Hi End硬體在相同場景執行XP與P3D

mwm

抱歉這是水管的
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK2u4HpsF5M

mwm

forestgun 发表于 2016-4-8 08:24
个人感受，为什么一定要在这两个软件上分出个高低上下呢？自己飞得舒服就好了嘛，过分强调和对比软件的功能 ...

有時候適當的比較才會知道你所選是否為你所需要
我選擇XP不是P3D輸..............而是XP才是我所需要
反過來說選P3D的人是因為XP無法滿足他所需要
不用把比較的文說的好像就是如此殘酷現實
你玩XP多一點不就是你本身經過比較下才會選擇XP多一些不是嗎
放寬心去看
不需要做過多聯想
這本來就沒有輸贏
只有能不能滿足罷了

tommy0204

個人覺得xp比p3d好點！盡管xp addon機模比pmdg不夠完美！但是在光影效果同支援系統方便比p3d好點。個人感覺p3d畫面有點卡通還停留在fsx時代！純粹個人觀感

ljl8998

额，又得翻墙看.............

lomel

看完以后，然而感觉两个风格完全不一样，从光线角度和真实感来说P3D完败，但P3D整体也还是可以.

lomel

而且， 那个测试XP 的设定并不是最高，反锯齿和云都是最差. 基本上来说XP要全开效果，PC 要非常强才行

爱空客

这个是拿xp强项的夜间灯光和默认地景比，不觉得xp的飞机塑料感很强吗？

hphphp

要是PMDG搬上XP就完美了。。。XP目前就差插件支持了~

lomel

爱空客 发表于 2016-4-7 06:40
这个是拿xp强项的夜间灯光和默认地景比，不觉得xp的飞机塑料感很强吗？

那是涂装的问题，好的涂装就没有这感觉

爱空客

lomel 发表于 2016-4-7 08:10
那是涂装的问题，好的涂装就没有这感觉

涂装解决不了这个问题，这是图形引擎渲染的问题！

ShaneMontoya

对比的话当然是拿强项是跟别人比。这也是为什么FS系玩家必提PMDG、FSLabs、FSDt；XP玩家必提IXEG（讽刺的是还没发布）的原因——我是没见过谁拿Wilco的320系列或者Thomas Ruth的340系列出来和别人比好的23333。当然Fly!玩家也可以提PMDG，毕竟P家第一个带FMC的机模是给Fly!出的，出品的时候很多本论坛的玩家估计在玩泥巴甚至还没出生。

回到XP上：
XP可以实现金属一般的反光效果，只是目前需要通过SASL脚本实现。这点和FS系直接通过贴图和shader的方式实现不同；LR也在官方宣布在未来“可能会加入机身金属反光的原生支持”。现在的状况是，FF767已经实现金属反光、Challenger300也已经实现，效果更好。塑料感最强应该是2010年发布的Heinz 787系列，毕竟当时制作者水平有限，而且开发者是个老大爷，去年不幸过世，未来也不见得会有更新了。
涂装其实可以解决，不过不能近看。XPJ早在2010年（XP9时代）做的AA大钢管涂装就可以达到以假乱真的效果；然并卵的是XPJ解散。从他们的WIP截图来看，如果他们的777真的能够做到最后，那么现在也没有FF甚至是PMDG什么事情了。

mwm

hphphp 发表于 2016-4-7 06:41
要是PMDG搬上XP就完美了。。。XP目前就差插件支持了~

之前沒PMDG我也是玩得很快活
所以有沒有PMDG並不會很重要
重要的是如果所有第三方都像PMDG這樣的標準
開發機模........這才重要
我還有點擔心PMDG進來
價格打壞目前的市場
看看他們在P3D與FSX的售價
進XP也是這樣的售價的話
我看以後XP的機模
要漲一波了

wsjnt

又要翻墙看了 啊   

mwm

這位作者之前就有發表過一樣視頻
只是當時他拿xp 的freewares對決P3D付費addons
被留言罵翻了
可是XP的效果還是好上一些
這次又是一樣的題材
不過有好一點的是他終於幫他的XP裝上一些addons
他本是P3D玩家對於XP我看他依然還是在摸索階段
他對P3D的了解比對XP多太多了
所以理應P3D在他的視頻中佔優勢
可是結果不是如此
挺耐人尋味
還有他XP的rendering設置
根本是浪費Titan
我的硬體除了顯卡輸他
其他都一樣
但我的rendering設置與他根本沒太大的差異
當然他可能是為了錄製60P的視頻特別所做的設置

lomel

mwm 发表于 2016-4-7 11:18
這位作者之前就有發表過一樣視頻
只是當時他拿xp 的freewares對決P3D付費addons
被留言罵翻了

可能是吧，他的配置比我的好好很多啊，却设置比我还低，我还用100%云,8X抗锯齿

lomel

tommy0204 发表于 2016-4-7 11:55
個人覺得xp比p3d好點！盡管xp addon機模比pmdg不夠完美！但是在光影效果同支援系統方便比p3d好點。個人感覺 ...

同意,本质是一样的东西，画面就是看动画片的水平

mwm

lomel 发表于 2016-4-7 11:59
同意,本质是一样的东西，画面就是看动画片的水平

確實阿
P3D骨子裡流著MSFS的血
我一直都覺得它就是優化版的FSX
各方面來說洛克希德已經更新優化很多部分
但核心不變
能做的也只是優化
那畫面永遠都是灰濛濛的
色階永遠都是這樣
一堆版上貼圖不過都是P出來
對我是沒說服力
但對於剛入門玩flysim的玩家來說
P3D與FSX確實很好入門
玩家多資源多
不爭的事實

lomel

来个教育贴,先看看三种平台历史, 该文是一个在P3D商业飞行培训公司供职的开发人员写的，很诚实的对比..

Let's start with a brief history lesson.  What eventually became Microsoft Flight Simulator started development in 1977.  In 1982 Microsoft licensed it to show off the new 16-bit technology and branded it Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.00.  Development continued through the 2006 release of FSX and until early 2009 when Microsoft announced the closure of Aces Studios, the brains behind the franchise.  Months after the demise of Aces Studios, Lockheed Martin announced it had negotiated the purchase of Microsoft Enterprise Simulation Platform (ESP) intellectual property which is the commercial use version of FSX.  About a year later Lockheed Martin released Prepar3d for commercial use.  Switching over to X-Plane, it was first released in 1993 as a simulator on the Mac platform and focused on the Piper Archer.  The brain child behind it was software engineer and pilot Austin Meyer.  Austin created a company (a very small one) called Laminar Research to handle the development of X-Plane.  By the time X-Plane was just coming out, Microsoft already had a mature product and considerably larger team working on future versions.  As we all know every product has its strengths and its weaknesses.  Austin wanted to address all the weaknesses in Microsoft Flight Simulator by focussing on those areas when developing X-Plane.  Austin put his emphasis on the realism of the simulation where MSFS used a table to estimate what an aircraft would do in certain conditions.  Microsoft really wanted to blend the pretty visuals of a game with the accuracy of a simulation product and certain concessions were made because of that focus.  For X-Plane, it was all about how real does the aircraft fly and not about how pretty it looks.  Laminar Research put all their effort into a flight model that calculates the physics happening on the airfoil and aircraft in real time.  Over the years of development of both platforms without a doubt Microsoft was lightyears ahead in market share.  Their team was larger, the graphics were incredible and the 3rd party quality add-on market was growing at a rapid pace.  Unless you were strictly wanting the ultra realism of the X-Plane flight modeling, the Microsoft solution was hands down the winner.  While X-Plane only had a small market share, Laminar Research did a few things that later down the road would be a critical key component in its growth.  They gave everyone the tools to create their own aircraft, airfoils, scenery and plugins... They also made it easy for individuals to develop their own add-ons.  For most of X-Plane's history the community created add-ons has been incredibly strong.  Once the demise of Aces came along, X-Plane as a platform and development tools were now matured.  For a while it was really the only flight simulator that was undergoing any active development leaving the developers of Microsoft Flight Simulator add-ons wondering what to do since future development of FSX was over.  This set the stage for the X-Plane's explosion.  Established FSX developers like Carenado joined the solid X-Plane only developers like Flight Factor and FlyJSim in making incredible 3rd party add-ons for the first time in X-Plane's life time.  Even PMDG has announced upcoming X-Plane projects and I am sure more developers will come.

lomel

商业模式对比.

