41 minutes ago, DJJose said:

the regions have not be optimized for v4

the NGX no, but if you could give me proof that the regions are even optimized for v3, I would agree with you.  The ORBX regions textures etc. have been the same as they were in FSX.  The only thing that changed was the object flow technology.  Giving that the texture, landclass is the same, I would expect P3Dv4 memory usage to be similar to v3 with the performance boost, sadly  and unless LM improves the memory handling, accumulate memory that much will cause OOM on the machine that you have depending on the RAM that you have.

2 hours ago, Tabs said:

Physical memory usage (VRAM and system RAM) yes, but VAS is a meaningless measurement with v4. We have something like 16 exabytes of address space now, which is an unfathomable amount that nothing is going to exceed.

Correct in that VAS is no longer an issue, however, if the application is not efficient, the average simmer can still OOM if the physical memory is at 8 GB and the disk swap is going nut trying to keep up.  Yes it is exabytes of address space, but the PC does not have that much memory.

 

2 hours ago, him225 said:

Does v4 with increased LOD radius get rid of the monotonous landclass texture pattern visible from cruise in some parts of the globe?

V4 shouldn't be touching landclass.

23 minutes ago, Anxu00 said:

the NGX no, but if you could give me proof that the regions are even optimized for v3, I would agree with you.  The ORBX regions textures etc. have been the same as they were in FSX.  The only thing that changed was the object flow technology.  Giving that the texture, landclass is the same, I would expect P3Dv4 memory usage to be similar to v3 with the performance boost, sadly  and unless LM improves the memory handling, accumulate memory that much will cause OOM on the machine that you have depending on the RAM that you have.

No proof, but I read somewhere that add-ons have to be optimized for v4. I'm assuming that a dev like ORBX will ensure that their sceneries will perform as well as they can in v4. If optimizing is required, I'm confident that they'll take progressive action.

4 hours ago, bic said:

I was thinking of upgrading from 8 gig of memory to 16...

I was thinking the same. =) But I think I'll stay at 16. For now lol.

4 hours ago, Tabs said:

Physical memory usage (VRAM and system RAM) yes, but VAS is a meaningless measurement with v4. We have something like 16 exabytes of address space now, which is an unfathomable amount that nothing is going to exceed.

Again, thinking the same.. just waiting to someone else say it loud.

 

Another thing... if load radius didn't actually improved with v4 why the hell did he screaming on top of his lungs here:

 

Edited May 30, 20179 yr by vgbaron
Removed video containing foul language

It looks like Matt needs to disable the default AFD runway markings at LOWI with Airport Design Editor.....

Stutters... Maybe with v5 stutters will gone...

17 minutes ago, spitzer45 said:

Stutters... Maybe with v5 stutters will gone...

let's waiting until 2019/2020.

That was FRAPS used for the recording I think. FRAPS has a very significant impact on FPS and induces stutters while recording. He should have used ShadowPlay. Anyway, that video as I see was very encoraging. The FPS was nearly always above 30! That means that so long as you can set your display to 30hz you will have perfectly smooth stutter free game play and very high setting and no OOM's. And don't forget this is V4.0 so over the next year or so I am sure we will see much improvement. I am very encouraged and today is the day that I return to FS after a 1.5 year absence. Heck I even bought me some new ORBX

If you compare Apples to Apples ... meaning you use equivalent V3 to V4 settings and don't use some of the additional features in V4, then you will see a 15-20% FPS increase in V4.

What an end user does with V4 graphics settings and add-on that will trigger stutters is entirely END USER'S CHOICE.

As far as memory, I've not exceed 16GB RAM with everything maxed out + some add-ons that I know use considerable memory.  If you push the LOD beyond what's provided via the UI you'll use 10.9GB VRAM.  My RAM and VRAM usage may increase in the future as we see more add-ons leverage higher resolution textures and more complex/realistic systems.

Cheers, Rob.

5 hours ago, Tabs said:

Physical memory usage (VRAM and system RAM) yes, but VAS is a meaningless measurement with v4. We have something like 16 exabytes of address space now, which is an unfathomable amount that nothing is going to exceed.

Currently, only 48 bits are used for addressing, so the actual limit is 256 terabytes (or tebibytes in the IEC nomenclature).  Windows reserves 128 TiB for itself, leaving the other 128 TiB for user space.   Hopefully, no one has purchased 16 EiB for their system because they will be disappointed.

Quote

If you push the LOD beyond what's provided via the UI you'll use 10.9GB VRAM

Just out of curiosity, Rob......what is the VRAM usage for a bog standard V4 install at default LOD settings and 1920x1080 resolution?

Is it just me or does P3D V4 not evenly spread out its usage of hardware? It seems to use more of the GPU like 40% more than the CPU. I'm one of those guys that will keep settings on the lower side as to keep performance up, having experience in 64 bit simulators, 64 bit doesn't mean you can crank everything all the way to the max and have 100+ fps, it means simply that the 4GB memory allowance is no longer restricted to 4GB. 

I will be upgrading to a 1080Ti in about three weeks, however - I wonder how my 780Ti will perform with V4 in the meantime. 

As we are talking about performance here:

Has the performance hit with cloud shadows and the sun at a low angle (during dawn and dusk) been solved?

Beautifully presented video and a seemingly valid test.

Disappointing though how poor V4's visual rendering was e.g. stuttering, black initial renders and then pop-ups. Couldn't compare the shimmering observed in V3 due to a turn. Not much progress then on these issues albeit for some just eye-candy. Granted a c20% uplift in FPS is significant.

However, set against where the competition is, V4 to my eye is well-short visually. Is it FSX's architecture that contains to hold back or a different focus versus other developers?