I'm impressed enough with P3D V5 that I thought I'd share this.

My personal standard benchmark in P3D is to takeoff from London Heathrow in an airliner (e.g., QualityWings 787) and fly around London and southern England at 3,000 to 5,000 feet. I use ORBX True Earth Great Britain, and my experience is that this is one of the most stressful scenarios I can find in P3D.

In P3D V4, with the sliders at moderate settings, I usually get something in the range of 15 - 23 FPS.

In P3D V5, with all sliders set to max (i.e., full right), except "Autogen and scenery draw distance" which is set to very high (one step less than max), I get a rock solid 30 FPS when VSYNC is on and "Target frame rate" is set to unlimited.  The flight is very, very smooth (not even a hint of stutters).  If VSYNC is off I get 35 - 40 FPS.

Also, I can fly the Just Flight Hawk at 200 feet and 400 knots all over TEGB and get the same performance.

I find this remarkable.  I was concerned that the core 0 bottleneck wasn't fixed in V5, but I'm convinced now it doesn't matter. The performance LM has delivered in V5 is outstanding.  Many of us expected a revolutionary change in the rendering engine. My sense is that, for all practical purposes, LM has delivered this in terms of the overall performance they have achieved.

I'm really happy about this.  I'll be using P3D V5 (or V6, etc.) as my main simulator for the indefinite future. 

FYI, my hardware is:  9900K CPU at 5.1 GHx, nVidia 2080Ti, M2 SSDs for everything, and a 65" flat screen HD monitor at 3840 x 2160 and 30 Hz. 

That's excellent! Obviously, you're using top end hardware though.  Is this running in 1080p or 2k?  I'm looking to build an FS system for XPlane and MSFS2020, but eyeing the new 10700k which is said to be the same as the 9900k in performance.  Also, waiting for the RTX3000 series cards, which will really open up 2k performance for me.

I use EGKK to detling VOR 5000ft left 90% then left on 270% into 27L EGLL passing over EGLC and London with PMDG, if i can fly that ok I can fly anywhere. 

7 hours ago, tasev1 said:

ut eyeing the new 10700k which is said to be the same as the 9900k in performance

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you wait to see the results of the new AMD desktop CPUs coming this year. Sounds like you'll be changing motherboards anyway so no harm done. Current AMD CPUs are more or less on par and they're from last year, this years chips will be undoubtedly better than the 10th gen from Intel, unless Intel do another release this year where they may hang on.

Agreed, VR performance is also so much better in V5HF2. Although I have the slides at moderate settings slightly higher than with V4, I can run AA at very high settings almost eliminating all the flickering.

Just as well since it looks like FS2020 won’t do VR at release.

3 hours ago, suncoastflyer said:

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you wait to see the results of the new AMD desktop CPUs coming this year. Sounds like you'll be changing motherboards anyway so no harm done. Current AMD CPUs are more or less on par and they're from last year, this years chips will be undoubtedly better than the 10th gen from Intel, unless Intel do another release this year where they may hang on.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you stick to your Intel chip buying plans!

Intel and NVidia have always been the safest option for FSX/P3D. Go with AMD or Radeon, and you are entering test pilot territory.

The i9900K @ 5MHz is a fantastic chip for this sim.

On 4/20/2020 at 2:37 AM, silentsage said:

I'm impressed enough with P3D V5 that I thought I'd share this.

My personal standard benchmark in P3D is to takeoff from London Heathrow in an airliner (e.g., QualityWings 787) and fly around London and southern England at 3,000 to 5,000 feet. I use ORBX True Earth Great Britain, and my experience is that this is one of the most stressful scenarios I can find in P3D.

In P3D V4, with the sliders at moderate settings, I usually get something in the range of 15 - 23 FPS.

In P3D V5, with all sliders set to max (i.e., full right), except "Autogen and scenery draw distance" which is set to very high (one step less than max), I get a rock solid 30 FPS when VSYNC is on and "Target frame rate" is set to unlimited.  The flight is very, very smooth (not even a hint of stutters).  If VSYNC is off I get 35 - 40 FPS.

