Autogen performance FSX vs P3Dv2

I don’t want to go into details, I just did a quick performance comparison between FSX and P3Dv2. Also, this is a comparison on MY computer, MY GPU, the (now) midranged GTX580… I am aware that P3Dv2 works better with faster GPUs, but this test was done to have a comparison grounds for other tests which will have other GPUs, for comparison reasons.

What matter to me is that the first shot is my fully installed FSX, with all bells and whistles, while 2nd shot is the same situation loaded in P3Dv2 (FTXG, mesh and landclass installed, to have same positions, same as in FSX), and autogen set on full. Now, as far as I know, they said there is way more autogen in P3Dv2. Let’s observe…

This is FSX:


Now let me load the same situation in P3Dv2:


Somehow, to my eyes, switching between the two pictures in a full screen, it doesn’t look like more autogen (best save all pictures manually, and then switch between them with arrows, best visible what the differences are). Moreover, the amount seems like the same too.

And, what is needed to retain the FPS we had back in the FSX? Observe:


Now, the same comparison in a bit flatter area, to see the reach of the autogen.

Again, FSX:


Now comes the P3D, fully autogen:


And all autogen to sparse yet again:


In a conclusion, I can say following:
The P3Dv2 is barely able to maintain the same FPS (first scene yes, 2nd no) as FSX does with full autogen vs sparse autogen. And before some people come with more density, yeah, I can see, further away from the aircraft, there is more density, but in general, autogen distance is the same. Yet, the FPS are 1/3!!! So we are paying with 1/3 of the FPS in P3Dv2, just to have a little bit more of autogen (just compare the shots!) and have it not pop-up? Sorry, too high a price for me. And since autogen is still a CPU thing (we confirmed that in the analysis), it bogs down the system.

And finally, two comparison shots on dense AG and very dense scenery. This is the setting I am running in my original FSX and wanted as a comparison in the P3Dv2. It is very clear that LM put less autogen under the aircraft, and loaded more autogen far away. So however this system is working, does it make sense? And also, why do FPS drop by half???





And before you ask about other settings, I’ve turned off water, shadows, and anything else, just like I did in the analysis testing.

LM needs to seriously undergo the autogen system. I’m not a programmer nor do I really understand what is under the hood, but I see the result. And I am not really happy about it.

What do you think?

This entry was posted in Testing. Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to Autogen performance FSX vs P3Dv2

  1. Sherman Kaplan says:

    Kosta, you raise some excellent points. Frankly, t he differences to my eye a very subtle, though PF3D does create a very handsome distance effect. But, there is a major problem neither sim solves. Though both give is realistic water and clouds, what is on the ground, i.e. buildings, roads, bridges, etc still look like cartoons. I do not think photo scenery is the answer because it ha a static quality. That means we need some other kind of breakthrough which truly can make the visual scenery as real as it can get..


    • Kosta says:


      I totally agree. I wasn’t comparing if P3Dv2 actually makes it more realistic, because it is the same core engine, so it really cannot. The differences are to my eyes also very subtle, even when flying, and to sacrifice so much performance for so little visual difference, is a no-go for me. To have a breakthrough and big visual difference, one would have to resort to making a full new simulator probably. Nothing would be compatible. It would a huge, long and expensive undertaking.

    • yair Ben-Ad says:


  2. Dave says:

    Interesting comparison. But I hardly see how this would be a slight to P3DV2. While autogen is nice, its by no means the most important. Having a smooth stable sim is , at least for me. Visuals will always get added in and enhanced, but you need a stable sim not bogged down by CPU only. Now we have the use of DX11,and more balanced workload approach, and the biggest plus is we have a core developer who is listening, and resolving issues, propelling flight simulation forward. Where is Microsoft?

    • Kosta says:

      A stable sim is a must, I can agree to that. It is not achievable if components still reach for huge amounts of CPU processing power, like autogen does now. It did in FSX, and now they “improved” it, eg. put more autogen into the sim, and now it bogs down the system even more, not improving the visual greatly, but by only a small amount.
      The work on the terrain has been nicely done, so that’s fine, but according to the forums, work has been done on the autogen system too, and I see here (apart from fixed popping up), bad results only. There is not “more” autogen, it is only spread differently. Yet the performance suffers greatly.

  3. John says:

    I only use photorealistic scenery so autogen is not an issue for me, other than the treescapes trees. I limit my flying to areas I know and I prefer not to have generic buildings appearing where I know they do not exist. If it ain’t really there I would prefer not to see it at all.
    However if you do use it and it is a problem, then it needs to be fixed.

  4. yair Ben-Ad says:

    ..hey kosta, ..tnx for the review .. personally, I’m not in a rush to get P3D ..I think I better to wait & let LM polish debug, & work on some enhancement before migrating .. FSX like me, we both aging but stable & still functioning … lol

  5. Maurice says:

    I have a pretty high end system with an I7 990X CPU running at a very stable 4.7 Ghz, a GTX 690 video card and 2 SSD drives and I am getting pretty low performance unless I get rid of some of the nice P3D features like shadows and I turn down most of the sliders.
    When I check the CPU & GPU utilization, the CPU is nicely humming along at an average of 50% on all 6 cores except core 1 which is pretty much pegged at 98-100%. The 2 GPU cores on the GTX 690 are running at 100% utilization and about 2/3 memory utilization on both cores.

    With the above, I seldom can get anything better that 20-25 fps over Toronto or New York and dropping much lower from time to time, but with some frequent major stutters as well. No blurries of any kind though.

    Bottom line, I don’t know what to make of that because many are reporting pretty good performance with hardware no better than mine. As far as the autogen is concerned, P3D is nice in that the popping is very minimal and barely noticeable most of the time but at what price? I have also had many out of memory errors just flying along in the default Bonanza around Innsbruck with default scenery and FTX global only.

    I am almost convinced something in my hardware must be defective as I am definitely not getting any better performance than FSX with all sliders maxed. Could be that P3D is not able to properly utilize the 2 cores on the GTX 690 and maybe a single core GPU like the Titan is a better option but who knows?

    So, am now thinking about trying Xplane or giving up on flight simulation altogether 🙂 . I did not expect miracles from P3D but I really thought things should be a little better at least after a few days of getting to know it and playing with the various options. But I’m getting nowhere fast and that is very discouraging.

    • Afterburner says:

      Are you running your video card in SLI mode? Lockheed Martin is explicitly recommending deactivating SLI, as the sim is not optimized for this mode.

    • Kosta says:

      P3D is NOT made for two cores on the GPU. It will use only one. Any other single core card will probably perform better.
      IMO, P3Dv2 is not correctly optimized and is in default scenarios, especially with the autogen, performing really badly, on any system. Turn off those neat GPU features v2 provides, and are still left with the AG giving you relatively low frames.

      • Maurice says:

        Neither is FSX for that matter and it was running much better than P3d. Still don’t get why both cores are showing high utilization but not always at the same instant, so they are independent of each other and it certainly looks like P3d is using both cores unless the MSI graph is not showing what I think it is showing. Total mystery to me.

      • Kosta says:

        Can’t help you much here. There is way too little experience with v2 and GPU multicores, there is no real opinion on this.

      • Maurice says:

        One last comment here. I forgot to mention I am using 3 32″ TVs with a total resolution of 5760×1080. If I run it on one TV only at 1920×1080, it runs very well with much better frame rates, no stutters and it looks pretty amazing with all the shadows and even vegetation shadows. So, it has very much to do with the video card especially when using 3 monitors.
        But who wants to run with only one monitor? Not after being very happy with the same 3 TVs and FSX.

