I just wish LM would get their poo poo straight.  I don't know why we can't get the same performance out of the prepar3d team as other clients get out of the patriot missile battery team, or their F-22 raptor team.  You never hear their destroyer crews complaining like we do.  These P3D guys must be a bunch of clowns.

 

Sigh

 

ROFL.

 

I suspect that I have come off as a little too unhappy. I was actually getting very pleased with V2.0, then I started getting ooms and my Carenado planes were busted in 2.1. I would just like to see that stuff fixed. When that was coupled with what I felt was others questioning the competence of those of us having problems, I got a little annoyed. My problems are real, I'm not a noob, I have built several computers from scratch, I have a killer rig, and have been flying simulators for over 30 years, etc etc.

 

So, like I have said from day 1, when I bought it and was one of the early people to post about the program, I am happy to wait for them to make the fixes. But if there are problems we have to tell them about them. And if people say, as some inevitably do, that we shouldn't point out the issues, that gets me a little perturbed. When that happens I am likely to point out other issues with the program that are not perfect. It is a spiral, and maybe we should all, not just those who are unhappy, step back a little. Insulting folks doesn't accomplish anything except to make people more determined to be heard. And I agree at this point that harping on the known problems is no longer needed (as long as those problems are acknowledged). 

 

 

You never hear their destroyer crews complaining like we do.  These P3D guys must be a bunch of clowns.

 

I have to believe this was tongue in cheek? I've been on the fence about P3Dv2, waiting to see if it's stable enough for day to day use. Is it possible to do a flight with the Aerosoft A320 from say Phoenix to LAX using FTX Global, Flightbeam KPHX, and FSDT KLAX, without my computer ending up in a pile of ashes?

Can I ask if any content of the mentioned patch will solve the issue of photographic scenery being sluggish or out of focus. I am not suffering from stutters or oom problems as some of you are but my photo scenery was better on 2 than 2.1. I was going to o back to it the other day and sit it out till 2.1 was fixed but they have removed it now from the website. Anyone any idea where I can get 2.0 again? Many thanks , gingerterry

In 1962 at the age of eleven, I borrowed a book on Boolean Algebra from the Library which led eventually to winning a tiny award from the American Mathematical Assc. upon HIgh School graduation 7 years later.

 

My PhD supervisor's father mentored the guy who went on to build the first UNIVAC

 

Yet I am glad I am not in computer programming right now because it seems to be like 

Pendora's Box: Gives one takes away three.

 

It gets so complex... and even with the best programmers which I am sure LM has, there are unseen ghosts and pitfalls.

 

Give them time and they will rock, and they will roll

 

The future:

THEN what was what-four for

IF to only be

THEN replaced by what-five;

ELSE you can really get quantumly entangled with the imaginary integers from elsewhere, eh? (quantum computer)

 

al

Well, after reading all the back and forth between anti LM and anti FSX simmers, all I can say is...............People, relax, sit back and enjoy your flight, no matter what sim you are using !  FS9,FSX, X-10, P3D 2.1, etc...If LM is serious about its product, they will fix it ( don't expect 100% fix  from NO ONE though ! ) eventually.. There are NO more fixes for FSX, but if it works reasonably good enough 4 u , then more power to you...I myself use FSX, fantasize about if and when I will immerse myself in yet another Sim venture ( P3D), but happy with my FSX. I use a 10,000 RPM hard drive exclusively to drive FSX and have good frame rates..use HDMI cable for my 40" HDTV, EVGA 760 OC , and I am flying high... ( in an  IFly 737NG airplane that is) !   Chill out folks, life is TOO SHORT !!!

Well. If, and , or, nor or but?

I didn't quote his exact words, but that's what he means.

When you put words in quotes preceded by a person's name, it means you are quoting their exact words ... NOT what you thought they meant.

 

Firstly, he admits that autogen wasn't moved to the GPU (despite the DirectX 11 blog saying the opposite), and when Word Not Allowed kindly requested that autogen receives better multithreading, since it cannot be moved to the GPU, Beau says that Prepar3D 2.0 is already multithreaded and autogen doesn't need further optimisation. But the task manager says otherwise (not much multithreading taking place, probably not much more than FSX).

THAT is not what Beau said. In my previous post, I pulled out EVERY single instance where he wrote the word threading, optimization, and autogen and I didn't see where he ever stated that autogen wasn't moved to the GPU; or that autogen doesn't need further optimisation.

 

What Beau actually wrote (and my quotes here are used correctly, but the bold font is my addition) was: "There have been many threads devoted to 64-bit so I won’t say much on that. It’s in our long term roadmap but we are still focusing on getting the 32 bit version optimized. As for threading, autogen work is already threaded out. In addition v2 already threads out much more work than was threaded out in v1. It may not always look that way from CPU utilization stats because a good deal of threaded terrain work is now done on the GPU.

Performance always has been and will continue to be something we are always working on be it directly or indirectly. Performance is a broad topic covering the entire application, the entire range of application settings, and the entire range of supported hardware. There are countless interdependent features sharing various hardware and software resources (CPU, GPU, RAM, vRAM, HD, User input, Operating System, etc). We have to carefully consider the impacts across the entire performance spectrum before making a decision to move work into a background job or onto the GPU."

