My approach is to use as much processor power for p3d as poss and the other processors running, Active Sky, UTL client the only other processes running with P3d according to Lasso, sode etc not showing as seperate processes.

It works for me, no stutters, no blurries, consistent frame rate and no Tweaks to CFG.

AM does not dictate what the other process do with the cores, where as Lasso shows you exactly what is running on what processor.

Tell me if I am wrong please.

1 hour ago, Langyboy63 said:

AM does not dictate what the other process do with the cores, where as Lasso shows you exactly what is running on what processor.

Tell me if I am wrong please.

That's exactly the point he was addressing: as P3D supports AM internally, you should leave it up to P3D to decide which cores to be used. All you want to do is telling P3D which cores are available via an proper AM entry and leave everything else up to the engine (that is how I understood it).

I also use AM (1365 in my case) with HT on, I did not spend hundreds of dollars for an i7 to turn off HT (but I also do not use the rig only for P3D...). Together with my bat-files forcing ActiveSky, ProATC/X and REX Skyforce away from the cores P3D uses primarly, I am a happy camper now. The last thing I am missing is any hint how to also let run UT2 on dedicated cores without using Lasso, that would be nice. So far, bat files do not work for UT2...

I have tried various AM settings over the years, but since moving to Lasso I find it works better and no need to change CFG and I can also set everythng off of the processors that are dedicated to P3d without having to change bat files etc

P3d uses the 2-7 cores and everything else is on 0-1, I get the stable and stutter free performance I am trying to achieve.

I can set p3d to the highest priority and as I said seems to work as well as any AM i have ever tried.

What would be a AM setting that would match this in P3d with an i7 processor.

 

I'm done with CFG tweaks, it was one of my main reasons for swapping from FSX to P3D; I have no interest in wasting my limited available flying time on tweaking the sim! It's same reason I detest addons that have a multitude of options you need to trial, addons should have the options optimally set for the average user and system out the box and avoid cryptic names (quite a few could do with an "advanced options" tab to hide that stuff away).

P3D runs just fine without any tweaks, I think most only give marginal improvements after much trial and error, so only worth faffing around if you're logging mega hours imo. I tried out the TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 tweak in v4.3 and whilst it did improve distant textures a little, it made loading times silly and hit my frames a bit, waste of half an hour I could've been flying. Just set the options menu correctly (like disabling FXAA) and away you go.

Edited December 4, 20187 yr by ckyliu

AM=252, or 11111100. Leaves the first core and thread empty, runs P3D on cores and threads 2-7.

Or, for those claiming HT off is the way to go: every AM Setting with 0101 and so on (in my case 010101010101, or 1365) will result in P3D using exactly those cores (the logical ones, not the hyperthreaded ones) that would be available with HT off and no AM setting. With the small but important difference that those hyperthreaded cores remain available for all other stuff going on on your rig while using P3D (which is plenty...).

11 minutes ago, Langyboy63 said:

What would be a AM setting that would match this in P3d with an i7 processor.

That would be AM=252

I always use this AM calculator: http://store.fsxtimes.com/cal-cam.php

 

9 minutes ago, AnkH said:

AM=252, or 11111100. Leaves the first core and thread empty, runs P3D on cores and threads 2-7.

Or, for those claiming HT off is the way to go: every AM Setting with 0101 and so on (in my case 010101010101, or 1365) will result in P3D using exactly those cores (the logical ones, not the hyperthreaded ones) that would be available with HT off and no AM setting. With the small but important difference that those hyperthreaded cores remain available for all other stuff going on on your rig while using P3D (which is plenty...).

So Chris, do you suggest to use AM=252 or 1365 for a i9900K, HT off?

If I removed P3d from Lasso and just used it to keep the other active processes on 0-1, could this be a better way?

What do you think.

8 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

Please explain further unless u were just desperate for a petty critique of my post.

 

I think that post says it all! And right to the point. Tweaks are OPTIONAL. They are Not NECESSARY. What part needs to be explained? Makes perfect sense to me.

1 minute ago, David Roch said:

So Chris, do you suggest to use AM=252 or 1365 for a i9900K, HT off?

No I will leave HT on and use AM at 252, see how it compares to what I am getting with Lasso.

I will report what difference i see.

Thanks for all your comments.

With an 9900K (planning my new system at the moment i also think about getting that one) i would first go HT=OFF and an AM=62 setting. That would result in P3D on five cores, the first core for Windows stuff and the last two remaining cores where i could shove other P3D-related addon tasks to.

Yes that was I am using right now and I am pleased with the result.
Will try AM=252 though.

 

8 minutes ago, David Roch said:

Yes that was I am using right now and I am pleased with the result.
Will try AM=252 though.

 

Do you have HT ON or OFF? With HT ON i wouldn't recommend 252 but 4052.
For HT OFF its a good setting you can try.

HT Off

For the i9-9900K (8 logical cores, 8 hyperthreaded), an AM=21845 would be the same as I currently use with my 8700K when HT is on. But I do not recommend or comment any AM with HT off.

Why should one do this, seriously, you spend several hundred dollars for a HT CPU, then you turn HT off and even further limit your available cores down via an AM setting? Makes no sense. If you think that HT is such a deal breaker for P3D, why did you not go for a i7-9700K instead and saved some money?

In any case, the AM setting needs to be tested, as almost every system reacts slightly different. While 1365 works fine for me, it might not for others. Same goes for all AM numbers mentioned here. Try it and keep the one that provides you the best results.

Edited December 4, 20187 yr by AnkH