P3D 3.0 Speculation & General Nonsense

[JJJackson]

No 0Artur0, I do NOT have a beast of a computer, no I don´t use TrackIr and yes when I look sideways IMHO the scenery goes smoothly by. NO I have no tweaks in my P3d.cfg (as it´s not needed) and I don´t use a NVIDIA card so no NVIDIA Control Panel tweaks. I have just a plain P3D v2.5 install, without tweaks, frame rate set to unlimited and using only add-ons developed for my sim.

 

 

Jack

[Tomaz Drnovsek]

No 0Artur0, I do NOT have a beast of a computer, no I don´t use TrackIr and yes when I look sideways IMHO the scenery goes smoothly by. NO I have no tweaks in my P3d.cfg (as it´s not needed) and I don´t use a NVIDIA card so no NVIDIA Control Panel tweaks. I have just a plain P3D v2.5 install, without tweaks, frame rate set to unlimited and using only add-ons developed for my sim.

 

 

Jack

 

Thanks!

Maybe it's the TrackIR or my NVIDIA card than. Or maybe what's considered "smooth" can be subjective. In FSX (with DX10 fixer and 1/2 refresh rate vsync) I got what I considered smooth as silk but in P3D 2.5 with the same FPS (40+) I can't get nowhere near that smoothness which is really bothering me. That's why I get a bit sceptical when someone says their performance is smooth and micro stutter free in P3D. Sorry for that.

[JJJackson]

No problems. As you say "Or maybe what's considered "smooth" can be subjective" ! :wink: 

 

 

Jack

[Guest]

Smoothness is in the eye of the beholder

[WarpD]

Or maybe expecting your computer to render an object moving across your tiny screen at 50+ knots smoothly is unrealistic?

 

Rob had a post here in this forum at one point that went into detail regarding what it would take to move a single object across the screen at high speed and why it's unrealistic to expect our systems to do it.

[TheFlightSimGuy]

Or maybe expecting your computer to render an object moving across your tiny screen at 50+ knots smoothly is unrealistic?

 

Rob had a post here in this forum at one point that went into detail regarding what it would take to move a single object across the screen at high speed and why it's unrealistic to expect our systems to do it.

Unrealistic? Maybe for FSX and P3D. Because nearly every other PC title in the last 5 years does it without issue. I think folks are expecting to much from the old platform and their specific configuration and specific addons more than anything.

[DutchAir]

 

 

In FSX (with DX10 fixer and 1/2 refresh rate vsync) I got what I considered smooth as silk but in P3D 2.5 with the same FPS (40+) I can't get nowhere near that smoothness which is really bothering me.

 

Using the 1/2 refresh rate in NI for vsync in FSX requires that you lock the frame rate to 30fps assuming your refresh rate is 60hz. You go on to say you get no where near the smoothness at the same FPS (40+) in P3D 2.5 There is no way that your FPS in both Sims could be the same if you are using 1/2 refresh rate in FSX and you are getting 40+ in P3D.

 

I would suggest that you lock the FPS in P3D to 30 fps for a smoother sim experience. Maybe 60fps with Vsync will be possible in V3 :-)

[WarpD]

Because nearly every other PC title in the last 5 years does it without issue.

Uh... I can't think of a single 'PC title' that does it... because any that actually 'do it' would be breaking the laws of physics and reality combined. But hey... don't take my word for it... do some real research on exactly what it would take to move just a single pixel item past you on a screen at 50+ knots of speed.

[TheFlightSimGuy]

Uh... I can't think of a single 'PC title' that does it... because any that actually 'do it' would be breaking the laws of physics and reality combined. But hey... don't take my word for it... do some real research on exactly what it would take to move just a single pixel item past you on a screen at 50+ knots of speed.

Pixels don't move at any unit of knots. It's simply the pixels, geometry, and shaders being applied in the program to create a scene in which your simulated object, be it a body, car, or plane, moves in. I am an avid PC gamer, try GTA V, Aerofly FS, DCS world, Project Cars, Battlefield 4, you name it. Stutters are virtually non existent. Primarily because the more powerful computing of programmable GPU's have been harnessed and are leveraged in those games to take advantage of their remarkable abilities of their Memory Speeds, Rasters, and the texture and pixel fill rates. It's not the hardware, it's the software, and with FSX and P3D in their current form, they just weren't built for it.

