FlyTheMaddogx Announcement

[Jazz 1,046]

13 minutes ago, 331BK said:

Radeon vii watercooled.  

 

Everything nice as soon as amd fixes the driver issues with the view switching 

Doh!, It's right in your sig. I should have seen it🤣

Has been a long day.

[Dreamflight767 312]

Sorry but I'm a little confused...again not tech savvy at all.

If we know that v5 needs a "beefier" machine, why would/are DEV optimizing and saving resources?  And by optimizing/saving I interpret that to mean decrease, lower, etc.

By that, I assume, v5 allows for more cool "stuff".  So why would DEV not take advantage and instead go opposite? 

Thanks.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Dreamflight767

[CaptainNick 575]

41 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Now... why on earth would i ever want 4096x4096 textures in an airport or aircraft? Developers complain, but they're the first ones to go overboard. I have the hardware and still convert most stuff to 2048x2048 because i really find it ridiculous to have such high resolution in such small areas. I never zoom in that close anyway. Meh </rant>.

You are not wrong though. For the past few years simmers have demanded more and more resolution textures/higher res models so they can see the door handles on cars in the parking lots of add on airports, or that the seat rails under the FO’s side of the plane do indeed come in 4096 and shows 2 pennies and a nickel some poor soul lost, all while not realizing that DX11 was hitting us on vram overages with a system memory buffer. We were happy because we locked our frames at 24 or 30 etc and thought it was ok.

now low and behold they are having to be held accountable for more performance optimizations in regards to rampant over texturing etc whilst angry consumers blame LM instead of the 3rd party developer for not making the decision to actually optimize and limit their vram useage considerations vs quality of product.

Edited May 7, 2020 by CaptainNick

[CaptainIronside 52]

This is one of the reasons why i was surprised Nvidia came out with cards that had no more VRAM than the previous generation, I was quite disappointed to say the least. With that said, optimization is a good thing, you don't always have to brute force everything, hopefully this forces better optimization in the flight sim world, which has been a big issue for a long time.

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm not surprised at all. When I tested v5, I saw that 1 GB of vRAM eaten up. The one good thing that I liked was a problem in certain areas like FT's KLAS. I knew I needed at least 11GB of vRAM.

[DavidP 1,410]

1 hour ago, CaptainNick said:

For the past few years simmers have demanded more and more

You hit the nail on the head. Classic case of "careful what you wish for". It is a bit unfair for simmers to be slamming LM - while it may need to be implemented a little better, they delivered what was demanded.

[snapshot21 254]

I hope LM codes for multi-adapter mode in the future with nvidia nvlink. It allows shared memory between 2 GPUs essentially doubling it (ie. with 2x2080ti, you will have 22gb vram available). We might have to tackle this problem with sheer hardware brute force because I am sure add ons will get more complex in the future. 11gb might not be enough then.

I now understand why MS/Asobo is reluctant to adapt DX12/Vulkan with MSFS despite being a next gen sim built from the ground up. 

[Kaan KASIM 54]

Bruteforce is not the answer, LM needs to keep working on it. Ram management is not on the driver anymore, they can and should do a better job, in my opinion.

X-plane vulkan betas had a lot of vram issues too, but it keeps getting better and better.

[Steve Dra 7,588]

1 hour ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Now... why on earth would i ever want 4096x4096 textures in an airport or aircraft? Developers complain, but they're the first ones to go overboard. I have the hardware and still convert most stuff to 2048x2048 because i really find it ridiculous to have such high resolution in such small areas. I never zoom in that close anyway. Meh </rant>.

From a painter's perspective, we've been using 4096 (4k) textures for a while on aircraft, and as long as the texture maps are laid out logically and efficiently, and the use of 4k is used only on the main areas of the aircraft's surface (primarily the fuse and sometimes the wings but the wings are not really needed at 4k most of the time) there should be no problems.  All the other texture maps that makeup the rest of the plane (that are typically common to the model and never painted differently, like the tires, landing gear cargo holds, gear wells, etc)....should always be 2k or even 1k in certain circumstances.

