Will V5 Performance be still single thread dependent?

[AnkH 2,233]

If you think a second about what the updated yet old engine is capable of, it is pretty amazing not to say phenomenal. Just do not forget, what this engine is capable of: a seamingless streaming of the whole globe with a rather huge amount of buildings, trees and sceneries. This with a more than reasonable framerate on current systems. New sceneries including PBR look amazing and provide graphics never seen before in a ESP based flightsim. Even without PBR, if you walk around EDDK or other very recent high-quality sceneries, what do we want more?

In the end, I am not that sure that everbody's praise for a new engine will result in a v5 that makes people more happy than now. If you take other current games: the better the graphics, the more demanding it is on the hardware. It is still like this. Means: playing multiplayer shooter like Battlefield V, the CPU is still utterly important. A 8 core with a very strong single core performance still outperforms an 8 core with worse single-core performance and core numbers still do not totally compensate for single-core performance, as today's situation shows with AMD Ryzen CPUs having more cores but less single-core performance still have lower FPS in most games compared to the high-clocked Intel variants.

Means: while a totally new engine in v5 might improve multicore performance further and makes a fast GPU even more important, as soon as you have this GPU power, it will come down to the processor speed again. Or, on the other hand, if you have a v5 engine that results in a constant GPU limit, what did we gain? The only consequence will be: instead of a race for better and faster CPUs, we will be on the same train as for any other game: race for faster GPU. And this will cost more in the end, as long as fast GPU's are that expensive as they are now. Do we really want an engine that needs a xx80Ti card for 1000$ or more to run nice? Or should we be happy with the fact that a 500$ CPU provides better results over a 300$ CPU?

In the end, flightsimming as we know from the ESP based simulator will always need the best possible computer hardware. No matter if it is mainly CPU based or GPU based. With a 08/15 rig you will have to turn down those sliders, I am pretty sure that will be the same in v5.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Chris,

Thanks for fighting the good fight against misinformation, but the people that you are addressing in this thread don't really care about the facts. They just have their opinions about P3d and those will never change. A sampling...

LM is a big aerospace contractor and doesn't care about either flight simming or P3d.
The P3d graphics engine is old and the same as the one in FSX. 
P3d doesn't use multiple CPU cores.
A new graphics engine would solve everything, just look at FlysInside's sim and Aerofly FS2.

Of course, none of these statements are anything but tired out opinions from people who apparently think that a modern flight sim loaded up with 3rd party add-ons should run  at 100 FPS on a 5 year old PC at maxed out image quality settings.

Jay

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Why not simply enjoy v4.4. 

Instead of worrying about the future..

Who predicted that MS would dump fsx?

[SunDevil56 183]

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

 

Of course, none of these statements are anything but tired out opinions from people who apparently think that a modern flight sim loaded up with 3rd party add-ons should run  at 100 FPS on a 5 year old PC at maxed out image quality settings.

Jay

Don't recall Anyone in this thread saying anything remotely like that, so if were are going to starting pointing fingers about "misinformation", this is the perfect place to start...

[TuFun 426]

Would like to see if DX12 or Vulkan would make a difference if implemented correctly.

I ran it thru 3D Mark API test with a 9600K/1060 system.

Now if I could get scores like this with DX12 or Vulkan in a future version of P3D

 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by TuFun

[JoeFackel 760]

47 minutes ago, SunDevil56 said:

Don't recall Anyone in this thread saying anything remotely like that, so if were are going to starting pointing fingers about "misinformation", this is the perfect place to start...

Glider1 did more or less as he mentioned FlyInside as "benchmark" für an modern FlightSim with up-to-date multicore usage. FlyInside is in no way a benchmark here, if some would stripdown P3D to to FI's content it would also run as hell.

[eslader 1,779]

21 hours ago, 331BK said:

That`s true but P3D is not realy "Gaming"

While that's true from a license agreement perspective and from the way most of us approach P3d, from your computer's perspective, it's a game, which is why if you're getting an off-the-shelf system to run P3d with, you want to find a gaming rig, not a web server.

 

11 hours ago, JoeFackel said:

There will be NEVER Hardware which can run high-sophisticated Flightsims like P3D or XP on full settings with high fps, period.

 

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing throughout the discussion, but disagree with this specific statement. In less than one lifetime we've gone from computers being giant monstrosities that filled entire floors and chugged along at 5,000 instructions per second to carrying around in our pockets computers capable of billions of instructions per second.

If you've ever been in a level-D sim, you know that it's entirely possible to simulate a far richer flight environment than P3d without framerate issues or the other performance annoyances we deal with. Yes, it requires much more powerful hardware than we can get at home, but in 50 years we'll have portable microcomputers that make the level-D computers look like digital morons.

