6 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Yes, wouldn't fly without it. I have no issues with it on my system.

I have no idea why I get the "dizzy effect" that I get with locking frames. The thing is that the exact same thing was going on on my previous machine and the one before that. So, different hardware, different sim (P3D v2, P3Dv3 and now P3D v4), same result with locking frames and TrackIR movement.

So, you're getting the same (or very similar without any negative effects) head movement picture fluidity with frames set to unlimited opposed to frames locked at 20FPS (or locked in general at whatever number)? Maybe we just have different opinion what's smooth and what's not. Could it be my monitor (it's some cheap Samsung LED LCD @ 60Hz)?

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by 0Artur0

50 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Are you 20FPS guys using TrackIR?

Because as soon as I limit frames in P3D (doesn't matter if at 60, 30, 24, 20... it just gets worse the lower the number) the head movement gets jerky and the whole picture looks kinda blurry (it's hard to describe the effect), to the point that it's hard to look at without becoming dizzy. With unlimited frames the head movements are smooth, even when FPS drops to 25 or so. I tried to make a video with my phone but the effect is not visible as it is on my monitor looking with my eyes, which is kinda strange.

Remember we can't just alter fps with panning TIR or keys/joystick - we also must alter the angle increment of the camera to suit the rate of panning - or it'll look all over the place, and with higher fps takes ages to pan.

Lower fps with locked or fixed is not reducing the throughput, it's heavy on the system and can cause all the blurry and autogen issues when the sim is at full pelt. Instead we can drop down to setting Unlimited and VSync=On and using the refresh rate of the monitor to restrict the fps. Or simply reduce the sliders. We can see in excess of 200fps with P3D.

I really start to laugh when all this "unlimited" vs Fixed vs 20 0r 30 discussion start.

Almost ALL of them begin with someone complaining about blurries or stutters or long frames, etc. 

I always ask the same question - who cares WHAT the fps are if they are NOT smooth and blurry free? IMHO, way too much discussion is spent on FPS when what is really meant is smoothness. I expect there are still many who equate higher fps with smoothness. Until that misconception is changed we will all strive for higher fps. Great if you are benchmarking, great for bragging rights but useless if your experience is not smooth and blurry free.

@0Artur0 - you may be right about the monitor I run a 4K and as such have no AA set.

Also, in the FWIW department - I've run the 4K at 30hz 20fps, 30fps, Vsync on/off triple buffering on/off and get essentially the same results visually and performance wise.  That's not to say there are no differences, I'm sure if I benched or put monitoring software on the system I could see differences - what I am saying is that I literally do NOT SEE and difference.

To me. flight simming is a visual experience - I tune my system to get the best visual performance I can and on MY system it is anything between 20 and 30 and I choose the lower to ease system load.

Vic

Remember that the Triple Buffer does not alter the view, instead it predicts the location of moving things more precisely, just not as good as locked fps with the look-ahead (which introduces input lag by the length of the buffer).

Yes biggest numbers are simply more *seductive*, always check the moderate options.

On 8/10/2018 at 6:41 AM, Rob Ainscough said:

YouTube just finished processing my video to 4K here: 

I tested on 3 PCs

7700K 1080FE SSDs (2160p @ 60Hz capped to 29.5 via NI)
8700K 1080Ti  SSDs (1440p @ 60Hz capped to 29.5 via NI)
7900X TitanXP  SSDs (2160p @ 30Hz)

Results were the same on all computers.  Summary:

1.  TFR = Unlimited with high graphics settings will increase the probability of stopping Autogen batches from rendering
2.  TFR = xx frames with lower FFTF values (below 0.33) will increase the probability of stopping Autogen batches from rendering
3.  The TFR = Unlimited issue is NOT specific to any add-on and can be repeated in a default P3D V4.3 and P3D V4.2
4.  If the Autogen system gets far enough behind on rendering it stops rendering completely (pause will not recover processing) and will require a scenery reload (map a controller button to it).

Graphics settings are dotted thru-out the video.  When add-ons were used (final last test towards end of video from LFLI - EGLL complete flight) I was running TFR=31, FFTF = 0.33, Vsync ON ... Add-on list was extensive (Orbx FTX Global, Orbx OpenLC EU, Orbx HD Trees, Orbx Vector, HiFi AS4, Turbulent Flora, FSDT LSGG Geneva, LLH Creations LFLI, ChasePlan, PILOT's NG 2018 Mesh, FSFX Packages, UTLive, ENVTEX/ENVSHADE, and a few others).

I kept the flight test between 0 - 7000 ft and speed of 400-500Kts and heading the same direction (about 333).  GA aircraft tend to fly slower so they will put less stress on the Autogen batch system ... so experiment (Unlimited with Vsync make work sufficiently for low and slow flights, and/or lower FFTF values if using TFR = xx).

