If he flies with clear skies, he can enjoy decent performance. That's what I do.

@sparkie66 are you saying my hardware isn't good enough?

I am *not* going to run things on MAX, i'm pretty sure a i5 8600k @ 4.7 and a GTX 1060 6GB can handle it-right?!?!

32 minutes ago, ols500 said:

@sparkie66 are you saying my hardware isn't good enough?

no, I'm saying the intended software (p3d)is not good enough 😉 

34 minutes ago, ols500 said:

I am *not* going to run things on MAX, i'm pretty sure a i5 8600k @ 4.7 and a GTX 1060 6GB can handle it-right?!?!

Yes it can.  A 6 GB 1060 will handle a standard HD display OK, but you'll see some slowdowns if you pile on aggressive AA and lots of weather.

If you're worried, LM has a 60-day money back guarantee on P3D, so all you're out is the time to install and configure it.

Regards

Having just made the switch this past weekend, I suspect you'll be pleased. I'm smooth now in places that brought FSX to its knees. And I can actually complete an international flight in a complex airplane while running Activesky and Orbx without OOM-crashing, which is refreshing.

It takes some discipline, but just stick to what Prepar3D defaults to once you install it- it scans your hardware and pretty much makes a reasonable setting configuration.  Resist the urge to keep bumping things to the right.  It may be fine in some areas/weather, but you'll eventually run into a situation where you're wondering if you've got a background program looking for the next largest Mersenne Prime.

Mark

  

5 hours ago, mtrainer said:

It may be fine in some areas/weather, but you'll eventually run into a situation where you're wondering if you've got a background program looking for the next largest Mersenne Prime

Sorry i don't understand this part

So i should spend £733 for a GTX 1080 for a simulator which is meant to be better optimised?

 

😑

I was referring to a backgound task that can be completely CPU consuming, thus providing the perceived slowness of the simulator.  Over-clockers often use a program called GIMPS (Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search) to stress a CPU to see how far it will overclock and still remain stable.  Others use it to actually participate in a science project to find the largest "Mersenne Prime" number ever found.  Just google "GIMPS", it should be the first link that pops up. 

A prime number is a number that can only be divided by 1 and itself, evenly.  A Mersenne prime is a special category of prime numbers - it is 2, raised to the power of a prime, minus 1, that results in a prime.  The record, last set in December of 2017, is a number that had over 23 million digits in it.  Lots of cool facts about prime numbers, I won't get started here.

Regarding your last question, I've always purchased some of the higher-end PC hardware and was glad for it, if only for the reason that it will ultimately have more utility for a longer period of time.

Mark

 

It's really quite simple - if you attempt to match your settings to yur hardware you will have a good experience. If you try to force your system to run at max load by high settings, you will not. Your job is to find a balance between your hardware and settings that gives you the best result for your type of flying.With P3D as opposed to FSX, forget thinking mainly in terms of FPS and look for the smoothest performance at the lowest fps you can get and still be smooth. That would be your sweet spot.

Vic

@vgbaron

Thanks for that answer so i will be able to run chaseplane with smooth camera movements in low fps situations as p3d is better optimised?

Define low fps situations. If fps is 15 you will never be able to get smooth camera movements, of course. P3D is optimized better but that means your fps might be a bit higher than in FSX with similar settings but it's not that an fps of 15 is smoother in P3D than it is in FSX. 15 fps is 15 fps. You have to set the settings so things look smooth to you and fps still stays acceptable (which is very personal). If you find that balance ChasePlane will be smooth. But not if fps drops too low. 

Yes, as Jeroen says - it is very personal. It's YOUR eyes that are determining the success of your efforts. Try to find a balance that works for YOU. For me, anything lower than 20 fps is right on the edge. 

Vic

In general if you are getting 15fps in FSX and you keep everything the same including general display settings (which you can only do so much of since some of the settings are different) then you will probably get similar to slightly better performance in P3D.  The big difference is going to come when you are running a bunch of high-overhead stuff on long trips, because in FSX you will get an out-of-memory crash as soon as the sim tries to use more than 4 gigs of ram, while in P3D4 you will not.

So, for instance, even though I was getting good framerates with fairly high graphics settings, I was never able to complete an international flight in FSX with PMDG's 747 while running high scenery and a weather generator because the sim would crash before I got to my destination. If I wanted to fly the 747 I had to turn the settings way down and switch off a bunch of quality-of-life options like weather, which made for a less immersive and certainly less visually palatable flight. And even then it was a tossup - I still couldn't go from JFK to Heathrow - I'd have to either start or finish, not both, at an airport in a dense scenery area, and the other end of the trip would have to be somewhere that wasn't modeled very much by default, like Minneapolis

In P3D, I get better framerates in intensive scenery areas with the graphics settings up, *and* I can complete a flight without the sim going down.

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 20187 yr by eslader