I noticed that the new install had completely ignored the "Prepar3D" folder and just installed to the Lockheed Martin folder! Strange.

Did you tell the installer to use the "Prepar3D" folder? If not, then there's nothing "strange" about it at all... :wacko:

ErichB, people make change for FSX with P3D because they can keep addon FSX with no addon work very good for me 80fps so to buy P3D make no sense if I not use addon.

 

I read all post and same happen again is like giving $1.00 for four quarter some problem exchange for other.

 

What JvanE write is not wrong I get tired of same I wait to see if P3D patch was better but same again and more other problem after I read all post.

 

 

Yes, but unfortunately this is the nature of the beast we have chosen. It has been this way since FSX in 2006 and P3Dv2 is still only 5 minutes old.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it doesn't hurt you if you avoid to install into "program files(x86)"?

Spirit

It doesn't hurt. The reason that people suggest not to install into "c:\program files (x86)" is that they have accidentally installed either FSX or P3d after logging in as a non-administrator account under Windows. Some people did this because they shared a computer with other family members, but there is really no logical reason on a single user system to be using any Windows account type except administrator.

 

I have to say though that I am beginning to get very tired of setting up flightsims… During the last weeks I didn't fly because I wanted to wait for 2.1 and so I played a few games and boy… I could install them and then ENJOY them without having to spend hours to figure out the best settings! In fact, all games I tried ran flawlessly at the highest settings so I only had to spend a few seconds on the option screens ONCE after which I could play the game. Simple as that. This made it clear to me how utterly ridiculous it is how much time we are forced to spend in the flightsims options screens and cfg's… and I also have to say that I am getting sick and tired of it. If I can't get TrackIR working tomorrow (after a complete OS reinstall… it's ridiculous) and if I can't get P3D running in a nice way in a day or so I am inclined to forget about flightsimming and throw everything out of the window.

 

I know exactly how you feel, Jeroen. I recently decided to uninstall FSX and all of my addons, and start from scratch. I have since installed half of my addons, but I am currently in the laborious process of reintegrating the UT2 schedules that I had added. I saved the Databases and PowerPack files folders before I uninstalled UT2, but this didn't work out quite as well as I had hoped, so I have had to reassign ALL of the paint schemes and aircraft that I had added previously. This is a very time consuming and laborious task, and I have not finished it yet. If I subsequently find that my reinstallation has not solved the one second "hard stutter" problems that had appeared from nowhere, then I may be inclined to request permission to use your window for another "give up and go do something less stressful" exercise <_<

It doesn't hurt. The reason that people suggest not to install into "c:\program files (x86)" is that they have accidentally installed either FSX or P3d after logging in as a non-administrator account under Windows. Some people did this because they shared a computer with other family members, but there is really no logical reason on a single user system to be using any Windows account type except administrator.

 

Not 100% and I don't have any personal experience of this since I've never used C:\Program Files (x86) to install any FS version but I've read in some cases you might run into issues installing into this folder even when installing as Administrator since it's system folder which in certain aspects may still not give you the same control as you get in a "normal" folder.

 

Then there's another reason not to install a software such as P3D into this folder and that is for performance reasons. If you have a separate disk it's much better to install P3D (or any other demanding software) to this disk rather than to the same disk where you have your system (Windows) installed. The only exception to this rule I could think of would be if your system disk is a very fast disk such as a SSD disk with lots of free space available where your second disk is a very slow and old physical disk.

 

 

then I may be inclined to request permission to use your window for another "give up and go do something less stressful" exercise

 

Permission granted in advance.  ^_^

It doesn't hurt. The reason that people suggest not to install into "c:\program files (x86)" is that they have accidentally installed either FSX or P3d after logging in as a non-administrator account under Windows.

I've got to partially disagree with this. Although that may well be true in some instances, it most certainly is not in my case, as I always use the administrator account. In fact, I've even taken the steps to insure that I'm always using the real "Super Administrator" account...

 

I've spent on average 12 hours/day over the past twenty-some years in active FS development in one form or another. I have a nearly constant need to have full and unfettered access to any and all files even peripherally related to FS, especially across a local network. My development computer is in my office and my FS test computers are located in my Library/Sound Studio in the next room.

 

This simply cannot be done if any of those files are located in the protected area of ..\Program Files (either one), period.

 

Admittedly my case is uncommon, yet I cannot help but believe that there's no particular downside to having FS or P3D installed to their own uniquely named folders such as x:\FSX or x:\P3D2...

 

On the other hand, there are many advantages that might not be immediately obvious to non-developers besides the obvious one of having unfettered access to reading/writing files without having to worry about UAC et cetera.

 

One of those is "shorter pathnames." As it happens, if one installs the SDKs, some of the full pathnames are simply too long to be used with the command line tools provided!

 

This is just my point of view on the matter, which is not to say that either view is invalid, but rather that there are compelling reasons for mine.

I don't use an admin account, I have no problems with Prepar3D beinginstalled in the "Program Files (x86)" folder.

 

I installed the 2.1 patch over 2.0 and it installed correctly without issue. However, I will admit I heeded the advice to delete the Lookheed-Martin folders in both ProgramData and AppData before doing the update.

 

I loaded Prepar3D 2.1 and changed my frame rate limit to unlimited.

I saw frames in the 50+ range sitting in the default flight on the runway.

I then proceeded to increase all graphics settings to the maximum possible. At no point did I enable AI.

I saw frames in the 20-30 range. While flying around the default flight area, when turning towards the sun I saw frames dip into the teens a couple of times, but otherwise I saw no significant performance issues at all.

