First of all, 1080Ti is NOT able to deal with DL under 4K, even without ANY antialiasing. The performance impact is enormous and it is only a question of circumstances (the number of light sources), when it will completely destroy your FPS, immersion and beliefs :)

DL should be considered an experimental feature. All products, which force users to use DL without an option of the legacy lighting, should also be considered experimental and I think they are not fully P3D4 compatible.

I disagree, I have plenty of customers using DL under 4k, of course the compromise in other parts of their settings.

Simbol 

Just out of curiosity, could someone please tell me why PMDG hardcoded the exterior lights in the NGX to only be available when using DL? 

Gary 

Just now, garydpoole said:

Just out of curiosity, could someone please tell me why PMDG hardcoded the exterior lights in the NGX to only be available when using DL? 

Gary 

Lol ask PMDG.

Many planes are implementing this though as it is the way forward and how LM is instructing models to be done on their SDK instructions.

S.

16 minutes ago, garydpoole said:

Just out of curiosity, could someone please tell me why PMDG hardcoded the exterior lights in the NGX to only be available when using DL? 

Gary 

Really due to people wanting them to and it being too much to maintain both legacy lighting and dynamic lighting. They had to pick one and they picked dynamic lighting.

1 hour ago, sbs9 said:

First of all, 1080Ti is NOT able to deal with DL under 4K, even without ANY antialiasing.

Absolute BS.  I have one and am using it with 4K and MSAA with no serious FPS issues.  

3 hours ago, ieydis said:

Absolute BS.  I have one and am using it with 4K and MSAA with no serious FPS issues.  

OK, here we go:

1080Ti - 8700K at 4.8GHz - 4K - 4xMSAA - ORBX ESSA - FSLabs A320 - no weather - no traffic - dynamic lighting OFF = 51 FPS:

Dynamic lighting ON - all other things equal = 23 FPS:

Dynamic lighting ON - added A320 taxi, landing and dome dynamic lights - all other things equal = 14 FPS:

The truth is:

1. At the moment, the implementation of DL in P3D4 is seriously wrong. XP11 achieves the same effect with a substantially lower performance impact.
    
2. Developers use DL due to the following reasons (in order of importance):

• Profit - a new technology = excitement, competitive advantage = sales
• Belief or, hopefully, information that DL will be corrected and perform ok in the foreseeable future
• Lack of knowledge or/and proper testing methodology.

By the way, the default value of DL in P3D4 is OFF. And there is not a single default simobject relying solely on DL, all support the "legacy" lighting.

9 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

And there is not a single default simobject relying solely on DL, all support the "legacy" lighting.

Again I disagree, lots of default planes that come with PD3V4 depends of DL as their default lights effects use it to operate.

The F16 for an instance use DL and all AI traffic landing and Taxi lights use DL, the setting that says “airplanes lights illuminate the runway" overrides your DL setting and use this technology for the AI traffic landing and Taxi lights regardless of your preference about DL.

On your test you should use a default Aircraft like the beech baron and not the FL labs A320 as the factor of your FPS drop might be the payware plane rather than the DL technology alone.

For example if they designed their landing and Taxi lights with very large cone lights it will affect the DL performance under 4k, it is the responsibility of developers to use the technology wisely.

Simbol 

 

 

With all due respect to those who are gamely trying to put the best face on this, it's now beyond clear that DL has a massive, and disproportionate, impact on performance regardless of what AA (or no AA) you use. Roman's demonstration shows that crystal clear (Simbol, you're right that addon aircraft can be more or less well-optimized, but what the test shows is that DL on its own has a huge effect when you hold other settings constant, even with MSAA -- which people keep saying isn't the case).

I look forward to LM fixing the DL performance, but in the meantime PMDG needs to urgently rethink its "DL or nothing" approach to lights on its aircraft. DL just isn't ready for primetime, and it makes no sense to put all your eggs in one very wonky basket.

James

Simbol, are you serious? :) May I ask you:

1. What is the default value for dynamic lighting in P3D4? ON or OFF?
2. Please name just one default P3D4 simobject, which depends solely on DL. It means, its lights do not work when DL is OFF in the settings. 
3. You say that if I have 51 FPS with DL OFF and 23 FPS with DL ON in the same aircraft, the reason for the difference is the aircraft? 

I undestand that your product is based on DL and, thus, you want to promote the technology. But I thing it would be better to (loudly) speak to LM about the problem than trying to mask it. Better for the community and for your product, too.

Roman

I've found a curious DL performance issue on my rig - the fps hit in the VC with DL enabled appears to be significantly higher than in spot mode. I wonder if that's an avenue for further optimization...

Also, performance is greatly dependent on how well DL is implemented by each vendor. For example, DL on AI aircraft using Simbol's FSReborn addon has a negligible impact on performance, whereas some airports are crippled by enabling the setting.

 

If some aircraft didn't require DL (i.e. not support legacy lighting), I'd definitely have turned off DL myself by now.  Running a 1080, not 1080Ti.

50 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

At the moment, the implementation of DL in P3D4 is seriously wrong. XP11 achieves the same effect with a substantially lower performance impact.

I'd have to agree - although potentially using different techniques, XP11 does achieve the desired DL effect without requiring Volta-level hardware so there certainly appears to be room for improvement...

All I meant was that for me, in most instances, DL does not make the simulator unplayable - at least with a 1080Ti card.  You chose a sort of worst case scenario with FSL and a very complex add-on airport.  I do of course agree that DL can and should be improved by LM.  I'm running an absolute topline rig, just about the same as yours Roman.  Many people are not so fortunate and for them DL is a complete non-starter.

 

 

6 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

I undestand that your product is based on DL and, thus, you want to promote the technology. But I thing it would be better to (loudly) speak to LM about the problem than trying to mask it. Better for the community and for you product, too.

Roman

Roman,

I am not promoting anything I am trying to explain that the technology is not the problem, it is the implementation of it which cause issues, how come GSX use this technology without affecting the FPS as PMDG or FSL Labs planes?.

I don't wish to fall into a long argument as this has been explained several times on the forums, the problem raises when you have lights with very large cones as this requires millions and millions of pixels (due to 4K) to be examined each frame per second to adjust the lighting, we have limitations with current hardware, it is not the technology fault, I remember when people used to complain about VC shadows under FSX causing performance issues, today you can use them even if you were running FSX on your mobile phone.

In passing my freeware works with DL disabled or enabled as I had to cater for such circumstances, it will fall back to textures only and the user will not experience the advantages of DL, and I performed heavy tests to ensure people with 4K resolution as Dylan don't get affected by this problem.

Best Regards,
Simbol