Also, I can fly the Just Flight Hawk at 200 feet and 400 knots all over TEGB and get the same performance.

I find this remarkable.  I was concerned that the core 0 bottleneck wasn't fixed in V5, but I'm convinced now it doesn't matter. The performance LM has delivered in V5 is outstanding.  Many of us expected a revolutionary change in the rendering engine. My sense is that, for all practical purposes, LM has delivered this in terms of the overall performance they have achieved.

I'm really happy about this.  I'll be using P3D V5 (or V6, etc.) as my main simulator for the indefinite future. 

FYI, my hardware is:  9900K CPU at 5.1 GHx, nVidia 2080Ti, M2 SSDs for everything, and a 65" flat screen HD monitor at 3840 x 2160 and 30 Hz. 

Yes, LM have delivered what we have asked for for a long time - a sim that actually makes use of expensive hardware.

I'm also very pleased with the performance, using the same 9900K/2080Ti setup that you have.

Great, stable performance with smooth flying. A very definite step up from v4.5 if you've got the hardware to match it.

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you stick to your Intel chip buying plans!

Intel and NVidia have always been the safest option for FSX/P3D. Go with AMD or Radeon, and you are entering test pilot territory.

The i9900K @ 5MHz is a fantastic chip for this sim.

 

5 hours ago, suncoastflyer said:

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you wait to see the results of the new AMD desktop CPUs coming this year. Sounds like you'll be changing motherboards anyway so no harm done. Current AMD CPUs are more or less on par and they're from last year, this years chips will be undoubtedly better than the 10th gen from Intel, unless Intel do another release this year where they may hang on.

BOTH of you are correct.  If it was just for gaming alone, I'd stick with what I have now or even go for a cheaper chip.  But Flight Simulator is a fickle thing, and the choice right now really ISN'T clear.  Historically speaking, and based on current benchmarks - yes, Intel would be the way to go.  I know how they perform, I know I can overclock them with ease, and their IPC might be 14nm - but who cares? It's strong and well built. That being said, I am very much open to AMD. Unfortunately, there isn't anything clear on actual performance comparison for the current or upcoming sims -  which are changing, and we have yet to see how they are like with current hardware; so it only boils down to "pick one".  Vulcan is around the corner for XPlane 11, I have no intent on getting P3Dv5, and MSFS has yet to be released (their system requirements are from last year's data).  New chips, especially good ones, can be hard to find at launch - so AMD might release something in November, but can I GET one in November? (I still can't find an available i7-10700 in my area).

I was waiting for the 3800XT to release, and based on that, the price is the same and performance lower than the 10700k.  Will Zen3 be better? Perhaps.....but at the same time, Zen3 may release when I no longer am able to build a PC for whatever reason.  (last time I built a PC, I went against recommendations to wait - good thing, because life changed significantly!).

Either way, it's a new CPU and Mobo combo this time and next, regardless which way I go (Zen3 is said to be the last AM4 platform).

On 4/19/2020 at 2:37 PM, silentsage said:

I'm impressed enough with P3D V5 that I thought I'd share this.

My personal standard benchmark in P3D is to takeoff from London Heathrow in an airliner (e.g., QualityWings 787) and fly around London and southern England at 3,000 to 5,000 feet. I use ORBX True Earth Great Britain, and my experience is that this is one of the most stressful scenarios I can find in P3D.

In P3D V4, with the sliders at moderate settings, I usually get something in the range of 15 - 23 FPS.

In P3D V5, with all sliders set to max (i.e., full right), except "Autogen and scenery draw distance" which is set to very high (one step less than max), I get a rock solid 30 FPS when VSYNC is on and "Target frame rate" is set to unlimited.  The flight is very, very smooth (not even a hint of stutters).  If VSYNC is off I get 35 - 40 FPS.

Also, I can fly the Just Flight Hawk at 200 feet and 400 knots all over TEGB and get the same performance.

I find this remarkable.  I was concerned that the core 0 bottleneck wasn't fixed in V5, but I'm convinced now it doesn't matter. The performance LM has delivered in V5 is outstanding.  Many of us expected a revolutionary change in the rendering engine. My sense is that, for all practical purposes, LM has delivered this in terms of the overall performance they have achieved.

