Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Alex753

Strange GPU/CPU Behavior

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, W2DR said:

The 4790K runs at 4.4Ghz in Turbo mode. You need do nothing to make that happen. It's automatic when the CPU is under a heavy load.

Not all cores are turbo boosted. You need to set that manually in BIOS. I have all 4 cores locked at 4.5.


Gigabyte Z97X-UD5H-BK, Blk Ed MB; Intel I7-4790K CPU (@4.5 Ghz); Deepcool 240 AIO Cooler; 16 Gb G.Skill RAM (F3-2400); Win10 Pro (P3D V5 HF1); 2 Samsung 1Tb SSDs;Toshiba 3Tb hard drive; Gigabyte Aorus Extreme 1080ti 11Gb VRAM; Toshiba 43" LED TV @ 4k;

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2019 at 1:55 PM, Alex753 said:

And do you noticed a noticable fps improvement ?

I basically want to reach at least 50Fps (50Hz screen + Vsync) from the average 40 I have on thoses big sceneries/planes.

I am not into chasing FPS. Am running at 30 Hz screen and Vsync to yield 30 FPS.. Smooth for me.


Gigabyte Z97X-UD5H-BK, Blk Ed MB; Intel I7-4790K CPU (@4.5 Ghz); Deepcool 240 AIO Cooler; 16 Gb G.Skill RAM (F3-2400); Win10 Pro (P3D V5 HF1); 2 Samsung 1Tb SSDs;Toshiba 3Tb hard drive; Gigabyte Aorus Extreme 1080ti 11Gb VRAM; Toshiba 43" LED TV @ 4k;

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, W2DR said:

The 4790K runs at 4.4Ghz in Turbo mode. You need do nothing to make that happen. It's automatic when the CPU is under a heavy load.

That's only true if 1-2 cores are loaded.  The default turbo boost schedule on the 4790K is 4.4GHz with loads on 1-2 cores, 4.3GHz with loads on three cores, and 4.2GHz with all four physical cores loaded up.  To get the CPU to run at 4.4 with all cores loaded, the default turbo boost behavior needs to be overridden via the BIOS.

Regards


Bob Scott | AVSIM Forums Administrator | AVSIM Board of Directors

ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System: i9-10900K @ 5.2GHz on custom water loop, ASUS Maximus XII Hero, 32GB GSkill 3600MHz CAS15, eVGA 2080Ti XC Ultra, Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz, 5xSamsung SSD, eVGA 1KW PSU, 1Gbps internet

SB XFi Titanium, optical link to Yamaha RX-V467, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf spkrs, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro, PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensors, Coolermaster HAF932 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BusheFlyer said:

What is really needed is a new simulator with a modern engine behind it.

This is a repeated "theme" among end users that use a 3D game/shooter and then say "Flight Simulators" should be able to do this.  Do you have any coding experience using a "modern engine"?

The "modern engines" I've experimented with are:

  • Unreal
  • Unity
  • CryEngine

These engines are good and they accomplish much provided the worlds are relatively small (compared to a flight simulator that virtualizes the entire planet earth).  But they are bound to polygon count and texture sizes just like all engines.  To get around performance issues these 3D games/shooter will have static back drop (very low poly count blurry image) and boundary limits where one hits an invisible wall, something a flight simulator simply can't have to be viable ... can you imagine doing a flight from LAX to SFO and you are stopped in the middle of flight for 30 seconds or more as the next section of scenery is loaded?  For 3D shooters/games it's objective complete, load another mission/objective and toss in a transition pre-rendered video while it loads ... they can get away with that because it's mission accomplished.

None of these engine can support an entire planet ... or more accurately no one has a computer of sufficient power to support an entire planet using one of these engines.

Here is an older article that someone posted a question about using UE4 (2016) to make a flight simulator: https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/116215/using-unreal-engine-4-to-model-earth

As you can see from the responses, not feasible in "modern engines".  However, if you are so inclined to try to do a 1m or higher precision world in any of the above engines, please do report back your findings.

IMHO, these current simulator engines are conceptually much more "modern" than any of those engines listed above because they've had to work with real hardware limitations of the PC environment to get a "world" to fit (into an average users PC) and look reasonably good (but not perfect).  "Modern" engines are limited to invisible walls and blurry static backgrounds.

I wish someone would sticky this because many members (here and elsewhere) frequently saying "old code" or "not modern" without having any programming background or technical understanding of why flight simulator engines are the way they are ... fair enough not everyone is a programmer.  There is always room for improvement (evolutionary not revolutionary), but "old code" or "not modern" has no significance as the concept and constructs that evolves flight simulation is far more "modern" that the concepts and constructs that evolved 3D shooter's limited world space.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Edited by Rob_Ainscough
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

11 hours ago, BusheFlyer said:

If P3D was released as a 'game' the performance would be considered an absolute joke. It's shockingly bad. What is really needed is a new simulator with a modern engine behind it.

 

If a "game" were released with the physics simulation depth of P3d, with a 197 million square mile map, people's eyes would bug out.

GTA5 is considered a *huge* open-world game. Its map is 100 square miles. P3d's map is over 1 million times the size of GTA's map, which means it needs to do a lot of loading that GTA doesn't have to do, just because you keep moving to different sections of the map. If you're in a tubeliner at FL390, the horizon is more than 230 miles away. You're looking at a visual area that's more than 1700 times as big as GTA's entire map --  and GTA's map is pre-placed, pre-rendered stuff. No autogen except for the cars, and the cars are so poorly generated that if you turn your back on one and then immediately turn back, it's very likely the car will have disappeared already to free up resources.

GTA does not simulate weather effects beyond visuals. You'll see a thunderstorm from time to time, but if you fly a plane through one, it flies exactly the same as it does when the weather is calm. GTA doesn't simulate true flight models (though for a non-flight sim title it's pretty decent if you don't care about little things like realism).

And of course, there are no systems simulations in GTA. The car/plane is either on or off. The physics engine is extremely rudimentary compared to P3d.

In short, p3d is not a game, and comparing true simulators to games is unfair to both games and simulators.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    31%
    $7,810.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...