ah sorry Alessandro,

 

overhead being 'some extra calculations' meaning that with OP=1, P3D is using some extra CPU/GPU cycles to perform the optimization.

I had a quick look through the thread and noticed 'badfinger' saying he saw a drop in FPS. He's on an older nVidia 5xx and I see you're using an ATI card, your CPU is better than mine though.

 

It seems there's a relationship between a drop in FPS and the GPU that's being used? I'm not saying that the R9 is a bad card, but it's been proven on multiple occasions that nVidia cards perform better in P3D.

 

Just for info I'm on a i5 3570k and a GTX 970.

 

My GPU is perfoming quite well i think GPU load max 50%... CPU load around 50-70%... so i cannot understand where is the problem with OP=1, maybe really ATI CARDS...?

 

I tried also yesterday evening and i can confirm huge FPS loss, in seattle intl. around 9FPS (From 24 to 15 before takeoff) P51D

 

Also with Cherokee and other planes i noticed a FPS drop with OP=1

 

Instead i'm using Optimize dense cloud=1 with a slight FPS increase... I turned it off with OP=1 (reading other posts) but it doesn't help!

 

So i'm not using this tweak anymore because i fly A2A only at the moment.

This is an amazing tweak for the complex addons, especially PMDG. With optimize_parts=1 this is the smoothest way I've been able to enjoy the PMDG products yet, far surpassing the best I could get in FSX even with very modest slider settings.

My GPU is perfoming quite well i think GPU load max 50%... CPU load around 50-70%...

 

If you only look at the overall CPU load, it's almost meaningless. There is always a single core that gets constantly overloaded in P3D, while rest of cores are underloaded. So the overall CPU load never gets close to 100%.

 

I tried OP=1 but didn't seem to get any improvements. I don't have any PMDG planes and I only tried it with Carando PC12 and Skymaster. I'm running P3D v2.4 - haven't got time to do v2.5 and reinstall everything..

I was getting a choppy 10-16 FPS in the VC with the PMDG birds. I also had my FPS locked at 30. I added the tweak and got about a 5 FPS increase. But when I removed the frames lock I am now getting 30-45 FPS in the VC and 60+ in spot view. Awesome!

 

GTX690, I74820K

Going round in circles:

 

I was getting a choppy 10-16 FPS in the VC with the PMDG birds. I also had my FPS locked at 30. I added the tweak and got about a 5 FPS increase. But when I removed the frames lock I am now getting 30-45 FPS in the VC and 60+ in spot view. Awesome!

 

GTX690, I74820K

Pete, sorry to focus on your post, but setting fixed or unlimited fps has no bearing on the tweak. Also, if you locked at 30, you can't get an increase in fps since it's locked. Unless you're locking at a rate which can't be maintained in the first place, which is not how locked is used. So I think you are saying with locked 30 you are seeing something under 30, and with OPTIMIZE_PARTS=1 you get around 5fps more, still under 30?

 

Just to recap, if we do run fixed fps we really need to set a rate that can be maintained at all times, otherwise it makes no sense to use fixed. Fixing the fps eats frames because it does extra 'work' to maintain an accurate time between frames. Accurate time between frames is more important to the flight model than fps swinging between 20 and 60 fps. It makes no sense to set 30fps fixed if we see 25, it would need fixing at 20 or less. If we want to use fixed we need to set up the sim to handle it properly, and we need to want to use it because we know what it does.

 

Why does the sim do fixed anyway, and why is the GPU hardware designed to do it? Allowing the sim to use unlimited is actually *gluing* the control response, (and the flight model) to the varying fps. You can check this by panning a view with fixed (set low enough to work properly). Panning angular velocity varies with fps in unlimited, which destroys the flight model through turns, up down or left right. It's not a big deal with tubes on AP, more of a thing for GA and Gliders.

Going round in circles:

 

 

Pete, sorry to focus on your post, but setting fixed or unlimited fps has no bearing on the tweak. Also, if you locked at 30, you can't get an increase in fps since it's locked. Unless you're locking at a rate which can't be maintained in the first place, which is not how locked is used. So I think you are saying with locked 30 you are seeing something under 30, and with OPTIMIZE_PARTS=1 you get around 5fps more, still under 30?

 

Just to recap, if we do run fixed fps we really need to set a rate that can be maintained at all times, otherwise it makes no sense to use fixed. Fixing the fps eats frames because it does extra 'work' to maintain an accurate time between frames. Accurate time between frames is more important to the flight model than fps swinging between 20 and 60 fps. It makes no sense to set 30fps fixed if we see 25, it would need fixing at 20 or less. If we want to use fixed we need to set up the sim to handle it properly, and we need to want to use it because we know what it does.

