Only a guess, but I suspect P3D works differently on different rigs just as FSX does. It could well be that P3D is more efficient at using multiple cores in a way that FSX does not. As I said, only a guess...

BTW, after reading several posts and Word Not Allowed's blog, I have decided it is only a matter of time before I make the switch to P3D. I guess in truth I'm waiting for V2...

Only a guess, but I suspect P3D works differently on different rigs just as FSX does.

 

I guess that is fair thing to say Howard.

 

Though, I have never seen FSX scale on the GPU as good. Never.

 

I guess in truth I'm waiting for V2...

 

You are missing out

I just added ''WATER_EFFECTS=3'' in [TERRAIN] section and I have water quality on 1x config like in FSX, in same situation passed from 16FPS on FSX to 19-20. Those FPS are very welcome!!

 

Daniel

FWIW, my P3D system is a q9650 clocked at 3.88 with 4G 1721 8-8-8-24 ram and a gtx 550Ti card and it runs P3d as well as my fully tweaked FSX system with a 980X clocked at 4.43 and a gTX480.

I have fps set at 30 on both rigs and it rarely varies on either.

 

Vic

My first expierience with Prepar3d was also a complete disappointment. At first I got 20 - 30 % less performance than in FSX with my ATI HD5850 and the known tweaks applied. Surprisingly and unlike FSX I get better performance without the BP=0 tweak.

 

Then I figured out that when I rename the Prepar3d.exe/Prepar3d.cfg to FSX.exe/FSX.cfg the FPS are much better. There must be some heavy performance optimization taking place inside the ATI driver. I can't explain what else it could be.

 

With this I'm now getting about 15 - 20% better FPS in Prepar3d compared to FSX with the default shaders. But with Bojotes Shader 3.0 Mod which I'm using (except for the water shader), it's not so much difference. Maybe 4 - 10 % better in default scenery when frames go above 100. On a contrary I get about 8 % better performance in FSX at KSEA (default).

I haven't tested much with addons yet, but with an Aerosoft airport FSX also still outperforms Prepar3d on my machine.

 

So for the moment I'm still sticking with FSX

 

Regards

Here's some numbers:

 

|....Card|ATI.HD6870.|GTX.660.Ti.|

|Scenery.|FSX..|P3D14|FSX..|P3D14|

+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

|ORBX....|.030.|.030.|.030.|.030.|

|LondonX.|.020.|.014.|.025.|.028.|

|GenX....|.030.|.030.|.030.|.090.|

|AutoGen.|.060.|.030.|.030.|.090.|

|PacSim..|.050.|.030.|.030.|.060.|

 

So I swapped my Radeon HD 6870 out for a GTX 660 Ti, and ran some tests with scenarios I ran before. I've estimated an average framerate, and will put up some videos on my channel later.

 

From what I have seen so far, GeForce does give more improvement when switching from FSX to P3D. Especially in Horizon GenX and Auto Gen environments the results were clear. Framerates tripled there over FSX (that's with both running the 660Ti), whereas with Radeon framerates were halved on autogen switching from FSX to P3D. Improvements were less spectacular on London X with PMDG but also here Radeon came out worse, a similar result with PacSim. Also remarkable is that OrbX hardly seem to budge whatever card or simulator is running.

 

Of course the HD6870 is a 1gig card and GTX 660ti is a 2gig card, perhaps higher end Radeon cards benefit more from P3D. But it does seem P3D is more nVidia friendly.

But it does seem P3D is more nVidia friendly.

 

...just like FSX.

Then I figured out that when I rename the Prepar3d.exe/Prepar3d.cfg to FSX.exe/FSX.cfg the FPS are much better.

 

Why would you do that? Where did you get that from?

 

Thanks,

Dirk.

...just like FSX.

 

P3D = ESP = FSX...

Goes hand in hand with my results - this is exactly why I removed the article on my blog. Nvidia does seem to be favored in P3D, just like FSX does favor it. But, the improvements are currently very inconsistent. AND there are actually situations in P3D where performance unfortunately still suffers. With the NGX and FSDT airports I actually had pretty much same FPS as in FSX.

P3D = ESP = FSX...

 

With Prepar3D's conversion to SM3.0, I would expect a good performance benefit though.

Here's some numbers:

 

|....Card|ATI.HD6870.|GTX.660.Ti.|

|Scenery.|FSX..|P3D14|FSX..|P3D14|

+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

|ORBX....|.030.|.030.|.030.|.030.|

|LondonX.|.020.|.014.|.025.|.028.|

|GenX....|.030.|.030.|.030.|.090.|

|AutoGen.|.060.|.030.|.030.|.090.|

|PacSim..|.050.|.030.|.030.|.060.|

 

So I swapped my Radeon HD 6870 out for a GTX 660 Ti, and ran some tests with scenarios I ran before. I've estimated an average framerate, and will put up some videos on my channel later.

 

From what I have seen so far, GeForce does give more improvement when switching from FSX to P3D. Especially in Horizon GenX and Auto Gen environments the results were clear. Framerates tripled there over FSX (that's with both running the 660Ti), whereas with Radeon framerates were halved on autogen switching from FSX to P3D. Improvements were less spectacular on London X with PMDG but also here Radeon came out worse, a similar result with PacSim. Also remarkable is that OrbX hardly seem to budge whatever card or simulator is running.

 

Of course the HD6870 is a 1gig card and GTX 660ti is a 2gig card, perhaps higher end Radeon cards benefit more from P3D. But it does seem P3D is more nVidia friendly.

 

The main issue with ATI cards is AA driving GPU usage through the roof with clouds and resource heavy aircraft..

 

My card is an Overclocked 6990 running in AFR Friendly Crossfire mode under Prepar3D. I picked heavy clouds and a resource heavy plane.

 

Look at the GPU load on each GPU core.. That's insanity.. 8X SSAA @ 1920x1080 / 5.5 LOD / Extremly Dense Scenery / Dense Auto Gen / Sky Reflections only (mesh/terrain textures etc are your typical maxed out settings) and it's essentially taking two overclocked 6970's (which is all a 6990 is sandwiched on 1 board) near max load to render the scene. Imagine if only one card/GPU was rendering the scene? Bottleneck city!

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Also to clarify I understand crossfire doesn't mean 2X the performance. It's usually 20-30% depending. It still shows just how demanding this engine is on ATI cards for some reason. On a single card/GPU these same scenes have 1 GPU core pegged at 99% just sitting on the ground and stuttering occasionally when flying.

Goes hand in hand with my results - this is exactly why I removed the article on my blog. Nvidia does seem to be favored in P3D, just like FSX does favor it. But, the improvements are currently very inconsistent. AND there are actually situations in P3D where performance unfortunately still suffers. With the NGX and FSDT airports I actually had pretty much same FPS as in FSX.

 

I JUST got settled in!!! :Frustrated:

 

 

With Prepar3D's conversion to SM3.0, I would expect a good performance benefit though.

 

We have seen substantial performance increases from 1.4

 

It is likely that we should see performance jumps once we have DX11 with v2.

We have seen substantial performance increases from 1.4

 

It is likely that we should see performance jumps once we have DX11 with v2.

 

Well, I meant a performance benefit for AMD cards over FSX. But anyway, now I'll not feel like I'm missing out by sticking to FSX.

I JUST got settled in!!! :Frustrated:

 

Ben, come on man, you DID know when you came into flight simulation world, and especially in the situation we are in now, what you are settling for!

 

We have seen substantial performance increases from 1.4

 

There are some increases. As pointed out before, photoscenery is boosted real well. But doing the list of situations where P3D has more FPS over FSX, and where FSX is better is virtually impossible.