Anybody seen FPS at Heathrow in V4 yet?

[vc10man 732]

53 minutes ago, Raven9000 said:

What?   No.. that post was just for a hicup/stutter when crossing that line, not about performance in general...

I stand corrected if that was what it was referring to, as I vaguely remember a post Chock had made about the London area so thought it was worthy a look-up.

[glider_uk 17]

I have just done a clean install of V4 only added Orbx, 

Tower view fully zoomed out looking at the first stand, I am getting 15 to 17 FPS compared to other areas of 40\60 FPS.
Interestingly Gatwick is 2 FPS better but come away from London and I'm back to 40/60

[swiesma 625]

I have the same behaviour as @glider_uk

 

Very good performance in all regions I saw until now, only the London area is a mess :-) The only bad thing I found until now about v4.

[4L0M 33]

Heathrow has been my go to airport for sim testing since the day FSX came out, my reasoning being that if I can get acceptable frames here, then the rest of my flying should be nice and smooth anywhere else.

It's by far and away ( for me anyway being from UK ), the heaviest to run airport that I use a lot.

At least a 1000 times I have sat on the runway with 9 frames a second in the rain, tweaking this and tweaking that to eek an extra few frames here and there, spending £600+ every 2 years or so for the last 10 years on new graphics cards to see 2 frames a second each time improvement ( That's not even a joke, as I'm sure a lot of you are equally as sad as me :P )

With mytraffic 6 at 20% , Active sky & Asca, stock scenery on a i5 4690k w/c to 4.2Ghz, 16gb ram and a MSI overclocked 970, not even installed on an ssd, it's installed on a Toshiba 4TB 128mb cache enterprise drive, I'm getting roughly 10 frames MORE than I ever have done in FSX, FSX SE or any P3D before v4.  This is with the settings I always use, but I have bumped my Autogen Buildings and Vegetation up from Dense to very Dense - triple bufferered frames locked to 30, so I am actually happy with performance.  (26-28 frames on runway, almost instant 30 as soon as I leave the tarmac).

Fly following the Thames into central London is also a massive frame killer and OOM hotspot in the past, and while we won't be getting OOM anymore from the move to 64bit, The sim is still essentially doing what it has done since FSX came out, Hammer 1 core, unload some processes to core 2 and every other core in use (regardless of how many cores you have got, if I remember correctly, Pete from ACES said in an interview about 10 years ago that FSX could use a maximum of 255 cores), but all the cores bar the first 2 are schedulers used to load scenery, thats it.

 

Whether LM has magically managed to make the engine spread processing of AI traffic etc onto the extra cores I don't know, but the move to 64bit isn't going to instantly give people quadruple framerates over what they had before I'm afraid.

[bonchie 2,305]

There are 25,999 other airports to go enjoy.

I know I'm being snarky, but seriously. For like a decade we've seen complaints about performance at Heathrow. It's clearly not going to get better lol.

[beachdog2001 21]

I was playing around last night at Heathrow coincidently and on my system the auto gen radius has a big effect, most of the other sliders, not so much. Fps went from 15-20 with AG radius full right to 45 fps+ on the middle setting on my setup, so clearly a big impact (sitting at the end of 27L, all other Scenery sliders full right). Of course, this make sense, right? Drawing all that AG out to who knows how far away has just got to hammer the system. Actually, even at 1/2 setting, there was plenty of AG and everything looked great to be honest. Could be we need to recalibrate our expectation of what this slider is and means and how we use it.

[swiesma 625]

4 hours ago, bonchie said:

There are 25,999 other airports to go enjoy.

I know I'm being snarky, but seriously. For like a decade we've seen complaints about performance at Heathrow. It's clearly not going to get better lol.

Yeah. You are right. But even at dense areas like ksfo or klax performance is ok. And I don't see a reason why egll is about 60% slower :-)

[thepilot 562]

4 hours ago, bonchie said:

There are 25,999 other airports to go enjoy.

Even better: There are no less than five more London airports to choose from (Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City and Southend).

I prefer them all over Heathrow, in the sim as in the real world.

[cannow 61]

Have to be said I really like V4 amazing performance DD New York x works like a dream 30 fps upwards and smooth . KSFO san francisico great . Hong kong with both airports old and new 40fps upwards  . Every where I go I get fantastic performance compared to V3 except London . Wish I could find the answer or a developer who could cure it . Shame orbx did not achieve it with FTX England just made things worse. At least I will be able to take off without ooming from egll shame it will be 15 fps until away from London. May get a bit higher with low autogen radius . 

[morph10 2]

I like to know how you all got Aerosoft Heathrow to work in P3D v4? the installer has not be released yet.

[cannow 61]

create the correct xml file . the low fps exists with default though .

[331BK 96]

i also have to say with pmdg 747, orbx global, england, trees hd and aerosoft heathrow i have 15-18 FPS with the Turbine Duke it was a lot better.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

The two things I think about after reading this

On 6/3/2017 at 3:10 PM, thepilot said:

Even better: There are no less than five more London airports to choose from (Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City and Southend).

I prefer them all over Heathrow, in the sim as in the real world.

Is the performance at these airports significantly better?  Someone mentioned Gatwick is marginally better.  The three things I think about are:

• Non-autogen objects.  Buildings and antenna that Orbx doesn't replace.
• Mesh.  Maybe something messed up?
• Water, but KSFO has a lot of water around it.  Still, might be worth a try to turn water slider to the left as an experiment.

How's FlyTampa, CYYZ in P3D 4?

[thepilot 562]

I usually fly into Stansted and Luton and performance there is excellent (that is, in FSX with a mid-end system). Keep in mind though that these places are at quite a distance from London's city center which is helpful for performance. The same would apply to Gatwick I guess and certainly Southend as well, since it's the farthest one out.

The real frame killer at London though is AI traffic. Given the five big airports in that area and passing traffic, FSX/P3D tends to load extreme amounts of traffic (with AI set at 100% usually between 400-500 aircraft!). I have been using a limiter for a while and I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has given me about 5-10 fps more without noticing fewer aircraft around me – some loaded ones were 3000 miles away...

[evaamo 549]

Default London is really heavy due to Autogen, according to my tests.

I have moved Autogen building to normal and vegetation to dense (either option - normal trees or Speedtrees make no performance difference on my system) and moved Autogen drawing distance to very high. I'm getting 25fps over London in stormy weather using PMDG's 747-400 QOTS II.

I suppose that once Aerosoft Heathrow is updated, and adding Vector + OpenLC Europe will cause a significant FPS drop.

cheers

-E

edit: system is an i7 6700k (non-OC) with a Gigabyte 1080ti founder's edition running at 4k.