2 hours ago, simbol said:

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

Frankly, do you think that PMDG or FSLabs or ORBX or Justsim or Aerosoft or A2A all use DL incorrectly? I tested all of them (except PMDG) and the results are very similar to the one I showed above. Do you think they all can use DL a different way, with the same results? I mean the same effect, which is appropriate for their product, their customers and that is available in the other sim without this bizarre loss of performance?

2 hours ago, simbol said:

we have limitations with current hardware, it is not the technology fault

I think that a technology, which works only with future hardware, is wrong.

2 hours ago, simbol said:

In passing my freeware works with DL disabled or enabled as I had to cater for such circumstances

Simbol, accolade, this is the way to go. I wish all developers implement their lighting this way (working also with DL disabled). Many of them do. Some do not and this is a big fail, I think. However, I still see the current P3D4 DL technology as the source of the problem. Don't you think that the optimisations and reductions, which work perfectly for your product, may not be suitable for other products with a different character or scope?

By the way, your freeware looks interesting ;)

Roman

7 hours ago, sbs9 said:

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 :)

1080Ti here, I land at FB's KMSP with dynamic lighting enabled in the NGX with landing lights on at 8xMSAA and it's as smooth as can be.

 

4k, too.

29 minutes ago, threegreen said:

1080Ti here, I land at FB's KMSP with dynamic lighting enabled in the NGX with landing lights on at 8xMSAA and it's as smooth as can be.

 

4k, too.

Disabled in addin manager??

24 minutes ago, threegreen said:

1080Ti here, I land at FB's KMSP with dynamic lighting enabled in the NGX with landing lights on at 8xMSAA and it's as smooth as can be.

 

4k, too.

Congratulations! But "as smooth as it can be" is not a very exact definition :) Do you get stable 60 FPS? Or even 120?

My definition of "as smooth as it can be" is, at the moment, a 30Hz monitor with stable 30 FPS in the sim. I can get it almost always, even with DL enabled, when I am forced to use it by a devil-may-care developer. Of course, with some compromises in autogen, scenery complexity, AI traffic or elsewhere.

The problem is that 30%, or more, of my PC's power (that was not free at all) is swallowed by just one "stupid" eye candy called dynamic lighting, which taxes my system almost as much as a complete A320 simulation (i.e. FSLabs). This is bizarre. 

34 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

Congratulations! But "as smooth as it can be" is not a very exact definition :) Do you get stable 60 FPS? Or even 120?

My definition of "as smooth as it can be" is, at the moment, a 30Hz monitor with stable 30 FPS in the sim. I can get it almost always, even with DL enabled, when I am forced to use it by a devil-may-care developer. Of course, with some compromises in autogen, scenery complexity, AI traffic or elsewhere.

The problem is that 30%, or more, of my PC's power (that was not free at all) is swallowed by just one "stupid" eye candy called dynamic lighting, which taxes my system almost as much as a complete A320 simulation (i.e. FSLabs). This is bizarre. 

Running a 1080ti on 4k with dynamic lighting enabled at kden runs a smooth 40 fps...

At ksfo, a smooth 27 fps.

People can get solid performance with DL enabled....it's possible.

If your measurement of success is in FPS - you've missed the point of P3D completely. I run a 1080ti with DL on a 4K monitor and with most sliders maxed, my sim is perfectly smooth. However, I lock at 20fps - do not need any more for smooth performance. Each system is differrent but IMHO anything more than 20-30fps is wasted processor time.

Unless we'r talking bragging rights or benchmarks - then with my main system a steady 120fps is doable.

 

Vic

33 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Running a 1080ti on 4k with dynamic lighting enabled at kden runs a smooth 40 fps...

At ksfo, a smooth 27 fps.

People can get solid performance with DL enabled....it's possible.

Sorry, but 27 FPS is not smooth for me. But the problem is not in absolute numbers, it's in percentages.  Do you think it's ok that one eye candy easily consumes 30% (or more) power of the strongest GPU on the market in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11? For me, it's an epic fail.

47 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

Do you think it's ok that one eye candy easily consumes 30% (or more) power of the strongest GPU on the market in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11? For me, it's an epic fail.

Very well said.

For anyone saying LM's implementation of dynamic lights is not at fault, please go watch this video

P3D essentially uses the 2D Tiled Forward shading technique that's shown in the video (the 2nd one in order), and you can quite clearly see how it scales...

1 hour ago, sbs9 said:

Sorry, but 27 FPS is not smooth for me. But the problem is not in absolute numbers, it's in percentages.  Do you think it's ok that one eye candy easily consumes 30% (or more) power of the strongest GPU on the market in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11? For me, it's an epic fail.