[FLAPS15]

Totally agree,

 

FSX SE P3D are all based on a programe code built in 2005/6 and nothing will change that unless a full re progamme happens... DTG may well achieve this but...as it based on MS FLight we shall see...

 

It seems odd as WIndows has progressed the performance across all flight sim platforms seems to be not as good which could be down to DX...NI does not even respond..with WIn 10.

 

LM have made some great strides but as the code is still inherently the same it will suffer just like the other old platforms and what one person perceives as smooth others will not it is just hi,an nature!

 

All the best

[warbirds]

I can set my FSX SE  up to be smooth while looking out the side even with Fraps running while doing video shoot. 

 

The modern pc game can be very smooth in side motion and, as an example, GTA 5 is super smooth in that aspect. 

 

As for PD3 I am hoping for SLI support to finally arrive.

[WarpD]

Pixels don't move at any unit of knots.

Thus ends the discussion. If you think it's not a pixel moving, there's nothing more we can discuss.

[JimmiG]

Thus ends the discussion. If you think it's not a pixel moving, there's nothing more we can discuss.

 

Pixels are stationary. They just change their color, giving the illusion of motion if these changes are sequenced right. It's up to the video card to send the signals to change the colors of the pixels depending on what the shader program is telling it. Modern video cards have a fill rate of around 150 billion filtered, textured pixels per second. However if the program running on your computer is inefficient and doesn't leverage this power, with instructions that could be handled by this massively parallel super-computer we call the GPU being handled by the much slower but more flexible CPU, that doesn't really matter.

[KenG]

 

 

 

Or maybe expecting your computer to render an object moving across your tiny screen at 50+ knots smoothly is unrealistic?

Rob had a post here in this forum at one point that went into detail regarding what it would take to move a single object across the screen at high speed and why it's unrealistic to expect our systems to do it.

 

Actually the FFS Level D Sims at my work does this everyday and are smooth as butter. While the hardware may only simulate one aircraft, the VITAL software that runs the scenery and "traffic" aircraft are used throughout the company on hundreds of devices. While it may have been mainframes that did this work 30 years ago today these systems are being run by a bank of networked PCs running Windows XP. Now we do use real hardware for Avionics and FMS so that takes some of the load off the devices.

 

However, Garmin makes a great set of trainers that work well (including a series of G1000 trainers.) I fire up the G1000 trainer for the King Air and there is only 9% increase of CPU usage by this software (on my machine.)

 

Maybe the $300 bargen special at Walmart cannot move a highspeed object across the screen, but there are enthuisit class machines with high clocked CPUs, gobs of high speed memory, SSDs, and multiple video cards that could easily replicate two or more of the networked machines I have at work.

 

To say this can't be done is a cop out. Xplane actually does a fairly good job of this today.

[Bobsk8]

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the FFS Level D Sims at my work does this everyday and are smooth as butter. While the hardware may only simulate one aircraft, the VITAL software that runs the scenery and "traffic" aircraft are used throughout the company on hundreds of devices. While it may have been mainframes that did this work 30 years ago today these systems are being run by a bank of networked PCs running Windows XP. Now we do use real hardware for Avionics and FMS so that takes some of the load off the devices.

 

However, Garmin makes a great set of trainers that work well (including a series of G1000 trainers.) I fire up the G1000 trainer for the King Air and there is only 9% increase of CPU usage by this software (on my machine.)

 

Maybe the $300 bargen special at Walmart cannot move a highspeed object across the screen, but there are enthuisit class machines with high clocked CPUs, gobs of high speed memory, SSDs, and multiple video cards that could easily replicate two or more of the networked machines I have at work.

 

To say this can't be done is a cop out. Xplane actually does a fairly good job of this today.

 

 

So how come on my middle of the road PC, P3D runs pretty well using the Aerosoft A 320 with a bunch of add ons running at the same time, averaging around 30FPS, with no stutters, but when I tried X Plane it was a bit less with nothing else running, and that is with default C 172?