t has little to no effect on the surface action and gives a big performance hit.

 

That's not been my experience, but as we know with P3d, everyone's experience varies. Bathymetry does impact wave action. And it doesn't seem to impact performance as much in 2.5 as it did in earlier versions of P3d.

To be fair, I haven't checked the performance hit in a while so it may have been improved. I have tested the wave action though and, on my system, I can see no difference at all with or without. But, as I also said, I get decent wave action currently with my settings on high.

Ok, I gave some of his settings a shot and here's what happened = Stutterfest. 

 

Around each 5 min or so, my FPS would drop to 1.6 and stay there for minutes. I tried restarting both the game and PC to rule out any small issues, but the problem appeared again, like clockwork. Went back to my old CFG - smooth as silk.

 

I think it must have been a combination of TML=80 and no buffer pools that induced such insane stuttering. Probably related to the graphics card as well. However, with Nick's settings, everything "looked" very nice sure, but it would have killed VAS usage quickly. 

 

enable bathymetry, water to ultra, get the floatplane and land on the sea, set the wx to stormy, watch the seas swell

 

I do not have a problem at sea level!!!!! It is above 1000 feet when everything becomes static and useless.

I do not have a problem at sea level!!!!! It is above 1000 feet when everything becomes static and useless.

 

+1

 

Once LM realise that most flight goes on above sea-level (apart from maybe some of the Netherlands and Patagonia?) then maybe they'll start to pay more attention to making the water look like water - not some weird Murano glass plate image.

I do not have a problem at sea level!!!!! It is above 1000 feet when everything becomes static and useless.

 

I wish I could take you up over the bay with me. 

 

When we get up to 3000ft, I'd challenge you to point out a single bit of movement in the water you think you can perceive. You wouldn't be able to do it. In real life, water does look static when flying over it unless you are scud running. 

 

FSX's water depiction of water movement at altitude is completely unrealistic. It's much prettier then real life though, where water movement at altitude is totally boring. 

 

With that said, P3D's water still has all sorts of issues that make it look like crap.

 

Anyway, to the topic...

The problem with NickN's guides is that his focus may not be your focus. 

 

If you follow his FSX guide, he basically has you setup FSX to look like a DOS-based game (I'm exaggerating for effect). I didn't need a 100 page guide to turn my settings down to a level where the visuals aren't acceptable. 

 

Where as tweaks like BP=0 truly allowed most (some?) to have their cake and eat it to, Nick always seemed to be against that approach, instead always sacrificing quality. 

 

When we get up to 3000ft, I'd challenge you to point out a single bit of movement in the water you think you can perceive. You wouldn't be able to do it. In real life, water does look static when flying over it unless you are scud running.

 

Either you have visible water movement (and shimmering reflections), or you should see what is in effect a flat plane with no visible texturing. You can't have it both ways. P3D renders clearly visible wave patterns that are completely static, and about as realistic as thinking that PMDG's next release will be an Airbus. I would prefer to see reflections and the illusion of water movement, because rendering stuff like this on a monitor can't possibly simulate the subtle changes in light, shadow and texturing that occurs in the real world.....unless you get some really serious fluid dynamics and lighting calculations added to the code.

Either you have visible water movement (and shimmering reflections), or you should see what is in effect a flat plane with no visible texturing. You can't have it both ways. P3D renders clearly visible wave patterns that are completely static, and about as realistic as thinking that PMDG's next release will be an Airbus. I would prefer to see reflections and the illusion of water movement, because rendering stuff like this on a monitor can't possibly simulate the subtle changes in light, shadow and texturing that occurs in the real world.....unless you get some really serious fluid dynamics and lighting calculations added to the code.

 

The problem with P3D isn't that you can see wave patterns. It's that they are way, way, way too big and outlined. The static looking nature of them at altitude is actually realistic, but the way they are displayed isn't. 

 

If I'm out over the Cheasapeake or Atlantic (and I have been many times), I can indeed see lines of waves where waves are, but they appear static when I stare at them. The movement of waves is just so slow in real life to perceive from so far away. What you will see though is whitecaps fade in and out if you squint hard enough.

 

If your angle is not into the sun, then you don't really see any distinction of waves and you do get an almost glass like appearance (FSX actually does this well on lower water settings). 

 

But I agree overall that P3D's water looks like crap. And in a simulator, where so much of the atmospherics are lost compared to real life, static looking water stands out more. When you are flying in real life, it's not something you really notice. 

 

I much prefer FSX's water to P3D in their current state even though I know FSX's exaggerated movement isn't necessarily realistic. 

