The rise and fall of 64bit? My experience.

[pracines 823]

I'm having a great time with P3Dv4.2 with all the usual Orbx, PMDG , A2A w/F1 GTN, ASP4 (high custom settings), ASCA, Flightbeam, GSX, UT Live (all at 80%).

Locking the FPS at 20 serves me well.

I stay away from Dynamic Reflections, Terrain Shadows, and Dynamic Vegetation for now. I set textures at 2048 and run AS at 16x, MSAA at 8x w/o FXAA. Other than that, all settings are at max except autogen quantities which are reduced 1 notch from max.

FPS stays pretty much pegged at 20 and smooth as butter in all weather even at KLGA runway 22.

I think the expectation of 30 or more (or unlocked) FPS is where the problems begin.

P3Dv3.4 or below never served me well, because with the settings I could set with a solid 20 FPS would OOM every time. I could get 60 FPS because of reduced sliders to avoid OOM, but it is not my goal to have barren airports and cities; that's what we had back in FS9 and before!

I'm sticking with 64-bit no matter what. Lockheed Martin is doing a fine job.

I hope 128-bit is at least in the initial planning stages so we don't have to suffer through OOM in 64-bit. Once our genius 3rd party developers get going, they will fill up the 64-bit VAS before we know it....20 GHz (liquid nitrogen cooling) here we come!  

   

[AnkH 2,233]

Well, the "problem" here is that many simmers were convinced (due to whatever reason) that 64bit equals better performance. It has nothing to do with each other in the first place. The increased performance P3Dv4 offers is NOT due to 64bit, people should learn this finally.

Long story short: by switching to 64bit, LM basically removed one of the limiting factors of the old ESP engine. But it is still the old ESP engine. And as such terribly non-performant and not really taking advantage of todays techniques. Simply take AF2 and DCS 2.5 as an example of what a more up-to-date engine is capable of...

[Jetset408 108]

5 hours ago, Anxu00 said:

Same here.  In my opinion, DL is a feature that should be optional for add-on maker, just as LM made it an option.  .

100% this. This is the primary driver of frustration now. P3D pushed the boundaries and developers leap to it before hardware has time to Catch up. This is what forces people into endless chasing of nirvana and expensive hardware upgrades and ends up increasing frustration levels across the community. MS was guilty of it for 15 years or so. 

[Jetset408 108]

26 minutes ago, AnkH said:

The increased performance P3Dv4 offers is NOT due to 64bit, people should learn this finally.

Long story short: by switching to 64bit, LM basically removed one of the limiting factors of the old ESP engine. 

Agreed but it's also in the gift of developers to moderate the speed at which they pile in new features that are not optional.

[twojastara 85]

Are you sure that 64bit is the problem here?

Just take a look at this topic from 2008:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/100658-13-flight-graphics-help

The title already says a lot: 'Who can run Flight Sim X on MAX graphics? I need your help!!!!'

Ten years later, problems are still the same:

Quote

I can run everything on Ultra High settings with good frames, but as soon as I add light bloom effects or traffic it craps out on me. What can I do?

Quote

 I am tired of having to turn off and tweak graphics to get smooth frames depending on the city i fly into.

Quote

Alright this is beginning to word not allowed me off and is getting really frustrating. I borrowed my roommates 8800Gt and installed it to run SLI. So now I have a Q9550 with two 8800Gt's in SLI. So the first test I wanted to do was to run Flight Sim X. Ok you ready for this? NO fricken difference. 

Quote

That game is really pissing me off. What does it take for that game to even run on high? What do the developers have? Bunch of bull!!!!!

Quote

I dont want to be the bearer of bad news, but I did get the GTX 260 core 216 Black Edition, plus the Quad 9550, plus 4 GB Ram. I still cant play on maxed out. I still have to take away some of the eye candy for that game.

Ten years later and people still have the same problems. And I am sorry to tell you, but the answers are still the same: 'Upgrade your GPU', 'turn off X', 'turn off Y'.

[swiesma 625]

Don't know what you guys expected of 64bit.... All it does is removing the memory limit.

The stone old FSX engine is still crap ;)

[simmerhead 885]

P3Dv4 definitely runs better than any previous version (including FSX) on my computer. I experience the same as Rob, an increase in eye candy at the same fps level. 

Still, I long for the day when I can experience real smoothness (~100 fps). Since I don't have a motion platform, my only input as to how the aircraft is behaving comes from the visuals, hence they are the most important part of the equation. Low fps i(20-30) s very noticeable when making tight turns or when you need to make small adjustments during approach and landing. 

