This is regular behavior, but enhanced with Steve's DX10 Fixer, which I have to say does wonders for the simulator in terms of visuals and VAS consumption. I can really crank up the AA and SGSAA, even with deep overcast layers, and the GPU just eats it up. SGSAA and clouds in P3D just destroys my frame rate despite the same weather engine and same cloud textures. Doesn't make sense to me. So that's why FSX:SE is remaining on my hard drive, because it remains for me the gold standard for performance, visuals, and compatibility until I can somehow get around the shortcomings of P3D. I really want P3D to be the gold standard. The lighting alone really makes it stand out.

i agree, FSX SE is pretty amazing in it's current DTG State :smile:   and everything works!

i agree, FSX SE is pretty amazing in it's current DTG State :smile:   and everything works!

 

I wonder what is going to happen when DTG releases the sim that they are working on presently. Their Train Simulator which is also due out next year, is supposed to have a totally different graphics engine that is not backwards compatible which sounds like it could be 64 bit. Being they are developing that now, it wouldn't seem to be too much of a stretch to think they are working on a similar change for their Flight Sim. Will be interesting to see what the rest of the flight sim community does when that is released. 

If one is operating on low end hardware with no plans to upgrade, then FSX or FSX-SE might be a better choice as you'll not be able to efficiently use many of the new graphics enhancements in P3D V3 (or v2.x for that matter) ... such as Tessellation, Volumetric Fog, Cloud shadows and various shadows options, additional reflections, 3D waves, Bathemetry, pop free autogen, cloud improvements, HDR, etc..

 

Of course you can also disable those graphics settings in P3D to improve performance, but then it will look more FSX/FSX-SE like.

 

Speaking of DTG in P3D forum ... anyone heard anything new from DTG?  If so, could you start a new topic in FSX/FSX-SE forum as I keep an eye on all Flight Sim platforms just in case anything better than P3D comes along.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Not confusing at all. This simply depends on the CPU used and settings used (specially things like resolution and AA).

 

Well, I have I7-2600K ramped up to 4.7 GHz, so I expect my CPU would be less of a bottleneck than his FX-6300, and therefore I would see higher GPU usage. But I don't.

 

You're right in that maybe I'm just over-generalizing things

If one is operating on low end hardware with no plans to upgrade, then FSX or FSX-SE might be a better choice as you'll not be able to efficiently use many of the new graphics enhancements in P3D V3 (or v2.x for that matter) ... such as Tessellation, Volumetric Fog, Cloud shadows and various shadows options, additional reflections, 3D waves, Bathemetry, pop free autogen, cloud improvements, HDR, etc..

 

Of course you can also disable those graphics settings in P3D to improve performance, but then it will look more FSX/FSX-SE like.

 

Those enhancements usually don't affect my frame rates, which I love! They're tremendous graphical advancements. It's the poor performance in urban areas that makes me scream at P3D. The FPS just tanks in some of the more complex cockpits. For instance, a flight into Aerosoft Heathrow dropped to below 10 FPS last night in the Aerosoft A319 with no AI traffic around. I was asking my computer "Well, what are you exactly having a hard time with?".

 

Funny though, if I switch into a lighter aircraft such as the Piper Cub, my frame rates shoot up to closer normal, smooth values (> 25 FPS). So maybe P3D just struggles with the Aerosoft Airbus in these kind of environments, and it's not a scenery fidelity issue, but instead an aircraft issue. I don't have another complex aircraft to test this idea though. Perhaps, this is what I deserve for testing unofficial addons.

For instance, a flight into Aerosoft Heathrow dropped to below 10 FPS last night in the Aerosoft A319 with no AI traffic around. I was asking my computer "Well, what are you exactly having a hard time with?".

 

Funny though, if I switch into a lighter aircraft such as the Piper Cub, my frame rates shoot up to closer normal, smooth values (> 25 FPS). So maybe P3D just struggles with the Aerosoft Airbus in these kind of environments, and it's not a scenery fidelity issue, but instead an aircraft issue. I don't have another complex aircraft to test this idea though. Perhaps, this is what I deserve for testing unofficial addons.

 

I haven't tested the Airbus A319 yet, I'm waiting for Aerosoft to provide P3D V3 installers (which as I understand it they will be doing) - also not tested Heathrow either until installers are released.  Need to make sure the Airbus configurator is working with P3D V3 ... especially the option "Force ECAM Software Rendering" (unchecked if your hardware supports it otherwise your CPU will be going extra work) ... also make sure logging options work (aka OFF when unchecked) ... and MCDU settings also.

 

But I've been using the PMDG 777 and PMDG 737 and they are typically harder on VAS and FPS than the Aerosoft Airbus A319 so I would be surprised if the Airbus performed worse than PMDG at any location ... Airbus ran very well in V2.5 after all the updates.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Posted Today, 10:12 AM

Dean33, on 12 Oct 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

I use an 'average' laptop for my simming. v2 was good v3 is better and smoother. It is so much faster to load!
I noticed a significant FPS boost when I switched off HDR and Tessalation. Sliders about half way with FTX Global gives about 18 FPS with Realair and A2A for me.
The thing is - you don't know your frame rate is low unless you check the indicator because it seems smooth.
In my experience you don't have to have a monster machine - maybe just compromise a bit.
To those 'on the fence' try it is my advice.

