turner112

Hey, NICE supercomputer! And you say P3D V4 runs well? Wow!

Recommended Posts

:)  But let's see some posts from people with crappy old computers!

Didn't get my copy yet, but here's my system:
 

Dell XPS 8300

intel core i5-2320 cpu 3.00ghz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 ti


I dare you...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

i7-3930 + GTX 680 here + 32 GB RAM. Will post early next week with some results. I am pretty happy with v3, but could use a framerate boost at my preferred visual settings. Hoping v4 will be get me where I want to be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

3770k here.  GTX 780 SLI.   32GB RAM.  I don't have much hardware envy ... yet.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, denali said:

3770k here.  GTX 780 SLI.   32GB RAM.  I don't have much hardware envy ... yet.

 

32 GB of System Ram?  I wish, as stated don't have even half of that...unless I want to pop for a new MB....:(

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am getting better loading, performance and visuals with V4 compared to V3

My Specs i7 6700K 4.5GHZ GTX970 and 16GB DDR4 RAM. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, turner112 said:

:)  But let's see some posts from people with crappy old computers!

Didn't get my copy yet, but here's my system:
 

Dell XPS 8300

intel core i5-2320 cpu 3.00ghz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 ti


I dare you...

Well get a copy and post your results asap...pretty sure you win when it comes to the antiquated. lol

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... slow unzip. This is like watching... a large file unzip.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well I am curious to see how it will run on my pc once it is back up and running. 

i5 @ 3.2 ghz

16gb ram

GPU (GTX 650 ti SC)is dead so hopefully will replace it with a GTX 1070. Also thinking of buying a new monitor. Looking at ultrawide monitors. So many people on the forums have very powerful rigs...so I hope my rig will perform well enough. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

At least FSW looks a little different for the frame rate. P3D looks the same as FSX and performs worse. But I dont care, its the best we have until FSW progresses or X-Plane does something big. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

P3D looks the same as FSX and performs worse.

Really?  Have you been reading this and other forums?  That certainly has not been my experience and from all the posts I've read here and elsewhere it hasn't been that for others also.

Vic

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, here are some observations on about 10 mins sim time before bed last night....

 

Dell XPS 8300
Intel core i5-2320 cpu 3.00ghz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 ti
16GB Ram (not sure what kind at the moment)


1) Everything loaded MUCH faster. Aircraft selection, airport selection, time of day, etc. 

2) Same crappy GPS? Is there a moving map yet? (X-Plane 11's GPS is very good)

3) Would like to finally see sloping runways

4) Great performance - with no tweaks on my meager system & I got 25-28 fps out of the gate. Cloud shadows at default distance (I think 50 miles) didn't have much effect.

5) Smooth performance even with framerate drop - I bumped up cloud coverage, and while my FPS did drop to the teens, for some reason, it was still smooth. Nicely done.

6) I couldn't get full overcast, exactly, even with clouds at 100%. Pretty close, though.
6a) Low visibility fade is not good, i.e. the change from full to no visibility, e.g. at 10 miles, is too abrupt

7) Did I mention the sh!t gps? :) I guess I'll have to look at add-ons for a 530/430 combo.

8) Scenery distance was very impressive and looked great in the distance, but textures were too homogenous. 

9) Speaking of which, we need a) real roads, and b) no roads in textures

10) This didn't look like FSX to me.

11) There is a pause in sound after coming back into the sim from adjusting things / choosing aircraft / etc.

12) Night textures... sharper than before on my system, but really just not my favorite. if there was a way to add point lights and / or sharpen & brighten distant night textures, it would go a long way. Forget point lights, just sharpen & brighten in the distance...

13) Dusk looked great

14) Runway environment draws in as you get close, e.g. every other runway light. Also, I landed at an airport that had approach lighting but no VASI or alternative. Not sure if that's accurate but will have to look at a few other airports. Anyway, runway lighting is too bright from a distance. Airports are HARD to see at night in real life unless you're lined up or on top of them. I'd like to see pilot controlled lighting as well, as not all airports always have their approach lighting turned on. (Does any sim model this?)

Ok, that's all for what I've seen in about 10 mins. Overall, it's promising, but does feel more like an incremental update with nice performance so far, especially considering my ancient & underpowered system. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, turner112 said:

Ok, here are some observations on about 10 mins sim time before bed last night....

 

Dell XPS 8300
Intel core i5-2320 cpu 3.00ghz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 ti
16GB Ram (not sure what kind at the moment)

 

Ok, that's all for what I've seen in about 10 mins. Overall, it's promising, but does feel more like an incremental update with nice performance so far, especially considering my ancient & underpowered system. 