      • Kosta says:

        High resolutions is where P3Dv2 will be doing better than FSX does. However with the autogen problem it might become an increasing problem too. Running the terrain off the GPU, might also help in multi-monitor situations.

  6. Donald Brookes says:

    Kosta. So many thanks from all those flight simmers who don’t have the experience to delve into the nitty gritty of the new program, like myself, simply looking for a stable platform. The fact that P3Dv2 is still limited by the same VAS as FSX and therefore OOM’s is surely a major drawback for those that enjoy good scenery. Thanks again for the work you put in on behalf of the FS community.

  7. Alex says:

    Going by what I see in the LM forums, the Autogen is the least of its problems. This is a 7 year program (at the very least) and it still stresses modern computers! Clearly the original programming was sloppy and at its lowest level is not fixable. X-Plane is looking better and better, 64 bit etc. I will get P3D probably, I have 1.4 and it sits unused since over 1 year on the HD. This is the first time with the sim since MSFS5.1 in 1993/4 that I have not rushed out on day 1 to aquire it.

    • Kosta says:


      I acquired it only so I can present you guys with these things, nothing else. I really hate seeing all those posts on various forums people say “oh heavenly, how well it performs…” while it, in fact, doesn’t.
      I don’t want to have any hidden agenda, I know I am experienced well enough in the manners of testing, and am pretty confident that results are not skewed.
      I will present the good and bad the same way.
      What users then use, is their decision. I will only give my opinion!

      • Torkermax says:

        Amen Brother! I got stoned for believing your findings more than others “perceived “notions. Keep up the good work.

      • Kosta says:

        Hi Torkermax,
        I saw it, I really saw it, and hardly believed it. People saying “it flies better”. Yeah, my FSX also flies great, especially with those scenarios described.
        But not one user from that place presented me with a irrefutable fact that P3Dv2 is faster.
        DarkstarF16 did some nice comparisons on multi-screens if I am not mistaken, they look good, but as someone said below, he was using paused mode – he is right, as this changes how FS operates. The new shot is interesting: FSX 12, P3D2: 21. Well, I’ll have my tests to confirm too.

  8. Afterburner says:

    I can second your observations from having done some comparisons on my “outdated” computer system which is running with an AMD Athlon X2 CPU @ 3.6 Ghz (overclocked), 4 GB RAM and an even more outdated GeForce GT430 1GB video card. I can’t say anything about the specifics of autogen density, but performancewise I also get over 2x more FPS in FSX than with P3D v2 at comparable visual quality. As such, I have uninstalled P3D and reinstalled FSX on a newly set up Windows7 64bit on a SSD hard drive. (Previously I had a 32 bit W7 on a mechanical HD). I am quite satisfied with the FPS even with my computer (although I have to admit that FSX has a propensity to produce microstutters, whereas P3D V2 runs very smoothly if I limit FPS to 30).

    However, I will remain supportive of P3D in the future not only because LM has been active in developing and improving the flight simulator, but because of their customer support that Microsoft had never provided. Yes, P3D v2 has its bugs, nuts & bolts, but at least the developers have been listening to customers on their official forum, and less than one week after release, some key bugs have been identified and promised to be cleaned up in the 2.1 version. With Microsoft back then, when you wanted to complain about some issues that you ran into (and there were lots of them!), you were barking at the tree.

    Furthermore, the mixed opinions about P3D v2 from various articles and forums indicate that the performance advantage of P3D v2 over FSX starts to really kick in once you have a very powerful video card. If you have a weak video card (like mine), your computer is actually suffering a performance penalty. I for one will continue using FSX until a little more time has elapsed, so that good video cards will become more affordable and current problems with P3D v2 have been resolved. I am sure that the future still belongs to the latter sim.

    • Kosta says:

      Would then my GTX580 be a weak card? I mean, I have been reading about people having Titan’s and having same performance problems.
      And, I cannot see a strong GPU helping, when my GTX580 is happily chugging away at 50%, while the CPU is doing 100% (and this with unlocked FPS of course).
      I have also tested real world scenarios, and the fact is, I was sitting at UK2000 EGLL, in FSX I had over 40fps, and in the same scenario in the P3D2.0, I had below 30.

  9. Mickeyj says:

    Hi Kosta thank you very much for this review. I noticed the same with auto gen. Anyway im using DENSE on buildings and trees and scenery complexity on very high. I had a slight performance jump when i switched from a GTX660TI to a 780TI. I had the impression that the 780TI handels AA a little bit better. Anyway did you try your test without any add on? Cause i think it has something to do with the add on trees. For example when i load the default flight and take a spin in the vicinity of Langley my frames never dropped below 30 FPS even in thunderstorm rain weather theme. FTXG was active by that time. When i load my backyard (EDDS) my frames were much lower they were hovering between 25-33 FPS. I tried VSYNC on and off. 16 Aniso 4MSAA in P3D2 and 4xSGSSAA in NI and set to enhance not to override. My question is how does this come? And what happend during beta testing? Just to make it clear i love P3D2 and i dont want to blame somebody.


    • Kosta says:


      “Anyway did you try your test without any add on?”

      Of course, been running comparison tests for a long time now. FSX somehow always came out on top, performancewise. And P3D2.0 usually visually, but by a little margin.

      I have no idea why different scenarios produce different frames. I can’t talk much about what happened in beta though. Btw. the enhance with SGSS doesn’t work here, already tested that.

      • Mickeyj says:

        Hello Kosta thanks for reply, next time i go simming i will take som pictures with SGSSAA enabled and disabled. I have the impression that it is working i could be wrong though.

      • Kosta says:

        Very easy to mistake for FXAA, so be careful. The best way to check it turn off FXAA, leave AA on, turn on SGSS, and check runway markings far away.

      • Mickeyj says:

        Ok am switching it off then 🙂

        c u

      • Kosta says:

        Until they implement the correct driver support, I reckon it’s best to leave Nvidia Inspector or CP alone.

      • Mickeyj says:

        Hello Kosta,

        i did a short test on the SGSSAA. There is actually an improovement in visual when setting SGSSAA in NI. I set it to Enhance and set 4xSGSSAA. FXAA off in P3D2. It gave me clear VC instruments. In a screenshot you will notice no difference to SGSSAA on or off. You have to fly around to see the clear lines or jaggy when selected to off. I didnt check the runways for now.

        Another question i was asking myself concerning the autogen. What is the difference between FSX and P3D2? What would happen if we would exchange the autogen folder from FSX to P3D2? Stupid but worth a try. I think it wont have something to do with DX11. So the bug must be somewhere else. And lets recal the autogen texture bug in P3D2.



      • Kosta says:

        There is no difference in autogen textures and objects, as far as I know. They should be the same.
        However, the is a difference in placement/density when it comes to distance. FSX places more autogen near to the aircraft, less in the distance. You can notice this when looking at my screenshots. P3Dv2 puts actually less autogen around aircraft, but it is (I think) more constant as the distance increases. This gives it a bit better look than in FSX. And there is actually no reason for 1/3 of performance when compared to FSX.
        There are some comments on my comparison on AVSIM, which tend to sound like my GPU might be too weak. But at the same time, I see reports here with Titan, people who say it’s also bad performing.
        I’m not ready to shell out 700€ just to prove those AVSIMmers wrong. I think they are wrong.

  10. Joseph King says:

    I appreciate the research. I am always a “late adapter” and go very slow in making changes. Your “take” on these matters is always do sobering.

  11. Kosta says:

    I would like to answer to the thread on the AVSIM, what tf51d wrote:
    “That’s quite a dramatic drop, especially since he says he didn’t have shadows on, or water turned up. I think what your seeing there is the performance difference between windowed mode (P3D V2 is windowed, with the borders removed to appear it’s full screen) and FSX full screen. He has a good GPU (GTX 580) but not a top of the line card like the GTX 780 or Titan.”

    No, that is not it. I compared, but not posted here, windowed sessions of both FSX and P3Dv2. My windows are set to the same size, so the performance must be the same. FPS were scaling the same way. Also about the stronger GPU, why would a stronger GPU, eg. Titan, matter, if my GPU load is max. 80% in these situations?? It’s not nearly 100%… and GPU VRAM load is also around 1100mb, as I keep textures at 1024, to prevent maxxing the VRAM. FSX is set to 1024 too.

    And I also don’t have any performance issues windowed vs fullscreen, in FSX or P3Dv2. The performance scales accordingly, because the FPS drop according to “resolution” or windows size (if you have a smaller window, the number of pixels that have to be drawn are less than in full windowed or full screen, and of course, FPS are going to be higher).

  12. Sherman Kaplan says:

    It occurs to me as I read these comments that we all may be overlooking something very important, at least from the LM point of view. P3D is specifically not designed for hobbyists such as us. It may be that LM takes it for granted that its target audience of military, students, etc are using state of the art systems. These users may not be all that concerned about the same bells and whistles or the eye candy that we think shoul be prerequisite. Perhaps I am naive and LM really does want hobbyists to buy into the sim but for reasons that may have more to do with marketing and an arrangement with DOD, cannot specifically go after us as a market. So until its prime market users demand the samdoes do hobbyists we may be raising hopes in vain.


    • Sherman Kaplan says:

      That lat sentence shoul read… demand the same as do hobbyists we may be raising or voices in vain..
      (using the iPad virtual keyboard can sometimes be a bitch….-:) )

      • Kosta says:

        I got it what you wanted to say. But you can’t say that LM didn’t listen to us, at least at some points!

    • Kosta says:

      Could be, really could be. They are trying to make it work as a stand-alone application, yet they talk about adding addons all the time. They said specifically they didn’t do ANYTHING about the terrain or autogen textures, or virtually any other part of the sim texturewise, because it can be done via 3rd party tool. And this is what confuses me. It can be done, yet it can’t be used. Very high VAS usages, sooner rather than later OOMs, and lower FPS than FSX on same settings. I’ll be soon doing some addon comparisons, so things will be revealed.

    • Maurice says:

      P3d may not have been designed for hobbyists like us but they sure need us to find all the bugs in their software in a record time. Beats paying fully qualified software testers 🙂

  13. Ian McPhail says:

    Kosta: follow me on a flight in real time.

    I have a 680 card and an i73960. At this moment I have a BBS 320 flying Langley to Boston via NY. With max LOD, and tessalation, and Scenery Complexity set Very Dense and autogen on Normal I am getting around 40 fps. It is smooth and this is one of the great advances away from stutters of all sort.with FSX/P3 1.. However there are some real queries. At present over New York I am getting around 30, but with poor resolution, when it ‘pulls’ into focus fps goes up! This fuzziness even with maxed radius, and texture resolution is a major negative. LM really should get this sorted. Virtual size is 2.83 with a reasonably complex aircraft over highly urban terrain. It does leave headroom for further installation of scenery as I only have Orbx Global over default at the moment. LIke you I am intrigued by the fact that if you make any adjustments to scenery in-game virtual size goes UP, and stays up even if the adjustment was downward. On descent into KBOS fps around 30 but fuzziness abominable. Over the last 10 minutes of descent the landscape has remained unresolved – this is so bad. (I have FXAA off). As an experiment at 2500 asl, I used the Position Freeze User command. THEN the scenery caught up, and is now resolving. At least a minute later trees and buildings are arriving. What could this mean – does it need to pre-render more frames?
    With scenery resolved I got 18-20 turning low over Boston Harbour with all autogen on display, and 20 on short final and on the ground. Better than anything before in FSX or P31. Virtual Size remained at 2.283. I can see the purpose of Freeze user menu item, but frankly having to wait for the scenery to catch up does not add to the experience.

    • Kosta says:

      OK, so this is a clean sim + BBS 320. A relatively light aircraft on VAS. So what will happen when you add couple of more addons, or quality textures or higher settings?

      About blurry textures, I know about this. There are other reports on this too, as soon as the system is overloaded, the blurries might or might not come back. I hope they can resolve it. It is a new engine and I guess it’s still buggy.

      A real usage of P3Dv2 reveals relatively low frames (40 is low for stock scenery + BBS 320). And 18-20 is really low for the above config… goes hand in hand with my experiences.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        Use Pause Freeze User in the Options menu.

        I have Global installed

        and with P3D1 or FSX my fps would have been lower and full of stutters.

        18-20 smoothly is no problem for me.

        At FTX YBBN this morning I got a much lower FPS but with only micro-stutters, but there for the first time I got a lift in frames when I closed the Menu bar.

  14. Paul says:

    Prepar3D V2 is an infant – FSX is an extremely old grandfather that will eventually get buried just like FS1-FS2002 – Flight simulation cannot remain stagnant because technology never remains stagnant.
    I don’t dislike FSX or anything earlier but the clouds in P3D V2 make it a winner- the scenery will get better as well – progress has no patients…..just give V2 a little time.

    • Kosta says:

      I agree with you, there must be a way forward, but the road is still being built and is still not drive-able.
      You really think clouds are better? Not my opinion though.
      I do give V2 time, don’t forget, I was in the beta, and I gave it all my time 😉

      • Paul says:

        I don’t just think the clouds are better, they *are* better. They need to be improved to be more like reality, but the *are* better than anything we have ever had in FSX or MS Flight or any other home based flight simulator. Flight Unlimited III came close and I have been asking for that kind of rain effect on the windows for years….I think we are very close, but I think 64 bit is going to have to come first. And here we go again 32bit remains to keep developers and users of their developments happy. We all need to realize that we could have been at 64 bit a long time ago and maybe even at a 128 bit OS and simulator that could be so real that vomit bags would come in the box of software….but we waste time and effort complaining about how it *used to be*….what a waste.

        Think about it, why aren’t you writing a column defending fs2002 and how much better it is over FS2004? Its old news and its totally untrue is why. Now I remember even back to FS98 and FS2000 how the forums were full of complaints and FS2000 was terrible compared FS98. Well a few months later developers developed and FS2000 is enjoyed more and more… it happens every time, so there is no point in this kind of column. Rather a column could speak of a wish list of sorts. I beta tested MSFS for many years and I got on the test team only because I emailed recommendations and suggestions based on my real world experience. I was invited to the test team because my emails were not unrealistic or bashing and lots of my recommendations were implemented because I communicated them with evidence of real world truth, yet not expecting the impossible.

      • Kosta says:

        Same here. I look at realistic stuff, but I incline to compare. The reason is obvious: P3D2 is basically FSX with changed (fixed? – we still have reported blurries) terrain engine, changed autogen (for better or for worse?), changed water textures and behavior, HDR and shadows. It is a step in a right direction, I won’t dispute that. But it’s all that is, a step. It is, in it’s current state, unusable for many simmers. For some, it works out. Why? Because some use FSX as a heavy sim – heavy airports and aircraft (this is where P3Dv2 falls short), and some use it with GA – this is where P3Dv2 works sometimes good, sometimes bad. Why are there reports of people having way lower FPS, and some report higher. Because no one does a comparison 1:1 really. And don’t give me any bullshit it can’t be done. It can.
        I can say that my GPU is already weak-ish, so it might do better with the GTX780TI, but I did turn off all the special features, and still got lower FPS.
        Anyway, I already said, if I get into a position that I can get me a GTX780TI, I will, and then maybe I’ll have other results.

