I came, I saw, I have my first hickup

[SteveW 1,792]

can anyone supply the holy grail of AM settings

 

You just got it a few posts ago. More or less in a nutshell, enable just four LPs, if you got enough cores, use one per core, and keep the addons from the first core utilised by the sim. If you only got four cores and you want to reserve a core for addons, then continue to break up the sim onto four LPs, on three cores, but the best performance comes from grouping the middle two. There's little point watching fps since you can increase it by reducing the sliders or reducing the screen size, or increasing the overclock, or unchecking the shadows and other features. Remember the true performance of the sim is a combination of fps ability, and background performance. Enable less LPs for less heat and less background performance.

[joemiller 269]

Now I understand why I kept reading: "never looked back."  Now I understand that P3d V3 is far better than FSX.... I never thought I would say these words, but guess what?

 

I just did !

 

Yes indeed. A much better experience.. Much better fluidity..Much better visuals...Much better VAS....Much better FPS..And much better performance!  

 

How can you argue with that?  Nope- No can do!  I have a looong way to go in installing add-ons; but, I can already see the benefits.

[Mroberts95 136]

Hi Joe. I saw this however I do not run windows 7 and  I cannot use the Aero theme

[Guest]

OMG,  This is SOLVED !

 

I selected  "Aero Themes 7" and oh wow, this fixed the issue. No more tearing; no more jiggles- All stable. Unbelievable, I was about to give up after trying to fix it for almost a week. (And the worst part, I completely formatted my FSX drive- gone.. Never thought I would do that.. brings me tears).

 

Uffff, back in business. Now time to start installing add-ons starting with OBRX regions, ASN, and REX.

 

Thank you very much guys- especially J van E

I hope new comers- or even- current simmers are able to find this thread. And realize what a difference  selecting of "Aero Themes 7" can make.

Glad to see you've got it working! You're very welcome. Although my advice to turn aero off wasn't exactly the right advice (at least not in your case), I am happy to see you apparently read that whole thread I linked to and that it got you on the right track.

[joemiller 269]

PMDG

 

So, now I'm faced with installing all of my PMDG aircrafts, and I've come to realize I have to once again purchase all of them? Well, this has to irritate me, especially  seeing the price at which they are selling these for. Yes, they are great products, but so are Aerosoft's  and other developers who have provided a P3D installer (free of charge), or at least a significant discount.

 

I remember when PMDG went around getting the 'feel' from simmers as to what price to charge for P3D version. I could not believe some folks saying: "Ohhh, I would pay any price. I don't care what they charge I will purchase it."  And, there you have it, they re-charge the same price- if not more-, for the exact product, only with a P3D installer. Then you have the argument about licenses, and then you would ask: "So how do other developers such as Aerosoft decided not to  fall into such scams? (Good question).

 

So, with so many Boeing add-ons out there, I might just go with one. And, best to go with one that at least offers a discount. I know there are other options but I prefer to stick with legal options.

 

Cheers!

[Guest]

You are not the only one who feels like that, I can assure you. Personally I don't fly PMDG planes anymore. But I like the Airbus more anyway (when it comes to airliners) so I am lucky.

[SteveW 1,792]

PMDG

 

there you have it, they re-charge the same price- if not more-, for the exact product...you would ask: "So how do other developers such as Aerosoft decided not to fall into such scams?

 

There's no scams. If a product just slots into P3D with no development, and no further development is planned, then the product most likely is left to sell to P3D and FSX owners alike. But FSX and P3D are diverging systems. Under the hood, you'll find some surprises over FSX, and depending on how deep your addon reaches into the sim, you'll find you can't make some stuff work the same at all. Some differences can mean months of work, that's why PMDG didn't release P3D compatible products for some time. Now the devs have to look at developing down two roads, DTG FS and P3D. If they don't charge for that work, they won't be in the game in a few years time.

[BrettT 63]

 

You just got it a few posts ago. More or less in a nutshell, enable just four LPs, if you got enough cores, use one per core, and keep the addons from the first core utilised by the sim. If you only got four cores and you want to reserve a core for addons, then continue to break up the sim onto four LPs, on three cores, but the best performance comes from grouping the middle two. There's little point watching fps since you can increase it by reducing the sliders or reducing the screen size, or increasing the overclock, or unchecking the shadows and other features. Remember the true performance of the sim is a combination of fps ability, and background performance. Enable less LPs for less heat and less background performance.

