Well thats scary news 

 

lol no its not, they are allowing us to run with more features so it all balances out, performance patch does not always mean more fps but we can get more visual quality with out much of a performance impact which is even better.

 

Are we setting ourselves up for a fall with what we expect from 2.3 as i think we should not expect more fps but i hope the sim does more with less of an impact on our hardware :)

lol no its not, they are allowing us to run with more features so it all balances out, performance patch does not always mean more fps but we can get more visual quality with out much of a performance impact which is even better.

 

Are we setting ourselves up for a fall with what we expect from 2.3 as i think we should not expect more fps but i hope the sim does more with less of an impact on our hardware :)

 

According to John Venema, 2.3 is going to be about performance, so I'm expecting that the base FPS will improve as well.

According to John Venema, 2.3 is going to be about performance, so I'm expecting that the base FPS will improve as well.

 

Part of me hopes for more fps but if i can get more from the sim with no performance impact or very little impact i will still be happy as i only care about the lower end of the fps scale, going from, lets say going from 100 fps to 130fps is meaningless to me but going from 20 fps to 30 fps would be way more important but more unrealistic. What i would consider as realistic is between 5% and 20% more fps at the lower end of the fps scale but that does not always translate in to a great improvement in fps.

Fps aren't really that important. I'm sure it is possible to achieve a much smoother flight experience with 30 fps than what we now see at 40 fps and more. Of course, 60 fps all the time would be great, but this is just not possible with todays hardware. I'm really looking forward to V2.3 in hopes that it is smoother. Regardless of what happens to fps...

Most serious simmers own FTX Global anyways.

 

I challenge that! Many serious simmers don't use FSX because they have tuned their FS9 to such an extent and including home cockpit builds that they won't change.

 

Others are flying careers in virtual airlines which can be very demanding e.g. BA or Lufthansa and they are amongst some of the most serious simmers I know who can get very obsessive about systems and procedure fidelity. Many use FS9 because their fps is much better with heavy metal so they can operate more smoothly. They don't care about eyecandy at all!

 

If you like ORBX products and think they are essential for your FS experience, good for you - but trying to imply that guys who use ORBX for whateverdon't are non-serious simmers in some obscure way!

Fps aren't really that important. I'm sure it is possible to achieve a much smoother flight experience with 30 fps than what we now see at 40 fps and more. Of course, 60 fps all the time would be great, but this is just not possible with todays hardware. I'm really looking forward to V2.3 in hopes that it is smoother. Regardless of what happens to fps...

 

You would be surprised at what today's hardware can do without overheads like extremely old code and DirectX. Prepar3D 2.2 is already a lot more modern compared to FSX, but I'm sure there's still plenty of ugly code that dates to FS98. As long as they can keep eliminating that, things will become better.

You would be surprised at what today's hardware can do without overheads like extremely old code and DirectX. Prepar3D 2.2 is already a lot more modern compared to FSX, but I'm sure there's still plenty of ugly code that dates to FS98. As long as they can keep eliminating that, things will become better.

Fully agree. But they will not be able to get rid of all the legacy code so certain restrictions apply. And within these restrictions they should focus on making the sim as smooth as possible and not just increase fps.

 

 

But they will not be able to get rid of all the legacy code so certain restrictions apply.

 

They did remove some more legacy support in 2.3 which may ruffle a few feathers for those using very old techniques, but it was done to avoid performance issues and allow continued growth of the platform.

 

I was able to get a pretty smooth experience last night at 30 fps in (2.3 beta with Orbx NCA + patch), but not near a major city.  Found a few issues that I'll be reporting with video evidence (you know me).

 

 

Many use FS9 because their fps is much better with heavy metal so they can operate more smoothly.

 

Just curious, why FS9?  If visuals are not important ... FS8 would be a better option.  I'm not sure I'd equate someone's level of "seriousness" about a simulator with "eye candy" ... my instructors are pretty clear that visual is #1 priority and the preferred option for all pilots, IFR is out of necessity, not a preferred reference.  Although I can see the draw to flying by computer, even the FAA has realized that "manual" flight (even in complex airlines) is going to be mandated regular training (due to recent crash as KSFO where the pilots were not familiar with performing manual landings).  Anyway, point being, just because "eye candy" is not important to someone, that doesn't qualify that person as more or less serious about flight simulation.