        But do explain me another thing:
        I am currently over NY, and am positioned over lots of autogen. So I set to sparse, my GPU load is 1290MB and 39% according to GPUZ. My FPS in P3D2 are 45fps. The same place, I simply set both sliders to max, and the result is: 33fps, 1322MB and 47% GPU usage. So it does leverage a little bit on the GPU, I’ll give it that, but still the FPS drop down rapidly. And in this situation, WHY would getting a stronger card, eg. GTX780TI, give better FPS? I can bet it won’t. The usage of my GTX580 is not maxed out, so the new GPU won’t help. Am I right or wrong?

        And, while being in FSX (my full current config), the same situation shows 76fps on sparse (yeah, it looks worse than P3D2 on sparse) and 62 on full autogen (also has less autogen displayed than P3D2). However, going from 62 in FSX to 33 in P3D, while not being GPU limited, gives me no choice but to steer away. I won’t be able to gain decent amounts of performance out of it with my heavies.

  15. Jacob Wiqvist says:

    You have think of the new view future where you can set 180 degree view. But I must say that I expected more. If you lock at Bf4 there is so big difference or Aerofly. If they go for 64 B everything have to be changed, al add-ons. Why not then go for a hole new engine. There have not bin a new engine in years. Have you sen videos of Dx 11.3 and the 18 megapixel textures? That is proof of what can be done. Or Outerra?

    • Jacob Wiqvist says:

      • Mickeyj says:

        Sorry to say, this demo is all about visual. Flightsim is a bit more complex than having a nice visual. You have one system that deals with visual, flight dynamis, animation, system behavior and real life weather data + + + + + If one would like to have everything perfect thean one would need a computer for every component as it used nowadays in full flight training simulators.

        P3D2 and FSX etc are good as they are for the time. P3D2 will get better that is for sure (at least LM sees a benefit in further development 😉

      • Kosta says:

        Indeed it is, Mickeyj.
        But it only goes to show what is possible. Not saying we should start having such sized textures, only that it’s possible. FS should definitely get higher res textures, but the fact is, that way too much is still on the CPU, and there is no SLI support.
        FS would be a prime example for a perfect game which could occupy more GPUs. Imagine having 4 Titans, and stuff ran off the GPU. The scalability of the sim would be incredible.

      • Kosta says:

        Wow. Really amazing. It only goes to show what is possible and how far back we are.

    • Kosta says:

      Yes, I fully agree. There should simply be a cut in the whole thing, and a new engine should be produced. I am aware it would probably mean a lot of problems, but like this, we are going to stay forever in the same circle and problems.

      • Paul says:

        And that is the point I was trying to make:

        There is no point in staying in the same circle of DX9/10 32bit problems/limitations.
        So lets help the Lockheed Martin Prepar3D development team by giving support so that they do not quit the project or die off like several previous companies have. They have a base model whole world (not just Hawaii or the Alps) that we have enjoyed for many years.
        The LM P3D team is presently very excited to receive the FSX community, but this can change real quick. This flight simulation community has become too harsh and we will get nowhere if this gets any worse….its already a critical condition in my view.


      • Kosta says:

        A very good points, I would really like to see LM develop sim with full potential, but I think they made a critical mistake. The community is vulnerable, and this is where an unfinished sim, with some bugs and performance issues (which I still have to clarify), doesn’t come over well. They should have given it a little more development and testing time. Now, the community is what it likes the least – a beta testers.
        But I do agree we have to find a way to support them, and this is why I bought the $200 version too!! And this is what I am working at now, trying to make decent comparisons, those that give simmers reasons maybe to make a switch and to know what to expect. This is very important.
        I hope to have some new tests up soon…

  16. Javier says:

    Hey I wanted to show you something…

    Cloudshadows…pretty easy:

    • Kosta says:

      Yes, know about them. We saw it in the beta, but they took it out, it’s simply not finished and not done properly. It is coming however!

  17. Alex says:

    @Kosta: You did beta-test on P3D, why didn´t you tell them this then??

    • Kosta says:

      Can’t comment on this, the contents of the beta testing are still and will remain under NDA, according to LM.
      But I think you can draw your own conclusion, from knowing me and how I “operate”.

      • Alex says:

        Well, this I really don´t understand.. Aren´t you discussing P3D right here, right now? What´s the difference? As someone else said: Compare two “Vanilla installs” – what you did is not fair, and another thing: Get a new GPU, it´s old, sorry…

      • Kosta says:

        Be so kind, and TECHNICALLY explain me why it isn’t fair and what is not fair?
        And if I get a new gpu for p3dv2 since you say mine is too old, will you pay up if there is no performance difference?

  18. Steve says:


    I’m not knocking/criticising you at all….far from it as I have every respect re your FSX knowledge over mine…..BUT

    This test would carry alot more value if plain vanilla FSX were tested against plain vanilla P3D v2 – no addons….period.

    I appreciate that you’ve set both sims up in an identical manner, with identical addons….but those addons were “written/coded” specifically for FSX, and whilst they may be P3D v2 “ready”…..they certainly aren’t P3D v2 “optimised”.

    For example..FTX/ORBX have announced an issue with Global….admittedly resolved now but awaiting a patch….re defaut textures showing through – who knows if this has “baulked” your result.

    From what I see, many of those having issues….particularly the OOM’s…..the first thing they have done is installed FTX Global into P3D….but not many of those users seem prepared (excuse the pun) to see that FTX Global might be part of that issue.

    Personally, I have no idea, but surely the only true test at this stage…particularly as v2 even seems to be throwing unexpected issues at beta testers like FTX….could be vanilla v vanilla.

    As I said, I’m not criticising you at all….its just my observation on the current “bun-fight” thats going on!!

    Keep up the good work.

    Best Wishes


    • Kosta says:

      Hi Steve,
      I am aware that I could have done the vanilla FSX. The reasons why I didn’t:
      – I wanted to present fully loaded FSX (eg. having LESS FPS, and still kicking P3D2’s ass in performance).
      – I wanted my FSX tweaked, as P3D2 is supposed to have those tweaks working behind and a new engine. Using vanilla FSX would be kind of unfair.

      What I could possibly do is FSX vanilla including tweaks and SP1+2 only, vs P3D2 vanilla.

      I understand the worry about the FTXG, however I see no problems here, and I know how VAS is working with vanilla, and it hasn’t been different with the FTXG installed. I will however take your advice above…

      • Steve says:

        Thanks for the reply Kosta, and sure I understand your logic with how you tested it.

        If you get chance to run that comparison i’m sure it would be interesting and yes, I would agree – a tweaked FSX versus “out of the box” P3D v2 with no addons would still be a “fair” comparison to make.



      • Paul says:

        Just wait until new service packs and tweaks come out for P3D – not to mention the new processors and graphics cards that FSX has been able to “grow” with.

        Try to envision P3D version 1 as Microsoft Flight Simulator version 1. Try to look to the future of possibilities of Prepar3D X. If the world and LM lasts long enough, there will be dramatic changes in code; even doing away with the Microsoft ESP foundation altogether is inevitable. But if we continually criticize LM about how we they should have done things, they will be gone ether by force or choice just like the MSFS franchise.


      • Kosta says:

        See my previous post, I am actually looking for reasons to give people a reason for the switch.

