|
|
Post by beeker46 on Jul 1, 2019 15:03:58 GMT -5
DOing a look around the Prepar3D site... somewhat confused.
Professional License, Academic License...expensive and Professional Plus way too expensive. I cannot foresee spending $200+ for a sim. So, the question, what version is most used in the FS community of ours? What is the difference between these versions and how will that affect what we can and cannot do in FS? I now have the ponies under the hood to run FSX Steam and it looks that includes P3D as well. For the casual, armchair pilot that I am, what would be the version to look into? And if the software is not designed for consumer, entertainment usage, why is it becoming to popular in the FS community? Just an idea of 'well, if they say I can't, I will go ahead and do it anyway' mentality?
|
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Jul 1, 2019 15:58:07 GMT -5
Part of it is people taking a risk and buying the Academic license even though they're not technically eligible for it, but many are paying the money for a Professional license because they're willing to pay the price for a program that is being consistently updated and improved (we've now received in P3D v4 alone enough updates to equal 3 or 4 FS versions in the past) and is the basis for study-level products that many fly. If you're willing to pay $150-ish for a single PMDG product, then why would it be such a stretch to pay twice that for the technology to enable it?
Here's the thing though - if you do buy the Academic license, expect it to disappear with P3D v5 or be more strictly enforced. With Microsoft working on a new FS version, I suspect they will make Lockheed abide by their license agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jul 1, 2019 16:04:52 GMT -5
I bought the Academic License. The only drawback is that there is small white lettering a the top right edge of the screen saying "Academic License" or something similar (they call it a watermark but it's not partially transparent). The higher license levels typically are for developers that want to interact with LM or the Plus version that provides more capabilities. Look here for details: www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-comparison/And it's no big deal if you buy the Academic version of v4 and it is not continued in v5. Your current license is only good for the current version (i.e. v4). When v5 comes out LM says you'll need to buy a new license. Of course monthly subscriptions will get the new version as they continue to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by deltalima on Jul 1, 2019 16:11:58 GMT -5
The licensing philosophy has been discussed at great length, in almost every sim forum, and the various viewpoints can more than easily googled. Again, lots of material on this, including LM's FAQ.
As too, are the general performance differentials. I bought it one evening and was planning to buy a modest 4MB video card and 16GB of RAM the next day. But out of morbid curiosity, I ran it on my 2GB video card with 4MB RAM right away after installing it, pre upgrade, just for kicks and giggles. With roughly comparable settings as what I had in FSX, I got higher FPS - but more importantly, it was far smoother. Bear in mind, my core FSX install had become bloated and tweaked to death, which I have determined not to repeat with the new sim. No more Steve Fixer/Bojote/etc Tweaks. They helped stretch FSX to it's full potential, but with the LM platform, your tweaking days are over.
It's not maxed out, though almost (almost all graphical settings to max, except for dynamic lighting). Airline AI is around 60%, boats at around 50%, and cars/ground to minimal levels. I fly mostly military and classic 60s/70s civilian aviation, so the density that the Calclassic packs give is ample for the latter, and MAIW's density is crazy high, and therefore more than satisfactory for the former. If I was flying PMDG-level glass cockpit airliners in and out of modern airports with scores of AI planes, that'd likely be different, but to my tastes, I have found the sweet spot of very high quality environmentals and enough AI movement to add some "life". I travel extensively with work, and frankly, have zero time or inclination to spend my scant few minutes of free time trying to simulate the annoying traffic jams I experience on taxiways of super-crowded airports in real life - but hey, to each their own.
The stock terrain mesh looks to be identical to FSX, and stock textures look the same also - but again, having done my research, I knew that going in. The smoothness and the lighting, shadow, and water and sky effects are hands down better than FSX ever was. I had already bought REX Texture Direct for FSX years ago, and redownloaded the P3DV4 version at no extra cost, so between that and the freeware Drzewiecki Design Grass mod, that improves virtually all the main textures. I might pretty up the autogen, but with most of my flying done either over water or desert or mountains, that's a minor concern.
