1 minute ago, HiFlyer said:

Well, I was already halfway into the experiment, and you may have found the secret sauce. For best FPS in the sim, do your best to turn it back into FSX! 😍

More seriously... You know what this almost looks like, right? Default P3D settings.

That looks a decent compromise given you’ll see a lot more in P3D than FSX for the same settings.

All those Terrain sliders can go to the right without killing the fps. A lot of my flying is with Concorde so the autogen can stay low. LOD is more important. We have to remember Rob’s number were for zero Wx so that has to be factored in.

So it looks like it will still be a sensible balance of sliders whatever card you have. I’m leaning towards a 2080 with the savings over the 2080Ti going towards the i9 perhaps.

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That looks a decent compromise given you’ll see a lot more in P3D than FSX for the same settings.

Well it was kind of fun playing around. I hope the thread was useful!!

39 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Well it was kind of fun playing around. I hope the thread was useful!!

It was, thanks. Each user can configure the sim for their preferences. In fact I’ll continue to use SimStarterNG which allows me to do that for v3.4. I have three configs for a PC-12, Learjet 25 and Concorde.

3 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

You'll be disappointed. Turning on all the building and autogen settings instantly swallows almost every bit of that 500+ FPS, even with no other settings in the sim active. (shrugs) Don't ask me to explain that because I haven't a clue, except that in the end, the CPU dominates when determining ESP-FPS when buildings/autogen are active.

Incredible. From 500 to 50. Looks like a good part of AFS2 advantage lies in code efficiency for displaying 3d objects. This also seems to disprove the myth that p3d performance is less because it has more features and complexity. The reality seems to be that every 3d object is 5-10 times slower to display in p3d compared to AFS2

Hmmmmmmm......

Flight Sim World

 

4 hours ago, Murmur said:

Incredible. From 500 to 50. Looks like a good part of AFS2 advantage lies in code efficiency for displaying 3d objects. This also seems to disprove the myth that p3d performance is less because it has more features and complexity. The reality seems to be that every 3d object is 5-10 times slower to display in p3d compared to AFS2

Through all of this experimentation across various sims, one thing I can say is my admiration of the craftsmanship of X-plane has grown quite a bit. Flying over various sceneries, I noticed the very nice balancing of load across all available cores, and VERY stable (and acceptable) frame rates.

Now you know why Nvidia never showed Gaming benches on the show, as the testers suspected this GPU is aimed at future titles and will do very little for older CPU bound Titles.

4 hours ago, rjfry said:

Now you know why Nvidia never showed Gaming benches on the show, as the testers suspected this GPU is aimed at future titles and will do very little for older CPU bound Titles.

It's the "shadiest" launch I have ever seen from them. It's kind of hard for me to shake the impression that they were deliberately withholding info and actively misdirecting expectations. And this is also the first time I can remember there being a release with NO demo software to show off the supposed capabilities of the cards.

Star wars raytracing demo? MIA! And nothing else out there either for us users.

Intel may well have pulled the same stunt, with an NDA on benchmarks till the 13th but they showed a benchmark carried out by a paid tester that the testing community have rubbished, but you can pre-order your new CPU NOW.

Search and destroy mission! I turned all X-plane settings to their max, then went in and started upping the sims hidden internal settings until it finally crashed. Then I took one step back and took some pictures.

The thing I like about XP is its rock steady FPS. If you are in your thirties, that's where you generally stay, even as you pan around. No wild jumps all over the place, and that means even relatively low framerates create a remarkably smooth experience.

 

Now before anyone shoots me down I know the link below is not P3D but it is an interesting comparison between the 1080Ti and 2080 (non-Ti). The performance is virtually on a par with the 2080 perhaps a max of 5% faster.

Four or five games with virtually identical differences and all at UHD resolution. So maybe the 2080 is the best for those who want to upgrade from something below a 1080Ti. I have a 1080 and want to get a new i9-9900K system in the next couple of months.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Now before anyone shoots me down I know the link below is not P3D but it is an interesting comparison between the 1080Ti and 2080 (non-Ti). The performance is virtually on a par with the 2080 perhaps a max of 5% faster.

Four or five games with virtually identical differences and all at UHD resolution. So maybe the 2080 is the best for those who want to upgrade from something below a 1080Ti. I have a 1080 and want to get a new i9-9900K system in the next couple of months.

I totally agree with you

1080 Ti performance = 2080 performance 

15 minutes ago, GSalden said:

I totally agree with you

1080 Ti performance = 2080 performance 

Since I posted that I've dug further and other sites confirm as much. And generally the 2080 outperforms the 1080Ti at 4K which is critical for me. That's around £450-500 cheaper than a 2080Ti and I can plough that into an i9-9900 which will definitely pay dividends.

43 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Since I posted that I've dug further and other sites confirm as much. And generally the 2080 outperforms the 1080Ti at 4K which is critical for me. That's around £450-500 cheaper than a 2080Ti and I can plough that into an i9-9900 which will definitely pay dividends.

That I didn’t know. Here I am using 3x 1920x1080.

Than you should indeed go for the 2080.

16 minutes ago, GSalden said:

That I didn’t know. Here I am using 3x 1920x1080.

Than you should indeed go for the 2080.

That's making a judgement call that P3D will follow the same improvements as all those games did. What Ray Tracing will do to performance is still the big unknown. Of course we don't know when that will be implemented.

Do you take a big hit with three displays? Have you considered 1 UHD display? Maybe 50"?