Prepare3D V4


#21

Orbx manager 1: Why’d he do it? I just don’t understand
Orbx manager 2:


#22

Pfff!

And there I was waiting and waiting for this 64 bit P3D before I committed. Only two weeks ago, I gave up on FSX:SE and its snags and got P3D V.3. Just my luck.

Anyway, I think it might be a while before compatible add-ons or ports start appearing for it(?). Won’t be getting it hot off the press, then, and V3 does me just fine for now…


#23

First 60 days you can get a refund on v3 and repurchase v4:
http://www.prepar3d.com/support/refundpolicy/


#24

@Kludger

Thanks! I might give that a go, won’t hurt to try… :slight_smile:


#25

On a side note, i downloaded FSX:SE for the first time tonight, in hopes of trying some of the aircraft that are being ported to DCS.

I already requested a refund. 20 minutes was all it took.


#26

What aircraft that are part of FSX:SE are being ported to DCS? None of the default ones are for certain. The only ones that might be ported would be high end aircraft from Razbam or Mesh2Metal or something like that.


#27

Perhaps @Gunnyhighway meant the F/A-18 Hornet that’s in the base FSX Steam Edition (it includes the old Acceleration stuff)?


#28

Ah…yeah, if you are using FSX to prepare for DCS: Hornet, then you’d definitely one the VRS Hornet, not the default one… That actually would be good at learning systems and stuff for DCS…


#29

The VRS Superbug is a Block I Super Hornet with a few Block II features thrown in for hoots (the DDIs, for example), which is generally aligned with the Hornet ED is delivering us. There are some distinct differences, such as the LCDs, touch screen, and the color options on the DDIs. However the Sensors (APG-73, ATFLIR, etc.) align pretty closely, as do the available weapons. All and all it should be a pretty good way to figure out how things work.

Not that I’ve been doing leg work on this subject… :kissing: :musical_score:

Certainly not putting together a guide or anything


#30

I was mainly interested in the f-14x, the razbam Harrier and the f-18. Ill just have to wait till they come out on DCS though, FSX was god awful. Granted I only tried the standard f-18 that comes with it and a few of the larger jets, it just didn’t feel very realistic. I turned all the settings to ultra high and realistic, and it just didn’t do it for me.


#31

Unquestionably, DCS World physics are far more enjoyable. For that matter - any of those modules in X-Plane would be more enjoyable. Systems-wise, it would help with the button pushing and stuff…and I do think the VRS Hornet uses some external flight model calculations, but overall…yeah, DCS is going to be a much better experience all around.


#32

MilViz just officially released an update to P3Dv4 for all of the Phantom II products, E, S/J. and Advanced Series module for the F-4E. I checked the VRS forum and web site and no further info on if/when the TacPack will be updated.

F-4E Phantom II update details
We are happy to announce that this update brings compatibility with Prepar3D version 4.

Also, if you happen to be a customer of the F-4E TacPack Addon, the F-4E Advanced Series Addon, or the F-4J/S release, those have also been updated for P3Dv4 compatibility. Emails will follow over the course of the next day or so to announce those individual updates, but please be assured that all download files have been updated. If you are a customer of any of those products and wish to download them in advance of the update notifications, you’ll need to have kept a copy of your previous update emails; any product links received in the past will still function to download the latest version.

Advanced Series module updates
A summary of the changelog is as follows:

Flight Model:

  • Post-stall and spin model improved.
  • Improved stores aerodynamics effects. A more complex and realistic model has been implemented affecting aircraft stability.
  • Improved the flight model part affected by A/C configuration changes (flaps/slats).
  • Lift due to pitch rate derivative added.
  • Improved ground effect model. Now, the aircraft will be much closer to the T/O performance figures (Nosewheel liftoff and Takeoff speeds).
  • Landing gear damage model revised and slightly increased strength. The main gear will stand sink rates up to 1200 ft/min.
  • Improved tailhook “collision” model.

Engines Model:

  • Overall engine dynamics improved; in particular at extremely high altitudes (zoom climb envelope), high AoA windmilling, airstarts etc…
  • Fixed a bug preventing engine shutdowns in the first seconds after engine startup. Now the engine can be shutdown normally at any moment.
  • Fixed a bug causing incorrect (and higher) thrust output when returning to Dry from AB position.
  • Several minor bugs fixed.
  • More accurate MIL thrust model at high altitudes.
  • More accurate Specific Fuel Consumption model at dry thrust regime.

General Systems:

  • Engine inlet ramps animation fixed: ramps position will now only depend on inlet temperature.
  • Improved hydraulic system model.
  • AOA indexer flickering with the aircraft stopped on ground fixed.
  • SLAT IN light fixed. Now it only will light with electrical system On.
  • APU caution light now fully functional.
  • WHEELS light fixed: it will only light if flaps are extended.

