Be alright with me if you just keep developing it then let us know when its been perfected.

 

Wouldn't that be my opinion?

 

 

 

BTW I trust Word Not Allowed's sim opinions far more than yours. It's just a personal thing I reckon. No offense.

 

Not sure how this is relevant to anything, but no offense taken at all.  I'm not looking for trust (it's not something I seek) nor am I coming to conclusions about P3Dv2 AutoGen vs. FSX AutoGen and blogging about it.  But in my opinion, I think it's close to impossible to compare AutoGen systems when one system grows, shrinks, pops (FSX) and the other doesn't (P3Dv2).

I am watching the GTX 780 market at the moment, since in addition to the GTX 780 and the GTX 780 TI, there have been announcements of so-called "black editions" of the TI card.

 

nVidia are planning to release Maxwell GPU's next year 2014 followed by Volta in 2015-16.  Maxwell should push the price of the Titan and 780's down.

 

GPU development is moving at a brisk pace compared to CPU development, which is another plus for P3Dv2 moving more to the GPU ... long term scalability with significant GPU improvements 1-2 years away.  Volta is aimed at 1TB/sec with stacked DRAM in the range of 8GB to 16GB ... which is 3X better than my Titan.

 

For Flight Simulation, moving CPU to GPU is key to it's future success ... and GPU development is looking very good for the near future.

Last gasp... Have you tried installing it completely outside the system's folders, such as in C:\P3D instead?

Thanks for suggestions,. Yes, I am using a dedicated ssd drive for installation.

 

Sent from my SC-02E using Tapatalk 2

 

 

You'll need to correct this problem before proceeding.

 

Agree. But, how can I locate what's wrong with my system without knowing what has really changed between v1.4 and v2? I am running v1.4 with gazillion addons at same rig without single crash. That's why we need support from LM. Hopefully there'll be more support from them since holiday is over.

 

 

 

Sent from my SC-02E using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Just give up..  I love P3D but v2 is severely flawed and nothing you can post here is going to change that.. Some flaws are affecting others more than the majority but they indeed exist and they are indeed deal breaking.

 

I never intended to go back to FSX but I did and this time with a Nvidia card in tow... I have never had this good of a time in FSX....  P3D v2 failures have been a blessing in a sense because I'm actually having fun flying and learning again i(ironic amirite?)  instead of crossing my legs, clicking my heels and hoping the next frame rendered or menu mouse click doesn't result in a crash. 

 

I hope Wes, Beau and the rest of the team figure this out as they are good people but.. Seriously.. Cut your loses for now..

I hope Wes, Beau and the rest of the team figure this out as they are good people but.. Seriously.. Cut your loses for now..

 

I agree and it is great to see this platform being further developed and refined.

 

Cut loses? What loses? It is working for me better than FSX ever did! 

 

But maybe that's because I am running a mid range pc and my expectations at this stage are only to run it smoother than I can with FSX (albeit with additional cockjpit shadows, volumetric and non spinning clouds, a small amount of terrain shadows, HDR lighting), etc... etc.... Oh and did I mention it is smooth? With more visual autogen? And NO POPPING?

 

Are people really missing their point as they flop their m*nhood on the table in their quest to be seen as the penultimate answer? You milage may vary .... try it and see. It will cost you next to nothing to try and I suspect that many of you might be pleasantly surprised. Remember, tune the P3D2 to your pc specs, then compare. It really is quite simple. 

"Remember, tune the P3D2 to your pc specs, then compare. It really is quite simple. " +1000

After a weekend enjoying smooth flights all around the globe... :biggrin:  :biggrin: 

Do problems exist?  Yes, absolutely.

 

Are there, if not solutions, at least workarounds available for them?  Yes.

 

I have applied all the Band-aids suggested here to mitigate the various problems, and they all work.  I don't get crashes when clicking menus because, until LM issues a patch, I have applied the same workaround that fixes the same problem that exists in FSX.  I don't get black screens, because I simply won't do the things that cause them until LM issues a patch.  I don't get OOMs anymore because I have set the graphics to reasonable levels (but better than FSX) that my hardware can sustain.

 

The result?  Smooth, beautiful flying without the autogen pop-up, stutters, and other FSX distractions.  The only "loss" for me would be if I did return to FSX.

 

In any case, now that the long holiday weekend is over, I expect we'll be hearing more from the LM team about solutions.  Applying for your one-and-only refund immediately after the purchase when you have a 60-day window is a little short-sighted and impulsive.

 

 

When the GPU's VRAM in use goes to 100%, it has an immediate adverse impact on CPU performance and VAS size in P3DV2. I have proven this to my own satisfaction using my own 2GB GTX660 while monitoring GPU, CPU, VRAM and VAS, while trying different graphics settings.

 

AH, interesting! I was wondering about this all the time and asked about this but I didn't get a definitive answer yet. So if your findings are correct, that means that getting a GPU with more VRAM will prevent OOMs.

 

Let's say P3D needs to stuff 2.5 GB in the VRAM. I have a GTX580 so 1.5 GB goes into VRAM and the other 1 GB goes in to the normal RAM, leaving 3 GB for everything else (since the max is 4 GB). So if I would get a GTX780 and P3D needs 2.5 GB again, it ALL goes into the VRAM and P3D has 4 GB to do whatever is needed. Is this what you are saying? 

 

With my current GPU and setup normal RAM usage is between 3 to 3.5 GB in a certain situation that always leads to an OOM. If I would buy a GTX780, would VAS be something like 2 GB…?

Don't mix up physical RAM and OOM-related Virtual Address space (VAS).

 

The 4 GB VAS is the 'hard' limit.

 

Running out of physical RAM simply means, that additional data will be stored and read from the HDD.

I would assume that not having enough VRAM would induce stutters rather than OOMs.

I can't believe people are accusing Word Not Allowed of using an underpowered GPU and thinking that this is the culprit of low autogen performance. In his autogen tests, his GPU is not being maxed out. He's CPU-limited. Autogen is running on the CPU.

 

Please take a thorough look at both his performance analysis and autogen comparison, and then try to prove me wrong. What's he's posting is the actual results.

 

P.S. AffinityMask automatically sets Core 0 free only when you use a 6-core CPU or higher.

Don't mix up physical RAM and OOM-related Virtual Address space (VAS).

 

The 4 GB VAS is the 'hard' limit.

 

Running out of physical RAM simply means, that additional data will be stored and read from the HDD.

 

Er… at first I though your post was enlightening but after reading it twice I am totally confused LOL

 

Maybe someone can post a RAM-guide for newbies?   The way you say it makes it seem to me that you only get an OOM-message when the VAS has been filled… so this has nothing to do with RAM…? But isn't there also a physical RAM limit of 4 GB? Don't you get an error when that reaches 4 GB then? Or do you only get an OOM when physical RAM and VAS has been filled which would add up to 8 GB before you get an OOM? And where does VRAM fit in here? Does whatever doesn't fit into VRAM get moved to physical RAM or VAS…? As you see: total confusion.  :blush:  ^_^

 

EDIT

Here is a picture I made of how I currently see it:

 

which would be important if the affinity mask consumes very little CPU resources, in my case does not reach 20%

Er… at first I though your post was enlightening but after reading it twice I am totally confused LOL

 

Maybe someone can post a RAM-guide for newbies?   The way you say it makes it seem to me that you only get an OOM-message when the VAS has been filled… Correct. so this has nothing to do with RAM…? Not at all. But isn't there also a physical RAM limit of 4 GB? No: In my FSX RAM usage goes up to 6 GB. If my RAM were 4 GB only, the remaining 2GB would be stored (and read from) the HDD. My physical RAM is 8 GB, so no RAM/HDD memory swaps should occur on my system. A 32bit OS would only use a maximum of 4 GB physical RAM, but that restriction is lifted with a 64bit OS. But even with a 64bit OS your flightsim application is 32bit only (unless it's X-Plane.  ) Don't you get an error when that reaches 4 GB then? No. (for the physical 4 GB RAM) Or do you only get an OOM when physical RAM and VAS has been filled which would add up to 8 GB before you get an OOM? No: VAS is the limit (4 GB for 32bit applications) And where does VRAM fit in here? Does whatever doesn't fit into VRAM get moved to physical RAM or VAS…? It gets moved into physical RAM ... BUT VRAM usage also has an impact on VAS usage - that's where things get REALLY complicated!!! :unsure: . As you see: total confusion.  :blush:  ^_^

 

 

EDIT:

 

For a 32bit OS, you will reach the VAS limit earlier, because everything (the sim and the OS) have to share those 4 GB of VAS.

 

In that case your VAS limit usually "defaults" to 2 GB, as set in the OS. It can be "tweaked" to a maximum of about 3 GB, but not to the full 4 GB calculated from the 32bit address width.

Edited December 2, 201312 yr by olli4740