  19. vgbaron says:

    Not to discount your efforts here but it may not be as black and white as you perceive. For example, your video card while strong for FSX is marginal for P3D2 with all the bells and whistles running from what I’ve read. I originally had a 680 and was having various issues. Changed to a 780 and haven’t looked back so the video card makes WAY more difference in P3D2 than FSX.
    Also, did you remember the ‘focus’ issue where P3D2 loses focus and fps drop by 50% until you click the window. Any chance you got bit by that during your test?
    One thing I DO disagree with – after a bunch of tweaking, testing and reinstalling several times I settled on the default locked 20fps and tbm of 30! I cannot tell you how steady this is – smooth as silk. With a 3770 @4.7 and a GTX780 I can easily maintain 60 but MY method is to find the lowest fps setting that will give consistently smooth operation with no popping and no stutters or blurries. And, BTW my test flights were using the FSND B-727 which is an old a/c that takes a good hit in FSX.
    Lastly, I really think LM has some driver issues and until those are worked out we’re going to get bizarre results from one end of the spectrum to another.


    • Kosta says:

      OK, then all it needs to be taken into perspective is that I have a mid-high GPU, a GTX580. I won’t argue that the 780 is way faster than the 580, however does it also play along (eg. is used) for a lot of autogen? Because I ask one thing: if my GPU load is 80% and the CPU is almost at max, why would then getting a faster GPU actually be of the benefit?

      “Also, did you remember the ‘focus’ issue where P3D2 loses focus and fps drop by 50% until you click the window. Any chance you got bit by that during your test?”

      Yes, I know about the bug, been “following” it since the beta and some causes of it were resolved, but apparently not fully.

      ” I settled on the default locked 20fps ”

      Well, by Gods, I can’t settle for 20fps. That is, to my eyes, not smooth! 30 is the absolute minimum, and 60 feels even more natural, and I would like to keep it all the time, if possible.

      • vgbaron says:

        That’s what is so strange – unless the FPS counter is screwed. I would NEVER have thought it could be this smooth – I mean NOT a whimper of a stutter or micro stutter. My eyes are excellent and I can see NO difference from 20 to unlimited. Sim is still smooth. Based only upon the fact that I see a significant difference between my 4 month old 680 and my brand new 780, I’m guessing the video card is a lot more important than LM mentioned. Try turning off the counter – you might be surprised how low it can go and still be smooth. 🙂

      • Kosta says:

        Well, I might get some money soon from my legal car-dispute, so if I do, I’ll definitely give part of it for the new card. The GTX580 was a fine card, but it isn’t any more. Also limiting me in other games too.

        But honestly, for me, FSX is smoother – when panning, in my smoothness test too… I was flying NGX 2-3 days ago, and landing at EGKK with ASN was a beauty. I tried these 20fps you are talking about, and to me, panning and movement stutters (those caused by 20fps) are more than obvious. I also see a big difference between 30 and 60fps. And 60fps IMO, this is what should be dev’s target, not 30.

        If I get a new card, I hope to get all the tests done with the GTX580, and then repeat them with the 780TI (that would be my new card, if I get one).

  20. Ian McPhail says:

    I agree with VGBaron. Sometimes Kosta I feel I am doing something wrong when I say that v2 is running beautifully. I have a 680 card, and can run @30 or unlimited. I have not yet had a CTD or even approached an OOM. Sure, I haven’t had one of the 737s installed or my Aerosoft Airbus and things may change

    • Kosta says:

      I would feel really bad saying those facts as big positives for P3D2, when in fact FSX does that here too. I haven’t had a crash in FSX for a long long time, and my VAS in FSX is more stable than the one in P3D2 is. I have had OOMs in P3D2 but not in FSX… I tested with big airports and big aircrafts. Not possible to use. But I’ll give you all an impression soon.

  21. Ian McPhail says:

    Thanks for the kind answer. I have found that 3rd party mesh does slow things down. Interesting and as I have no tech knowledge, I can’t offer an explanation. I keep the virtual size utility, the one you referenced, running all the time. Even out of Orbx YBBN – a great airport but with more polygons than fleas on a dog – with Global, ASX 2012, and FG Ultimate, I get a smooth 15-20, low I know but smooth.

    • Kosta says:

      I can keep 20fps easily really, for me also without stutters, but is everything but smooth! Especially when having moving cockpit like with ezca…

  22. Ian McPhail says:

    And only just approaching 3gig of VRAM

  23. Ian McPhail says:

    Kosta: I have been following all of these remarks and your responses with real interest. At the moment all of us FSX based simmers are now highly dependent on LM to supply us with at least the next iterations of the sim. Although Wes Bard and his team appear to be enthusiasts, what does a very negative debate do for maintaining LM’s interest and investment. I certainly don’t mean fanboy stuff is called for, but is P3D2 sufficient for the ordinary simmer, rather than those who explore every crevice.
    And it needs to be said that very few of us ever had the technical savvy to make FSX run like you have. Indeed it was your tweaks that kept us going until LM came along. For me the key to P3D2 is how well it runs out of the box with almost no fiddling or tweaking at all. And many of us with whom you have not agreed, have written that even at sub-20fps the sim remains smooth. For most of us that is the critical issue. I am now flying the iFly 737 successfully with about the same results as the BBS 320

    Yes it would be great if LM agreed to completely re-write the engine, but it would be disaster if they decided to drop our touchy and critical community because nothing they did met the extraordinary standards we demand.

  24. Alex says:

    Kosta wrote:
    “Alex, Be so kind, and TECHNICALLY explain me why it isn’t fair and what is not fair?
    And if I get a new gpu for p3dv2 since you say mine is too old, will you pay up if there is no performance difference?”

    1. You are NOT technical in all your tests and tweaks, far from it, you are a user with some “alternative views” on how both FSX and P3D works. So am I, therefore I use my eyes and “gut feeling” instead. Really Kosta: That BP=0 recommendation is outright stupid, flashes, several extra shader-loads, for what? What´s so technical about that stupidity?

    NickN is technical, he´s an engineer, you are a salesman/shop owner.

    2. Compare two vanilla installs, what´s the problem with that?

    3. Again: Nvidia 580 is old stuff now, even in FSX with all ORBX and the other crap.

    4. Sure I´ll pay the difference, but you have to wait a looong time for the money showing up in your bank, LOL!

    Come on, get up to date man!

    • Kosta says:

      Alex, alright, so it doesn’t work for you, fine. I already stated it might not work for everyone. But because of that, don’t kill it for other people who have/had success with it as much as I have.
      What I meant technically, is support your opinion with facts, for example why I shouldn’t test a loaded fsx with potentially lower fps vs brand new and tweaked engine. Seems only fair, as seemingly no tweaks work in p3d2. It is already best performing as it is… However, I will measure fsx non-tweaked too, I’m not like that.

      I’m in the process of comparing with more powerful gpus – there are many users out there with weaker gpus, and not everyone owns or can own a 780/titan. I think it’s just fair to those users. In fact very little people use the top ranged gpus.

      And then remains the performance with addons, which I was highly disappointed when testing vs my fsx (which btw doesn’t flash).

      And me being a salesman has nothing to do with a fact that I have a pretty good feeling how FSX works. I have little technical knowledge how innards of fsx are working, but I have pretty good knowledge about making it run well. I only posted one way, my way of running it. I had enough other tests in between.

      Actually, I don’t really know why I am arguing with you. Boring stuff… Going to enjoy my new inears now, cya 🙂

      • Alex says:

        You don´t have to enter any discussion with me, it´s your blog, you can do what you want, but:

        “And then remains the performance with addons, which I was highly disappointed when testing vs my fsx (which btw doesn’t flash).”

        You continue to recommend this tweak, even if other users complain of flashes?

        Why don´t you inform your settings? Still no traffic, cars, boars etc, BECASUE YOU FLY VATSIM ONLY!!