Visuals:

  • GPU disappearing with loadout changes fixed.
  • Afterburner flickering fixed.

Effects:

  • Fuel tanks collision damage model and effects added. Only low-fuel/no external tanks belly landings should be attempted.
  • Drag chute sound effects added.
  • Stores jettison sound added.
  • Improved cockpit sounds (panning added).
  • Oxygen mask sound effects added (no hypoxia implemented).

Miscellaneous:

  • P3Dv4-64bit compatibility.
  • ADV module initialization improved from saved flights (aircraft flying).
  • New Instructor mode messages added (high EGT, external tanks airspeed limitations, etc…).
  • Slightly reduced birdstrike probability.
  • Fixed stability issues causing CTDs when selecting another aircraft.

Manual:

  • Manual typos fixed.

#33

My wife bought V1 for my birthday years ago. It didn’t run very well on the rig I had then. Or, it didn’t run as well as FSX did, so it didn’t get much in the way of play time.

I have the Steam version of FSX now and it pretty much does everything I want it to, and Just Flight still makes aftermarket stuff for FSX:SE, so I’m set. I may be weird, but I’ve always considered JF to be the gold standard of aftermarket content for the FS series.

I’m interested to see what they’re doing with P3D. Is it still mostly civilian aviation in nature? I know LM is using this as a training tool. It can’t do combat, can it?


#34

I like FSX SE…I mean, it is still one of the most “complete” simulators available, has a ton of content for it, missions, fun training stuff, and a mind boggling amount of aircraft. P3D v4 is still heavily civilian when you consider the add on market. P3D is also used for military and commercial training in specialized ways…though I’m sure most of those guys are using it with interesting modifications.

I honestly don’t know much about the combat side of P3D. Again, I’m sure there are contractors that have modified it to do what they want (like Eagle Dynamics does for military contracts)…but I’m unschooled on just what it can do. I do know that I really like P3D v4…it runs well, the lighting is great, the default scenery is pretty good, and it is very stable for me.


#35

I went off them recently, having suddenly found that all the JF discs I’ve bought over the years don’t work any more because MD dropped securom support in Windows. I thought the decent thing for JF to do would be, as a minimum, to offer discounted download versions to those affected (the discs I bought are shown on my long purchase history at my JF account), but unfortunately their attitude seems to be “tough luck!”.

As someone who bought loads of their stuff, done beta testing for them etc, I now think very carefully before I buy their products (though I do still buy them - only if I can’t get it elsewhere).

Although I have P3Dv4, I rarely use it. All I’ve done so far is test what works with it and what doesn’t. Started two Air Hauler companies, but haven’t done more than check rides in them as yet.

The way I do it is, I use FSX SE for one thing, and have no FTX scenery installed in it, but other commercial scenery packages which don’t like working with FTX, with AH2 fleets operating in those areas. Then I have P3Dv3 - my civvy sim of choice, mostly due to VR implementation, with FTX PNW and UK in it - and AH2 companies in both those areas and the majority of my add-on aircraft in it (and the only one on SSD for quick loading of flights).

P3Dv4 is on a standard SATA hard drive, and works well from it but takes eons for stuff to load (I’ll put this on the SSD when it is up to snuff in VR), and I have FTX Australia and NZ on it - oh, and now N. Germany - and AH companies in those areas.

The idea being, I have different types of aircraft in each of the different AH companies, so I can jump into the relevant sim for whichever type of flying suits my mood, in a different area, so I am less likely to get fed up.

Works so far :slight_smile:


#36

I got the email as well. Good on MILVIZ.

I’ve been checking VRS’ forums. It doesnt appear they’re in any hurry to migrate to version 4. And any hope of the 5 year long anticipated F/A-18F, is fading.

I wont be renewing my “licenses”.


#37

Quite a shame to hold the combat simming community as 32 bit hostages. Still, I’m a proponent of free market and shake outs sometimes create competition that benefit the consumer. Perhaps there will be a response when sales dwindle.


#38

Umm…

MS Sold the Microsoft ESP Assets to Lockheed,
The Pro Simulator Source Code, Platform, SDK and All I.P. as well as BIOs for Employees that were part of the team that developed it.

MS Sold the Flight Simulator Assets to Dovetail.
The Entertainment Version, the Source Code, and All IP as well as a License to Re-Compile and Resell FSX.

Microsoft has Zero Invested Interest in FSX or ESP


#39

I hadn’t heard this. That’s a pretty crappy way to treat customers. You’d think they’d have a workaround.


#40

I was surprised, tbh. I’m sure they had their reasons, just a pity they didn’t share them.