 

Why does the sim do fixed anyway, and why is the GPU hardware designed to do it? Allowing the sim to use unlimited is actually *gluing* the control response, (and the flight model) to the varying fps. You can check this by panning a view with fixed (set low enough to work properly). Panning angular velocity varies with fps in unlimited, which destroys the flight model through turns, up down or left right. It's not a big deal with tubes on AP, more of a thing for GA and Gliders.

 

 

 

Steve,

 

I lock the frames in FSX at 30 via Nvidia Inspector and it holds a constant 30 fps no matter what plane I fly. But in P3D I was getting very poor frames while locked at 30. Sure adding the  optimize_parts=1 gave me a small increase ( around 5 fps ). Overall the biggest performance gain was when I removed the frames lock. That's all I was saying. P3D runs much smoother now as a result of both changes. I wouldn't call that "Going round in circles:".

Steve,

 

I lock the frames in FSX at 30 via Nvidia Inspector and it holds a constant 30 fps no matter what plane I fly. But in P3D I was getting very poor frames while locked at 30. Sure adding the  optimize_parts=1 gave me a small increase ( around 5 fps ). Overall the biggest performance gain was when I removed the frames lock. That's all I was saying. P3D runs much smoother now as a result of both changes. I wouldn't call that "Going round in circles:".

Yes, I realise that you're saying this gives me x and that gives me y, and that's fine. But what I'm trying to allude to, is that the unlocked situation is not as smooth as the locked situation, if it is set up correctly, otherwise the GPU technology is wasted. Your post continues a misleading and incorrect trend to pass off locked frames as unuseful.

Yes, I realise that you're saying this gives me x and that gives me y, and that's fine. But what I'm trying to allude to, is that the unlocked situation is not as smooth as the locked situation, if it is set up correctly, otherwise the GPU technology is wasted. Your post continues a misleading and incorrect trend to pass off locked frames as unuseful.

 

For me locked frames in P3D is unuseful. I never said anything about other peoples setups did I? For the first time I was able to fly the PMDG birds stutter free. So yes locking the frames does not work for me.

Let's just agree to disagree. And leave it at that.

I was using your post as an example of how easy it is to put that setting in the wrong light. Since you are actually saying locking frames does not work at 30 with your aircraft and setup, I'm agreeing with you, it probably won't. Generalisation of personal experiences like yours leads to confusion and more questions, hence the circles. You get x% increase in an unlimited frames scenario with optimise parts enabled seems good enough.

Unlimited FPS here also. I've tried and tried (and tried!) with Limiting the FPS and it just never worked. 20fps, 25, 30, 33, 40...TrackIR user too so anything south of 30 FPS is just not acceptable in my eyes. If you count my experience together with Pete's, that's 100% of users who have a better experience with FPS set to unlimited

 

 

Unlimited FPS here also. I've tried and tried (and tried!) with Limiting the FPS and it just never worked.

 

+1

And there are soooo many people around here with excellent results running P3D at unlimited frames... Even LM recommends running it with unlimited frames...

Even LM recommends running it with unlimited frames...

Although the default is 20 fixed. But that's not a reason to use fixed. I've spelled out what fixed does, and i'm not forcing you to use it.

 

...take any view, take an outside view and pan, rotation varies with the draw complexity with Unlimited. If you have not tried that do it now, and see what I mean...

I am also a trackir user. It's all good and fine to tell people they don't know what they are doing and offer criticism when setting frames to unlimited. But at the same time don't offer any solution! I say go with what works for you and ignore the critics.

Unlimited FPS here also. I've tried and tried (and tried!) with Limiting the FPS and it just never worked. 20fps, 25, 30, 33, 40...TrackIR user too so anything south of 30 FPS is just not acceptable in my eyes. If you count my experience together with Pete's, that's 100% of users who have a better experience with FPS set to unlimited

I also have spent many hours changing this and that in the setting. I also tried locking the frames to 20, 25 & 30 with awful performance. As soon as I removed the frames lock my experience is extremely good!

I am also a trackir user. It's all good and fine to tell people they don't know what they are doing and offer criticism when setting frames to unlimited. But at the same time don't offer any solution!

Pete - have you even BOTHERED to read the posts Steve has posted here not to mention the links he's referenced? How you can say he has not offered a solution amazes me. He's gone out of his way to define the reasons why it should be done.

 

The fact that you disagree is your opinion.

 

Vic

Pete - have you even BOTHERED to read the posts Steve has posted here not to mention the links he's referenced? How you can say he has not offered a solution amazes me. He's gone out of his way to define the reasons why it should be done.The fact that you disagree is your opinion.Vic

No sorry I didn't go back through all the pages. But at the same time he didn't point me to any solutions posts.

 

I don't disagree with him. All I am saying is what works for one person may not work for another.