      • Kosta says:

        Correct, I continue to recommend, because many don’t see flashes.
        And everyone can see my settings. Even on Vatsim I have enough airplanes, and still there are no flashes, only lower frames.
        And I tested it with AI traffic too. I never ever see flashes.

        Your theory about AI causing flashes with BP=0 is unfounded imo. I don’t know where you picked that…

      • Sherman Kaplan says:

        Hi Alex, emfbi, but WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?…Come on, it’s only a hobby….


      • Paul says:

        This is the critical condition ( Alex and the aggression – talking unkindly to somebody behind the internet ) that I refer to. Flight simulation is more and more becoming a very evil place, a cancer, that will eventually come to an end….. we all have the love of flight in common yet the cowardly hatred and sarcasm in many supersedes everything decent it seems….why?… I don’t need an answer I actually know.

        Thank you Kosta for being the courageous man with your method of reply to him.


  25. Alex says:

    Ooops… Hit the wrong key…

    I don´t know why you still observe and see yourself as the one who made FSX shine, you didn´t – sorry pal, you didn´t – the main reason:
    – and the fact you don´t use AI, Cars, Boats, and all the other stuff, WE AVERAGE SIMMERS USE!!!
    Do you run P3D on the “Catwalk” monitor at 2600×1400 something, with the GT 580?

    • Kosta says:

      I guess you are trying to mock me. Stops here buddy, cya.

      • Alain says:

        Hey! Kosta,

        You know you will never win unless you agree with him, he’s the type who make his own truth regardless of the facts, and that include licensing….


  26. Daz says:

    Alex shut up.

  27. Ahmet says:

    Kosta Hi,

    I just took the following screenshot. I f you look at all buildings and houses are appearing under the airplane low radius. During the flight , also noticed when plane crossed the towns , alter minute buildings/homes are dispreading.
    What causing this problem, P3D or FTX Global? or my GPU ( I have GTX 690)

  28. Ahmet says:


  29. Peter Suranyi says:

    I don’t seem to understand why LM couldn’t make v2.0 into 64 bit application, either. That would solve the memory issues. Well, at least there is some outlook for the future. I mean all those improvements they made, are nice, but just as you said, they are steps only. Honestly, all these features we have now should have been shipped with version 1.0, to make P3D really distinctive from FSX. Kosta, do you think we will see 64 bit during the life cycle of v2?

    • Kosta says:

      Not really sure. No indication was made on that. I don’t think so though.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        I am afraid I can’t give a reference, but I recall somewhere on LM that they said they were not able to completely rebuild the engine. It would be a complete makeover. Also, one prominent add-on maker made it clear there would have to be an almost total move over to the 64bit application before they could afford to follow with product.

      • Kosta says:

        Indeed, they said it would mean a complete incompatibility with all addons out there.
        That is fine by me though, I think the whole thing needs a complete turn-over.

  30. Daz says:

    Maybe this link answer many question
    Froogle VLOGS – PREPAR3D Version 2

  31. patient flyer says:

    no audio on the vid clip

  32. Torkermax says:

    Reading the test of your Airport performance on the LM. In order for stutterless performance. Beau suggest we have to have the greatest motherboards and TITAN GPU’s? 🙂 I dont like V2 that much!!!!
    Thanks Kosta

    • Kosta says:

      Well, makes you think, lol.
      However, see the newest comparison, now I had a IB+Titan system at my fingers and way able to do a 1:1 comparison.

  33. hi Kosta, i get same situation but even worst, my sys is q8200/4gb/560ti, cpu@3ghz gpu@900mhz
    and i saw tests in the web, test of vcards on fsx, titan better than 680, 680 better than 580, so this is question not only about how much gpu is load this question, how system work, how pci-e communicate with cpu/ram, how much vram is still free and how fast vram communicate with ther own gpu and with cpu/vram, any way you got very good pc, i’m got good, but this is no way to comparison with sandy-ivy-hasfaill systems with new age vcards
    second, i think those settings in p3d 2 could be have some wrong and even with stop drowing shadows or autogen this can be work with cpu, even if not, some settings in p3d 2 vs fsx could be different
    forexample autogen 4000 in fsx could be same as 3000 in p3d, or something else, i lamer so u can translate this in your technical language

    thank you for test and for this thread, i just said, what i saw in web

    my opinian, p3d 2 is too beauty – fog, light(something like fsx enb trick), shadows(dx10 fixer in fsx)
    but 76*C outside, and much worst with systems like mine, or how i see urs too, this is not good, but any way in my system is work ok, till i try change wxmaping for temperatures fix, and my p3d2 was crash with textures, so i have to reinstall it:)

    my defoult runway is haifa, with fsx irs scenery, and this some bugy in p3d2, yellow dust on the little part of haifa airport, this is funy, because here was desert befor:)
    so i absolutly degry with you about wat to be this game better, but disagry about ur explain about gpu usage

    my native language is not english as you see:)

    • Kosta says:

      Well, you say it’s a combo, and I still don’t see any improvement over FSX, if you check my newest comparison.
      Yes, P3Dv2 does look stunning, but looking stunning and performing worse is just not the same thing.
      In the end, it works the same as DEFAULT FSX, and certainly not as good as my tweaked FSX. So we drop the performance down for the benefit of better visuals. Not my cup of tea, sorry.
      If you so much disagree about the GPU usage, then as I said, check the new comparison and tell me what you think.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        Sorry Kosta: your series of comparisons have left me completely unable to endorse your conclusions with my rig.
        For me v2 has given me smoothness and with your Affinity Mask has also ensured that scenery stays in sync.
        You are very influential, therefore I think its important to say many of us disagree with you. You are almost making me feel guilty that my sim does not behave like yours!
        On the other hand it is FSX after all. If anyone can persuade LM to completely rewrite the engine it would be you. But until then it is the same ESP.
        Do you know of anyone other than X-plane that provides a world wide scenery cover, or one as mature as FSX/P3D? If so I will change. In the meantime, in an ignorant sort of way I will continue to enjoy the improved performance of v2.

      • Kosta says:

        I am getting a feeling I should stop these comparisons and get behind the scenes for a while. I will show yet my FSX situation, but I think that will be the last one for a long while. Not because it’s how my sim is performing but simply because I seem to cause way too much negative energy because for some reason my, and others too, sim doesn’t work as others do. Everyone is telling me my comparisons are bogus. Fine. I reckon I’ll sim for a year or two and then see what’s going on.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        Do not give up ever, my friend, but all I am trying to say is that experiences have varied from yours. Believe me I would never use a word like bogus to describe you or your comments. Indeed I see you as an honest protection for us all. I do not, and never will have the skills to conduct the comparisons in detail that you can.
        I think that it is increasingly unlikely that anyone will build us a brand new 64bit sim with streamlined processes. All that is happening is that we are getting some needed improvements to an old model.

      • Kosta says:

        I wouldn’t want to, however I wouldn’t like to damage the joy others are having, if only for a brief period of time (time will come where people will install PMDG into v2 and that is the moment when they will realize what I’m talking about now). The fact that you CAN’T fly under normal settings from one addon airport to another addon airport in a PMDG-like aircraft is a current fact. VAS will crash your system.
        I think it’s very unlikely that anyone will do anything similar LM is doing, but currently we are in a position where this would be highly needed.