 

I'm running an i7 990 Extreme with an NVidia 660 GTX. I did not add any third-party anything. Nothing, nada, zilch. If I can get 20-30fps with absolutely everything at max (yes, I mean EVERY GRAPHIC SETTING, still no AI) with the video card I'm using... people with better systems than mine should be seeing better performance.

 

I don't think the sim performance is broken one bit and yes, that's my professional opinion.

It seems like many are still searching for that silver bullet that is going to make their simulator run like a shoot um up a go go game. It is just not going to happen! There are millions if not trillions of different combos of brands, add ons, operating systems, software combo and the list goes on and on. I am lucky enough to have a dedicated computer for my system and it is set up as clean as I can get it. I am the only user and it does not even have a print program installed. The result has been that I don't see 95% or more of the problems reported for FSX and P3D. It is never perfect but most of the time it gets the job done. For many of you the only answer is to contract a developer to write software for your specific computer and he will be the only one who can make any changes. Not even a windows update. You would never be allowed to even plug or unplug a USB device. You pick one set of software and it can never be changed or updated. Then give him about 25 years to write and test code and get things tuned. At that point you may or may not enjoy maybe 95% without a problem assuming you have perfectly filtered power and never experience a Storm where you live. I wish you the best of luck!! and bring your check book with lots of extra blank checks!!

 

Option 2...Pick a sim and enjoy the millions of things it will do for you! The Silver Bullet was barried by the Lone Ranger and we are not going to find it...Ever!!

 

 

Christopher Low, on 13 Feb 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

then I may be inclined to request permission to use your window for another "give up and go do something less stressful" exercise
 
Permission granted in advance. 

 

Interesting that you say this.  I find myself flying less just because of the complications that often arise.  I've been into flight sims since my Commodore Vic-20 days.  But, there are more issues with them than anything else on my PC.  I have 435 GB of stuff just in my Steam folder for games - and they all work with only an occasional minor issue.  

 

I understand about the complexity of the program itself and the plethora of add ons. That makes sense.   It's fun when we can make a flight from point A to point B without a crash, stopping to make a tweak or some other issue.  But, that doesn't happen as much as I'd like.  Nevertheless, I still do it!

 

 

The result has been that I don't see 95% or more of the problems reported for FSX and P3D.

 

Since you also have a GTX780: How many FPS do you get sitting on a runway at KLAX with the default A36 at daytime with the "fair weather" option? Ideally with FTXG but I would also be interested in the number if you only have the default scenery. I just would love to figure out if I'm the only one which has a poorly performing P3D2 on high end hardware (because P3D is just not utilizing it).

With FTXG and Rex Direct and no weather - about 25 FPS sitting on the runway with the engine running.  Settings mostly maxed.  But, this is so hard to compare this way.  Changing shadows, reflections and traffic levels up or down will change this quite a bit.  Neither CPU or GPU shows being maxed out.  So, you gotta wonder, where is the bottleneck?

Did anyone else notice if  Dino Cattaneo's F14 and T45 where in V2.0?

If you haven't upgraded yet could you take a look for me!

They are not in V2.1! I could be wrong but I am sure I they where in V2.0

Also was the F35B in V2.0?

 

The Only Dino Cattaneo Aircraft is V2.1 is the F35A :unsure:

 

Beyond that I have to say its perfect! Sorry to here that others are having

problems. I was one of those others with V2.0 but V2.1 runs flawlessly on my

system! I only thought I saw intermittent fluidity problems flying over the FTX

Iceland Demo with the vector road lighting enabled.

 

I downloaded that a couple of months ago so it could be that.

 

The only aircraft I added so far the freeware EagleRotor 206B

That works perfectly. I thought I read something about FSDT

has already released Installers for KLAX etc. but I couldn't find

them.

 

I also installed the latest FSUIPC. No issues to report.

 

 

carlito777, on 13 Feb 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:
One additional observation: When I start a flight at KLAX at daytime and "fair weather" with the default A36 and FTXG (no other add-on scenery), I just get around 23-25 fps even though the GPU load is only at 35-40% and the CPU cores are at around 50%. Turning down all the eye-candy doesn't really improve fps. I just don't understand why Prepar3d doesn't use the available resources. Everybody keeps saying that P3D2 needs a powerful GPU, which mine certainly is (GTX780), but then doesn't really utilize it...
 
 
same for me GPU usage at 45 percent, GPU memory at 12 percent with nearly completly maxed out settings (GTX780 4 Gbyte).
 
I really wonder on what machines LM is running and testing P3D..... No fun so far

 

Not being a programmer, there must be a reason for this.  I have the same situation.  I look at the usage of both the CPU and the GPU and there seems to be room to spare.  I must be missing something about how things work on the inside.

Since you also have a GTX780: How many FPS do you get sitting on a runway at KLAX with the default A36 at daytime with the "fair weather" option? Ideally with FTXG but I would also be interested in the number if you only have the default scenery. I just would love to figure out if I'm the only one which has a poorly performing P3D2 on high end hardware (because P3D is just not utilizing it).

I have Frame rates to 33 and most settings to the right ...autogen stuff dense very dense traffic 50% Shadows High and using Global and vector. On the rwy 18-22FPM. Flying over the city at 1500 ft around 22-25FPM. Take off Landing and taxi seem very smooth. Did some low level turns at around 120 indicated with just a very minor studder that goes away well into the turn. Now t is is without a lot of addons. This is with just a quick set up. No real tuning at all.

 

I don't normally fly to these large airports so no real compareson from before