after my time though.. I can assure you however that i created every flight model from scratch, with many of them taking up too nine months to build.. No, they werent great. We al start somewhere and learn right?? but i eventually got better.. The reasons for my leaving were simple. I didnt want to program in dcs.. I thought it was folly then and i still think its stupid.. They did replace me though with whom i dont know.. Truth told, The P-61B is the first plane ive developed for both fsx and p3d since before i left iris. I'm happy to say it flies exactly the same in both programs.. Its still in development however so please stay tuned. In the meantime i and my team are working with another member here on building an rf-61 reporter.. that should be getting released around march or april of next year. I've been building the flight model in p3d but it translates directly back to fsx without any problems, though i;ll have my partner go over it in case i miss something..

 

[bbrz]

So I dont know where you heard that they stole from other companies..

I compared the FDE from the Grob with the FDE from a different company FDE (for a different plane) and was surprised how many items and even complete section from the airfile they had used.
I contacted them and IRIS and they told me that this wasn't the first time but they couldn't do anything about it. Didn't hear anything from IRIS....nevertheless I'd love to get my two-seater F-16 back!
IIRC John Cagle did a nice Sukhoi FDE a long time ago as well.

 

[warchild]

I compared the FDE from the Grob with the FDE from a different company FDE (for a different plane) and was surprised how many items and even complete section from the airfile they had used.
I contacted them and IRIS and they told me that this wasn't the first time but they couldn't do anything about it. Didn't hear anything from IRIS....nevertheless I'd love to get my two-seater F-16 back!
IIRC John Cagle did a nice Sukhoi FDE a long time ago as well.

You and me both, but you see, the f-16 was made by a third party and distributed through Iris. When that third part pulled out, the f-16 went with them.. it was a wonderful plane though..

And John was one of my advisers on the su-37. We have slightly different ways of approaching things, but none the less, he was an invaluable help and a good teacher..

 

[txnetcop]

Being a flight model designer for both platforms since many years I can assure you that x-plane isn't any better than FSX concerning the flight models.
And again, crosswind handling in x-plane still isn't realistic (and simply awful in the heavies). Fine tuning airplane behaviour at the very edge (and beyond) the envelope is also easier in FSX.

Furthermore please note that flightsimulators are generally used as procedure trainers and they don't necessarily need to have leading edge flight dynamics.
Even the 'real' simulators are sometimes way off in important areas.

Sorry my friend, your explanation does not cover enough detail to over-ride what I know to be fact. I do agree that tuning airplane behavior is easier in FSX with the FDE and it is powerful but A2A and other developers have proven that more more programming is required to take in various factors of just the prop itself. Other considerations are significant such as inflow factors, axial and angular flow conservation of momentum. In short what blade element theory takes in to consideration is exactly how the model flies in a wind tunnel-which would be more accurate. I also admit that many things in a simulator just absolutely cannot substitute for real airflow considerations in real life because no to days are alike when it comes to air factors on the prop, the engine/fuel mixture intake and other handling peculiarities. I suggest reading this since you are a design engineer: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/aerothermal_dvd_only/aero/propeller/prop1.html
Ted

 

[MZee1960]

Computer Programming diploma may soon be needed ......

P3DV4.1 is a very nice sim and I was anxious to update to it.........until I started looking at installing add-ons, specifically aircraft.
It seems there are as many ways to install aircraft into P3DV4 as users, and each method reads like a novel.
Whatever happened to copy and paste the aircraft folder into the simobjects folder and fly ?

I am sure there must be somewhere a post with clear, concise, step by step instructions on how to correctly install aircraft into P3D....
..........I just haven't found it yet, ....... and until I do, I'm sticking with FSX, as I have lots of addons I risk losing through improper installs.

 

[henrystreet]

P3DV4.1 is a very nice sim and I was anxious to update to it.........until I started looking at installing add-ons, specifically aircraft.
It seems there are as many ways to install aircraft into P3DV4 as users, and each method reads like a novel.
Whatever happened to copy and paste the aircraft folder into the simobjects folder and fly ?

I am sure there must be somewhere a post with clear, concise, step by step instructions on how to correctly install aircraft into P3D....
..........I just haven't found it yet, ....... and until I do, I'm sticking with FSX, as I have lots of addons I risk losing through improper installs.

There are a lot of legacy FSX aircraft that work fine. As long as they don't have .dll or .gau files. These can be "dragged and dropped" if you prefer. Be sure to get the effects, fonts, sounds, etc.

