As I didn’t get any help from P3D support forum let’s see if I’m luckier here… :smile:

 

I’m just switched to P3D from FSX and I don’t have deep understanding of tweaking eg. One reason why I switched to P3D was that I thought it’s quite tweaking free simulator. However, I have been very disappointed to performance I’m getting out of it. When I’m using default display settings (only changes wideview and unlimited frames) with only add-ons Turbine Duke and ASN I’m getting FPS around 30.

 

One thing I’m wondering is why P3D is using mainly one CPU and four of them are even parked. When I moved ASN CPU affinity to CPU 3 (which was parked), P3D parked again 4 other CPUs.  Now I’m wondering why P3D is happy with 30 FPS and is not trying to use all CPU power? Is there something wrong with my settings or why it’s like that?

I have the following system:

i7-4790K 4.00 GHz
GeForce GTX 970 with 4 monitors (surrounded 5760x1080 and single 1920x1080)
Windows 7

Hello AaliGee.  Am i reading this correct,  your getting 30 FPS running 4 monitors with a Gtx 970?   I think that's pretty good to be honest.   I would even go as far to say,  your one of the lucky ones with the set up you have 

I agree with Elaine. 30fps with that setup is great as long as it's smooth.

 

 

Vic

P3D, like FSX before it, mainly relies on one CPU core for performance.

 

Not a "problem" - That is just the way it is.  :smile:

 

If you have Hyperthreading active (8 virtual cores), not all these cores contribute to performance.  That is why many actually recommend turning HT off and reduce to four active cores.

 

Either way, as others have pointed out, 30 fps is great - especially if you can keep it that way, even in heavy scenery..

One thing I’m wondering is why P3D is using mainly one CPU and four of them are even parked.

 

Besides the fact that 30FPS are great (as others mentioned), you will find a plenty of guides how to disable this nasty core parking thing online. Either by tool, by registry modification or (if I remember correctly) even by simply adjusting some settings inside Windows, you can completely disable core parking. If you play other games, those will also profit from this. Just one note: if you disable core parking only via settings, your CPU will not throttle down anymore when idling. So you are better off by using either a tool or changing the registry.

Thank you for answers, I got the main message that I should be happy with my current results! :smile: However, It's still a bit hard to be happy as I thought P3D would be a clear relief after FSX. I got basically the same FPS results with FSX, but of course advanced graphics quality was lower and I was in trouble with OOMs.

 

I expanded my system yesterday by installing ORBX Norway, REX4 and FSCaptain. Now the frames are jumping between 15 and 25. My plan is to get some relief by moving FsCaptain and ASN (and also later Panel Builder) to my laptop via Simconnect, but I have been in trouble with that so far. I'll return with Simconnect questions on next week…

 

Anyway, maybe I'm curious enough to try unparking, if the only downside is increased energy consumption. I have a doubt it will help anything as P3D is not using all power from current 4 unparked CPUs. It's easy to test that hyperthreading off also. And maybe I should try to find out a couple of frames by overclocking or Fiber accelerator.

 

Thanks again for advices!

AaliGee.    The Gtx 970 is a Great budget card,  its cheap but does a great job for the price you pay.     I think your problem with low FPS is to do with running 4 monitors + Active Sky Next + ORBX Norway + REX4 and FSCaptain on 1 single Gtx 970,  even at that your still getting an average of 20 Fps,  that's actually very good.  

 

If you want to run this set up in comfort i would forget about touching the CPU cores, all thats going to do is consume time and energy.

 

Get yourself a powerful graphics card and enjoy the set up you have  :smile:

Let me come at this slightly differently..

 

First of all, P3D will not give you better performance than FSX.

Fewer OOMs, yes.  Better graphics, yes.

 

As you load up your system with addons, your performance will suffer.. 

 

This is no different than FSX.

 

Will a more powerful video card help, maybe..

 

The GTX970 is not a budget card by any means, but a pretty solid performer..

My hands our up to you Bert,  my Budget comment was incorrect,  the point i was making though, to run this particular set up comfortable a bigger card would good. 

First of all, P3D will not give you better performance than FSX.

Fewer OOMs, yes.  Better graphics, yes.

[...]

This is no different than FSX.

 

I am sorry to say, but this is an obvious contradiction. You agree that P3D delivers better graphics and fewer OOMs and yet you state that there is no performance increase compared to FSX? Of course, if you put your settings precisely the same as in FSX, meaning no cloud shadows, no ground shadows, reduced autogen etc., then you WILL have a better performance in P3D compared to FSX. I know, it is extremly hard to compare sims, but in my case, I had 12-15FPS in the Aerosoft A319 VC when taxiing in Zurich v2 from Aerosoft and now, in P3Dv3 with the newest installer of Zurich v2, I get a solid 22-25FPS with the very same Aerosoft A319 VC in Zurich v2. As I completely migrated my UT2 installation from FSX to P3D, even the AI traffic is the same, still I get remarkably better FPS in P3D. And this even WITHOUT changing the settings. So:

 

1. FSX, DX10 Fixer, REX Softclouds, FSGRW, REX Cloudtextures (512x512 mostly), Aerosoft Airbus A319, UT2 at 30%, Aerosoft Zurich v2 in the afternoon: 12-15FPS in the VC.