 

 

Well that's good news for simmers with lower end PC set ups. I checked my CPU's specs last night and while it does have 4 cores, it does not have hyper-threading so hopefully that is not too much of a disadvantage for me.

From reading other threads I have already seen a few tips that may help folks like yourself and me get better performance from our "commoner" :dry: rigs. Disabling "Speedtrees" is one suggestion I see floating around that may help. Can't wait to get my new GPU to join in on the fun. Missing my flight simming.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good topic.

As we know, in the decade or so that we've been putting up with having to use a sledghammer to crack a walnut, by having to install a massively overblown GPU and RAM with a bus speed that hardly any other PC applications requires in order to run adequately, just so it can speed up the very few features of FS which were actually utilising that hardware, we've got used to the notion that FS needs a supercomputer to run.

But it really should not be so. The base platform is over a decade old and when it was originally created, contemporary GPUs were stuff like Radeon 6700s and NVidia 500s and contemporary RAM was DDR2; these items were perfectly capable of running contemporary 3D shooter games such as ARMA, SkyRim, Saint's Row etc at acceptable speeds and can still even today manage to run many fancy games on slightly reduced graphics settings. And these are games with graphics which make FS look like a joke by comparison, so really, if sims such as P3D, FSW and XP11 are properly optimised to use the GPU, an older GPU should be able to run them. Look at AeroFly FS2 after all; that thing goes like a train with 200fps easily achievable on even really crappy hardware. So what will impress me, is when and if ESP-based stuff can do that, because if thse sims truly have been GPU optimsed, they absolutely should run acceptably on relatively moderate hardware,

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

At least FSW looks a little different for the frame rate. P3D looks the same as FSX and performs worse. But I dont care, its the best we have until FSW progresses or X-Plane does something big. 

You are joking, aren't you? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

You are joking, aren't you? 

No Bob, he's trolling as usual

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

dont you know him by now---you should

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

i7-7700k @ 4.8Ghz, 32Gb DDR4 3200  cas14, GTX 980Ti, 50" Hisense 4k TV - running in 4k, managed to get 5mins in before an area wide power failure last night - was looking at between 50-80fps with default aircraft all options maxed apart from dynamic reflections and dynamic autogen.  (The gpu was running at 100% though so could be limiting things). The autogen speedtrees kill performance..but seem to come enabled by default.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, turner112 said:

Wow... slow unzip. This is like watching... a large file unzip.

 

You don't say. 😋

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

At least FSW looks a little different for the frame rate. P3D looks the same as FSX and performs worse. But I dont care, its the best we have until FSW progresses or X-Plane does something big. 

I must admit, I kind of agree. Looking at the latest videos on V4 I am left extremely un-inspired. The textures have the same colourless, lifeless even, feel that FSX had/has. A texture upgrade wouldn't hurt. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rick Flair said:

I must admit, I kind of agree. Looking at the latest videos on V4 I am left extremely un-inspired. The textures have the same colourless, lifeless even, feel that FSX had/has. A texture upgrade wouldn't hurt. 

There's a reason FTX Global exists.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

You are joking, aren't you? 

8 hours ago, Glynn said:

No Bob, he's trolling as usual

No you two. An opposite opinion doesn't immediately make someone a "troll". Don't be so quick to use that phrase when others are critical of sims you want to praise, especially you Bob, who was rampant before FSW was even released.

With that said, I am a P3D user, have been for years, and will likely be for about the next year or so. But this is not what a flight sim revival looks like. It is the same thing it has been since 2.5 with the exception of cloud shadows, the water, and 64 bit. Yes we have some new GPU usage improvement (make no mistake the sim isnt faster, its just more hardware balanced).  But what else do we really have to show for the last 10 years of stagnation? I am not trolling, I am being honest about how I feel about spending $200 on this. 

6 hours ago, Rick Flair said:

I must admit, I kind of agree. Looking at the latest videos on V4 I am left extremely un-inspired. The textures have the same colourless, lifeless even, feel that FSX had/has. A texture upgrade wouldn't hurt. 

Glad I am not the only one. At least DTG did something we havent seen before. And they did it in 64 bit first. LM is more open, so the devs flock to it, but it is not the sim we honestly "want" to look at. 

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who knows the consequences of bad medical advice, I think I will avoid taking legal counsel on the internet Karsten. The point is not the money, its the value and the appropriateness of the platform in todays market.  

Edited by vgbaron
removed quoted violation

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

The point is not the money, its the value and the appropriateness of the platform in todays market.  

To that I can only say that I agree and disagree with your points at the same time.

I agree because the base package of P3D hasn't improved considerably over the last decade. Compared to the newer iterations of for example XP it looks like ######.

I disagree because as a basic OS for a simming platform it is unrivaled. No other platform offers this much capability to be improved through add-ons. That is worth quite a lot to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now