After reading a lot of these posts, I think Nick should issue a DISCLAIMER after EVERY sentence. Apparently a lot of people cannot read.

 

He has stated over and over - his settings are a BASE only and are meant as a starting point.

 

also - there are two different sections we're discussing -

 

The setup of the OS and SYSTEM - that is pretty much gospel if you want a lean, clean machine.

 

The setup of FSX/P3D - this is baseline and is to produce acceptable results according to NICK'S PREFERENCES!! - All he is saying is that FOR HIM AND HIS TASTES - those settings will work.

 

Now, YOU have to decide whether to adjust according to YOUR tastes and equipment.

 

Really, the two guides go together. Setting up a balanced system gives you a hardware base to operate from.

 

Sorry but I read too many posts where people have a powerhouse CPU pumping data into a so-so GPU or a run of the mill CPU trying to drive a powerhouse GPU - BOTH cases are a recipe for disaster.

 

Vic

After reading a lot of these posts, I think Nick should issue a DISCLAIMER after EVERY sentence. Apparently a lot of people cannot read.

 

And there you have it, you will get as many different results as there is PC's configurations in this forum, why is it so hard for some to understand?

 

If everybody were running the same exact PC and PC's configuration we would be talking about the same results but this will never be the case as we can't never expect the same result from one PC to another as I am sure everybody has a different setup or close to.

 

Nick's setup work for him and may or may not work for others, different strokes for different folks, I'm running my setup on a Sharp 4K 70" wide screen (3D mind you), you guys care to compare visuals? I'm sure they won't be the same as your HD monitor, how come would you ask?

 

Some can't fly without this or that scenery made buy this or that developer, let me ask you this, are we in the business of flying and learning about flying or sightseeing?...yes, it does look nicer when flying over a add on that can make the sim look like the real world but at what price?

 

We, understandably, want the best flying experience and the more realistic feel (as much as we can get it sitting in a chair in our own houses) but if you ask me about the whole flying experience I will tell you that it start in the cockpit learning how to fly and not when I'm looking outside to see if the right plane hangar is at the right place, bonus if it is and I can run my sim without stuttering.

 

For me the bottom line is this, I am ready to try somebody's finding as he may be on to something and if somebody's finding or set up work on my system great, if it does not work I'll erase it or revert my setup to what it was before without calling one's work in progress rubbish or else.

Edited May 14, 201511 yr by n4gix
Deleted excessive quote. Again.

 

Some can't fly without this or that scenery made buy this or that developer, let me ask you this, are we in the business of flying and learning about flying or sightseeing?...yes, it does look nicer when flying over a add on that can make the sim look like the real world but at what price?

 

Some of us consider the realism of the scenery to be just as important as the aircraft itself. I grant you that flight dynamics and cockpit functions are the most important, but if I couldn't get terrain graphics and object scenery that were acceptable to me, then I wouldn't be using a flight simulator.

Christopher,

 

I don't disagree with you but there is always a cost to add bloated scenery to a sim and that was my point, to often peoples want the top of the line scenery and want to keep their sliders at the same position trying to tweak the sim internally because they want their cake and eat it too, it just does not work like that. 

 

I think that's the whole picture here about Nick's advise and that is why some tweak don't work on my system when others will see improvements because there is so many different system and sim configurations.  

Yes.   These simulators are not a One Size Fits All pair of pants.   One most sometimes put on that belt and cinch it up tighter or loosen it depending on how much fat they want to let out.   Guides are guides, not LAW.  

Yes, I agree that there is a cost when adding lots of scenery and other addons. It generally means that I am flying close to the edge of what is possible in P3D, which is probably why I have been limiting much of my flight time to quick taxi/take off/circuit/landing/taxi flights, rather than "point to point" flights! However, I have just purchased the A2A Simulations Piper Cherokee 180 because I want to start flying to and from lots of the smaller airfields again in the UK, so I will just have to see what happens! I have done it before in FSX (with the RealAir Beechcraft Duke and Flight1 Cessna Citation Mustang), but the Cherokee 180 should be able to operate from just about every airfield and airport in my UK database (and that's probably around 350) :smile:

 

 

but the Cherokee 180 should be able to operate from just about every airfield and airport in my UK database (and that's probably around 350)

 

Most definitely with half tanks and two on board it shouldn't be much of an issue. We've flown our club 180 in and out of 300m strips with ease. Just make sure to read up the technique for short take-off and landings (which should be included in the A2A documentation - haven't got it to hand right now).