Well then, as I see it, you have a few options - tune your system so that 27fps is smooth or just don't use DL. As to comparing GPU usage - that's like apples and oranges - might as well say that Crysis is smoother etc. Completely different engines - cannot make a valid comparison.

Could DL be improved? Without question but so can many parts of P3D ( or any sim) for that matter. But DL is perfectly doable on many systems IF they are tuned properly. If one's idea of tuning is to slap the pieces together, do a quick overclock and apply a few teaks - one may not be successful.

Vic

1 hour ago, sbs9 said:

Sorry, but 27 FPS is not smooth for me. But the problem is not in absolute numbers, it's in percentages.  Do you think it's ok that one eye candy easily consumes 30% (or more) power of the strongest GPU on the market in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11? For me, it's an epic fail.

It's more of an epic misunderstanding on your part as to how xp11 is rendered compared to the way p3d is rendered.

Don't get me wrong...I agree with you that 27fps isn't ideal. However it's not bad considering that most people have much much worse performance. Even in 1080p.

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

It's more of an epic misunderstanding on your part as to how xp11 is rendered compared to the way p3d is rendered.

Don't get me wrong...I agree with you that 27fps isn't ideal. However it's not bad considering that most people have much much worse performance. Even in 1080p.

I have to correct you. Basically, I agree with Vic that FPS is not the best measurement of success. IF it's above the value you need, I would add. I have 30 FPS in sync with a 30Hz monitor, stable and smooth, tuned to perfection. I just hate the extent of compromises, which I must do because of, you can guess what, the holy grail of simulation technology - the dynamic lighting.  Clear? :)

Those 27 fps was just a value stated by someone else and I responded that it's not enough for me (I really need 30) and that it doesn't matter if you have 27, 30 or 60 FPS when, again, one eye candy easily consumes >30% power of the strongest GPU in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11.

Sorry, but I disagree that it's a misunderstanding. I compare the value, not how the value is achieved. Outputs (the visual effect) vs. inputs (needed resources). This is called efficiency. The truth is the dynamic lighting in P3D4 is extremely inefficient. Or can you say what perceivable disadvantages XP11's implementation has? I want to know what I am paying for.

You can ignore the problem, but believe me, as it is, it will catch you sooner or later. Actually, it has already caught many folks, who complain about the performance of your sim, dear LM, or your products, dear developers. The current state of dynamic lighting in P3D4 is a real threat and a serious one.

Roman

23 minutes ago, sbs9 said:

I have to correct you. Basically, I agree with Vic that FPS is not the best measurement of success. IF it's above the value you need, I would add. I have 30 FPS in sync with a 30Hz monitor, stable and smooth, tuned to perfection. I just hate the extent of compromises, which I must do because of, you can guess what, the holy grail of simulation technology - the dynamic lighting.  Clear? :)

Those 27 fps was just a value stated by someone else and I responded that it's not enough for me (I really need 30) and that it doesn't matter if you have 27, 30 or 60 FPS when, again, one eye candy easily consumes >30% power of the strongest GPU in P3D4, while the same effect is achieved with nearly zero impact in XP11.

Sorry, but I disagree that it's a misunderstanding. I compare the value, not how the value is achieved. Outputs (the visual effect) vs. inputs (needed resources). This is called efficiency. The truth is the dynamic lighting in P3D4 is extremely inefficient. Or can you say what perceivable disadvantages XP11's implementation has? I want to know what I am paying for.

You can ignore the problem, but believe me, as it is, it will catch you sooner or later. Actually, it has already caught many folks, who complain about the performance of your sim, dear LM, or your products, dear developers. The current state of dynamic lighting in P3D4 is a real threat and a serious one.

Roman

Calm the doom and gloom down a notch lol

It's not a serious threat.

Like I said, I don't disagree with you. However, you may find out a little more about why it is the way it is by doing some research.

2 hours ago, vgbaron said:

Well then, as I see it, you have a few options - tune your system so that 27fps is smooth or just don't use DL.

But that’s just the problem. PMDG, the elephant in the room of addon aircraft, had made DL mandatory for its aircraft. Don’t use DL? Then you don’t get lights.

James

5 hours ago, honanhal said:

But that’s just the problem. PMDG, the elephant in the room of addon aircraft, had made DL mandatory for its aircraft. Don’t use DL? Then you don’t get lights.

James

Certainly agree with that. I fly the NGX or the T7 most of the time so have no choice when it comes to DL.  Would be more than happy to use the default lighting and get decent performance.  DL is nice but has never wowed me in the way it seems to for some - I would rather have the extra fps any day.

Bruceb