 

I agree that this works well, though I do feel there is a quality aspect.  I had been using the approach of teaming up two threads on one physical core and and leaving the first physical core free (10,11,10,00) but I found that I was getting alot of "bluries" with the textures and especially apparent with the roads which would get very jagged.  This wasn't across the whole screen but in spots here and there.  If I paused the sim, it would catch up and everything would get crisp again.  I poked around with graphics settings a good bit and it didn't seem to make much of a difference.  Finally I tried just putting one LP on each Physical core (10,10,10,10) and the bluries disappeared and everything has been crisp since.  In neither case was the graphics card pegged.  I will say that this was with a relatively quick aircraft (WW2 warbird) at lower altitudes (1000-1500ft) in some ORBX scenery.  From a quality standpoint this has worked much better.  Just thought I would pass this along.

[SteveW 1,792]

As I have said many times, four cores are better than three, that's why I recommend AM=85 for four core HT enabled.

 

When the sim is pushed onto three cores to reserve a core for addons, one core running the sim must do more work. If it has to be this way, because of the addons, then I found AM=116 to be the best performing setup which combines the second and third jobs onto a core.

 

Changes to FFTF affect how these setups finally perform, because these setups concentrate on keeping the main thread to a core of it's own, where the three other jobs are processing in the background.

 

That's the trouble with four cores, we have to share space on the CPU with addons. A six core is handy since we can always allocate 4 cores to the sim. I found five cores was worse than four cores and can bring on those blurred tiles quicker.

[BrettT 63]

I am running my add-ons (ASN, Plan-G) from a networked computer so that helps a bit.  I was just surprised how much difference there was in blurries when two LPs were shared on one core as opposed to being one per core.  Thanks for all you have done in investigating the finer workings

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Dont forget PMDG P3D 24bit versions are free - so thats worth it imo

[SteveW 1,792]

I am running my add-ons (ASN, Plan-G) from a networked computer so that helps a bit. I was just surprised how much difference there was in blurries when two LPs were shared on one core as opposed to being one per core. Thanks for all you have done in investigating the finer workings

Yes, that's right. The thing is if we do use three cores, we can use HT to our advantage. With HT we can still split out the sim into 4 parts. Those four parts work better split up than leaving them as three parts and no HT dvantage:

 

116=01,11,01,00

84=01,01,01,00

 

85=01,01,01,01

 

170=10,10,10,10

[joemiller 269]

There's no scams. If a product just slots into P3D with no development, and no further development is planned, then the product most likely is left to sell to P3D and FSX owners alike. But FSX and P3D are diverging systems. Under the hood, you'll find some surprises over FSX, and depending on how deep your addon reaches into the sim, you'll find you can't make some stuff work the same at all. Some differences can mean months of work, that's why PMDG didn't release P3D compatible products for some time. Now the devs have to look at developing down two roads, DTG FS and P3D. If they don't charge for that work, they won't be in the game in a few years time.

I understand your explanation. However, there's no need to charge full price. The product wasn't build from sratch.... it was already there. And to make it compatible, I am sure it did not take too long. The bottom line is-no matter what explanation they offer-, they could at least have the courtesy of offering a discount for current owners. I have 7 of their products. Can you imagine having to pay again for all 7? No, not reasonable.

 

Aerosot's best explanation was: "Why should we charge for the same product again? There is no need." Same with ASN, REX, ORBX, and you name it...They also decided to be honest with their loyal customers.

[SteveW 1,792]

The product wasn't build from sratch.... it was already there. And to make it compatible, I am sure it did not take too long.

You're missing the point that if products that have not stopped development, that is, you expect continued updates and support for a product, and yet only pay an initial fee, then where's the big problem with paying for what you get. LM has rights to use Microsoft code you already paid for in FSX, and yet you pay for P3D.

 

...You're thinking along the lines that if it were a replacement car then the metal has to be sourced again and so you expect to pay for it. But code can simply be copied at no cost, right?

[SteveW 1,792]

 

...what about when DFS comes out? They only need fiddle with a couple of file formats, recompile the .dll in 64bit. They can do that while brewing a cup of tea, otherwise it's exactly the same plane. How long is it before devs have to start charging? If they are in a position to let old products at the end of life go to P3D without cost, that's commendable, but finite.