Are “Professional” v4 only Airports really that different?

[ErichB 3,638]

47 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Come on guys. LM sells two identical products due to license reasons (which we do not discuss, I agree) with two different names and that is ok and not relevant. Aerosoft sells two identical products due to additional features such as Dynamic Lightning once as "professional" for P3Dv4.x and once as v2 (or whatever) for FSX or P3Dv3 and we make a huge discussion? Makes no sense, sorry...

Regarding the 4K discussion. Ok, now we suddenly discuss about VC textures? Come on, simply accept that there is no valid argument for your "rage" against products for P3Dv4.x only with "professional" in it's title... You make a story out of nothing here...

The nomenclature of 'Professional' for aftermarket products is a bit of a nonsense.  It doesn't designate a theoretical restriction in terms of use - nor does it designate any added value in the content of the product for the user, even though it's specific for P3Dv4. 

P3D licensing tags of Academic and Professional make distinct theoretical differences in the terms of use and are therefore valid designations. 

[Christopher Low 5,342]

What happens if a product is released with 4K textures, and the texture resolution in the simulator is set to 1024x1024? I assume that those 4K textures would be displayed as 1024x1024? If that is the case, is there a performance hit for this (as opposed to simply providing 1024x1024 textures out of the box)?

[AnkH 2,233]

1 minute ago, Christopher Low said:

What happens if a product is released with 4K textures, and the texture resolution in the simulator is set to 1024x1024? I assume that those 4K textures would be displayed as 1024x1024? If that is the case, is there a performance hit for this (as opposed to simply providing 1024x1024 textures out of the box)?

Yes, those 4K textures will still be displayed in the selected resolution. BUT, and that was a problem until 64bit, the simulator still loads the full 4K texture and as such, the need of memory is identical, no matter if the texture is then displayed in its full resolution or downscaled to 1024x1024. With 64bit, the Risk of OOM is alleviated, but the 4K textures still increase the demand in VRAM and RAM, even if the sim is set to 1024. The only way to avoid this is, as mentioned, resizing the textures or using lower res textures.

Regarding performance: this is another story. Texture size should not have a huge impact on performance UNTIL you have your GPU VRAM filled. Then, the textures are loaded into the system RAM instead of the GPU VRAM and this results in worse performance. And bear in mind that when using antialiasing on textures with huge resolutions, this limit is reached faster. And of course, a GPU with 11GB has more overhead for huge textures compared to one with 6GB. As Rob always says: you can bring your rig down to single digits even if you have a 5.5GHz i9-9900K and two 2080Ti. Using ridiculously high texture resolutions with high antialiasing modes is certainly one of those possibilities to ruin performance even on a high end system.

[ninerwhiskey9W 19]

How does one resize the textures ? Is there a software that can lower the resolution for a batch of files in one go ? I use 1024 as texture resolution, but there are a few airports I have which use 4k textures.

[AnkH 2,233]

There are Tools available, yes. I use in this case the "Optimizer Textures" originally built for resizing Skyrim textures. Here you find it: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/12801/?tab=files

I guess there are more tools available those days that are capable of batch-converting textures to smaller size. Just be aware that you know what you are doing, there is no going back once you have the textures resized...

[ninerwhiskey9W 19]

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

There are Tools available, yes. I use in this case the "Optimizer Textures" originally built for resizing Skyrim textures. Here you find it: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/12801/?tab=files

I guess there are more tools available those days that are capable of batch-converting textures to smaller size. Just be aware that you know what you are doing, there is no going back once you have the textures resized...

I shall give it a try, thanks. I'll make a backup of the original textures before messing with them. Worst case scenario, I can just reinstall it.

[robert young 2,897]

I agree with the post saying 4k textures make almost no difference to frame rate provided you have enough video ram to run them. I know this because I spent one afternoon reducing the huge number of Aerosoft airbus 4k textures down to 1024 and it made not the slightest difference to frame rates. What did make a difference was reducing the gauge sizes and completely disabling the weather/terrain radar by renaming the terrain database which then ensured the radar never loaded (with an error message that nevertheless does not crash the sim). I also tried running P3d with the lowest texture setting (256?) in the graphics options and that made barely any difference either. 

The biggest factor in performance optimisation appears to be polygon count and eliminating the sometimes extreme number of VC entries in the panel cfg of some aircraft. Carenado provides a polygon "lite" version of its Hawker 850XP but with the same 4k textures and using that the frame rate on my system jumps from a 15-25 average to 40-50 fps - an enormous difference.

Designers of aircraft and scenery understandably want to show off their work in the best light, so tend to favour high polygon counts as well as 4k textures. But the recent trend in a competitive world is to assume everyone has stella and very expensive hardware and want the eye candy at the cost of frame rates. Being much more interested in smooth flight with no fps spikes others are content with less eye candy and a flight model that doesn't perpetually break down with stutters and other unpleasant side effects. In procedural aircraft where you are essentially taking off, cruising in a straight line under a/p then landing under ILS it might not matter so much. But flying smaller aircraft manually with a bit more involvement in more interesting maneouvres can be a miserable experience at 20 fps.You need not just 30+ fps but considerable overhead above this in order for the flight model to be consistently smooth, unless your system is capable of pegging frame rates with triple buffering and vsync on. My system is completely incapable of achieving this.

The current trend of vastly increased minimum specs now means a decent system to run detailed addons is costing three times what it did just a few years ago. I'm not sure that trend can continue without a lot of customers saying enough is enough. When you can buy a reasonably good condition whole car second hand for the price of a gaming computer, it kind of focuses the mind!

