It's not a trivial task - hopefully I didn't present it as such. But there are optimization available for DX11 that aren't available for DX9.

 

The MJC Q400 ... is a very complex aircraft similar to the 777 (in terms of feature implementation) but has a lower VAS footprint than the QW BAe146 and the 777. Bare in mind the MJC Q400 isn't designed for P3DV2.x but they are working on a version for P3D.

 

As far as I know, there aren't any Aircraft "designed for" P3DV2.x, most are updated to "work with" P3DV2.x with the focus being FSX.

 

That reminds me, I need to see how the MJC Q400 is working on my current beta build (it wasn't work so well in 2.1 but worked well in 2.0).

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Hi Rob,

 

Thanks for all your insights into 2.2. Did you get a chance to test the Q400 with 2.2 ?

 

Regards

I'm gone for a couple of days and come back to a great piece of news and work.  Excellent job Rob!  Prepare3D keeps rising in my list.  Glad to see the VAS issue is, to the extent possible, behind them. 

 

Gregg

As promised, the video I made of my CYZT to KSFO flight.  Video includes screen shots of VAS usage thru-out flight, also includes 3rd party products used and at the end includes screen shots of the graphics settings used - in other words self contained with all the info needed (you just have to watch it or at least fast forward to the points of interest).  It's not a particularly "spectacular" video as objective was long flight to see how VAS is consumed.

 

I kept AutoGen at Very Dense for both Building/Vegetation primarily because I wanted "landable" frame rates when I reached KSFO ... you'll see what I call low frame rates (other's call stutters) when I get close to SF/BayArea on my decent -- I fully expected this (SLi/Crossfire will help out here once fully supported).

 

I'm typically not a longer hauler person, I try to keep flights around 1 hour so this 3+ hour flight demo allowed me to do some laundry, cleanup my office and other various odd jobs around the house  Please excuse the landing, it's been a while since I've flown the QW RJ100.

 

Here is the video - it's highly compressed down from 114GB to 1GB - I targeted 8Mbps this time rather than 16Mbps (put to be honest I prefer 16Mbps quality) - it's available in 1440p: 

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

P.S.  Will test out the MJC8 Q400 today.

 

EDIT: here is the download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw0Q-fAfEZwyWnRBTlZXa1FtNzg/edit?usp=sharing

OK...I'm ready for the patch now....

 

 

As promised, the video I made of my CYZT to KSFO flight.....

 

Nice video. Two questions:

 

1. In your opinion, do you see better performance with v2.2 in night environments? I like night flying but it really taxes my system.

2. I noticed in the last few seconds of your video some outside camera views. Were these done with v2.2's new flight recording system?  If so, how is that working out? (I'm particularly interested in a good in-sim recording system for playback of landings and whatnot).

 

 

1. In your opinion, do you see better performance with v2.2 in night environments?

 

I haven't really noticed a difference between day or night in terms of performance.  I have Orbx Vector 1.1 installed which will generate more road traffic which impacts VAS and FPS, but for day or night I haven't seen a difference.

 

 

 

2. I noticed in the last few seconds of your video some outside camera views. Were these done with v2.2's new flight recording system?

 

No, that view is the standard "FlyBy".  I have done some testing with the new flight recording system but I had some issues with my setup and have reported to LM.

hi,

Great video!

Didn't you take off downwind?

 

 

I haven't really noticed a difference between day or night in terms of performance. I have Orbx Vector 1.1 installed which will generate more road traffic which impacts VAS and FPS, but for day or night I haven't seen a difference.

 

Thanks for the info. I have Orbx Global and and Vector 1.1 as well. I typically see a fairly good drop in FPS at night (which I find counter-intuitive since less objects are visible, but what do I know...).

You are using a gfx Titan graphics card, right?

 

 

Didn't you take off downwind?

 

Probably, but I don't think there was much wind ... I also rotated too soon.  I was actually surprised the RJ100 could take off on such a short runway ... but there again, I've taken off and landed at KCCR in a BAe146 real world (as passenger) so I know they can operate out of very short runways.

 

 

You are using a gfx Titan graphics card, right?

 

Yes, just one Titan ... for now

Thank you Rob, for your helpful videos and posts. Looking forward to the 2.2 update.

Cheers,

Greg 

I don't think it's good form to interject bits about X-Plane into threads about P3D2.2. A few months back when X-Plane was doing 64-bit beta testing would it have been appropriate to wander over and start with "Well that's good and all, but when will they get buildings at their airports?" or "FSX/P3D has multiple seasons, is that something coming soon?"

 

Does that enhance the discussion of the sim at hand? I don't think so, it's just another comparison thread which we have plenty of. 

Regarding the X-Plane stuff...we all have the option to just blow by it, not read it. It was off topic, but really, so many threads that I read wander around...as I'm doing to this one now. So what if one post goes off a bit...it's the moderator's job ( I think) to keep it on topic when/if things get out of hand.      

Quick report back, testing out MJC Q400 ... sadly is still a case of bad "stutters" (not a frame rate issue).  As I understand it the Q400 "slews" thru the world so it's very possible something specific with P3DV2.x slew mode (I made sure all my controllers were disabled for slew mode, but unfortunately no help).  So I think we'll just have to wait for Majestic to provide a P3DV2.x specific version.

 

Cheers, Rob.

That's pretty much the consensus om the MJDash8 Rob. Thanks though.

IMHO, I dont think micro analyzing for every little micro stutter is productive right now. Its the Overall experience that we are looking for, and as long as the FPS is decent and it gives a relativly smooth result, then its a step in the right direction, barring any large stutters/pauses etc. I dont think it will be perfect as flight simulation is very hard on a computer as it is even for todays computing power. As important is to get the VAS under control, and the rest can be played with and worked around.

 

 

Rob,

 

Does LM know why FSX/P3D retain texture memory footprint? The CYZP -KSFO flight had around a 1GB VAS increase. But there shouldnt be a reason why it increases that much if the simulator is able to release used textures. The fact that its increased so much means it has retained some of the PNW with it and on into NOCAL. But why? Its not useful anymore.  The aircraft footprint obviously remains, and I doubt NOCAL has such a huge increase in VAS than PNW.  If you went the other way, the result would be approximately the same I would think. 

 

So while there was excellent progress in making things like the trees use much less memory per tree, the sim really needs to get rid of used memory after a certain radius around the aircraft.   Or perhaps Im missing something and or its just not that simple. (Obviously not simple or it wouldve been resolved by now)