      • yes, i seen, in many post how this work, what i can say… hope some patches will some help, i think when they try optimize this, just take naked fsx scenery and work around it, any way lokheed martin didnt give any cheat for working reworked fsx with some scenerys, and work with some aircrafts of carenado alabeo and some defoult, so we got this result, well i will got new pc, and will look how this work after some patch(es), must be i have no any right say something ever till not update my system to x64, any way x86 is absolutely not for this game, or people could fly at desert or water with no objects ever, if use some scenery and real weather every 20min i have to wait how p3d use pagefile.sys with 300mb unused in the ram, my got, i get 128mb in my pc befor:)
        i will got x64 but i will got x65f pro joy:) so any way i will got only 8gb ram, may be some later i wil get mor, but right now i will with 760@2gb and 8gb ram, so, if this game after patch still use pagefile, i’ll still with ram disk, i realy don’t it, but befor patch i think, ramdisk of 2-3gb only for virtual memory, and other 6-5gb for physical
        i read nvidia guys say, what next vcard generation and drivers will use vram more intensively, must be lokheed martin test this cheat with nvidia with virtual pilots help:)
        i was realy surprised when my 560ti was eat 1gb memory in sim what use 1024 textures, but in internet i can see posts when people say this eat 4gb vram, but some1 say – when i check tessalation off, vram used not too intensively, any way, only patch first or 3rd or whatever, will answer at question, this is same way of fsx, where people overcloced them 2600k over 5ghz, but now they pushed purshase titan or 780ti 6gb edition
        sure at 99% they will fix this situation with patch, and i have to say, after this grafic i cann’t play fsx any more and this is was much pusher for upgrade my baby, i realy love my old good pc, even fsx was good for me after i use dx10 fixer, but this awesom light/shadows system in the cabine absolutely closed fsx for me, even if i have now this discomfort of vas on fragmented hdd with tonn of garbage, well may be in 2020 year boing get this game and this will use 100% of on soc quantum system what will got size of wristwatch
        and stephen hawking will say, this is imposible because this system couldnt use more than 1% even if hypotetical god will ask her every ns, absolutely unlogical questions, about imaginary numbers in english grammatical, or physical pi in black hole space of event horizon, but boing ask him, this is flight simulator, with so much addons and so mach variants of installation, what no god, no microsoft, no lokheed martin no1 couldnt say cat still alive or just died, well, say stephen – may be ur simulator can do this, but i sure this fuckin bug here

      • just found at ebay pc for p3d2 when this will patched for sli:)

      • Kosta says:

        Ask LM, not me. 🙂

  34. alain says:


    No matter what rig you have mileage will vary, it can’t be just about your rig, I remember the hype about V2.0, it was suppose to run on a mid range PC, it was suppose to be the bomb, granted that V2.0 may have some improvements the bugs out weight them by a mile, NO I don’t have P3D V2.0 but my friend does and him and I played a lot with it, V2.0 WAS NOT ready for released by a long shot, that should have been a free upgrade for 1.4, IMHO a stable mainly bugs free release should have been priced at $199.00 not V2.0.

    So it’s not about your rig as to many peoples with so many different rig do have problems with V2.0 (top of the line rig or not), that reminded me of peoples saying that FSX does run stutters free with all sliders maxed out on their mid. range rigs, but when you ask them to make a vid. of it they disappear or their answers is “I don’t have anything to prove to you”…yeah right….

    As I see it right now, buyers are beta tester BIG TIME, lets be honest here, FSX peoples are hanging on P3D because of the hundred or thousands of $$$ invested in add on, they want P3D to succeed because of that, I can’t blame them and that’s the only reason for keeping hopes alive with P3D, if another completely new company (new kid on the block) had released a simulator like V2.0 NOBODY would have give them the time of day.

    • Kosta says:

      Did you actually read the subsequent post, the comparison between two systems? It compares a top rig to my own.
      P3Dv2 with all bells and whistles here puts the FPS to way below 10. The system gets overloaded heavily. Supposedly they say a Titan with a high clocked CPU can run P3Dv2 with all on and maintain 30fps.
      The fact is however, my tests go as far as to prove that the basic sim is still way too CPU-dependable, and putting addons into that system crumbles the system.

      • Maurice says:

        Just for the heck of it, I loaded the PMDG 737 and it is simply not flyable with frame rates in the low teens & about half those I used to have in FSX with most sliders maxed in FSX. I’m sorry I deleted FSX from my system in anticipation of all the great improvements P3d was going to offer. I have now ordered XPlane and will see what ‘joys’ that one brings as well 🙂

      • Kosta says:

        Just a statistical information: did you run your FSX with BP=0?

      • Maurice says:

        Yes I did. With 3 screens and 5360*1080 resolution, this was the only way to get good performance but I am not a ‘tweaking expert’, so there may have been other ways.

      • Kosta says:

        Well, then it all explains, the confusions with “bad performance”. I tested two scenarios by now, and both show same performance stock FSX + addons and P3Dv2 + addons. It is only the tweaked FSX with BP=0 that is performing insanely faster.

      • Alain says:


        My comments about your rig was not done in a bad way, I was not trying to say anything bad about your rig, I was just comparing things, my friend has a top of the line rig and guess what, he has two Titan in SLI, I know P3D does not take advantage of SLI so we had to disable one Titan from the Nvidia control panel. As you said, P3D is still to CPU bound, the Titan did not make a huge difference (we tried one of his GTX 780 to compare), make P3D 64-bit, make it use SLI, make it use all core available in one’s rig and I’m sure it will fly, you will have to deal with add on compatibility though.

        There is still no way P3D will work flawlessly (assuming they get rid of all bugs) on a mid range PC no matter what you try unless you keep the sliders to a minimum, who wants to do that? You will still have to buy top of the line hardware (including CPU) to get some kind of satisfaction in the future (also assuming P3D gets there) with the sim if you want eyes candy turned on more then 1/2 way sliders wise incorporating you demanding add on, I’m not bashing P3D, after trying it and seeing it I’m just been realistic as to what it is right now, not worth $199.00 if you ask me, how long will it take for 3PD just to make their add on 100% compatible with V2.0, that’s another biggie right there, will another upgrade break compatibility again?

        IMHO XP-10 is the sim. to keep an eye on, it has more chances to get you a run for your money today, yes, there is thing in FSX/P3D that are missing from XP-10, it can always be added though, but there is things in XP-10 that can’t be added to P3D, how long will it take for XP-10 to get there…I don’t know but I’ll bet you $1.00 that it will get there before P3D, just my opinion. As I said in another thread, some VERY good add on were released for XP-10 in the past month. Time will tell, as for me I don’t remember the last time I bought a add on for FSX.

  35. Ian McPhail says:

    Kosta: I haven’t been able to get the PMDG 737 to install into v2. It comes out with X over the PFD and many switches not working. It is fully validated. However, I am flying the iFly 737 between the heavy add-on FTX YBBN, and their add-on YMMLv2 over FTXAus SP4. I will take notes and report faithfully. But yes scenery slides by at high fps but again the add-on airports do suggest that the CPU is limiting performance.

    • Kosta says:

      I am not using NGX in P3Dv2, it is by license forbidden.
      However, I’ll repeat what I already wrote: stock FSX vs P3Dv2 = same performance. In other words, through tweaked, we achieved more, but not really 100% stable. If LM could give us that, but stable, well, we’d have a winner.

  36. Ian McPhail says:

    But for LM to make it a 64bit application is a big ask.

    It would however be a huge deal breaker and spark a whole new world of add-ons that would follow a move so fundamentally different.

