P3Dv5 - seriously impressed - NOT!
Introduction:
Sadly, I don't have the HD space (or spare SATA slots) to have both P3Dv4.5 and 5.0 on the same system ... so .. it was sh*t or bust! After having read so many glowing reports about how you actually *gain* performance, I thought "what have I got to lose?". Apparently ... everything.
My system:
A bit like me - verging on the old and decrepit:
Intel i7 2600K @ 3.40-4.69GHz | 16GB DDR3 | nVidia GTX970 4GB | Win10x64 Ultimate
My thoughts:
Obviously, my new v5 is missing REX, PTA and what-have-you, but I think there are many core visual problems that none of those will totally cure:
1) The dreaded blobby clouds. They could have "fixed" these by now - Shirley???
2) Water: disgusting as ever - and the dreaded "oily black water" remains. Again - hardly rocket science <?>.
3) The palette: just plain mud. Too contrasty and totally unbalanced.
4) Lighting: even with bloom disabled, you get bleaching out when viewing near the horizon - or overly dark anywhere near looking down - with or without the new "beta" atmospheric option.
5) No terrain shadowing. Terrain can cast shadows - but not receive them, so hilly landscape looks flat and featureless. Not sure whether this feature/tickbox was present in 4.5, but the landscape lighting was full of relief.
6) Performance: I've re-installed only around half of my addon aircraft and scenery, yet each time I go into *any* P3D menu, the sim takes over a minute to bring up the option - no matter what it is - not just the aircraft list panel (which always took a while in my P3D).
7)VRAM: v5 seems to eat it up, so the only way I can run the sim is to knock back my settings (across the board) a lot - well below what I could easily run in 4.5. Apparently even 8GB on your GPU isn't enough (what planet are these people on?). So ... my only affordable option (a 6GB GTX1660) may fare hardly better than my trusty old GTX970.
Here's NZWR - with over-done cloud shadows and no terrain shadowing to soeak of:

Slightly better - but the overall qulaity is way below even FSX standards, IMHO:

Can you honestly say this is an *improvement*?

Your thoughts?
Adam.
Sadly, I don't have the HD space (or spare SATA slots) to have both P3Dv4.5 and 5.0 on the same system ... so .. it was sh*t or bust! After having read so many glowing reports about how you actually *gain* performance, I thought "what have I got to lose?". Apparently ... everything.
My system:
A bit like me - verging on the old and decrepit:
Intel i7 2600K @ 3.40-4.69GHz | 16GB DDR3 | nVidia GTX970 4GB | Win10x64 Ultimate
My thoughts:
Obviously, my new v5 is missing REX, PTA and what-have-you, but I think there are many core visual problems that none of those will totally cure:
1) The dreaded blobby clouds. They could have "fixed" these by now - Shirley???
2) Water: disgusting as ever - and the dreaded "oily black water" remains. Again - hardly rocket science <?>.
3) The palette: just plain mud. Too contrasty and totally unbalanced.
4) Lighting: even with bloom disabled, you get bleaching out when viewing near the horizon - or overly dark anywhere near looking down - with or without the new "beta" atmospheric option.
5) No terrain shadowing. Terrain can cast shadows - but not receive them, so hilly landscape looks flat and featureless. Not sure whether this feature/tickbox was present in 4.5, but the landscape lighting was full of relief.
6) Performance: I've re-installed only around half of my addon aircraft and scenery, yet each time I go into *any* P3D menu, the sim takes over a minute to bring up the option - no matter what it is - not just the aircraft list panel (which always took a while in my P3D).
7)VRAM: v5 seems to eat it up, so the only way I can run the sim is to knock back my settings (across the board) a lot - well below what I could easily run in 4.5. Apparently even 8GB on your GPU isn't enough (what planet are these people on?). So ... my only affordable option (a 6GB GTX1660) may fare hardly better than my trusty old GTX970.
Here's NZWR - with over-done cloud shadows and no terrain shadowing to soeak of:

Slightly better - but the overall qulaity is way below even FSX standards, IMHO:

Can you honestly say this is an *improvement*?

Your thoughts?
Adam.