 

Also, I didn't spell "optimise" wrong. This is how it's spelt in British English. "Optimize" is correct in American English, and I choose to use the former.

Since Lockheed Martin is a US company, the American form of OPTIMIZE would have been used if what Beau wrote was an actual quote, instead of your interpretation of what he said. THAT was my point.

 

You challenged us to "Go through the entire thread." I did exactly that ... and called your bluff. You totally misrepresented what Beau wrote in that thread, and that is just plane wrong.

What Beau is saying is, since Prepar3D 2.0 has so many new effects, most of the time you'll be GPU-bound, which will cover the fact that the application is still heavy on the CPU. That's what you're missing.

 

Also, since you're so stuck up on spelling, it's "plain wrong".

 

 

You never hear their destroyer crews complaining like we do.  These P3D guys must be a bunch of clowns.

 

I think perhaps is joke...  B)

What Beau is saying is, since Prepar3D 2.0 has so many new effects, most of the time you'll be GPU-bound, which will cover the fact that the application is still heavy on the CPU. That's what you're missing.

Beau is American - we are American - *we* do not need anyone to tell us WHAT HE MEANS.

 

If that's how YOU interpret it - just fine and dandy but really? What in the world gives YOU the right to tell US what HE means? We are capable of reading.

 

Don't you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

 

Vic

What Beau is saying is, since Prepar3D 2.0 has so many new effects, most of the time you'll be GPU-bound, which will cover the fact that the application is still heavy on the CPU. That's what you're missing.

 

Also, since you're so stuck up on spelling, it's "plain wrong".

Beau didn't say that... not one bit.

 

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what was said? I have to suspect so and then must question why AVSIM would allow this to continue.

 

Mods, please... review his/her posts and compare their tone and accuracy. Especially at the point where the accuracy is contradicted and what the response is (further misdirection). I really am starting to think the goal is to poison the discussion and nothing more.

It's one thing to report an issue.  It's quite another to complain about it, and worse to do it constantly.  Please, report issues;  we all need to know.  But complaining won't make the issue have a greater priority to get fixed, or get the fix to you sooner. 

 

Hook

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

 

The squeakiest wheels go to the scrap yard.

A lot of people keep equating the sliders in P3DV2 to FSX or 1.4 but it has been beat to death that they are not equivalent at all.

 

A perfect example of this is the LOD radius in FSX it was 4.5 on the highest setting. In P3Dv2 it is 6.5 at the same setting. Someone who I will not name posted a "comparison" of FSX and P3D2 showing their sliders and saying that at the same settings they get worse framerates and nothing was improved - I'm sorry but this is total garbage.

 

Not only that but some settings will impact others as well so unless you run nearly every possible scenario its hard to say that this setting does this or that or will yeild x performance gain/loss. Example 2: Shadows - if you run low autogen you may be able to crank shadows on autogen objects but if you run near extreme settings you exponentially increase the number of shadows that need to be rendered so you will likely crush your GPU and CPU.

 

The devs over there have repeatedly stated this and have given examples of WHY they let you have full control of the sim parameters. Just because the sliders are there doesn't automatically mean that they can all be put to max if you have a good system. I also use XPlane 10 and it is laughable but people over there complain of the exact same thing about "why can't I max all the sliders".  64 bit was not the magic bullet for them and I doubt it would be for P3D either. Sure I can make XPX use 12 gigs of memory and eat all 6 gigs on the titan  but whats the point if you run at 5 FPS.  The sliders are there because not everyone flys the same aircraft at the same speeds and altitudes. When you tune your sim it is not the same for a tubeliner doing mach .8 at FL380 and a helicopter hovering low over a high detail city...

Its quite easy to top the GPU and the CPU with P3D if you're not carefull about your sliders and dont have a killer system. I was testing yesterday starting with a scenario with all sliders at minimum setting, clear sky, rural airport and moving to maximum one slider at the time while recording FPS, cpu speed and gpu usage.

 

With everything at minimum, I ran at 134 FPS on one screen (I usually run surround) and 43% GPU. Core 0 at 10% (window), Core 1 100%, the other two at 20%.

 

One of the most interesting finding is if you click all shadows items on. On my system with 2 years old card (2 x GTX 580 3GB in my case), I saturate both GPU to 99% immediately and this is with all other slider to minimum so there is not so many autogen objects to cast shadow. GPU saturation cause a decrease in FPS witch in the end releive the stress on the CPU. So this scenario result in 70 FPS, 99% GPU and core 0, 1 and 3 similar to the base test and core 2 reduced to 80% of its power. So the CPU is less solicited than in the minimum scenario but the GPU much more.

 

All the others sliders gave me more reasonnable increase when pushed to the right one at the time (volumetric fog, autogen, road trafic were the most demanding, not surprizingly) but i found in the end that whenever I start to move several of them to the right, the limitation is almost always on the GPU on my system. The CPU has still a lot of headroom to operate when my two cards are topped to the roof...

 

So you have to determine what of the multiple choice of graphics setting you want to keep considering your system.