For new addons, seems like a lot of the developers are using the legacy "install in the main P3D" folder method. Mostly because of the complexity in adapting file paths in the xml install method.

I have several aircraft moved over to v4 using the addon.xml method but it is fully manual work. Milviz, Carenado, Simworks Studios are all recommending to stay with the legacy install mode with their new v4 products.

Hope this helps. There are several very knowledgeable people around here and Avsim.

 

[MZee1960]

I cannot comment on which way is 'correct' as I don't have P3DV4 yet. I have read in various posts that the 'add on xml' is the recommended method by LM for future proofing reasons (eliminating re-installation of addons when P3D updates occur). Some say this 'addon xml' method, besides being very labor intense, is also creating a bit of a mess in their folder structure. The legacy 'install in the main P3D folder' method makes the most sense and seems to be the simplest to understand, but the thought of having to re-install all addons with each P3D update, as I understand it, sends shivers up my spine.

 

[Daube]

You can still install aircrafts and sceneries exactly like you have ever done in the past with any other sim (FSX, FSX-SE, P3Dv1 to v3).
P3Dv4 simply allows new alternative ways to install, additionally from the traditional method.
Some installers take the new methods into consideration.

For example, the Flying Station Sea Fury for P3Dv4 got installed in my documents, along with all its gauges and sounds. As a consequence, after my drive crash and total loss of P3Dv4, I installed a new drive and reinstalled P3Dv4 from scratch... and the Sea Fury was already there in the hangar on first launch.

Basically, the \My Documents\Prepar3D v4 Add-ons\ folder becomes an alternative to the main Prepar3D v4 install folder, and P3Dv4 is fully aware of it. It will look over there automatically to check if anything is installed in there.
The Sea Fury appears in there as a simlpe folder, which contains a "Simobject" and an "Effect" folder inside.
There is also a add-on.xml that looks like this:

<SimBase.Document Type="AddOnXml" version="4,0" id="add-on">
    <AddOn.Name>Sea Fury</AddOn.Name>
    <AddOn.Description>Flying Stations Sea Fury.</AddOn.Description>
    <AddOn.Component>
  [B]      <Category>SimObjects</Category>
        <Path>SimObjects</Path>[/B]
    </AddOn.Component>
    <AddOn.Component>
[B]        <Category>Effects</Category>
        <Path>Effects</Path>[/B]
    </AddOn.Component>
</SimBase.Document>

It's nothing complex, the xml simply tells to P3D the title of this addon, and the path to the simobject and effect folder.
With a few copy-paste, it's easy to create such an add-on.xml file for any addon, just by changing the titles and such.

 

[henrystreet]

For example, the Flying Station Sea Fury for P3Dv4 got installed in my documents, along with all its gauges and sounds. As a consequence, after my drive crash and total loss of P3Dv4, I installed a new drive and reinstalled P3Dv4 from scratch... and the Sea Fury was already there in the hangar on first launch.

I think this is the huge advantage of the xml method. I have my "Prepar3d v4 Addons" folder on a totally separate drive. Definitely see why LM is trying to herd the developers to this methodology.

Some of the most complex addons, such as the Milivz Adv F-4J/S and the Simworks F-4B/N however do not support this installation method. I've talked to folks with both and they indicated there could be file paths hardcoded in the software that could "break" if not installed in the traditional way.

It's just a matter of time before the developers catch up. For now, I have "blended" installs.

 

[Bjoern]

I think this is the huge advantage of the xml method. I have my "Prepar3d v4 Addons" folder on a totally separate drive. Definitely see why LM is trying to herd the developers to this methodology.

Save for the "Effects" folder, this is also perfectly possible in FSX. Sadly, not many devs seem to know this, especially when it comes to Doug D.'s XML sound gauge. Granted, it does require good path management skills, but the gain in efficiency is very much worth it.

 

[strykerpsg]

Update, committed to P3Dv4. Final advice sought..for now

So, after all the great advice and input, thanks by the way, I finally committed to P3Dv4. I am now in the throws of re-installing the huge Orbx library converted from my FSS orders and their painfully slow download speeds. However, what I am realizing, is with the terrain, mesh and weather add-ons, P3Dv4 and FSX are both HDD hogs.