So although I agree watching FPS will not prove anything..when you say smoother how about when you look sideways out of the cockpit with say the Aerosoft Airbus?

I ask this as 2.5 whilst very good still had the tendency to stutter at side ways views and in some cas s turning and Banking..the only time I have seen P3D run super smooth was in Rob A latest videos...but of course he does have a good system...I only run a I7 2600 OC 4.5 and a 970GC so would that cut it..

Many thanks

Mark

 

 

Hi Mark / All

 

 

I haven't installed the Airbus yet but thought I would try out the PMDG 737 NGX at LAX (stock) with FTX Global.

 

Speeding down the runway looking right at the distictive buildings my FPS stayed at 19 / 20 and everything appeared quite smooth.

 

My purpose in posting was to encourage laptop users to try P3d and in particular V3.

My processor is i7 3632 2.2ghz (Turbo at 2.7 I think) and Video AMD Radeon HD 7550/7650 1mb.

 

Cheers

 

Dean

No OOMs with v3. I can fly from payware airport to payware airport with lowest memory noted at around 650 mb. Now here is the thing. Before on v2.5  I had all the ORBX stuff. I could never fly payware to payware airports. I'd invariably get an oom. I did a fresh install of v3 with no ORBX stuff. All settings on very high including 2048 textures. Use multiple addons including ASN and REX textures, GSX, PFPX planner. Only additional ground helps are FSGenesis mesh and night lighting for Germany and Greece. Reinstalled all the payware airports.

 

One of the worst airports was an Aerosoft product EDDB. When I started out with PMDG NGX in short order, on the ground I'd get an OOM under v2.5. Huge memory hog. No longer with v3. Very happy now, flying PMDG NGX almost always between payware airports.

 

Now of course here's the fear though - reinstalling ORBX. Not sure whether this may be a source of  significant memory issues even  with v3. So happy to just leave things the way they are.

 

i7-4790 3.5 ghz

DDR3 16GB

EVGA 9700 GTX  4gb.

I haven't tested the Airbus A319 yet, I'm waiting for Aerosoft to provide P3D V3 installers (which as I understand it they will be doing) - also not tested Heathrow either until installers are released.  Need to make sure the Airbus configurator is working with P3D V3 ... especially the option "Force ECAM Software Rendering" (unchecked if your hardware supports it otherwise your CPU will be going extra work) ... also make sure logging options work (aka OFF when unchecked) ... and MCDU settings also.

 

But I've been using the PMDG 777 and PMDG 737 and they are typically harder on VAS and FPS than the Aerosoft Airbus A319 so I would be surprised if the Airbus performed worse than PMDG at any location ... Airbus ran very well in V2.5 after all the updates.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Good point, Rob. It may be just be an incompatibility issue. I'll have to reserve any final judgement then until the v3 installers are available. Hopefully then I will see better performance! I'll remain optimistic!

On the PMDG front looks like they are going to update the ground camera system for addition P3D exclusive features now available to them via V3 SDK ... which is appreciated and more to be happy with in V3.

 

Froogle (Pete) discusses here (2:26 min) - apparently no FPS hit in P3D V3: 

 

Cheers, Rob.

On the PMDG front looks like they are going to update the ground camera system for addition P3D exclusive features now available to them via V3 SDK ... which is appreciated and more to happy with in V3.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Rob actually the FPS is better here local with V3 :-)

Just my 2 cents. I also have a dinosaur of a video card (gtx 580) and the same CPU as you. It was running at 99% usage constantly, I disabled "enable terrain to receive shadows", nothing else changed and it went down to 50%. not sure if bug or the shadows are that resource intensive but worth a try for you. 

I also dislike their pricing policy that you have to pay more than you originally paid for a plane if you switch from FSX to P3D. Given that other plane developers do that for free or for a fraction of the original price, I see no justification for this.

 

They've discussed the reason why, it's basically due to the licensing with Boeing. The reason a lot of other payware aircraft developers don't charge is because they are not officially licensed prodcuts. The Aerosoft Airbus isn't licensed with Airbus, so they can do what they want with no extra fees or attorney costs.

 

The reason scenery developers usually don't charge for P3D upgrades is because the airports, ground texture/sky texture replacement products, and weather engines are not licensed prodcuts of the original creator, be it god for the ground, water, sky, cloud textures, the weather, or the people who own the airports that get built for the sims.

 

Although many don't like PMDG's pricing policy, that's what happens when you have to deal with other big corporations and have licensing terms, conditions, fees and attorney fees. In that case, you're better off buying prodcuts from developers who build things on their own and offer unlicensed prodcuts that basically have no strings attached.