I don't think that you're going to get a definitive answer to that question, because of the variety of CPUs, GPUs and add-ons that are being used with P3d. Then on top that, where you fly also makes a big difference in performance. And I'm saying all that within the context that I display FPS, CPU use and GPU use on screen while flying.  I could tell you how my system performs when adjusting IQ settings, but it wouldn't tell you much about how your system would behave.

My take on this, after reading a LOT of posts and comparing other's experience with my own is that there is no clear understanding.  The problem is that the impact from settings varies greatly between systems. For some users, their GPU may be the bottleneck, while for others it may be their CPU.

 

Add to that the huge diversity of addons (that we are already using), along with all the various ways that we have each installed addon configured. For instance, if you have a 3rd party weather engine like ASN installed, and have pushed Cloud Layers higher then the default 5, and are flying in a heavy overcast, something like Prepar3D's Cloud Density is likely going to have a MUCH greater impact (than if you are using a P3D default weather theme).

 

EDITED: jabloomf1230, we were posting at about the same time (I'm just really slow at putting my thoughts into words) . .  and we pretty much stated the same thing.

From my experience the hard hitters are:

 

1. Cloud shadows, especially in heavy cloud.

 

2. Shadow map. The lower the map the more "edgy" your shadows will be. Think of it as AA for your shadows. Ultra results in super smooth, very realistic looking shadows - but is an absolute fps hog. Medium is the best compromise.

 

3. Tessellation. Not 100% sure what this even does, other than it's used for night lighting and supposedly better waves. My understanding of tessellation is that it adds detail to what would normally be a very basic model by increasing polygon count when close up, but I don't think this is all it does in P3D. I couldn't notice much difference between low and ultra, other than the performance hit.

 

The rest have gradual impact. Turning down autogen for example will relieve stress on the system and give you some FPS back, but each step is quite gradual, unlike the above, where each step (or on/off) is a fairly substantial difference.

 

I find though that my processor isn't fast enough and the scenery loading tends to lag behind my flight speed, even at 140kts or so. 3 out of 4 cores seems to mostly be maxxed out (i5 @ 3.6GHz). This results in blurries and "transforming" terrain. Something that seemed to not happen as much in FSX.

 

Unless you have an absolute beast of a computer, or turn down settings to = FSX or less, then I think P3D still has some way to go. At the moment it still feels a lot like FSX bar the colour pallet. I.E. A constant struggle to balance FPS and image quality.

 

 

and we pretty much stated the same thing.

 

Then it must be true. :lol:

Would be helpful to include your resolution and monitor count when reporting on performance. I think this has a pretty big effect on what performance you can get out of your system, especially for lesser cards.