Prepar3D v2.0 doesn't need any tweaking out of the box like FSX did, but for a lower end system like mine (2.53Ghz processor and GTX 470 graphics card), there is a bit of trial and error required to find the best balance of visual quality and performance. Here are some shots I have taken while messing around with the settings. Keep in mind that in some shots, I turned things way up to see what things looked like, even if I couldn't run it very well. HDR is on in all shots, I believe (minus the one of the Extra VC and F-22...those don't appear to have it on).

 

Great shots.  I have a lower end system as well.  What advice do you have for settings?

Great shots.  I have a lower end system as well.  What advice do you have for settings?

 

I'm running it with the FPS limiter set to unlimited. I haven't noticed a huge impact in higher MSAA and Texture Filtering, but I'd keep them lower just to free up as much GPU usage as possible. Turning off tesselation seemed to give me a bit better FPS, but at the cost of losing all shadows except for those in the VC, so I leave it on. LOD radius for autogen seems to not have a big impact. Autogen doesn't affect performance too much. but lower settings will give a couple extra FPS. The major FPS eater is shadows. I have aircraft, terrain, and building shadows enabled currently. Disable any shadows you can. HDR doesn't affect performance at all for me, so I have it on. Plus, it makes things look a bit better IMO. What I'm finding is that nothing but shadows really affect my performance significantly, but I'm just stuck with 15-23 FPS in most cases.

 

I'm still trying out different things, but this is the knowledge I've gathered so far.

Thanks for the info sir.

Good looking series.  Thanks

I have to say, the default clouds in P3D look pretty good in those screenshots, far surpasses default FSX. And the low lying clouds in the hills are very realistic. Is that the "volumetric" clouds they were talking about? Also, is there any  flicker associated with those clouds around the hills?

 

I have to say, the default clouds in P3D look pretty good in those screenshots, far surpasses default FSX. And the low lying clouds in the hills are very realistic. Is that the "volumetric" clouds they were talking about? Also, is there any  flicker associated with those clouds around the hills?

 

Isn't it amazing what better lighting can accomplish? These are the exact same cloud textures from default FSX, but the improved rendering engine just makes them look better overall.

 

The fog you see is volumetric. The clouds aren't volumetric, but they have better fly-through effects. I haven't done enough testing to see how they cut into mountains. I can't come to a conclusion about flickering yet either, although I haven't seen any yet. I believe months ago they said that one of the benefits of the new rendering engine is that it easily fixes the cloud layering issue. Whether or not that fixes the clouds around hills too, I do not know.

I appreciate your postings...can you post some night screens.

 

Darryl 

I appreciate your postings...can you post some night screens.

 

Darryl 

 

Here you go. These were taken with a full moon and no HDR.

 

 

 

 

 

The only big change is that there is now moon light that creates shadows, based on its position in the sky. I believe the various moon phases will alter the darkness of shadows/amount of light produced, but I have not tested this yet. Scenery night lighting is still the same and requires add-ons to get 3D road lights, etc (this was a graphics engine update, after all, not a scenery update).