 

2. P3Dv3: almost max settings, that means more autogen buildings and trees, cloud shadows, REX 4 (1024x1024), REX Softclouds, FSGRW, Aerosoft Airbus A319, UT2 at 50% (!), Aerosoft Zurich v2 in the afternoon (same time as in FSX to have the same AI traffic): 22-25FPS.

 

Same observations I made so far in FlyTampa Athens and Copenhagen, Aerosoft Barcelona and Madrid, UK2000 Edinburgh, FlyTampa Dubai and so on. On EVERY bigger airport with the exception of the old Charles-De-Gaulle scenery, I have about 30% more FPS compared to FSX using higher settings and more AI traffic in P3D.

 

So, yes, I do not deny that this could all be due to the fact that my P3D is a completely new installation without all the garbage accumulated over the years in my FSX installation, but I doubt that a brand new FSX installation would show similar FPS, if the settings are really adjusted. I personally think that P3D somehow changed the logic behind the AI traffic computation, as there I see the biggest difference. For example FlyTampa Athens: I had a solid 30FPS in FSX over there as well, as soon as the AI traffic loaded, the FPS went down the drain to about 15-18FPS. Now, in P3D, I have again my solid 30FPS and as soon as the AI traffic is loaded, the FPS only drop a notch, to 25-27FPS. And notably with activated self-shadowing, ground shadows and building shadows on the AI planes, while in FSX there was only ground shadows available.

get process laso, it automatically turns off core parking for applications you tick as games, and it does a ton of other good stuff to make pc run smooth for sim.

I am sorry to say, but this is an obvious contradiction. You agree that P3D delivers better graphics and fewer OOMs and yet you state that there is no performance increase compared to FSX? Of course, if you put your settings precisely the same as in FSX, meaning no cloud shadows, no ground shadows, reduced autogen etc., then you WILL have a better performance in P3D compared to FSX. I know, it is extremly hard to compare sims, but in my case, I had 12-15FPS in the Aerosoft A319 VC when taxiing in Zurich v2 from Aerosoft and now, in P3Dv3 with the newest installer of Zurich v2, I get a solid 22-25FPS with the very same Aerosoft A319 VC in Zurich v2. As I completely migrated my UT2 installation from FSX to P3D, even the AI traffic is the same, still I get remarkably better FPS in P3D. And this even WITHOUT changing the settings. So:

 

1. FSX, DX10 Fixer, REX Softclouds, FSGRW, REX Cloudtextures (512x512 mostly), Aerosoft Airbus A319, UT2 at 30%, Aerosoft Zurich v2 in the afternoon: 12-15FPS in the VC.

 

2. P3Dv3: almost max settings, that means more autogen buildings and trees, cloud shadows, REX 4 (1024x1024), REX Softclouds, FSGRW, Aerosoft Airbus A319, UT2 at 50% (!), Aerosoft Zurich v2 in the afternoon (same time as in FSX to have the same AI traffic): 22-25FPS.

 

Same observations I made so far in FlyTampa Athens and Copenhagen, Aerosoft Barcelona and Madrid, UK2000 Edinburgh, FlyTampa Dubai and so on. On EVERY bigger airport with the exception of the old Charles-De-Gaulle scenery, I have about 30% more FPS compared to FSX using higher settings and more AI traffic in P3D.

 

So, yes, I do not deny that this could all be due to the fact that my P3D is a completely new installation without all the garbage accumulated over the years in my FSX installation, but I doubt that a brand new FSX installation would show similar FPS, if the settings are really adjusted. I personally think that P3D somehow changed the logic behind the AI traffic computation, as there I see the biggest difference. For example FlyTampa Athens: I had a solid 30FPS in FSX over there as well, as soon as the AI traffic loaded, the FPS went down the drain to about 15-18FPS. Now, in P3D, I have again my solid 30FPS and as soon as the AI traffic is loaded, the FPS only drop a notch, to 25-27FPS. And notably with activated self-shadowing, ground shadows and building shadows on the AI planes, while in FSX there was only ground shadows available.

 

You may well be right on the AI traffic.  This is a real killer in FSX, and if P3D handles this better, that would indeed give you better performance with heavy AI load..  my comment was based on the basic flightsim engine - but addons may indeed perform better in P3D, and for many users that could be a major benefit..  Agreed!  :smile: