Since the settings aren't comparable... how did you actually set comparable settings?

 

And I'm being serious.

Running comparable settings except for Interior/Exterior/Simobjects shadowing enabled, terrain,cloud shadowing disabled, volumetric clouds disabled in P3D, and no traffic.

 

No hate here, but you'll need to turn off Tessellation and HDR to be more like FSX.  You'll also need to set to Unlimited frames on both ... that'll get you closer to FSX (still not exactly the same, but closer).  But be aware that FSX is more CPU bound, P3DV2 is more GPU bound ... so a Titan in FSX does nothing for performance, but a Titan in P3DV2 does indeed show a performance benefit.  Since FSX is CPU limited, you're not going to expose performance weaknesses in the GPU.

 

I don't use nVidia Inspector any more.

 

Cheers, Rob.

....despite the better exterior shadowing and excellent interior shadowing in P3D, which imo are the only advantages as of now.

 

 

Maybe, but these make such a big difference, combined with P3D's overall lighting, colouration and contrast, that it adds up to a beguiling whole... oh, and that volumetric fog. I still fire-up FSX and revel in its smoothness (I did so today in fact) with the ability to use 1/2 v-sync and really nice AA modes, but then I realise how flat the terrain looks in terms of lighting and shadowing, and then I notice the Autogen popping all around me, and suddenly things seems less rosy.

 

I have not done any serious comparison, but I know I get much better performance in v2.2 if I strip it back to FSX levels of visuals, or as close as I can.. its only the new features, when used in combination, that will pull it below the old platform.

 

To me, P3D looks close to the real world when sat in the cockpit (esp. using FTXG and regions) in a way FSX simply does not, and that means, despite how beautifully fluid FSX is, that P3D wins out.

 

I do understand where you are coming from though, and guess in the balance of things some things are more important to some over others... so no hate.

 

Keep doing as you are, and keep both.

No hate here, but you'll need to turn off Tessellation and HDR to be more like FSX.  You'll also need to set to Unlimited frames on both ... that'll get you closer to FSX (still not exactly the same, but closer).  But be aware that FSX is more CPU bound, P3DV2 is more GPU bound ... so a Titan in FSX does nothing for performance, but a Titan in P3DV2 does indeed show a performance benefit.  Since FSX is CPU limited, you're not going to expose performance weaknesses in the GPU.

 

When you turn off tessellation, doesn't that move terrain paging back to the CPU and disable the dynamic lighting? That would make Prepar3D 2.2 as CPU-bound as FSX.

^ I guess that's Rob's point...in addition the autogen LOD settings would also need to be backed off for an apples to peaches comparison.

To me it seems pointless to try to compare P3D to FSX now as they are growing ever more dissimilar, and an apples to apples comparison will never be achievable nor is it useful anymore as it is not not a matter of  if, but when P3D will become the most used platform amongst simmers. As with FS9 and FS2004 before that the transition won't be night and day, but look how far the platform has come just since November. With a little time for hardware to catch up to the sim, and with LM's continued support ( :Praying:), I have a feeling she'll really start rounding in to form in the next year or so. I think a lot of people are scared because they are waiting for the other shoe to drop as it did with FSX when MS closed ACES right when FSX was just starting to get cleaned up with SP2, and Acceleration, we saw the DX10 preview and it seemed like the platform was going to be alright when unfortunately the bottom dropped out just as we started getting our hopes up. I think people are understandably gun shy when it comes to P3D as in some ways it seems too good to be true (addon developers onboard, continued development, reasonable price tag, community feedback encouraged, etc.), so when we express that by, in some cases, premature or overly harsh criticism to protect ourselves emotionally from the big dark scary monster of the idea of a dead end platform and our hobby not progressing. Just my simmer psychology session for the day...love you all 

I don't see why there should be any worry. At least two more point updates (2.3 and 2.4) were confirmed for 2014.

I hear what you all are saying, but in my experience thus far, particularly in urban areas, the difference is night and day. And autogen popping in my FSX is really not that bad, not sure about others. One thing I have noticed in P3D, which is not a total buzz kill, but you can clearly see the line in the distance where autogen is rendering.

 

So, it is true that I did not disable tesselation, because I found no performance difference with it activated or not, set to low, or ultra. Maybe someone else can confirm.

 

I never used HDR, looks pretty terrible, so that is turned off. I am running my Sweetfx profile in FSX with little to no performance detriment and looks amazing. I do run unlimited for both. I used to be a believer in the1/2 V-Sync philosophy, but I have had better luck internally limiting at 45 or setting unlimited depending on the situation. FSX NI has been set to regular old standard Force V-sync, and for some time now.

