I really hate windowed in any mode.

 

I guess I'm confused ... what's bad about Window mode?  I've seen this "concern" come up before from others and I'm still not sure why anyone really cares "full screen" vs. a "standard window" (technically they are the same and there is no performance difference between the two).  LM's full screen (Alt+Enter) will cover the desktop.

 

FYI, a technical perspective in regards to the OS and DX11 (or DX9), they're all windows with a window handle -- "full screen mode" is still the same  window only without a border and max, min, close, and title info.

 

 

Odd, the textures for shadows being at 512 provides the OPPOSITE effect compared to any other game/simluation.

 

Usually the lower the resolution, the more blocky the edges are. The higher, the smoothher.

 

But p3d is providing the desired result on the LOWEST setting, which is odd.

 

Actually, that's not odd at all if you think about what light is and the absorption/reflection from all the various material types.  If you go outside and focus on the various types of shadows you see from various distances, materials, etc. etc. there is signification variance in how "crisp" a shadow cast is ... it's actually very unrealistic to have ALL shadows extremely crisp ... it may visually look more pleasing, but in the real world shadows vary considerably based on a host of variables. 

 

 

 

That's great in a small display but 30 vs 60 in FSX for very distinguishable.  I'm just saying for the people who don't believe 60fps is overkil

 

The size of the display doesn't impact fps requirements -- it's the speed of motion.  I'm not disagreeing, more FPS is a good thing ... however, it can be valid that 60 fps is overkill for those that don't fly in such a manner that requires higher fps ... the point being, how you fly and what you fly will decide the "desirable" fps.  Like I described earlier, if you fly at 500 kts at 500' AGL you'll desire 230-240 fps (and a monitor that supports 240 Hz) ... if you fly with less "motion" you'll need less FPS.  There is no "generic" formula as different folks fly differently.

 

I think the magical 60 fps number was born out of common 60 Hz frequency monitors ... it's not based on one's actual "motion" and fps requirements to make that motion appear smooth.  If you get a chance, go to your local TV retailer (like a BestBuy) ... they had a good demo up showing the difference between a 60Hz TV and a 240Hz TV ... video footage was a humming bird ... and that is the key, because in order to see the difference, there needed to be a source (humming birds wings) with a high rate of motion.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Or just watch the Hobbit Standard and then the Hobbit 48fps version.

 

Or watch American TV and then British TV.

they had a good demo up showing the difference between a 60Hz TV and a 240Hz TV ... video footage was a humming bird ... and that is the key, because in order to see the difference, there needed to be a source (humming birds wings) with a high rate of motion.

 This is why there are so many complaints about Hummingbird Apocalyps3.  The game just isn't playable on any current systems.  Even with 64bit, the textures x frames per second is just too much for any CPU/GPU, unless you're running a dual chip, quad sli titan setup.  Even with that, the humwingers are barely shootable, even at 90fps, with 1.5 rate refresh, still basically unplayable.  I wish the developers at Loonybird Martin would optimize their code for 64bit parallel process quad SLI.  I won't be converting from Falcon Strafer until they fix that.

 This is why there are so many complaints about Hummingbird Apocalyps3.  The game just isn't playable on any current systems.  Even with 64bit, the textures x frames per second is just too much for any CPU/GPU, unless you're running a dual chip, quad sli titan setup.  Even with that, the humwingers are barely shootable, even at 90fps, with 1.5 rate refresh, still basically unplayable.  I wish the developers at Loonybird Martin would optimize their code for 64bit parallel process quad SLI.  I won't be converting from Falcon Strafer until they fix that.

Say what?? You just made that all up!! Man it sure sounds all techy and important.

Hey Rob,

 

How is the new beta testing going/progress going on?  Are you still on Beta 2 or moved to a different version?

 

Keep up the good work,

 

Thanks

 

 

Are you still on Beta 2 or moved to a different version?

 

Still on Beta 2 ... looking good, still a few issues and many things fixed, but overall I think 2.3 will be a great release for those interested.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I was recently vacationing in this area ... it's a California Jewel.

 

I was testing out various AA settings (including FXAA), also weather and seasons using A2A's Cherokee.  Airport settings are default ... grass is a little hard on fps, but still very flyable.

 

 

Settings are here: http://www.robainscough.com/P3D_V2.php and I did experiment with FXAA.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Amazing video! KTVL looks great.

As a real pilot, I have an instant immersion disconnect with anything below 60fps.  Control input instantly changes and aircraft dynamics no longer "feel" realistic.  I know I have posted some examples before but here is a new one. 

 

This site shows many comparisons between 30 and 60 fps.  In many of the videos, you can see the judder caused by 30fps.

