Give 14 a shot. 

 

For P3D2 that may change though, we'll have to see what the patch brings.

Adding the AM in P3d2 is not a tweak, but rather a bug fix. With certain systems, the default affinity mask used in P3d2 that prevents the use of core 0 reduces frame rates.

Adding the AM in P3d2 is not a tweak, but rather a bug fix. With certain systems, the default affinity mask used in P3d2 that prevents the use of core 0 reduces frame rates.

 

Yep. 

 

There was supposed to have been a 14/84 equivalent baked in by default, but it didn't quite work out that way.

 

Maybe 2.1 will change that, we'll have to wait and see.

LM seemed to think that somehow core 0 is hogged by the OS. If one checks core usage during a P3d2 session, there is hardly any load on core 0 with the default settings (no AM). Why waste a hardware resource, especially since the 2.0 version leaned heavily on the CPU for both autogen and AI traffic?

 

 

I have tested pretty thoroughly both ways with 2.0, any difference was well within margin of error territory. I personally have HT enabled for other non-FS related tasks.

 

Thanks for the information. In that case I will stick with HT off since that is my default with FSX.

Affinity mask is always tricky for me because I really don't understand it very well. May I ask,

for and i7 4770k what the appropriate P3D.cfg affinity mask edit should be?

 

I don't run anything else while P3D is running yet :biggrin:!

But I have added the Milviz 737, ORBX Iceland demo and REX essential With OD Textures!

So far I haven't had any black screens yet. (academic since patch is coming) I am using Arwen's GUI

settings (thanks Arwen)

LM seemed to think that somehow core 0 is hogged by the OS. If one checks core usage during a P3d2 session, there is hardly any load on core 0 with the default settings (no AM). Why waste a hardware resource, especially since the 2.0 version leaned heavily on the CPU for both autogen and AI traffic?

 

In my experience that wasn't actually the problem, but of course YMMV.

 

What I saw was that while as you say, Core 0 was left with no load, Core 1 was completely saturated at all times without an AM set, and that is where a lot of the initial stuttering/poor scenery perf seemed to stem from. Setting an AM of 14/no HT or 84/HT resulted in FAR better load balancing across designated cores, and relieved the load on Core 1 significantly.

 

I don't personally mind Core 0 left unloaded as there isn't enough going on in P3D2 to fully load the other 3 anyway, but any core maxed out is going to cause issues.

 

But as I said, YMMV.

P3d2 will use as many cores as you have available. But after a certain point, there is no performance gain by spreading the load out. I've run my system with HT on (24 logical cores) and HT off (12 physical cores) and they all get used. With HT off, if I fool with the AM and limit which cores P3d2 can use,. my frame rates are about the same until I get below 4 physical cores and then performance plummets. There is a very long and drawn out thread here about one physical core being hammered in P3d2 and that core limits performance. LM explained it somewhere, but now I can't find the link to the thread on their official forum.

P3d2 will use as many cores as you have available. But after a certain point, there is no performance gain by spreading the load out. I've run my system with HT on (24 logical cores) and HT off (12 physical cores) and they all get used. With HT off, if I fool with the AM and limit which cores P3d2 can use,. my frame rates are about the same until I get below 4 physical cores and then performance plummets. There is a very long and drawn out thread here about one physical core being hammered in P3d2 and that core limits performance. LM explained it somewhere, but now I can't find the link to the thread on their official forum.

 

Yep, I was part of that thread I'm pretty sure.

 

EDIT: AM actually is the subject of a few threads around here (  :lol: ) but I think this or the one that preceded it might be the one you are thinking of:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/429270-blurries-pictures/

 

 

Just a few more days until we discover which major (new) bug makes it unusable for another 2 months+

 

That's the software business. Nothing unusual.

That's the software business. Nothing unusual.

It's not acceptable in my industry nor should it be in the software industry either!

It's not acceptable in my industry nor should it be in the software industry either!

 

I don't think acceptable is the right term here. Of course, product flaws are not acceptable in any industry, but the reality is that they happen in all industries. Just look at automotive recalls and tech service bulletins. Brand new model year cars go out to dealers with TSBs ALREADY in the system for problems they know about. I'm not defending devs who clearly rush things out the door knowing there are massive show-stoppers, but as someone who has worked in the industry, if you tried to catch every bug and add every feature before pushing the software out the door, well, you'd never have any software to push out the door.

 

The way LM has acted following release shows me that they have a decent commitment to the product and they seemed genuinely concerned about the issues that have been brought forward. I wouldn't really compare them with EA rushing something like Battlefield 4 out the door (which was clearly broken in obvious and multiple ways). Time will tell if they maintain this commitment, but I'm not rushing to judgement after they completely cored out a central piece of the code. It's just too hard to test every edge case.

Mat you compare orange with apple car will not be beta test on road like software on computer, crash to road is not same as crash to desktop.

 

Car can have problem after time like software can also but car sell like finish product, P3D not sell as finish product.

 

Olga Vankranendonk

Mat you compare orange with apple car will not be beta test on road like software on computer, crash to road is not same as crash to desktop.

 

I certainly don't want this thread to devolve into the rants for and against the software development industry, but I will say this. This analogy is not nearly as far off as one might think. Cars are certainly tested thoroughly before release, on the track. I would argue that this "track" is actually extremely akin to the beta test period in the software industry.

 

A crash on the road is quite serious (as opposed to a crash on your computer), and one only needs to remember the Ford Explorer/Firestone design flaws to recognize that not all automotive issues are caught either, and that some issues are indeed fatal.

 

Car can have problem after time like software can also but car sell like finish product, P3D not sell as finish product.

 

If the implication of this sentence is that cars are more finished and usable as compared to P3D, I would say that there are hordes of STi owners with burnt 4th cylinders or 350Z owners with broken camshaft position sensors (or Jeep owners with thrown rods, or S4 owners with cooked turbos, or Civic owners with failed transmissions, I could go on forever) that would disagree. These are all issues that were common on NEW cars of those models (not out of warranty yet).

You can sell software in alpha state these days...look at DayZ for example...

Any chance we could stop discussing the shape of the moon and get back on topic? Does anyone knkw if the master battery value fix they implemented for the patch will solve the issue of some ported aircraft being unable to select apu power?

 

Sent from my Mobile thing

Mat all your example is right lot of car with lot of problem but car work on road when you buy with everything inside car and if car break before warranty is finish manufacturer will repair for free me saying is when you buy car you expect car run good with no problem when you buy P3D you know P3D running with problem.

 

I want P3D to run with no problem but if I buy I know P3D is problem so my decision not to buy again now I buy it before and I did not like I buy again maybe when more ready this time I wait after patch hype is down.

 

Olga Vankranendonk