 

Again, I agree that P3D with all the shadowing looks incredible, especially when u throw some nice paywares into the mix, but there are periodic slowdowns particularly in urban areas or heavy cloud cover, that simply don't happen in FSX for me. Besides the fact that in P3D, I am running the lowest possible resolution for upper and lower clouds with DXT compression, through REX Direct

 

Personally I would be really happy to have the old terrain shadowing that was present in FSX back. No one can deny the Shade addon taking that to the next level, and had zero detriment to performance. I don't know, but imo, something in regards to the way the new autogen rendering is loaded to the gpu is extremely taxing in P3D. I am no programming expert and I may be way off, but I'm just reporting what I have witnessed.

 

Maybe this will all become a non issue as GPU's mature further and when SLI support becomes a reality.

Okay i testet some of Robs settings without traffic though with the Carenado Bonanza in KLAX/FSDT/FTXGlobal and in LEBL/EL Prat and Barcelona City during night and dawn with some pretty amazing colour shifts and performance was avg 30fps in KLAX and 40FPS in LEBL with ASN at 90nm and Dense settings and MAX tesselation no cloud shadows.

 

Some small stutter did accour some times . I recorded internally a short flight. Dont now how to export it though so i can upload.

 

Michael

I think the best price/performance GPU will be the GTX 790 due in May.

 

 

When I saw that GPU announced, it made me think that nVidia was just trying to clear out its backlog of Keplers. There have been a good number of leaks and rumors regarding Maxwells, including this:

 

http://videocardz.com/50301/nvidia-preparing-maxwell-gm204-kepler-gk210-gpus

 

Also note the GK210, which looks like a binned version of the GK110 probably slotted for Titan Zs

And autogen popping in my FSX is really not that bad, not sure about others. One thing I have noticed in P3D, which is not a total buzz kill, but you can clearly see the line in the distance where autogen is rendering.

 

 

After all these years of the community pleading for a solution to autogen popping in FSX and now that it's virtually eliminated in P3d, the problem in FSX is "really not that bad"? Other than going back to the old incredibly inefficient mode of using the alpha channel to gradually make autogen appear, one is always going to see the line where it is rendering, if one is intent on focusing at that spot on the screen. In P3d, autogen rendering does not ruin the immersion, especially when compared to FSX which just slaps big blobs of trees and buildings into the distance. 

 

I always thought that it would be funny for someone to make an FSX add-on that added a champagne cork pop sound to the autogen rendering routine.

Of course, he compared SweetFX-enhanced FSX to Prepar3D minus HDR. Because... well, you know... that's "comparable settings".

 

In the end... as I stated... how did you do what you claim... when it's simply not possible? You didn't, and your post above proves it.

Of course, he compared SweetFX-enhanced FSX to Prepar3D minus HDR. Because... well, you know... that's "comparable settings".

 

In the end... as I stated... how did you do what you claim... when it's simply not possible? You didn't, and your post above proves it.

 

Maybe comparable was the wrong choice of words. But it is only an observation that on my particular system and  putting in my best efforts to following and implementing all the info we have to date to improve performance, FSX seems to perform better overall on my system. It actually makes me wonder if others had FSX even running to its full potential to begin with and comparing would actually be a moot point.

 

Fly through the same heavy urban areas with cloud cover on my system and you will agree and you will see a more significant drop in performance in P3D, even with dumbed down settings. Have you actually been curious enough to try? 

 

Believe me...I'm not trying to defend FSX. I really want to kick this thing to the curb.

I get significantly smoother performance in heavy autogen areas such as YVR in P3D than in FSX+DX10 (with years worth of tuning). And this is still with HDR, cloud and terrain shadows on at 10K, and autogen density at very high.

 

In FSX I could feel the CPU bottleneck when approaching a busy airport, whereas it seems much less noticeable now in P3D, even with the eye-candy. AA is the still one thing I'm hoping to see improved, but I'm sure that will come in time.  

 

BTW, I'm also running a 680.

My point is that you can come in here and state you can't get Prepar3D to perform as well as FSX on your system. That's fine, and I can believe that. You don't get to state that you set up both sims with "comparable settings". That's essentially a lie and I'm well versed enough in the physical code differences as well as the range of possible values for settings between the two sims to know, there are hardly any 'comparable settings' any longer.

 

I'm not falling to either side of the 'fence' on this... each person has to pick the sim that works best for them.

 

I do, however, get tired of misinformation... be it intentional or otherwise. So I speak up when I see something that's not accurate.

My point is that you can come in here and state you can't get Prepar3D to perform as well as FSX on your system. That's fine, and I can believe that. You don't get to state that you set up both sims with "comparable settings". That's essentially a lie and I'm well versed enough in the physical code differences as well as the range of possible values for settings between the two sims to know, there are hardly any 'comparable settings' any longer.

 

I'm not falling to either side of the 'fence' on this... each person has to pick the sim that works best for them.

 

I do, however, get tired of misinformation... be it intentional or otherwise. So I speak up when I see something that's not accurate.

 

He did state that "comparable settings" was not the right choice of words. No need to take this further.