As for pricing, most go for the academic license, which if you've just done a hardware upgrade, the $59 ticket entry ticket is almost a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Plus there's a money back guarantee. You have nothing to lose, and I viewed it less as "could I afford to" and more along the lines of if the performance delivered, "I couldn't afford not to", insofar as my time spent flying vs dickering with performance enhancements.
Naturally, your mileage may vary, and if the above presents just too high a risk threshold, then FSX Steam is your next best option. With the benefit of hindsight, I'd have done things differently along my FSX track:
1) Kept a clean unmolested install as much and for as long as possible. Made addon folders outside the more sim. I didn't know that was possible until recently, so I'm not beating myself up for that.
2) gotten FSX Steam when it came out. I'd have gained next to nothing in terms of raw "hard" performance, but for the elimination of OOM errors and having to reset my FSX.cfg every cotton pickin' time, the mere $5-$10 bucks on sale would more than have been worth it. That was a dumb move, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it.
I think had I done that, I'd have enjoyed FSX for the last couple of years. But that said, I believe the timing was right, I'm glad I held out until the 64bit version, rather than having jumped into what is a bit of a dead-end / hybrid route of P3DV3.
Again, just my own experience - but I hope that helps.
dl
|
|
|
|
Post by beeker46 on Jul 1, 2019 18:57:34 GMT -5
Ahh... I will stick with FSX-Steam, I cannot see my way to pay for a monthly subscription. I have had too many not-so-wonderful experiences with monthly subscription type of gaming in the past. Many thanks for all the input, I'm not so much of the hardcore kind of flier to warrant that kind of expense just for something I do for the purpose of fun. I do have one last query, even though it is not entirely P3D related....
ORBX.. and CalClassic scenery. I am looking at the GLobal Base Pack for better ground representation and variety, but worried how it might interfere with the classic scenery that I have like KLGA, KDAL, XDEN and a few others. Are there any potential conflicts between using both in FSX? Or, if I wanted to go a little cheaper route, the Ultimate Terrain X package? DO either of these work with the most wonderful CalClassic sceneries?
|
|
|
|
Post by deltalima on Jul 1, 2019 19:47:59 GMT -5
Who said monthly subscriptions is the only option? Academic can be had as a one time fixed at $59. Not sure how much clearer that can be.
Others can chime in on Orbx. No experience there because I believed the mesh would cause the very issues you mention. Tweaking and jimmying with the scores of Calclassic airports’ altitudes or possibly more was not a use of my time I considered productive.
During my time in FSX I found the various freeware grass, autogen, and, texture enhancements more than adequate. And even without Orbx, I found my pc load up time long enough as it was.
The corallary now being, would I get it for P3D? No, and for the same reasons I didn’t get it for FSX. Low and slow guys probably get great utility from it, and if you fly regularly from only a couple of airports whose adjustments you’re willing to monkey around with, then it may be a worthwhile trade off.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacklyon on Jul 2, 2019 16:37:21 GMT -5
For V2 and V4, i bought a montly subscription, to see if i like it, and after that, i finish buying, the Academic License for V3 and V4. It's almost the same cost than X-Plane. (and FSX in the 2005/2006 years). I bought, a lot of ORBX scenerys and enhancement, mostly in sold periods Not problems, with ORBX GLOBAL, Vector, OpenLC, Tree HD, etcetera, P3D4 performs well. The Global products, really improve the "default" P3D4. Tree_HD is wonderfull, i wait for discount, for Building_HD  V4 is the "newest version", of the FSX engine family. It's perform, better, use better your hardware, and it's look better (graphics), it's FSX improved... FSX Steam is FSX "repacked", if you have already FSX, i not see the interest to rebuy the same thing again. I don't know what kind of simulator Microsoft will release on 2020, but, i believe, that will not be part of same engine... FS51,FS98/FS2000 was same engine improved (family 1) FS2002/FS2004 was same engine improved (family 2) FSX & P3D 1,2,3,4 the same engine improved (family 3) |
|