I'm really happy about this.  I'll be using P3D V5 (or V6, etc.) as my main simulator for the indefinite future. 

FYI, my hardware is:  9900K CPU at 5.1 GHx, nVidia 2080Ti, M2 SSDs for everything, and a 65" flat screen HD monitor at 3840 x 2160 and 30 Hz. 

Nice,

mind sharing pics of your settings?

i have the same set up except I have a 1080ti

cheers

mike

Intel will be announcing the next CPU`s around September same time as AMD how strange is that, and getting your hands on the new top end AMD or Intel CPU may not be so easy, and in pricing AMD are now dropping the included Cooler in the top end prices rising.  

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-gaming

12 hours ago, tasev1 said:

 

BOTH of you are correct.  If it was just for gaming alone, I'd stick with what I have now or even go for a cheaper chip.  But Flight Simulator is a fickle thing, and the choice right now really ISN'T clear.  Historically speaking, and based on current benchmarks - yes, Intel would be the way to go.  I know how they perform, I know I can overclock them with ease, and their IPC might be 14nm - but who cares? It's strong and well built. That being said, I am very much open to AMD. Unfortunately, there isn't anything clear on actual performance comparison for the current or upcoming sims -  which are changing, and we have yet to see how they are like with current hardware; so it only boils down to "pick one".  Vulcan is around the corner for XPlane 11, I have no intent on getting P3Dv5, and MSFS has yet to be released (their system requirements are from last year's data).  New chips, especially good ones, can be hard to find at launch - so AMD might release something in November, but can I GET one in November? (I still can't find an available i7-10700 in my area).

I was waiting for the 3800XT to release, and based on that, the price is the same and performance lower than the 10700k.  Will Zen3 be better? Perhaps.....but at the same time, Zen3 may release when I no longer am able to build a PC for whatever reason.  (last time I built a PC, I went against recommendations to wait - good thing, because life changed significantly!).

Either way, it's a new CPU and Mobo combo this time and next, regardless which way I go (Zen3 is said to be the last AM4 platform).

I went for AMD Ryzen 3800 for my new build because of better multi-core processing and I think the trend is towards simulators taking advantage of that.  IOW the superiority of Intel in single-core speed won't be as important.

I agree with the performance, but unfortunately, this sim still has lots of compatibility issues in some instances causing the sim to crash. I think they came up with this update way too soon just to try and sell before FS2020 comes out. I understand it was probably a business decision, but it really affected every user. I for instance got tired of trying to get many of those issues solved with P3D support, but after a while they stop helping and solve nothing probably because they have no answer.

54 minutes ago, perohijo said:

 I think they came up with this update way too soon just to try and sell before FS2020 comes out. I understand it was probably a business decision, but it really affected every user.

I actually doubt that. P3D has a clientele in the academic and professional sectors (hence the licenses), probably made up to a large part of LM's existing customer base. MSFS on the other hand is clearly made for entertainment purposes. LM selling to basically anyone is sound business practice though, as extra revenue can never hurt, but more importantly it allows for the developers to assess how P3D performs on variety of different system setups. The compatibility issues almost inevitably arise when you change and improve so much on a code that was first written many years ago, while ensuring a high degree of backward compatibility. If you compare FSX to P3D in general and V5 in particular, it is nothing short of amazing how far we have come, and I am glad and thankful for that progress. I am still on V4.5 and planning to make the jump to V5 very soon, so I am glad to hear about positive user experiences to make that transition worthwhile.

Edited July 16, 20205 yr by thepilot

Makes you wonder, how much testing they did for the DX12 transition? They're calling the clouds a 'preview' (remember when fsx did that for DX11?), and you're paying for a full fledged product that doesn't even have a proper weather engine. XP11 has been testing Vulcan for many months now, and is still not out. 

A lot of people are tied into P3D long term because of 3rd party vendor support and we had nothing better.... But nowadays it is a very poor investment to get into. 

Edited July 16, 20205 yr by tasev1