Bye-Bye FSX ?

Ok, as you can see by my two latest pics, I not only have my computer back up and running, but I have installed P3D v4:
<a href="index.php?full=1&amp;set_albumName=JRogers-Pics&amp;id=ksfo&amp;name=gallery&amp;include=view_photo.php" target="_blank"><img src="albums/JRogers-Pics/ksfo.jpg" alt="Golden Gate Bridge - P3D v4" width="400" height="209"></a>

Being "late to the game" so to speak, I have not taken advantage of many addon developer's offers for conversion from FSX to P3d, so I'm now facing the daunting costs of repopulating my hangar with new v4 aircraft at quite an expense. Fortunately this can be spread over a period of time, and I can always fly my FSX sim (installed along side the p3d sim) until it is no longer necessary.

This brings me to the larger topic regarding the ongoing cake walk of nascent FSX simulator replacements, and which ones will have a seat when the music stops playing. After some Internet-based research I settled on giving P3d v4 a try - being the first 64-bit release, similar in functionality to FSX, and the wonderful pic that our pilots have been posting that are superior to FSX. Additionally, I hope to avoid the mistake of picking a losing pony here - just like I could have skipped the 8-track tape phase and saved some money during the various upgrades of my music collection. My thoughts are that P3d has a number of things going for it. Being the first out with the 64-bit will likely put it ahead of the others. This seems to be the case - with most developers supporting p3d and x-plane simulators (for now), and with p3d, I believe, leading the popularity contest amongst developers.

Perhaps the pond is big enough to support both x-plane and p3d, and I think much will depend on what the 3rd-party developers focus their attention on, but for me personally, I've kind of made my mind up that I'll probably go the P3d route (although I'm interested in hearing from our pilots who have tried x-plane too). Regarding P3d v4, I'm very pleased to find that it works with my 3-monitor setup as can be seen by my panoramic view of the Chicago skyline in my photo album. However - performance-wise, I find it similarly bogged down about as much as FSX once I get all the orbx-ftx eye-candy installed. For example, FTX region with the Golden Gate Bridge pictured above can bring my system to a crawl again with all that addon's options turned on (and I haven't yet installed AS weather to see what hit that might have). Even if v4 is currently limited by even the current higher-end CPU's, technology will likely continue to improve - making this system even smoother in the future (with p3d likely to still be supported hopefully).

Lastly - from a 'hack-developer' standpoint (Adventure Pack Scenery and SPAACARS), I'm hardly up to the task of keeping these things running in FSX let alone supporting multiple simulators. Currently I'm studying up on P3D v4 development in an effort to successfully migrate SPAACARS to v4 (and perhaps future Adventures) to the v4 platform. One thing I read about v4 and migrating existing addons (scenery and models) to this format without doing it properly can lead to performance hits and errors. My goal is to avoid these things of course, so I'll not put anything out there for v4 unless it's specifically designed for that to the best of my limited ability. Currently both SPAACARS and Adventure Packs are really only designed for FSX - so pilots who have been using or testing them out on other platforms do so at their own risk and willingness to increase their frustration level.

Several other things to consider:

- While I may have to buy new aircraft (too bad because I had such a large and wonderful selection of payware for fsx), I was able to get most all of the orbx/ftx scenery. I'm not sure how long they will continue this - and it would certainly have been prohibitive to have had to buy all that stuff (including the regional and open lc) all over again.

- I just checked in on RTMM (Misty Moorings) to see what they're up to and they've started a<a href="forum.mistymoorings.com/index.php?topic=3511.0" target="_blank"> new forum thread on their migration to the p3d v4 platform. So...just say'in, perhaps it's time to make some decisions regarding which direction to go and when to make that jump.

Regardless - it will certainly be fun to see what the future holds for flight-simming, and hopefully we can all come out ahead performance-wise, and not too far behind financially.<br /><br /><!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: jer029, Jul 30, 2017 - 09:59 AM</em><!-- end editby -->

Not exactly the direction I wanted this thread to take (would prefer a discussion on simulators). SmartCars requires either PHPVMS, which our site isn't based on, or IPS CMS, which would have to be integrated into our website and current CMS. Additionally, according to the IPS website - IPS logging is only possible for flights flown on Vatsim, IVAO or other networks that "provide a so-called whazzup information service. This is the service which programs like ServInfo, Dolomynum or IvAe use to display online traffic". We don't fly on a central network that can be polled at intervals by this type of application. Our pilots fly (for the most part) on individual systems and reporting is done by their ACARS programs periodically to our website for positioning and at the end of flight to file the report. Interesting find though - thanks for sharing.

John<br /><br /><!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: jer029, Jul 30, 2017 - 10:39 PM</em><!-- end editby -->

Thanks for your input Robert. I've read - and shared a link on the related post (P3d v4), that questions the upgrade to v4 regarding performance for those with v3. For me the choice was a bit easier though - having only the first version of p3d and one or two revisions - perhaps the of the same version. I have been able to get a few of my aircraft added to v4, and the current orbx/ftx scenery all transferred flawlessly with FTX central. This aircraft and scenery compatibility and their developer's willingness to make them available to existing customers is significant! Some aircraft developers have vowed to make v4 version available for free to existing customers. Others have charged upgrade charges (Active Sky - is an example - and they extract a significant cost at about $34.00 just for the upgrade). I'm still adding things, but overall, I'm impressed with v4 and think that earlier versions will quickly become obsolete - making the upgrade worthwhile.

As for the system upgrade, I've upgraded to the GTX 1080 with 11gig onboard memory, but it's true that the CPU remains the main component that matters I think. I have a pretty powerful one of those too, but I'm trying to find the best method to run a 3-monitor system, so that adds some complexity too.

John<br /><br /><!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: jer029, Jul 30, 2017 - 09:18 PM</em><!-- end editby -->

Many things you say about FSX are true Bill, and I think many FSX'ers will stay there. With current systems my FSX runs satisfactorily regarding frame rates. While I have similar frame rate issues with p3d v4, I have most of the settings higher and the graphics themselves are better - more realistic in p3d while averaging better frame rates - and likely more stable. We do have some FSXse users here and hopefully they'll weigh in. I know that we here at SPA will continue supporting FSX and other sims into the foreseeable future with as much compatibility as we can provide.

John