I have NOT tested with the FSPS Dynamic FFTF product, I have purchased but not had time to try it yet.

I have made LM aware, but it's most likely an "expected" result and who knows what the future might bring.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Thanks a lot for your contribution, Rob.

 

Sorry if I missed it but could you please communicate if you use HT on or off and any Affinity Mask, in particular with the 8700K?

And do I assume correctly that all P3D.cfg settings you do not show in the video are at default values?

 

Thank you!

 

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by RALF9636

31 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

I really start to laugh when all this "unlimited" vs Fixed vs 20 0r 30 discussion start.

Almost ALL of them begin with someone complaining about blurries or stutters or long frames, etc. 

I always ask the same question - who cares WHAT the fps are if they are NOT smooth and blurry free? IMHO, way too much discussion is spent on FPS when what is really meant is smoothness. I expect there are still many who equate higher fps with smoothness. Until that misconception is changed we will all strive for higher fps. Great if you are benchmarking, great for bragging rights but useless if your experience is not smooth and blurry free.

@0Artur0 - you may be right about the monitor I run a 4K and as such have no AA set.

Also, in the FWIW department - I've run the 4K at 30hz 20fps, 30fps, Vsync on/off triple buffering on/off and get essentially the same results visually and performance wise.  That's not to say there are no differences, I'm sure if I benched or put monitoring software on the system I could see differences - what I am saying is that I literally do NOT SEE and difference.

To me. flight simming is a visual experience - I tune my system to get the best visual performance I can and on MY system it is anything between 20 and 30 and I choose the lower to ease system load.

Vic

So true.

I also posted that a few times whenever this same old discussion came up. Everybody just needs to give his eyes and brain the chance to adapt to 20 or 25 FPS for a signifcant number of sessions before claiming he needs 30 or even 60 FPS for "smoothness".

 

37 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

Could it be my monitor (it's some cheap Samsung LED LCD @ 60Hz)?

Or maybe you don't have the monitor setup correctly?  What model number is it?  Is it also "TV" capable?

45 minutes ago, 0Artur0 said:

C'mon... Folks saying they lock at 20FPS are rocking GTX1080Ti's and have their chips OC'd to 4.7GHz+. That's why I made the comment in the first place.

I don't think anyone said that was "rocking", they said it works as a compromise.  Of course we'd all love 240+ FPS on 240Hz monitors, who wouldn't?  I've gone over the calculations before of what is required on the FPS and HZ side when flying 1100KTs at 500 FT AGL assuming a 1m resolution in 4K res ... you need about 500 FPS and of course a monitor capable of 500Hz ... IF,  you want the motion to be 1 to 1 (move one virtual 1m for every 1 pixel for every 1 frame).  

I understand the comment, but it's your level of expectation that is probably going to always frustrate you regardless of the year/hardware ... I could build a 6Ghz 9900K with two 1180's and still have no problem bring that setup down to single digit FPS ... pick the right location, right set of add-ons, configure those add-ons, add some visual improvement shadow and AG distances tweaks to the prepar3d.cfg, max everything and check everything with 8X SSAA at 4K.  

Optimization and different API engines can be used to help (but they can't perform miracles).  No matter how you slice it, performance in simulators that operate out to the horizon with very complex SDKs and content support will always require more hardware than is currently available and beyond.  So long as the platform continues development and graphic fidelity is added, there will never be a state of "catch-up" ... that's the very reason graphics sliders/options exist, to help people find what works for them as a "compromise" ... and this is true for other games from 3D shooters to RTS. 

The biggest advantage 3D shooters have is they can limit their environments from day 1 such that they run well on middle tier hardware, but are you gonna tell Orbx stop producing so many objects to render or to reduce the detail of their objects?  Graphics settings on games/3D shooters are typically about quality of detail and NOT how many objects are going to be rendered and how far those objects will be rendered ... that are no "Distance" sliders or "number of objects" sliders in 3D shooters because the polygon count has been predetermined and the only options are about textures and lighting of those textures and AA.  Flight simulators have no such limitations (well there are a few, but mostly open) with an open SDK for content providers to do whatever they want (even more so now that we've moved to 64bit).

If you look at say AF2 (which is the only flight simulator I have that can operate all maxed out with add-ons and never drop below 90 FPS in 4K) ... it's a refreshing change and I really enjoy flying in that environment.  But it's missing A LOT relative to P3D/XP11 platforms and the test of time will be what happens when iPACs starts adding all those missing features like Dynamic Lighting, Cloud Shadows, AI traffic, Weather, Road Traffic, real 3D water with wave motion, operational gates, operational service vehicles, special FX, etc. etc. etc. ... if iPACs can accomplish adding all that without falling into the same FPS ranges as XP11 or P3D, then they WILL be in a good position to take top spot for flight simulator platforms.  But that's a big IF and as you know both LR and LM continue development.

