PMDG and Dynamic Lighting

[andreh 125]

1 hour ago, Anxu00 said:

Probably because those are not using DL, which would make sense, as the light output from those do not reach the ground.

Well, then.... that explains that

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

3 hours ago, Anxu00 said:

Probably because those are not using DL, which would make sense, as the light output from those do not reach the ground.

they use DL....

[sidfadc 1,344]

The issue for me is this...

Using DL + PMDG 737 + 8 x MSAA = fine performance day and night.  The trade off is the HORRIBLE flickering night lights from ORBX.

To cure this I need to run at 4 x SSAA or above, however in conjunction with DL + PMDG 737 + Night time the performance drops through the floor.

The only solution at the moment for me is 4 x SSAA during the day and 8 x MSAA at night and try really hard to ignore the horrible flickering night lights.

I'm using a i7 4790k 4.4Ghz + 1070.

[Clement75 0]

Sorry to bring back an old thread but I think it's an important information.
On p3D v4, the 737-700 with winglets has the old landing lights system, so I just fly the 700 at night.

With Dynamic lights activated, they look as nice as the 800/900 with the same fps drop.

Now this makes me angry when PMDG said no to implementing the old system despite soooo many customers complaining about massive fps drop. It can be done obviously since it's working on the 700WL. This is basically PMDG insulting their customers, where it would probably take them an hour to port the fix to the 8/900...

Edited May 31, 2018 by clementtrincal

[Nighthwk 566]

1 hour ago, clementtrincal said:

This is basically PMDG insulting their customers, where it would probably take them an hour to port the fix to the 8/900...

I’m not so certain it is as easy as you suggest, otherwise I’m sure PMDG would’ve given the option for legacy lights.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

2 hours ago, clementtrincal said:

It can be done obviously since it's working on the 700WL.

It can be done. We never said it couldn't be. The issue is that having it both ways is not easy.

2 hours ago, clementtrincal said:

This is basically PMDG insulting their customers, where it would probably take them an hour to port the fix to the 8/900...

This is a bit hyperbolic.

1. I'm struggling to find an insult in here. You can shove a GM LS-1 engine into a BMW M3. It's pretty difficult to do, though, so you won't be able to have an option of using one engine one day, and another engine the other day. The fact that the changes got left out of one of the models just means we forgot to shove the new engine into the car, and not that it's impossible to use the original engine; and
2. It isn't a "fix." It's a reversion. Huge difference. Fix implies something is broken, when this isn't the case. Reversion is the proper term because the change in the 800/900 would require us to back the changes out, and revert them to a prior state.

Hyperbole, by the way, is really an awful way to get someone's attention to your viewpoint. Hyperbolic accusations only take that point that much further.

[VHOJT 172]

Should I be able to use DL with a 980ti at 4K with only MSAA?

My guess is NO, because I get horrible FPS (sometimes acceptable with one taxi light on).  I just thought I'd check if someone has a similar set-up - maybe I'm doing something wrong?

Cheers,

Rudy

[777 340]

Not the best time to get back into simming lol. Same old same old. 

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 530]

Developers themselves should make it clear to LM that dynamic lights don't serve and/or don't make sense and therefore should be removed from the simulator.

[Ephedrin 418]

It actually makes a lot of sense as that‘s pretty much what you see from a cockpit. Just because your (one‘s) hardware cant handle it it‘s not automatically a bad thing. Next years Hardware will probably make SSAA look ridiculously ancient.

[anden145 2,285]

10 hours ago, otreblA said:

Developers themselves should make it clear to LM that dynamic lights don't serve and/or don't make sense and therefore should be removed from the simulator.

That's a highly personal and subjective opinion! It would suit you, to declare it as such.

The ability to be able to utilize Dynamic Lighting, is highly depended on your settings and how you're system is setup. You have two choices - either setup P3D within reason and adjust your settings to be able to use Dynamic Lighting or disable Dynamic Lighting. 

Just because you have performance problems with running Dynamic Ligthing, doesn't automatically mean, that it should be removed or that it's broken or it's a bug.