 

IMHO, "change" is a far better path to acquiring knowledge than remaining static.

 

Cheers, Rob.

They did remove some more legacy support in 2.3 which may ruffle a few feathers for those using very old techniques, but it was done to avoid performance issues and allow continued growth of the platform.

 

I'm glad they're doing that, breaking compatibility of some very old things that deserve to be killed so that the platform can actually move forward.

hello ,there is a thread on the Ge Force forums called " Petition for DirectX 11 Anti-aliasing driver profiles",which states "please post in this thread if you support the request for DirectX 11 driver anti-aliasing profiles like they do exist for DirectX 9" it seems that there are quite a few gamers waiting for DirectX11 Anti-aliasing profile,s,the thread runs to 34 pages with a few slagging off Nvidia for inaction. make,s interesting reading,maybe not quite what we require but a lot of people stating "We need far better AA in Dx11 games"

peter

 

 

thread on the Ge Force forums called " Petition for DirectX 11 Anti-aliasing driver profiles",which states "please post in this thread if you support the request for DirectX 11 driver anti-aliasing profiles like they do exist for DirectX 9"

I just spent a few minutes scanning through that particular thread, and the one request that stood out for me, was to contact AMD and make the same request of them. Maybe AMD would accept our business/flightsim dollars. Dollars to donuts says Nvidia would be supplying the coffee, and toasted bagels, (breaking their backs) to join the party. 

 

  regards, Jazz

Your previous video was not recorded at 60 fps, FYI.

How did you determine that Rob?

 

Maybe AMD would accept our business/flightsim dollars

This is a very cogent point! We are not talking FSX anymore.

The accepted wisdom for a long time has been the Nvidia is the go to card for FSX.

But P3D V2 is not FSX. Is there any informed opinions about which of the 2 better option

for P3DV2.X? It is a different graphics engine. Right?

 

I remember discussing with a serious geek whether in general Geforce or Radeon was superior.

Although Nvidia in benchmarks generally seemed to have the upper hand, he swore blind that the

game play experience with AMD card was consistently, what for it! "Smoother" than it was with

Nvidia cards. And just in case anyone didn't get that he meant and told me that in general

gaming it was not unusual to see micro stutters with Nvidia card even at 60FPS where the equivalent

AMD card delivered perfect smoothness despite performing less well in benchmarks!

 

 

It is a different graphics engine. Right?

A different engine, I can't say, but heavily modified from FSX, most definitely. As for which manufacturer is better for P3D? Well, I can only comment on Nvidia, as that's what I currently use. If we want driver support from Nvidia, for P3D, IMO the best way to pressure them is to start talking to/about their only competition. Necessity is the mother of invention, just ask Laminar Research.

 

  regards, Jazz

+1

 

I remember discussing with a serious geek whether in general Geforce or Radeon was superior.

Although Nvidia in benchmarks generally seemed to have the upper hand, he swore blind that the

game play experience with AMD card was consistently, what for it! "Smoother" than it was with

Nvidia cards. And just in case anyone didn't get that he meant and told me that in general

gaming it was not unusual to see micro stutters with Nvidia card even at 60FPS where the equivalent

AMD card delivered perfect smoothness despite performing less well in benchmarks!

 

Just for info about AMD and P3D2

 

this quote is from the P3D2 forums by Zach Heylmun

 

AMD just told us that they wouldn't support crossfire for applications running in windowed modes. That being said, I don't know how that interacts with their eyefinity mode across cards. Since you already have two cards, I would recommend doing some testing to determine if you're seeing a benefit from using eyefinity and Crossfire across 2 displays. It might be the case that all the cards are utilized under eyefinity, but I really don't know.

 

So for me i stay on nVidia with that being said by AMD