Recommended oculus runtime and flight sim

[tyke]

What's the best oculus runtime to use at the moment, 0.5 or 0.6 (briefly been using 0.6 with FSX, seems fine)?

Also, I own P3D and FSX (boxed version), I intend to buy flyinside for either 1 but which is preferable (if any)?

[Tony]

If you're using 6 and it's fine then stick with that As for the best , I would say use whatever is your favourite sim but you can try both and decide. Remember that when CV1 becomes available then the resolution will improve. Personally my favourite is Fsx. Much smoother for me.

Tony

[tyke]

Thanks for the info.

Can play all the missions with FSX too, think i'll buy the FSX version.

I'll miss I P3D's slightly improved visuals (especially the sun shadow effect in-cockpit).

CV1 resolution will be good for reading instruments however i'm pleased with how downsampling has made most of the gauges readable already. I'd tried downsampling before with other 3d drivers but frame rates were poor.

[Robert]

Tony is right. As to which Oculus runtime, there have been a number who have Orbx scenery who can only keep from getting OOM errors by running 0.5.0.1. If you can run 0.6.0 you are probably better off but if you have any issues, you can always downrev and try 0.5.0.1.

Which sim is best is really up to you. There are a number of considerations. P3D is actively supported by Lockheed-Martin and will probably get good and regular updates and will continue to the more advanced and probably realistic sim. FSX and FSX:SE (Steam Edition) are both more or less orphaned and not going to get a lot of new features though Dovetail has fixed a lot of things Microsoft left hanging. Both have multiplayer arenas though the FSX ones have quite a few more users. FSX also has real world weather updates where you can get realistic and current conditions for where you fly, while P3D is build your own weather conditions - which certainly could mimic real conditions if you input a weather report. Depending on your aftermarket plane and scenery choices, there are more planes available for FSX than P3D though you can also just copy many or most in place and they will work. But I don't think P3D supports the older FS2009 planes and such.

My solution is if something is pay to play, I make sure it supports both except in special circumstances.

[tyke]

I'm about to try P3D / flyinside, given that P3D will be further developed, as you rightly state.

I don't have any paid for aftermarket planes or scenery, so no worries there.

If P3D / flyinside runs as well the FSX version, i think i may buy the P3D version (even though at the moment from what i've read on this website, the fsx version is of a higher priorty to the developer of flyinside).

[Robert]

I don't know what Dan's exact strategy is on it, and certainly cannot speak for him, but he has said that a lot of the FlyInside code is the same or similar since P3D and FSX are also very similar and share the same Microsoft code base heritage. Even if the FlyInside P3D support stretch goal isn't met, Dan says he is still planning to do it. It just won't get the same schedule and attention as it would if the P3D stretch goal is met.

So, that said, if you think you are going the P3D route, it might be worth it to back at the P3D beta tester level since it has an estimated delivery four months ahead of the regular P3D level. Maybe there would be some interim updates as well but only Dan can say how he is planning to allocate time. I'm sure the FSX backers will be wanting to see both beta and final versions. And, if you look at the backer numbers on the Kickstarter, right now it's 20:1 on FSX to P3D backers for the straight up version, and about 12:1 FSX to P3D beta testers. FSX looks to be the winner of the popularity contest big time.

But you are right - looking at the delivery dates on FSX and P3D versions of FlyInside, FSX is set to deliver both beta and "final" versions before the P3D ones. Keep an eye peeled for a sale on Steam Edition of FSX. I picked my copy up for $4.99. That's an unbelievable value. I don't think you will go wrong either way.

[tyke]

thanks for your input.

after testing both it'll be fsx beta test route.

the main reason is that fsx can handle 4k whereas p3d couldn't, frame rate wise (comp is win 7 64, 8gb ram, i5 2500k @ 4.8, G1 gtx 970 @1518).

i'll miss those sun shadows in the vc in p3d

fsx for $4.99 is steam sale time only, it's $24.99 now. but have found it elsewhere for $6.99. is it worth it considering i alreadly own the boxed version?

[Robert]

I don't how things are with the 0.7 version for those with the boxed version but some bailed out and bought the Steam version because of various glitches. I'm fairly sure there are also quite a few running the boxed version. Dan has said he has been mostly targeting the Steam version but if the boxed version is working then I don't see any hard reason to change. It's always an option if that situation changes.

[tutmeister]

Weird tyke, that's the exact opposite of me.
Basically the same rig but Im at 4.7 and i struggled to get usable fps with everything maxed in fsx. P3d I'm 20 to 30fps depending on the aircraft. Because of that I stopped using fsx.
Actually I recently stuck another 970 in and now it is 40 plus fps maxed out at 4k but that's a different story.
Chris

[Tony]

LOL Chris , I reckon if we all had identical rigs , same DK2 with the same runtime we would all see different results. I think it's all to do with whats already on our HDD that bogs things down. I'd always recommend a disc defrag at the minimum. Plus we all like different addons and settings. Horses for courses Can't wait to get rid of my HD7970 AMD card. Think thats the root of all my evils........

Tony