• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

To FSX or not to FSX, that's the question...

What is your main flightsim program ?

  • FSX (all editions)

    Votes: 118 64.8%

  • P3D v1/2/3

    Votes: 11 6.0%

  • P3Dv4

    Votes: 50 27.5%

  • XPlane

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (Aerofly2, FSW, DCS, etc. )

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Total voters
    182
  • Poll closed .
If it has wings, I'll fly the dang thing - whatever it's called...

Couldn't find the FS 2004 lever :dizzy:

edit: I've always found the Scandinavian folk incredibly wise in such dilemmas; smørrebrød
 
Voted FSX. Only have FSX-A. I have a 64bit O/S (Win7). FSX can be clunky and you spend more time on admin that simming sometimes but most of the time it runs just fine (There will always be the odd gremlin make itself felt but I have come to expect that with FSX). I like the technical aspects of P3D V4 (64bit coding) but I have spent years (and way to much money) adding on scenery etc and just cannot justify buying a new PC and then finding half of my addon stuff will not work (I have checked). So it will be FSX until this PC stops working (when it does not if, I am now at a point where I am not sure I would do this all again on P3D, just take my mirror of FSX and put it on a new PC. I am sure P3D is very good but it is not affordable for me to do basically what I do in FSX anyway.
 
Since I do a lot of testing, I currently have FSXA, P3Dv3 and P3Dv4 installed on the same system.
I have to say that all three have co-existed on my system fairly well.....however FSXA doesn't quite work as well as P3Dv3 and neither of these two hold a candle to P3Dv4.
P3Dv4 runs silky smooth on my system.
 
Voted FSX...i try to create some models for it but i have also FSX, FS9 and last but not least Xplane11.

JMC
 
P3Dv4 mainly, and P3Dv3 for everything that doesn't work in v4 yet (Accusim planes, TacPack planes...).
Occasionally I like to use XP11 as well.
 
gman5250 said:
P3Dv4 for flying and R&D.

When I post to FSX, I only post content that shares common denominators between all sim platforms. Skins, models, scenery etc.
As we don't have a v4 specific thread, I don't share much 64-bit content. I'm sure that will change as we migrate in that direction.

I would agree with Jan. I think a dedicated P3Dv4 thread is appropriate at this point, as the SDK and 64-bit techniques are so different than 32-bit. I'm not sure where we would fit in PBR, but there are a number of us who are deeply immersed in PBR modeling, and feel that it is prudent to master the tech...just in case we end up heading in that direction eventually.
Click to expand...

PBR?

pbr.jpg
 
gray eagle said:
PBR?
Click to expand...

Physically Based Rendering.

PBR is a more efficient workflow and file "stacking" modality that makes much better use of rendering engine resources in many simulations and games. It requires less texture files to convey more information to the simulation, thus improving performance.

Modeling in PBR lets developers use programs like Quixel that create a 3D workspace inside Photoshop. An object can be painted, shadowed, bump mapped, specular mapped, occlusion mapped in real time, and in three dimensions. The brushes will go around corners and align various UVW maps, which may not be in proximity to each other on a texture sheet. Brush strokes will always meet up perfectly.

PBR programs will output the art into formats that are compatible with many games. P3D is not one of them. The challenge at the moment is to efficiently render the texture layers from PBR programs into a "stack" that FSX/P3D can interpret. Some of us are working on that as we speak.

One great thing about PBR is that bump mapping is much more flexible and artistic. Bump hardness, smoothness, edge resolution and a thousand other variables are completely flexible. If you want fasteners to display with harder edges than rivets, it is a simple brush adjustment in the PBR software. Skin wrinkles or fabric textures can be brushed in where you need them. The 3D interface can be set up with nearly unlimited display variables that let you see the work in real time, as you paint. It's awesome.

Because PBR is so radically different, and doesn't realistically apply for FSX or even 32-bit P3D, the need for a P3Dv4 or PBR specific threads become more and more relevant. Either or both would be extremely educational and entertaining, even for simmers who have no interest in development.

Hope that all makes sense Butch. :biggrin-new:

Abrams P-1 Explorer Throttle in PBR
28007900410_5bedc31941_o.jpg
 
huub vink said:
. . . . . . .The reasonable simplicity of FS9 is what I like. FS9 needs just one texture which includes the alphas, compared with FSX which needs 3 texture files (texture, bump and spec) all with their own alphas to do more or less the same.
Cheers,
Huub
Click to expand...
Agreed Huub, even when I do liveries for FSX Aircraft I revert to the "simple" method (no bumps, no specs), one texture with realistic rivets and panel lines. . .can't beat it for speed of completion and overall appearance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top