5 minutes ago, Rossco said:

Iv'e tested with Orbx SOCAL with cloudy weather themes & with the default Baron was seeing 50fps plus with most sliders maxxed & 35fps with the Xtreme Prototype Lear25 which required optimized parts turned off which can rob you of 10fps. In all instances sim was smooth. I'm yet to test with a weather engine however any of the default cloudy themes did not appear to have as much impact as previous versions.

I'm running an i7 7700K @5.0Gz, ASUS IX Hero MB, 16Gb Ram & GTX970 4Gb.

This sim is definitely an improvement over v3 in my opinion

5

Hi Rossco, how did you manage to install ORBX to V4? Is FTX Centre updated to support V4 now"?

I'm a tester/dev for Orbx & a tester for P3D.

We had a version of FTX Central that was working for us to install any of our scenery to test. Most of the regions & LC's are fine, however some work is required on a number of the airports. Central shouldn't be far off, personally the new one worked fine for me.

 

Cannot quite get my head around this obsession for higher digits FPS. I thought as long as the sim experience was smooth without jerks, stutters, then it was acceptable and a flight could be made without having to constantly monitor 'what's my frame rate?'.

Maybe I have it wrong, but is there such a noticeable difference between say 40FPS and a higher number?

7 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Cannot quite get my head around this obsession for higher digits FPS. I thought as long as the sim experience was smooth without jerks, stutters, then it was acceptable and a flight could be made without having to constantly monitor 'what's my frame rate?'.

Maybe I have it wrong, but is there such a noticeable difference between say 40FPS and a higher number?

Imho there is 'fake smooth' and 'real smooth'.  Fake smooth you get with a low fps and a smoothness that is as good as your imagination wants to tell you it is, real smooth you get with high fps and a smoothness that feels like real life. High fps on its own doesn't necessarily mean things will run smooth, because you still can get stutters, but smooth is simply smoother at high fps. Try Aerofly FS 2 and then compare it to the smoothness FSX based sims offer. There is no comparison imho. I have experienced fake smooth in FSX and P3D for years but after trying Aerofly FS 2 I know better.

I am not posting this to start a sim vs sim war: it is just an example. Aerofly obviously can't really be compared to P3D when it comes to options and complexity.

Blame the console industry on this obsession with 60fps. Young gamers were brainwashed into thinking that anything less was a slideshow. Civilian flight simulators really do not need framerates of that magnitude. Half that is perfectly fine, assuming that it is free of stutters.

Not much difference between 40 and 60 fps. But the same fps difference between 40 and 20 is huge. 

Even with no stutters, 20 fps will never ever be smooth no matter how you look at it. Not in a million years. 

Fake 'smooth' indeed. 

Seeing slight increase in performance 3-5fps from v3 after adding addon airport and ai traffic of ut2, both working normally. Core usage is similar to v3 so AM setting will benefit as before. Scasm objects and GPs also continue to work. Noticed some improved roads in the area. Black objects with late appearing textures on panning still there, thought this was gone in x64. Overall doesn't feel much different than v3, I guess mostly the benefit of v4 will be no OOMs.

Great to see overwhelmingly great feedback.  Installing tonight.

Just flown around Flightbeams KSFO then under the Golden Gate bridge, all settings at max.

Its wonderful!!

Toronto was always the OOM of doom for me.  Can't wait to fly out of here without hanging on a knife edge.

12 hours ago, Piotr007 said:

Strange. I have som elevation issues.

Perhaps you forgot to copy over the AFX dummy file which corrects the elevation. It's located in scenery/world/scenery. For EHAM its called AFX_EHAM_flyfampa_dummy.bgl. There are some more for their other airports too.

I only have 8GB of physical RAM.. what are the implications of that in v4? Do I need more, what can go wrong with 8GB and what benefits are there with let's say 32GB?

10 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

I only have 8GB of physical RAM.. what are the implications of that in v4? Do I need more, what can go wrong with 8GB and what benefits are there with let's say 32GB?

I run with autogen and scenery maxed out, just about over 8 gb ram. Luckily I have 32gb installed.

 

That said, for max settings 8 gb ia not going to be sufficient. At medium high or medium you should be safe.

Just now, Piotr007 said:

I run with autogen and scenery maxed out, just about over 8 gb ram. Luckily I have 32gb installed.

So, what would happen if I did the same?

27 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

So, what would happen if I did the same?

If you have  a pagefile, your system would start to use it and your performance would go to single digits. If you have no pagefile, you would crash. On 1920x1080 and sim literally maxed out I was not able to reach 7 gigs of total used RAM over Heathrow, so I don't know how people push it further lol.

Anyway, performance wise I don't see any improvements vs vanilla v3 (which none of us used for nothing else but testing)