This is a topic that you don't see brought up very much in those heated debates we all hate to see as we scroll through our social media feeds.  During the time before Aces was shut down, you had the big corporate behemoth Microsoft and a home business with a couple of contractors at Laminar Research creating their products.  Big corporations have a ton of resources to throw at development and can certainly do things that smaller companies cannot but large companies are just like large boats... They take a long time to change directions and get moving.  A small company like Laminar Research has the strength of being extremely agile.  If they felt they needed to switch gears and focus on something else it could be done nearly instantly.  They were able to put out updates to their software every 2 and a half to 3 months, a cycle that still goes on today whereas updates for MSFS were measured in years.  Once FSX was ultimately done and Lockheed Martin was working on Prepar3d there was a new business model in the game.  To get to the point, Lockheed's focus for Prepar3d is strictly for commercial use. Later they would add on educational licenses but development was still intended for their software to be used in commercial platforms like the Redbird Simulators wether it be in a flight school, university or airline company's training facility.  Though Laminar Research has a few more employees now it is still a very small company.  They have expanded into the mobile arena with the popularity of smart phones and tablets.  Yes X-Plane is available for commercial use like Prepar3d but it is being developed far more for the home enthusiast market.

lomel

最终决断

This simply breaks down to what is the right tool for the job.  I look at the flight simulation in two markets just like the developers do.  There is a home entertainment/enthusiast market and there is a commercial market.  The home market can even be broken down into two more sub groups, the real world pilot/aspiring pilot and the patient aviation lover with no intentions of becoming a pilot.  Starting in the commercial realm, even though X-Plane has a commercial version available I personally believe Prepar3d has a better tool set for putting the sim into commercial products like Redbird simulators than X-Plane.  I won't get into what those advantages are since 99% of my followers are one of the variety of home users I mentioned above.  As a home user, I put myself in the category of aspiring pilot (I have a handful of training hours logged and taken the FAA Written Exam).  From that perspective X-Plane is my choice because I am far more interested in the realism of physics in the aircraft model as well as constant updates and development geared towards the home user.  Yes, I want my sim to look pretty, but not at the expense of the flight model.  If I was the aviation lover I would probably choose Prepar3d (have to use a Windows boot partition on my Mac) since it was based on FSX and has the prettier graphic set but I would make that choice cautiously.  Home users of P3D purchase the Academic version which technically is against the EULA (that is another hot debate).  Now Lockheed Martin is not enforcing the EULA in any way so you are safe from any recourse unless for some reason Microsoft decides to drop the hammer on Lockheed for not enforcing the Academic version EULA.  The other cautionary reason would be that Lockheed's business model is strictly developing commercial use software so their development strategy, testing and direction is solely based on the commercial users of their product.  If a million home users who bought the Academic version all scream they want a certain feature but it would impede something on the commercial side, that feature will not be considered.  That is an extreme circumstance there but it was to make a point.  In conclusion you don't need to ask the ridiculous question of which platform is better in a social media bomb, you just need to do about 10 minutes of research and pick the right fit for you.  In the end of the day, no matter what you choose, you will be flying.  My needs and my situation are unique to me so my choice of using X-Plane at home may not be the right decision for you.  I am glad I am surrounded by P3D at work so I can now at least speak about both platforms in an educated manner.  I don't really care what platform you choose, I just hope to see you on VATSIM or PilotEdge flying and being happy.

mwm

ShaneMontoya 发表于 2016-4-7 08:59
对比的话当然是拿强项是跟别人比。这也是为什么FS系玩家必提PMDG、FSLabs、FSDt；XP玩家必提IXEG（讽刺的是 ...

其實滿好比較
P3D與FSX玩家截圖
80%都是機場裡
因為他投資不少$在他的機場
XP的玩家
80%都會在空中截圖
因為光影變化及大氣效果地面上是看不出來的
而且XP耐玩之處在於離地後感受那氣流變化對飛機行為的影響
沒玩過的很難體會
就算你把P3D及FSX練到手感一級
進XP也是被氣流帶的得亂七八糟
不信的人自己去試試

說到金屬材質反光
一直都是XP的痛處
但montoya大說的Challenger 300的金屬反光確實很真實
而且更漂亮
因為我有收一台
很多部分現在沒有不代表以後沒有
所以等等看未來的更新是否有更新到這一部分