My advice would be to save money and don't buy premium hardware. It won't get you to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow just yet. 

[Jetset408 108]

Update:

I did it. Picked up a dirt cheap end of range Samsung Ue32m5000 yesterday. I ran my reference scenario - doing doughnuts at dusk on the ramp at FB KMSP in the FSLA320 with every interior and external light on (dynamic lights) and Active Sky overcast/rain. 

With my 4K monitor and NO antialiasing, i got 10-15 fps with heavy stuttering, and my 1080Ti maxed out at 100% usage.

With my 1080p monitor at 60Hz, I now get (with 8xMSAA) 40FPS+ and GPU is now at about 50% utilisation.

Sure I lost those lovely crisp 4K views and I'm back to fuzzy CRT displays in the VC, but hey, I just regained the immersion that a simulator SHOULD have. And I can use all these new goodies that developers are adding.

4K, i will miss you for now.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

This is why I am not even considering upgrading from 1920x1080 resolution on a 24" widescreen monitor. I am quite happy with this, and I want to be able to harness all of the extra power when I decide to buy a new PC.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Christopher Low

[charlie130 196]

On 2/22/2018 at 7:54 AM, Jetset408 said:

Agreed but it's also in the gift of developers to moderate the speed at which they pile in new features that are not optional.

Wise words.

My experience with 64 bit=no more Oom's....thank you, relief!

Dynamic lighting=lovely looking......increased load on system=turn it off!

Reflections from objects=lovely looking....increased load on system/stutters=turn it off!

High level AA=looks nice=...increased load/stutters....turn it down!

AS4 REX Clouds....lovely, but same results....the nicer it looks the more it will stutter!

Sim add on specifics...Tru Glass.....looks lovely=increased load.....? PMDG did this on the J41 in FSX with no load effects? Will be interesting if/when they re release it in 64 bits if they include the rain/ice/snow effects and the ice on the wing boots?

Overall I see improvements in the old FSX (now P3d) engine. I also see new GPU/CPU and memory (PCIE) as the next evolution....another £2000, when I win the lottery perhaps?

Cheers.

 

 

[HighTowers 1,434]

The only way we get ahead of this cycle pushing boundaries is if flight sims went modular. This is purely budget dependent and I certainly wouldnt be in a position to do it, but the option should be there for those who can.  Meaning- One computer runs the base sim, with the aircrafts physics,and everything else happening in the flightdeck. Another computer could be running weather and scenery generation, and yet another running full AI and ATC. Sounds like a dream and impossible, but we said alot of things were impossible in flight sim 5-10 years ago. Level D commercials sims did this when i experienced it 25years ago, and I cant imagine its much different today, one running hydraulics and pneumatics, and the other running other components of the sim. 

 Its worse if software devs do not push boundaries as that just stifles innovation. They always want to improve naturally as that would drive new cash flow as the cycle repeats.  If we cant afford this route, then for sure we have to make compromises  in features and settings and live with them. In the meantime, your going to have to rip 64 bit from my prying hands as Im just thrilled to be done with fooling around with OOM as it is.  

[CFIJose 5,485]

I upgraded from FSX to P3D v4 because I wanted to avoid OOM, I wanted a better looking sim, and better performance, NOT for DL. All I ask from devs is to give me the option to turn of DL, but still see the lights. Most devs comply, some don't!

4.2 has exceeded my expectations.

[Jetset408 108]

10 minutes ago, DJJose said:

I upgraded from FSX to P3D v4 because I wanted to avoid OOM, I wanted a better looking sim, and better performance, NOT for DL. All I ask from devs is to give me the option to turn of DL, but still see the lights. Most devs comply, some don't!

4.2 has exceeded my expectations.

Yes this is the whole genesis of my post and current frustrations. Optionality is the key. Certainly, devs should seize the opportunity that new P3D versions afford, but allow for users to adopt a more incremental approach to allow hardware to catch-up.

That's its. That's the solution.

(Isn't it ironic that because P3D and Addons have pushed forward in their development, I have had to downgrade to run them (ie. switching from 4K to 1080). Kinda paradoxical! Ha!))

 

[Buffy Foster 133]

IDK why go all the way down to 1080p?  Theres lots of real nice 2560x1440 monitors with G-Sync even.

[787WannabePilot 12]

The 64 bit is a big improvement, but the baseline code for the program is still old. There is only so much you can squeeze out of a 10 + year old engine.