Anyway, these are the challenges for LM/P3D and beyond, I'm sure performance will continue to improve as will visual fidelity, but I hope LM still allows us the option to use graphic settings that we know will drop our FPS down rather than restrict polygon counts and hence restriction graphics options like they do is typical games/3D shooters.

Cheers, Rob.

36 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Sorry if I missed it but could you please communicate if you use HT on or off and any Affinity Mask, in particular with the 8700K?

7700K HT ON

8700K HT ON

7900X HT OFF

37 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

And do I assume correctly that all P3D.cfg settings you do not show in the video are at default values?

The graphics settings used are the same from each test with the only variants being TFR, Vsync, Triple Buffer, TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP, FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION.   The other graphics settings are in the video and set via UI.  TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 and TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=9 were used (be sure High Res Textures is check per my video that shows the settings) in testing.  When TFR=30 or 31, I tested FFTF = 0.1, 0.2, 0.33 (default), 0.66, 0.99. 

On all 3 of my PC's when using TFR=30 or 31 (and any variant of Vsync and Triple Buffer), a FFTF value below 0.33 would eventually end with Autogen not rendering (base P3D V4.2, base P3D V4.3, and a fully loaded P3D V4.3 with add-ons).

Cheers, Rob.

3 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

7700K HT ON

8700K HT ON

7900X HT OFF

The graphics settings used are the same from each test with the only variants being TFR, Vsync, Triple Buffer, TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP, FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION.   The other graphics settings are in the video and set via UI.  TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 and TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=9 were used (be sure High Res Textures is check per my video that shows the settings) in testing.  When TFR=30 or 31, I tested FFTF = 0.1, 0.2, 0.33 (default), 0.66, 0.99. 

On all 3 of my PC's when using TFR=30 or 31 (and any variant of Vsync and Triple Buffer), a FFTF value below 0.33 would eventually end with Autogen not rendering (base P3D V4.2, base P3D V4.3, and a fully loaded P3D V4.3 with add-ons).

Cheers, Rob.

Thanks. So no affinity mask set?

1 hour ago, vgbaron said:

I really start to laugh when all this "unlimited" vs Fixed vs 20 0r 30 discussion start.

Almost ALL of them begin with someone complaining about blurries or stutters or long frames, etc. 

I always ask the same question - who cares WHAT the fps are if they are NOT smooth and blurry free? IMHO, way too much discussion is spent on FPS when what is really meant is smoothness. I expect there are still many who equate higher fps with smoothness. Until that misconception is changed we will all strive for higher fps. Great if you are benchmarking, great for bragging rights but useless if your experience is not smooth and blurry free.

@0Artur0 - you may be right about the monitor I run a 4K and as such have no AA set.

Also, in the FWIW department - I've run the 4K at 30hz 20fps, 30fps, Vsync on/off triple buffering on/off and get essentially the same results visually and performance wise.  That's not to say there are no differences, I'm sure if I benched or put monitoring software on the system I could see differences - what I am saying is that I literally do NOT SEE and difference.

To me. flight simming is a visual experience - I tune my system to get the best visual performance I can and on MY system it is anything between 20 and 30 and I choose the lower to ease system load.

Vic

Thats all very well but 'smooth' doesn't begin to happen until 28-30 fps for me. Then again I have 20/20 vision so maybe its something to do with that.

Even then, it seems locking frames always causes certain amount of 'long frames' which lead to immersion killing delays.

I would be much more happy if the FSX days of 1/2 refresh rate in a true full screen mode could return in v4.

Edited August 13, 20187 yr by GHarrall

16 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Thanks. So no affinity mask set?

Correct, no AM in any of my test cases.

1 minute ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Correct, no AM in any of my test cases.

Thank you!

12 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Thats all very well but 'smooth' doesn't begin to happen until 28-30 fps for me. Then again I have 20/20 vision so maybe its something to do with that.

While I have glasses, 20 fps is not smooth for me either. I don't need 60 fps or even more, as some state, but anything below ~24 I can't experience as smooth. That's the frequency of conventional cinema projectors, and certainly for a reason.

Kind regards, Michael

 

I said earlier the enhanced graphics and atmospherics of P3D require a little more than the traditional 20fps FSX rig. With P3D 24fps + seems to be the point at which the sky remains better engaged with the terrain when doing manoeuvres. Check it out.

Finally, this "20 fps is the same as 60 fps" nonsense will be over with the advent of mass VR. 😁