Only if together with a Mantle implementation.

 

DirectX 12 would be better.  :wink:

Mantle is proprietory to AMD and said to be an alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL. Is Prepar3D likely to replace all its graphics code?

+1 for performance gain!! can´t wait!!

DirectX 12 would be better.  :wink:

 

 

That doesn`t exist yet. :wink:

 

mgh

Mantle is proprietory to AMD and said to be an alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL. Is Prepar3D likely to replace all its graphics code?

 

He who i quoted replied with a similarly proprietary solution, which is why i made a counter suggestion.

 

And as i said after, i think LM has more potential speed benefit hidden in their own programming than by making customized brand-specific optimizations.

Does true SLI work right now with nvidia gtx780ti's or is it a work around? When will SLI be officially supported?

That doesn`t exist yet. :wink:

 

And? By the time Lockheed Martin will be able incorporate Mantle support, DirectX 12 will be out.

 

I can't see how an official NVIDIA profile is a "proprietary solution", it's part of normal driver optimisation. It's not a feature that will be blocked on AMD GPUs.

I can't see how an official NVIDIA profile is a "proprietary solution", it's part of normal driver optimisation. It's not a feature that will be blocked on AMD GPUs.

 

.I think you've got that the wrong way round.

• A driver within the AMD Catalyst™ software suite that lets applications speak directly to the Graphics Core Next architecture;

  http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/mantle#overview

   

 .I think you've got that the wrong way round.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. An official NVIDIA profile is part of normal driver optimisation, and AMD can do the same if they want to fully support Prepar3D. Mantle is an API which Lockheed Martin have to implement into Prepar3D, and only AMD GPUs will benefit from that.

I did misunderstand. As I said, Mantle is proprietory to AMD and said to be an alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL. Is Prepar3D likely to replace all its graphics code?

I did misunderstand. As I said, Mantle is proprietory to AMD and said to be an alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL. Is Prepar3D likely to replace all its graphics code?

 

Actually Mantle was built so that DirectX games can be ported to Mantle more easily compared to any other API like OpenGL. But Lockheed Martin won't do that because only a small amount of their userbase would benefit.

 

DirectX 12 on the other hand...

This is so great to see in their determination, and all for the performance gain. But I'm wondering how much can you hash out on old code, "retrofitting" here and there, and bandaid fixes elsewhere. I guess its the only thing we can do right now, in squeezing out every single little drop possible. I often wonder though what a flightsim would run like if it was built from the ground up with modern code of today if it wouldve beem better in the long run. Our machines are always being pushed to the absolute max to get a few extra fps. 

You can put lipstick on a pig..... :>)

This is so great to see in their determination, and all for the performance gain. But I'm wondering how much can you hash out on old code, "retrofitting" here and there, and bandaid fixes elsewhere. I guess its the only thing we can do right now, in squeezing out every single little drop possible. I often wonder though what a flightsim would run like if it was built from the ground up with modern code of today if it wouldve beem better in the long run. Our machines are always being pushed to the absolute max to get a few extra fps. 

 

Well, hats off to Lockheed-Martin for TRYING.  It cannot have been a simple matter, and P3D 'as it ships' from L/M is a nice sim platform, no question.  The 'troubles' start when we the model-railroaders start piling all the additional eye-candy onto P3D - and of course the SIM gets blamed if ORBX (as an example) or FSDreamteam (as another example) are offering converted FSX products for installation onto P3D that are NOT optimized for it.

 

One thing I wish L/M would do is to restore Multi-Channel support in addition to Multi-Player.  I for one would like to take advantage of triple pcs driving triple monitors and have it 'natively' supported within the sim itself (as it is in the brand-X sim from Laminar.)  Multi-Player simply doesn't synch-up well, and WideView doesn't either.  Requiring three licenses of P3D in order to render the same flight situation across multiple monitors on multiple PCs, is pricey.  Yes, I know you can split all the views off one "master" PC, but then you run into slowdowns because of all the heavy lifting being done by a single computer.  More PC's are always going to perform better than just one.  It's like the idea of multiple-cores.  You can divvy up the tasks and get each PC to do a portion of the total job.  Ultimately, that's the 'ideal' approach, IF the sim platform is designed for networking.

 

Running it all off one PC is simply asking more than a system, even a GOLIATH system, can do.  

 

All-at-once expecting the sim to:

• render extremely high-def graphics and textures across triple monitors
• calculate the aircraft systems' flight and navigation data
• render additional add-on global scenery and texture packs
• render NOAA weather/clouds  
• render a complex airplane like the iFly 737NG or a PMDG-equivalent

ALL IN REAL TIME - 

 

That's a great concept, but the simple reality is - too much for just ONE computer!

 

It's possible that someday L/M will release P3D in a 64 bit version, and restore the multi-channel support back into version 2.x of P3D.  

We can continue to dream...

I just love it when people with obviously no development experience or programming skill at all speak with such great disappointment at what choices a hard working dedicated professional highly skilled team has made to better the amateurs experiences. 

 

 

built from the ground up with modern code of today

 

We already had that ... it's name was Flight.   :rolleyes: