All I can say that I have HT active in my BIOS for my 8700K running at 5.0GHz yet I have the best result in P3D with using an affinity mask of 1365, basically limiting the simulator to 6 cores. Others turn off HT completely and see good results. Means: in any case already now the 9700K would be the better option compared to an 8700K or 8086K (marketing bull* of Intel, the 8086K has NO advantage over an 8700K), as you have 8 "real" cores straight from the beginning.

27 minutes ago, AnkH said:

All I can say that I have HT active in my BIOS for my 8700K running at 5.0GHz yet I have the best result in P3D with using an affinity mask of 1365, basically limiting the simulator to 6 cores. Others turn off HT completely and see good results. Means: in any case already now the 9700K would be the better option compared to an 8700K or 8086K (marketing bull* of Intel, the 8086K has NO advantage over an 8700K), as you have 8 "real" cores straight from the beginning.

Same cpu same settings and experience

but only after 4.4

59 minutes ago, AnkH said:

All I can say that I have HT active in my BIOS for my 8700K running at 5.0GHz yet I have the best result in P3D with using an affinity mask of 1365, basically limiting the simulator to 6 cores. Others turn off HT completely and see good results. Means: in any case already now the 9700K would be the better option compared to an 8700K or 8086K (marketing bull* of Intel, the 8086K has NO advantage over an 8700K), as you have 8 "real" cores straight from the beginning.

I agree with what you're saying about the 8086K, I thought seriously about getting one, but after doing some research I came to the same conclusion, ie. no real adavantage, so I passed on it...

I'm running a stock  non-OC'd 8700K here with HT on and an AM, do you think the 9700K would offer me much of a performance gain to be worth the price..?? (about $400 here in the US) Keep in mind I can sell my 8700K with no problem for about $300 on ebay, so the 9700K would in effect only cost me about $100, and it's a simple swap out.. No mobo change needed, pop the old CPU out, put the new one in, some thermal paste, re-mount the cooler, and i'm in business.... What do you think..??

Edited January 15, 20197 yr by SunDevil56

That is a more difficult question to answer and honestly, I can not tell you if this would be worth. My statement above based on the question to go for a 8700K or 9700K when buying a system newly. If it is an upgrade, even for "only" 100$, it is not the same anymore. Personally, I would not do it, to much work for to little benefit. You do not have those 4.8GHz (why you write "stock non-OCed" but have 4.8GHz in the signature?) granted on the 9700K (although it is very likely that it will work), so in the worst case, you might loose some performance.

10 hours ago, AnkH said:

You are of course right regarding systems of ONE (single one per Level D sim) aircraft,

The main reason a level-D only simulates one aircraft is because it's a cockpit hardware simulator as well. Wouldn't do much good to stick a 737 flight model into a 747 cockpit. Loading a different airplane in P3d does not impact performance in the way you are (probably inadvertently) implying.

 

10 hours ago, AnkH said:

 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...

Nope. I run Active Sky, lots of Orbx, and several payware airports in addition to PMDG planes, so I'm putting a decent load on my sim. I don't have to compare it with a blank P3d - P3d still can't touch the flight realism of a Level D. You dismissed motion as though it's not a big deal, but it kinda is.

Put another way, hook my sim rig (which is brand new and fairly beastly) up to a Level D sim and it probably couldn't even run the cockpit systems, much less the flight physics. 

All that said, the point of my post wasn't to say that P3d sucks, because it definitely doesn't. It was to say that higher fidelity is possible today with hardware that is out of reach for normal consumers, but that if history is any indication, that level of computing power *will* be available to normal consumers, probably sooner than we would think, and at that point home flight simulation will be more realistic and more immersive.

 

13 hours ago, eslader said:

Put another way, hook my sim rig (which is brand new and fairly beastly) up to a Level D sim and it probably couldn't even run the cockpit systems, much less the flight physics. 

Again, I could not disagree more, simply due to the fact that you do strange comparisons with even stranger assumptions. Of course, a Level D sim does not have only a SINGLE computer rig doing all those calculations alone. Ergo yes, your simming rig alone would not be sufficient. But I am pretty sure that your simming rig is way more powerful regarding hardware than any of the rigs inside a Level D simulator. It is the working together of the several Level D sim computers and the SOFTWARE that makes the difference...

Quote

...that level of computing power *will* be available to normal consumers, probably sooner than we would think, and at that point home flight simulation will be more realistic and more immersive.

It is not the computing power that makes a Level D sim in your eyes superior. It is the motion (as you said), this has nothing to do with computing power, it is the full real cockpit layout, again not related to computing power and of course the system simulation. And guess what, this system simulation has again only very little relation to computing power, it is depending on the software that does the simulation.

Means: if you have enough money, time and space, you could build a full-motion simulator with a more or less correct cockpit (737 and A32x) layout that is very close to a Level D sim. Add P3D with tons of addons to this homemade Level D, and the immersion will be at least on par, regarding visuals even superior. Of course, you will never get the SOFTWARE to simulate the plane on par with the Level D sims, but that is again not a question of lacking computing power...

You can also think a second about computing power when going 30 years back. Yes, you already had wonderful Level D sims with motion and system simulation back then. And guess what? None those computers used in a Level D sim in the 90ies was even close to what we have now in regard of computing power. It was already back then, 30 years ago, a matter of how good the software was programmed to run on computers of that time.