So, I query a final question on my ongoing build....what SSD HHD would you guys recommend? I am seeking a 1+TB and looking for the best speed regarding load up and flying long distance FSX routes. Also, once all the add-ons are installed, how easy is it to port over the new P3Dv4 install onto it's new SSD HHD? Sorry, I guess I had 2 questions....just excited to be back flying in the virtual skies again.

Thanks in advance
Matt

 

[strykerpsg]

Also, am I reading correctly, that no PMDG products will port over from FSX to P3Dv4? That is most unfortunate if true, since I will most likely not want to pay for their beautiful 737 NGX again, but will sorely miss her.

 

[rvn817j]

So, after all the great advice and input, thanks by the way, I finally committed to P3Dv4. I am now in the throws of re-installing the huge Orbx library converted from my FSS orders and their painfully slow download speeds. However, what I am realizing, is with the terrain, mesh and weather add-ons, P3Dv4 and FSX are both HDD hogs.

So, I query a final question on my ongoing build....what SSD HHD would you guys recommend? I am seeking a 1+TB and looking for the best speed regarding load up and flying long distance FSX routes. Also, once all the add-ons are installed, how easy is it to port over the new P3Dv4 install onto it's new SSD HHD? Sorry, I guess I had 2 questions....just excited to be back flying in the virtual skies again.

Thanks in advance
Matt

There has been a change with FTX / Orbx. You now install FTX Central, log in to your Orbx / FTX account in FTX Central and download / install through FTX Central.

If your motherboard is capable, you should use M2 memory which is much faster than SSD. I have M2 memory on my Christmas list!

Similar thing happened with the Majestic Q400 Dash 8. They upgraded it to v4, but there was an up charge. It is a lot of work so I sure can't fault them. Enjoy the new sim capabilities!

 

[strykerpsg]

There has been a change with FTX / Orbx. You now install FTX Central, log in to your Orbx / FTX account in FTX Central and download / install through FTX Central.

If your motherboard is capable, you should use M2 memory which is much faster than SSD. I have M2 memory on my Christmas list!

Similar thing happened with the Majestic Q400 Dash 8. They upgraded it to v4, but there was an up charge. It is a lot of work so I sure can't fault them. Enjoy the new sim capabilities!

Yep, going through the new Orbx setup now...

What is the M2 memory you're speaking of??

 

[Butcherbird17]

Yep, going through the new Orbx setup now...

What is the M2 memory you're speaking of??

I think he is talking about M.2 drives. The Samsung 960 is the fastest on the market right now, and 1 tb and up is going to cost you some
change. Don't know what board your running but it is x299 chipset so you could have up to 3 M.2 slots on the board. I think a good setup
would be a M.2 as the OS drive and then SSD's as storage for games and what ever else. I would still keep a mechanical drive as a backup
for the whole system just for peace of mind.

Joe

 

[strykerpsg]

I think he is talking about M.2 drives. The Samsung 960 is the fastest on the market right now, and 1 tb and up is going to cost you some
change. Don't know what board your running but it is x299 chipset so you could have up to 3 M.2 slots on the board. I think a good setup
would be a M.2 as the OS drive and then SSD's as storage for games and what ever else. I would still keep a mechanical drive as a backup
for the whole system just for peace of mind.

Joe

I saw the M.2 drives....ouch! Perhaps a more conventional SSD but in the 2 TB range will be best and a worthy compromise.

 

[thefrog]

I understand M2 are fast non-volatile SSD storage drives as opposed to volatile RAM, so I would suggest referring to RAM as ‘Memory’ and SSD/M2 as ‘Storage drives’ to eliminate confusion.

 

[strykerpsg]

The Frog, interestingly enough, they do indeed look like RAM sticks. I honestly had never heard of them till Ryan mentioned them. However, a bit too much for my blood currently. For their price point though, I would assume they are off the charts quick. I'll look for some in about 2 years.

 

[hairyspin]

M.2 drives plug directly into the motherboard SATA bus, so they don't need cables or power connections and get all the speed available. 1TB is still pricey.

 

[alehead]

M2 is simply a form factor for the devices. The interface can be different and indeed is. The fastest M2 drives on the market use PCI Express 4X and are miles faster than those M2 drives that utilize the SATAIII interface. If you are going to bother with an M2 drive, then it is most likely worth going for the fastest you can get. I for one will wait a little, to see how well the new form factor establishes itself...
I suppose it is going to be down to how much you can/want to spend on hardware...

A