I really like the Dynamic Lighting in P3D, since it gives a more realistic lighting environment. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Anders Bermann

[VHOJT 172]

36 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

That's a highly personal and subjective opinion! It would suit you, to declare it as such.

The ability to be able to utilize Dynamic Lighting, is highly depended on your settings and how you're system is setup. You have two choices - either setup P3D within reason and adjust your settings to be able to use Dynamic Lighting or disable Dynamic Lighting. 

Just because you have performance problems with running Dynamic Ligthing, doesn't automatically mean, that it should be removed or that it's broken or it's a bug.

I really like the Dynamic Lighting in P3D, since it gives a more realistic lighting environment. 

Hi Anders - do you have some set-up recommendations?  I have a 6700k @ 4.5 and a 980ti running a 4K monitor - am I basically doomed DL-wise until a hardware upgrade?

[downscc 1,327]

4 hours ago, VHOJT said:

Hi Anders - do you have some set-up recommendations?  I have a 6700k @ 4.5 and a 980ti running a 4K monitor - am I basically doomed DL-wise until a hardware upgrade?

I had the same combination up to a few years ago... and since then I've gone to a 7700K and now an 8700K to keep up.  It's not a bad idea to plan for CPU upgrades every four years... if you build your own then you reuse the case, drives, power supply and maybe even video card and at the least only change out mobo and cpu.  Just advice...if the budget allows.

I found that the 6700K/980Ti combo worked best for me if I limited the frame rate to 20-24 fps.  I'd still get a fluid animation on my 4K screen but the hit it's take from clouds or dynamic lighting would be decreased and the lowest frame rate would increase when I used the frame rate lock.  Also don't use an AA more aggressive than 4xMSAA.

[VHOJT 172]

1 hour ago, downscc said:

I had the same combination up to a few years ago... and since then I've gone to a 7700K and now an 8700K to keep up.  It's not a bad idea to plan for CPU upgrades every four years... if you build your own then you reuse the case, drives, power supply and maybe even video card and at the least only change out mobo and cpu.  Just advice...if the budget allows.

I found that the 6700K/980Ti combo worked best for me if I limited the frame rate to 20-24 fps.  I'd still get a fluid animation on my 4K screen but the hit it's take from clouds or dynamic lighting would be decreased and the lowest frame rate would increase when I used the frame rate lock.  Also don't use an AA more aggressive than 4xMSAA.

Thanks for the good advice as always, Dan - I'll give that a go.  My next upgrade probably won't be till end of year, by then I'll be looking to do something similar to what you have done.

[Clement75 0]

On 5/31/2018 at 5:38 AM, scandinavian13 said:

It can be done. We never said it couldn't be. The issue is that having it both ways is not easy.

This is a bit hyperbolic.

1. I'm struggling to find an insult in here. You can shove a GM LS-1 engine into a BMW M3. It's pretty difficult to do, though, so you won't be able to have an option of using one engine one day, and another engine the other day. The fact that the changes got left out of one of the models just means we forgot to shove the new engine into the car, and not that it's impossible to use the original engine; and
2.  It isn't a "fix." It's a reversion. Huge difference. Fix implies something is broken, when this isn't the case. Reversion is the proper term because the change in the 800/900 would require us to back the changes out, and revert them to a prior state.

 Hyperbole, by the way, is really an awful way to get someone's attention to your viewpoint. Hyperbolic accusations only take that point that much further.

 

Well sorry if that sounded hyperbolic, but my point being that Dynamic Lighting is basically unusable right now even with a very good computer, and I absolutely understand it's LM's own fault.

Now what bothers me is that PMDG gave a definitive NO to someone on the forum asking to enable both, which I found the way of saying it was pretty rude, while it actually works on the 700 (and dynamic lights also work if enabled). I've been flying the 700 with DL off for the last couple of weeks and can't see any downside of having both.

So why not make it the same for the whole range of NGX, whether it's a fix/revision/downgrade or whatever it's called ? I'm sure 90% of users would then use DL off right now.

I just think it's kind of ridiculous that many customers are flying at night without taxi and landing lights just because of a revision that PMDG doesn't want to do because Dynamic Lighting is "the future".

Maybe I got it all wrong but that's how I see things right now