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

this has nothing to do with computing power,

What? What exactly do you think is doing the processing to figure out how to make the sim move?

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

It was already back then, 30 years ago, a matter of how good the software was programmed to run on computers of that time.

While obviously software had something to do with it, it was also the hardware. Namely, none of us home simmers had the financial means to buy the computers that were running those Level D sims back then. I hung out in the Northwest Airlines sims and their computer *floors* back in the 90's. Back then (and still today, though probably to a lesser extent as far as the computer hardware goes) if we wanted to do what they did, we'd first need to buy a warehouse and then spend the rest of our ~$15m budget on computers, and large air conditioners to cool them.

Maybe I was unclear - I am not claiming that in 50 years we will all have level-D simulators in our basements, because part of the cost involves FAA level-D certification and not many of us would be interested in paying higher prices to get that.

But I am claiming that in 50 years, we will have access to computing power that rivals today's level-D simulators, and if we have access to that, then p3dv40 should run at much smoother framerates (and therefore be more immersive and therefore more realistic) even with a bunch of addons.

Edited January 16, 20197 yr by eslader

The flightsim software will have always more demands regarding power then the hardware can deliver. There will be never a point in the near future where you can push the sim to full settings with having enough overhead on hardwarepower.

And regarding Level-D ... the one REAL simulator i flew so far had REALLY crappy graphics comparing to my home setup. Of course because you don't need that, you also don't need an complete world, you don't need AI planes etc.

10 minutes ago, eslader said:

[...] then p3dv40 should run at much smoother framerates (and therefore be more immersive and therefore more realistic) even with a bunch of addons.

And again you start mixing things... come on, P3Dv4.4 stripped down to what you get regarding visuals in a current Level D sim runs at more than 100FPS on our rigs. Simply try it once: turn off all autogen, dynamic lightning, cloud shadows, external models, AI traffic and all other visual stuff that improves immersion in P3D (to my eyes...) and you will be surprised about what FPS you can get with such a stripped down P3D.

Means: simply add two, three additional rigs with a 9900K and you HAVE the computing power of a Level D sim 30 years ago. I would even dare to say that a rig with a 9900K running at 5GHz outperforms a computer filling a basement 30 years ago. Come on, this was pre-Intel Pentium time, processors ran with 33MHz max and 1MB RAM was already called unnecessary...

I'm not sure what level D sims you've been in, but even in the DC-9, DC-10, 757, and 747 sims I used to fool around in back in the 90's, they had good-looking weather and AI traffic, including ground vehicles, including cars on the roads. And you could hit trees. Whether those trees were autogen or pre-set I have no idea.

While I freely admit my level D experience is 20+ years out of date, I have my doubts that they've regressed in those matters recently.

BTW, I got my first Intel Pentium in 1995, two years after it came out, so no, the 90's was not "pre-Intel Pentium time," and I considered the 486 SX-20 (with 4 megs of ram, not 1) I had prior to that creaky slow, because the DX2-66 chip that was introduced in 1992 blew it out of the water.

Edited January 16, 20197 yr by eslader

On 1/14/2019 at 3:20 AM, JoeFackel said:

There will be NEVER

 

Never say Never....besides 60fps which is the sweet spot in a simulator like XP or P3D (at least for me) is certainly doable with high end systems today. The problem with fps lies not with the SIM itself but with the user who's trying to make it look like the real world (that I would say, will never happen) by installing gazillion addons which only bogs down any high end system.

Edited January 16, 20197 yr by CarlosF

1 hour ago, eslader said:

While obviously software had something to do with it, it was also the hardware. Namely, none of us home simmers had the financial means to buy the computers that were running those Level D sims back then. I hung out in the Northwest Airlines sims and their computer *floors* back in the 90's. Back then (and still today, though probably to a lesser extent as far as the computer hardware goes) if we wanted to do what they did, we'd first need to buy a warehouse and then spend the rest of our ~$15m budget on computers, and large air conditioners to cool them.

You'd be amazed at the leaps and bounds in terms of processing power since 1995. There's a good chance that a high-end iPhone or two can crunch more numbers than those units.

In 1995 I had a 33Mhz 80486DX at around 25 MIPS. Nowadays we can get numbers approaching 1,000,000 on higher-core-count processors.

Cheers!

On 1/14/2019 at 12:26 AM, Egbert Drenth said:

Does XP11 have performance issues?

Not really and totally subjective. It all depends on the equipment, settings, number of addons and the balance of all 3. My rig ,which I do not considered to be "high-end" by any means, its quite old, but XP runs quite smooth, why you ask? Well that is because I've learned to keep a balance between settings and addons. I'm quite happy with the performance and eyecandy of my sim and this is why I have no need to spend thousands in new hardware every time a new version comes out.

Edited January 16, 20197 yr by CarlosF

14 hours ago, CarlosF said:

why you ask?

What I meant was is that XP11 (or pick another sim) has been build (more or less) from scratch with the latest technologies and also can brought to its knees.

My point is that any simulator, current and future ones, always will have some kind of performance issues/challenges because they keep stretching the limits of hardware.

14 hours ago, CarlosF said:

Not really and totally subjective. It all depends on the equipment, settings, number of addons and the balance of all 3.

Like it does with P3D 😉