Edited January 8, 2019 by robert young

[Christopher Low 5,342]

This is why I am sticking with a single monitor @ 1920x1080 resolution. Simply put, the larger the screen you use, the higher the resolution of textures required to make everything look sharp. At 1920x1080 resolution, I don't need 4K textures. According to some people, my 2GB GeForce GTX 770 should have curled up and died after I installed P3D v4 and all of my addons, but that particular star just keeps on shining!

Edited January 8, 2019 by Christopher Low

[robert young 2,897]

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

This is why I am sticking with a single monitor @ 1920x1080 resolution. Simply put, the larger the screen you use, the higher the resolution of textures required to make everything look sharp. At 1920x1080 resolution, I don't need 4K textures. According to some people, my 2GB GeForce GTX 770 should have curled up and died after I installed P3D v4 and all of my addons, but that particular star just keeps on shining!

I agree Christopher. I could not care less about 4k compared to other factors that to me are much more important (smooth flying). I've had my current system for seven years and have spent a lot of time tweaking to make it work perfectly well except for aircraft that are just impossible to run owing to a complete absence of any attempt to optimise or provide any alternative "lite" version. I have to admire PMDG for producing the NGX 737 that not only runs surprisingly well but PMDG also had the intelligence to provide further options for gauge update speed, and reduced detail which really does work well without any discernable loss of immersion. Majestic managed to produce a complex aircraft with amazingly good performance. Others, who shall remain nameless, shove in hundreds of unnecessary multiple gauge entries for every switch and button, demonstrating not the slightest interest in optimisation.

[SunDevil56 183]

30 minutes ago, robert young said:

 

The biggest factor in performance optimisation appears to be polygon count and eliminating the sometimes extreme number of VC entries in the panel cfg of some aircraft. Carenado provides a polygon "lite" version of its Hawker 850XP but with the same 4k textures and using that the frame rate on my system jumps from a 15-25 average to 40-50 fps - an enormous difference.

That certainly is quite a difference..!!

Just for giggles I compared the Carenado Hawker 850XP "regular" and "lite" versions in VC view on the runway at the new Flightbeam KPDX. I couldn't detect any difference in frame rates from the regular to lite versions on my system, which hovered in the mid to upper 30's consistently.

I'm running an i7 8700K non OC'd, and a GTX 1080Ti 11gb, with a 32" QHD monitor and P3D running @ 2560x1440 resolution...

Edited January 8, 2019 by SunDevil56

[robert young 2,897]

I'm running an i7 8700K non OC'd, and a GTX 1080Ti 11gb, with a 32" QHD monitor and P3D running @ 2560x144 resolution

I've no doubt that is why you are getting no difference between the lite and full versions. I'm shortly to join you with similar specs (except for the monitor) and am looking forward to no longer spending hours tweaking away to squeeze the best I can out of a limited computer.

[SunDevil56 183]

10 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm running an i7 8700K non OC'd, and a GTX 1080Ti 11gb, with a 32" QHD monitor and P3D running @ 2560x1440 resolution

I've no doubt that is why you are getting no difference between the lite and full versions. I'm shortly to join you with similar specs (except for the monitor) and am looking forward to no longer spending hours tweaking away to squeeze the best I can out of a limited computer.

Good for you Robert, let us know how that works out...😎

[Bob Scott 7,716]

Back to the topic, this really just boils down to basic consumerism--the age-old principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).  What the terms mean as associated with any given product is all in the hands of the marketer--it's incumbent on the buyer to suss out any actual significance or value-added w/r/t the advertising/branding terms in use.

Intel has long used terms like "turbo" (which alludes to the turbocharger on a reciprocating engine used to enhance its output), which, when you sit back and think about it, is nothing but marketing puffery that alludes to enhanced performance in a way unrelated to the actual device (well, unless they have come up with a way of slapping a Garrett blower onto an i7 CPU...)  😜

Regards

[Ray Proudfoot 8,932]

Yesterday I bought two airports exclusively for P3D v4  Rhodes and Brussels both by JustSim.

When it came to the install neither installed as an addon. Instead they opted to create an entry in scenery.cfg. I thought L-M were encouraging developers to use the add-on option.

In comparison Gary Summons of UK2000 gives you the choice of addon or scenery.cfg.

Both airports look okay but nothing breathaking in terms of what v4 can offer.

[SunDevil56 183]

14 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Yesterday I bought two airports exclusively for P3D v4  Rhodes and Brussels both by JustSim.

When it came to the install neither installed as an addon. Instead they opted to create an entry in scenery.cfg. I thought L-M were encouraging developers to use the add-on option.

In comparison Gary Summons of UK2000 gives you the choice of addon or scenery.cfg.

Both airports look okay but nothing breathaking in terms of what v4 can offer.

Hi Ray, when installing the JustSim scenery's I opted not to let the installer monkey with my scenery cfg file, and I just added it manually. Just a different way to skin the same cat I suppose...

I don't have Rhodes, but I do have EBBR, EDDL, and EDDH. I agree, not "breathtaking", but miles better than the default scenery, and they have SODE jetways, which you don't always find in 15 Euro scenery. All things considered, they are decent scenery's for the price IMHO.

FWIW, the dev is located in Montenegro, not that it matters, it's just not one of the usual geographical locations for developers that I associate with most of the add on's we use in P3D.