After all, if we'd been having this conversation back in 1984 we'd have been skeptical as to whether we'd ever see a flight simulator with multi-color graphics and weather. 😉

 

 

 

[G-RFRY 1,708]

What ever V5 is it will not please all the simmers nor will V6 there will always be something a user want`s that's not there.

[SunDevil56 183]

14 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Glider1 did more or less as he mentioned FlyInside as "benchmark" für an modern FlightSim with up-to-date multicore usage. FlyInside is in no way a benchmark here, if some would stripdown P3D to to FI's content it would also run as hell.

That's a stretch as far as I'm concerned.

I'll say it again for clarification.. Flyinside or otherwise, I don't see anyone, including glider, suggesting they should get 100 fps on a 5 year old PC with a ton of add on's and all the slider's maxed out... YMMV, and i'll leave it at that..

Edited January 14, 2019 by SunDevil56

[JoeFackel 760]

1 minute ago, eslader said:

If you've ever been in a level-D sim, you know that it's entirely possible to simulate a far richer flight environment than P3d without framerate issues or the other performance annoyances we deal with. Yes, it requires much more powerful hardware than we can get at home, but in 50 years we'll have portable microcomputers that make the level-D computers look like digital morons.

Sure, when you throw tens of thousands EUR into hardware (not to mention the serveral P3D Professional Plus Licences to connect them 😉 ) there is a chance. And of course the hardware will get faster in the next years, but i'm also sure the demands of the new sim versions will rise also ... a race where the hardware never will catch up i'm afraid. At least it was his way the nearly 30 years i'm in Flightsims now 😎

[pgde 571]

12 hours ago, rjfry said:

You also have to take into account the user, example the 20 series GPU requires WIN10 and DX12 if you change the specs for P3D you could shut some present users out, and it`s unlikely that companies that use P3D will change there hardware, they don't like upgrading it cost. 

Perhaps for maximum performance, it requires Win10/DX12 but I ran a 2080 on my PC which is Win7/DX11 for a month but returned it since I didn't see the value benefit of spending an additional $300 for a minor performance increase.

[glider1 90]

Yeah I was misunderstood. It is not the performance of Flyinside simulator that is interesting. It is how it allocates cores that is interesting and could signal the direction P3D takes in the future as sims move from single core to multicore performance.

The suggestion is to do a test with Flyinside simulator HT-ON and HT-OFF to see if one of the cores starts peaking higher when there are more cores to allocate. That will tell us whether it is possible to design a simulator in the future without hitting a situation where one core has to do more work than the others by design.

[Buffy Foster 133]

I won't be happy until I have a holodeck.  :D

[AnkH 2,233]

9 hours ago, eslader said:

If you've ever been in a level-D sim, you know that it's entirely possible to simulate a far richer flight environment than P3d without framerate issues or the other performance annoyances we deal with.

Is it? To me, this is just another of those, sorry to say, rather stupid comparisons P3D suffers from. No, a full Level-D sim does not simulate a "far richer flight environment" in many cases. You are of course right regarding systems of ONE (single one per Level D sim) aircraft, regarding nav database and SOME visual aspects (including weather) and the motion system but you could not be more wrong in regard of all that stuff you can add to Prepar3d via addons. Plz do not tell me, that you did the comparison with a blank P3D, that would be unfair...

With a full blown P3D using for example a TE product, a high-quality scenery addon, weather addon and proper AI traffic, at least from the visual aspect your P3D will be far superior to almost any Level D sim. And: while the reduced complexity is certainly a fact, you gain variability. Buy PMDG 737, 747 and 777 along with FSL A32x plus A2A Constellation, some GA planes etc, and your sim has basically 6, 7 or more aircraft, all wonderfully depicted and simulated to a rather good level of realism (of Course far away from a Level D sim, but come on...). Not just one plane.

[Guest]

My now 5+ year old build is: CPU at 4.8, CPU cache ratio 4.5ghz, 16gb 2400mhz CL9-11-11-31 and a 980ti on a SabertoothZ87.

I was planning on upgrading to a 1080ti and VR. I figured I'd need a 1080ti to get the level of performance required for VR. Luckily, I picked up a Samsung Odyssey+ first and I have discovered with the aid of an app called FPSvr that in fact its my CPU that's the bottle neck in VR. That's assuming that there is not some Windows10 word not allowed running in the background killing it. Still getting a handle on Windows 10 but I don't think so.

So given that this has turned into the big once every five years new build and V5 of Prepar3D will likely appear within the next 2 years. It would be nice to be able to plan for it. First decision is which CPU. I think with V4 the Intel CPU with the best single core performance and overclocking potential is the smart choice. That's going to be an 8068K I think. Alternatively, if V5 no longer depends on single core performance and uses more cores then an 8 core 9700K might be a better choice.

Perhaps it won't make a hill of beans difference anyway and there is no guarantee of hitting a stable 5.3ghz anyway. Which is what I would want out of an upgrade. 0.5Ghz to make it worth it.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not getting an answer to my question! 😁