    • Alain says:


      You are right about 64-bit, it would break all compatibility with your present add on, that would make a lot of customers unhappy because they are LM’s main source of buyers for P3D (32-bit), they are the one that have a lot of money invested in FSX add on, the were promised compatibility with P3D, compatibility is a mess right now, add on being the cause of a lot of OOM or CTD as they are NOT fully compatible yet, how long will it take to rectify that?…also, what ever amount of VAS P3D can spare by improving the sim will be use by 3PD, they (3PD) want to sell their products, they will show you nice pictures of their products, they will load them up with a lot of eye candy and by the same token use all freed VAS available, it may look fantastic, you may by them, you may install them and say,”How come I can’t make them look as seen in the 3PD advertisement pics”……and that is where you will find out that you will have to lower your sliders….3PD make products look nice for pics only, Can’t blame them, they want to make a buck, there is no magic bullet….bummer.

      • Alain says:

        EDIT: 3PD will not make products to look nice for pics only but will make their products look nice on their pics, I had to clarify my statement.

    • Kosta says:

      Indeed, Ian. A big, BIG ask. But necessary.

  37. David says:

    In FSX with FTTF set at .40 I still got blurrys and at best 20 FPS over Orbx PNW in a payware plane with medium settings with P3D V2 and ruffly the same settings I get a constant 30 FPS(limited at 30) over Orbx PNW plus no blurries.

  38. Ian McPhail says:

    I am following this whole debate with interest. Let me say that the huge difference is that P3Dv2 works better out of the box than FSX. FSX is now utterly dependent on experts like you for it to run ‘better’ than P3Dv2. I do not deny your conclusions at all, it is only that I never had the expertise or nous to make it happen for me. At the moment I have a Beech Bonanza flying over Orbx Aus SP4 landscape absolutey smoothly. I made a stutter free takeoff from Archerfield and at 6000ft I am just above detailed scarp and tableland landscapes. Still smooth. Remember we are keen simmers but with limited knowledge of technicalities and v2 is supplying my wants and needs.

    • Kosta says:

      Very correct. However with a bit of tweaking, my FSX is performing better than P3Dv2 can. I can’t tweak the P3D, the system has been changed. However stock and untweaked FSX performs the same as P3Dv2.

      Don’t get me wrong, but saying “At the moment I have a Beech Bonanza flying over Orbx Aus SP4 landscape absolutey smoothly.” has absolutely no weight. It needs to be put into context, put into differences why FSX isn’t doing it’s job, or what it is doing differently? If you are not able to have that in FSX, I’ll accept that too, as I know that P3Dv2 has been somewhat base-tweaked, but not performance enhanced. There are many different things in P3Dv2, and I hope LM devs can bring us the full 4-6 core-usage or something else, so that we are not CPU-dependent like we are in FSX.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        Kosta; I appreciate that my claim is entirely unsupported, but I have now been simming half a lifetime – in fact from when I lost my RW medical in 1986. I no longer have FSX on my machine, but I got a lot of pleasure from FSX over the years,, although I began to beiieve that I was getting more pleasure from tweaking than flying. I agree, if all cores can be made to work, even more work put onto the GPU and better autogen processing P3Dv2 will be light-years better. But whatever LM is doing they are at .least doing something. I could give you all my details, but my rig is high-end though not the top – an i79360 and a GTX 680 on a Gigabyte motherboard, (forgot the details, but relatively new and high end).

      • Kosta says:

        Okay, I appreciate that you’ve been simming a long time, so you know what you’re talking about. But tell me, what is P3Dv2 essentially doing better than FSX? Leave the graphics and possibly better looking out, lets talk performance. Not direct comparisons now, but what is better. Is it smoother for you, is it better FPS? The CPU is fine, but since P3Dv2 still uses 1 core at max only, I don’t think it’s performing better…

  39. dalee79854 says:

    Kosta: The one thing that I have noticed from reading these post is that no one states that their video card supports DX-11. This is a requirement that LM states is necessary to run P3D v2.
    All of a sudden my OOM problem came back and I am considering purchasing P3D v2 . Either way it is going to take a lot of time to do all of the re-installs, Again.

    • Kosta says:

      My GTX580 supports DX11.
      OOMs don’t come back suddenly, and there are always reasons for it. And in P3Dv2, you are going to be experiencing OOMs sooner and easier than in the FSX.

      • Ian McPhail says:

        Kosta, I greatly respect your knowledge, but one thing I have never had with v2 is an OOM, nor even a CTD.

      • Kosta says:

        It’s simply a measurable fact. Addons themselves use the same VAS in P3Dv2 as they do in FSX. P3Dv2 starts with higher initial VAS, and I observed that if I load the same addons, it grows proportionally higher. It will always be by the VAS higher than FSX.
        That you never had an OOM, fine, but be aware that it’s ONLY up to the addons you load. An example:
        Aerosoft Airbus puts some entry into dll.xml, loading it’s module. Doesn’t matter if you load the aircraft or not, but this module USES 100mb of VAS. It does that no matter what. Only by disabling this module will the VAS drop for these 100mb.
        So I reckon that your rather fresh install of P3Dv2 contains less VAS-users as FSX does, in other words it’s simply cleaner. I bet if you had the same amount of everything in your P3D as you do in FSX, you would be seeing OOMs sooner than later.
        CTD is another ballgame, it doesn’t depend on VAS. It’s simple if the engine is stable or not. I also never saw CTD except in the beta.

      • autumn, thats time when i will play p3d2, i think so, i get new rig, but stay with my 560ti+hdd, so when i will got 8xx maxwell+ssd on my rig, and after lokheed martin some patch p3d2, but now i realy miss in p3d by some scenery from fsx what work incorrect, now tons of fun fsx missions couldn’t go with p3d correct, i realy hope lokheed martin change their politic just a little for fsx compatibality

        and i realy glad to see what man work and update dx10 fixer, for fsx, so with all my enthusiasm about p3d, i still with fsx till autumn
        yes i was sure i cann’t more fly fsx after p3d2 graphic, but i want play all scenerys, all missions, and all craft without glich, oom, black screens, and other grap

        now i see what does meant what people say “work of the devil”:)
        p3d2 was realy number1 motivator for me to update rig, so i realy thanx, now i got new pc+x65f, and lokheed martin guys are general pushers, realy hope autumn will change some situation

      • dalee79854 says:

        I got rid of the OOM and like you I have decided to wait a while before moving to P3D v2 for all of the reasons you have stated. I would really like to take advantage of my 2 Gb VRAM but that can wait for now.

  40. dalee79854 says:

    Let’s not forget why LM bought FSX. It was for their commercial and military sims which makes them millions of dollars. We were just lucky that their management decided not to pass up the small FSX market..

    Like all of you I want a 64 bit sim and I will be willing to pay for it. I am turning 77 in March so I hope that it arrives before my dementia does.

    I know that P3D will be constantly improved because without improvement their programming team will have nothing to do except look for a new job. A fact that will spur them on to greater heights which will require going to 64 bits.

    Patience dear friends, for it will reward you with a great sim engine.

    Never forget that regardless of how great it is, for some it will not be enough insuring that this and other forums will continue to give them voice and me something to smile about.


  41. Charles says:

    I can concur that performance is 25 – 30% lower in P3D v2.2 as compared to a typical FSX setup. I run both. Using same airport, saved flight w/ same aircraft in the same scenery add on (ORBX Region), I get consistently better and smoother fps in FSX. This is with same-ish settings. As close as I can get them. Turning off Shadows in P3D v2.2 even. Still. 25% less fps and more stutter. But… I know there is more going on. Autogen out further. Volumetric this and that. Whatever. But. It is what it is.


    • Sherman Kaplan says:

      I am convinced that Steve’s dx10 fIxer, properly configued with Sweet FX turns FSX into an entirely new product. BTW, my rig is an antique…..

      Asus p5B Deluxe MOBO with 8 gigs DDR2 ram
      Nvidia GTS 250 GPU with 2 gigs DDR3 ram
      Intel Q6600 CPU


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s