 

http://30vs60.com/formula1.php

 

 

 On a side note, LM needs to do something about fps optimization as they have implemented Oculus Rift.  I am sure we could easily see 60+fps on average when LM gets this sim more polished.  For instance, look at Rise of Flight, DCS titles, Warthunder, etc.  They all seem to have no issue whatsoever hitting 60fps.

As a real pilot, I have an instant immersion disconnect with anything below 60fps.

 

Are we still on the FPS thing?

 

The human eye doesn't operate in terms of FPS ... so there is no real "connect" to FPS anyway -- what the human eye picks up is the variance in frames.  I can notice the difference between 60 fps and 240 fps so long as there is enough high speed "motion" in the scene that requires such speed.  Your prior link demonstrated that exactly as it also demonstrated that 30 fps is fine if the speed of motion is lower.

 

P3D can hit 60 fps or higher also -- simply turn down graphics settings a little to meet your goals.  Heck in my videos I'm hitting 40-50 at what I consider fairly high graphics settings and lots of demanding third party content.  If you look at my Hawaii video you can see I'm rarely below 60 fps at the same settings.

 

Comparing to titles like Rise of Flight, DCS, Warthunder doesn't make a lot of sense as those products are massively different if terms of what they provide ... if you want to list out the feature and graphics support difference you'll understand where the FPS are going and might help you understand real limitations of software/hardware.

 

I do see a lot of people come up with statements like "my hardware should be able to do 120 FPS, because game/sim can do 120 FPS on my hardware/software" ... yet when it comes time to actually list what those sim/games do, people checkout and the debate goes into never never land ending with "too much tech, bored now".  

 

Anyway, I'm checking out on the FPS debate - I've said everything I can possible say about it, but if you ladies/gents want to pursue it more go for it.  But if anyone is looking for some magical code that will make there existing hardware suddenly get 60 FPS everywhere and max graphical settings that's just not going to happen no matter what LM do on their software side ... maybe when nVidia eventually provide a profile and/or we get SLi supported profiles we'll see 60 fps at max graphical settings (but that obviously means more cost in more GPUs).

 

In the meantime, may I recommend you "blink" a lot during a flight ... 

 

Cheers, Rob.

I was recently vacationing in this area ... it's a California Jewel.

 

I was testing out various AA settings (including FXAA), also weather and seasons using A2A's Cherokee.  Airport settings are default ... grass is a little hard on fps, but still very flyable.

 

 

Settings are here: http://www.robainscough.com/P3D_V2.php and I did experiment with FXAA.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

I notice some stutters, mostly when looking aircraft from above. I´m very good observer, since my FSX are locked at 30 fps, and I also work editing commercial videos. This video is not so smooth.

As a real pilot, I have an instant immersion disconnect with anything below 60fps.  Control input instantly changes and aircraft dynamics no longer "feel" realistic.  I know I have posted some examples before but here is a new one. 

 

To be honest, I don't know how people get 60 frames in P3Dv2.2 at reasonably graphic settings. Normally I have locked my frames at "20", because I think everything looks fine as long as the sim feels smooth. And I would say the sims feels smooth enough at 20-25 frames.

 

Last week I tested Aerosoft's LPPT. I have set the framerate limiter to "Unlimited", because I wanted to see how many frames I would get if I didn't use a limiter. So, on runway 03 I have got about 24-31 frames at this airport. You can see my hardware at my profile.

 

Patric

 

 

This video is not so smooth.

 

I don't lock at 30 fps in P3D, currently at unlimited ... but this recording is done with Shadow Play @ 2560 x 1600 @ 30 fps ... Shadow Play is still Beta and it was only recently that nVidia added support for 2560 x 1600 recordings.  The actual flights are much smoother than the recordings.

 

Commercial videos (if you mean for Television) final format is typically 1080p (or lower).  I don't have much control over what YouTube does with my recordings once uploaded.  If you notice my recordings are actually coming out as 1440p on YouTube.  I've tried to get YouTube to work with 1600p but so far no luck.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Consistent 30fps is excellent in a flight simulator. If there are no stutters, then you really do not need anything higher.

Are we still on the FPS thing?

 

The human eye doesn't operate in terms of FPS ... so there is no real "connect" to FPS anyway -- what the human eye picks up is the variance in frames.  I can notice the difference between 60 fps and 240 fps so long as there is enough high speed "motion" in the scene that requires such speed.  Your prior link demonstrated that exactly as it also demonstrated that 30 fps is fine if the speed of motion is lower.

 

I understand what you are saying but you are arguing semantics here.  Of course you can't tell the difference if you are not moving, it is like looking at a picture or painting.  I agree at some point if the motion is fast enough, 60 fps will no longer suffice, for example, read what OculusVR had to do, but this only happens with head movement (like snapping your head to look at something) and it is only momentary and not due to performance issues.

 

All things being equal, I can sit down in front of a consistent 30fps vs a consistent 60fps and easily tell the difference.  I does not matter if I am flying at 60kts or 600kts.