6 hours ago, Nemo said:

Isn't this consuming too much VideoRAM  for 8 or 11 GB cards?

Not if you're using 1080 or 1440, certainly in 4k an 11GB card is the minimum for TS=10.

My 4k screen uses 3.5GB with ORBX and stock planes at default TS in OZv2 going to TS=10 pushes it to around 6-6.5GB Vram. (HF1 installed)

I have only added low overhead aircraft so far (like the venerable TWIN OTTER) and that with ORBX certainly makes the 1080Ti have some hesitations over Sydney but the 2080Ti  breezes it.

Have never seen an OOM in V4 or v5 to date - luck of the draw there i guess, so I can only suggest more tuning of the settings. If you're crashing out to blue screens like the bad old days I suggest using Bluescreenview which logs the BS crashes in a form you can access and it "may/might" give a clue.

 

 

I'm surprised to see @Rob_Ainscough (which by the way you have my respect for helping so much the community) and @c912039 getting upset at statements to the nature of "better programmer" when results are as they are.

 

What shocks me the most is that on their forum we see problems related to bad programming, problems carried on from one version to the other culminating with this V5.

 

But yet you gents are upset about the truth.

You gents don't care about the customer (by the way it's not "free" software) that with every release lots of things are wrong and they have to come with a "FIX".

You gents don't seem to care that with almost every release most of us end up re-installing the software hoping for a bug-free situation and spend hours over hours or even days to get going again.

You gents don't seem to care that with almost every release most of the add-ons don't work and the customer has to wait for updates and sometimes you have to pay for that.

 

You gents don't seem to care that with almost every release most of the other developers have to re-program their software because these updates are not backward compatible (I'm talking about after the 64 bit).

 

@c912039 did you ever wonder how "insulting" it is for the customer who's paying for a product to find out that the " the professional staff involved" is not concerned about the quality of the product and execution?

 

To be honest, like the other developers in the sim community the jump from 32 to 64 bit was an achievement, undisputed.

 

 This is going on for over 10 years by now, it's time for a positive change.

 

Please, let's be honest and not try to kill the truth when the writing is all over the place

13 minutes ago, killthespam said:

Please, let's be honest and not try to kill the truth when the writing is all over the place

It's not the truth. It's your opinion. 

Is there also a way to get faster texture loading? Like push it to the cpu or gpu quicker? I run 9900ks at 5GhZ and 2080ti so my frames are not a problem. 
What I mean by that is, as I fly over the scenery, sometimes you can see it going from low res to high res..... 

 

or

Is that the same limitation as the morphing as discussed above? 

Edited May 7, 20206 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

8 hours ago, Quasimodo said:

The best I have to offer in this regard is:

[TERRAIN]
LOD_RADIUS=11

You Millage may vary

Opps! Sorry, I think I did get my tweaks mixed up!

It was In fact TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10

16 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Why does the scenery in P3DV5 (or 4 for that matter), morph under the aircraft? Even in a slow aircraft at 120knts, you can see the scenery shape shifting! It’s worse in mountains. Is there some sort of setting to change? 

Same issue 

Tried all tweak above, flying at 150 knots over Madeira with extra 300 aircraft, and tried lowering settings, fiddling about, and no, the problem is still there. Completely destroys the immersion in vfr flying. 

5 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Tried all tweak above, flying at 150 knots over Madeira with extra 300 aircraft, and tried lowering settings, fiddling about, and no, the problem is still there. Completely destroys the immersion in vfr flying. 

I haven't enjoyed "vfr" flying in FSX or Prepar3D for years, ever since I went with x-Plane 10/11 with Ortho. Now that is the only way I enjoy VFR flying until MFS is released.

5 minutes ago, Robert Edwards said:

I haven't enjoyed "vfr" flying in FSX or Prepar3D for years, ever since I went with x-Plane 10/11 with Ortho. Now that is the only way I enjoy VFR flying until MFS is released.

Yup, ortho in XP is brilliant, but its just let down by the poor weather/shader environment. Imagine we could take Truesky and P3D shader environment and put it in XP11? That would be heaven! 

5 minutes ago, Robert Edwards said:

I haven't enjoyed "vfr" flying in FSX or Prepar3D for years, ever since I went with x-Plane 10/11 with Ortho. Now that is the only way I enjoy VFR flying until MFS is released.

I am afraid this won't help the OP much. I actually enjoy VFR flying in Prepar3d, however I recognize there are the named issues. Madeira certainly is a region prone to terrain morphing.

As already stated, this is mesh-sensible, though. The default mesh usually is kind of "bearable" with less morphing but if you use a high-resolution mesh (like Pilot's) there is plenty of morphing even with a 5 m setting.

Kind regards, Michael

2 hours ago, Quasimodo said:

Opps! Sorry, I think I did get my tweaks mixed up!

It was In fact TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10

I wondered. 🙂  LOD setting ignores anything above 6.5.

 

Vic

1 minute ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Default LPMA or 3rd party?  The only version of Madeira I have is from Aerosoft and it hasn't been up dated since 2017 and there are no P3D V5 installers for it.

Cheers, Rob.

Default, everything is default, I only added orbx Packs for LC and global base pack and buildings HD.

10 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

It consumes more VRAM ... increases texture resolution so there is less of drastic change.  "too much" depends on how much VRAM your GPU has and other add-ons and your other graphics settings. 

Cheers, Rob. 

Hi Rob,

I just tried the TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 setting (again).. and can report that it reliably doubles my P3D load time for very little visual benefit.. it also uses more RAM and VRAM, just as an aside..

The underlying problem is indeed an old one... I recall that in FSX SP1, autogen was gradually fading in which looked nice, but in SP2, this fading was removed "for performance reasons".. 

Similarly, higher resolution terrain in P3D is not morphing in, which would look nice, but instead it is popping into view as I fly over it.   An extreme example is Orbx KHAF, flying up along the coast towards KSFO.  Maybe an Uber-CPU/GPU can make this appear smoother... but most of us do not quite have that hardware..  I am flying with 5m mesh as Orbx recommends.

 

So, is this one on LMs list of things to tackle next?  You might know..

1 minute ago, Bert Pieke said:

Hi Rob,

I just tried the TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 setting (again).. and can report that it reliably doubles my P3D load time for very little visual benefit.. it also uses more RAM and VRAM, just as an aside..

The underlying problem is indeed an old one... I recall that in FSX SP1, autogen was gradually fading in which looked nice, but in SP2, this fading was removed "for performance reasons".. 

Similarly, higher resolution terrain in P3D is not morphing in, which would look nice, but instead it is popping into view as I fly over it.   An extreme example is Orbx KHAF, flying up along the coast towards KSFO.  Maybe an Uber-CPU/GPU can make this appear smoother... but most of us do not quite have that hardware..  I am flying with 5m mesh as Orbx recommends.

 

So, is this one on LMs list of things to tackle next?  You might know..

I have Uber cpu and gpu and it’s exactly as you described. 

On my system the LONG load time just is not worth the difference in benefits from EXP=9 and EXP=10. It's nice to look at for demo's and videos but when you want to grab a quick flight - too long.

 

Vic