Most devs stick to this methodology when producing an exterior texture set that any GPU with 6GB+ should have no issues with...after all...who wants a plane that looks pretty on the ground but turns into a framerate destroyer when you get her in the air and start panning around the exterior? 
However...one dev recently released a model with 4k textures for every map...including the landing gear, interior of the engine cowling, the 3d modeled wires in the APU bay, hidden behind the APU...literally every texture on the airplane at 4K.   

In addition, the 3d model of their aircraft (the .mdl file) is an astronomically huge 275mb!  Here is info to put that number in perspective: highly detailed models from other devs are typically less than 40mbs!  Why is this dev's model so gigantic you ask?  Because that model has a fully modeled 3d radar, opening nosecone, fully modeled 3d opening engine nacelles, engines, every wire, hose, etc..., a fully modeled 3d APU, with 3d wires and hydraulic lines throughout the plane that can only been seen when access doors are opened.

Is it a wonder that some of their customers are having performance issues when panning around the exterior? ...so much so that the dev took all the common-parts texture maps and reduced them to 2k as a solution. Helpful for sure, but any GPU card not up to snuff is going to choke on that 275mb .mdl file regardless of the texture sizes!  At least you get a fully modeled 3d stewardess.

They have not released it for V5 yet...its still in beta in fact.  It should be interesting to see how folks flying it now with no frame issues (with monster GPUs maybe) will fare in V5?

[Nuno Pinto 1,397]

Well, thanks for such a detailed report Steve 🙂

My 11GB Ti behaves very nicely, but i am more curious about future dedicated V5 models which will surely tax the simulator even more 😛

[regis9 4,014]

Interesting (and appreciated) to see this perspective from a leading aircraft developer.  I sure hope the 3000 series Nvidia cards have high vram options below the ti level...much as I am tempted by buy a 2080ti now to replace my gtx1070 that would be pushing $2000 Canadian which is a heck of a lot for a GPU when my biggest reason would be the vram.

[Steve Dra 7,588]

1 minute ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Well, thanks for such a detailed report Steve 🙂

My 11GB Ti behaves very nicely, but i am more curious about future dedicated V5 models which will surely tax the simulator even more 😛

True....will be interesting to see if there is any model optimization that can be done to existing v4 models before they are ported to v5, or if building a net-new model with the v5 SDK goodies (if there are any for modeling...I'm woefully uneducated in that area) will be required to have good performance with a "modest" 8gb GPU.

Interesting times for sure for our community.  Talk about feast or famine. A few years back with MS dropping FSX we didn't even know if we'd have a sim...now we have v5, XP11 with Vulkan, and MSFS on the short horizon!  Good times for simmers!!!!! 🙂

[331BK 96]

2 hours ago, Jazz said:

Doh!, It's right in your sig. I should have seen it🤣

Has been a long day.

no problem 🙂 understand that fully

[Christopher Low 5,354]

I am sure that there is a very good reason why DX12 was designed like this, but it does seem rather ironic that the next great step up the DirectX ladder has resulted in us seemingly going backwards with respect to memory issues. I appreciate that any "video memory overflow" issues (for want of a better term) with DX11 resulted in other problems (like major stutters), but I do not really understand why that is worse than a CTD. Let's face it, P3D provides a huge list of errors at the end of a session if you ask it to display the list, but what do the vast majority of us do about it?

Nothing. We just carry on using what appears to be a perfectly working simulator. A grand total of none of those errors stop me from completing hundreds of flights without incident.

[sho69607 29]

22 hours ago, CaptainNick said:

You are not wrong though. For the past few years simmers have demanded more and more resolution textures/higher res models so they can see the door handles on cars in the parking lots of add on airports, or that the seat rails under the FO’s side of the plane do indeed come in 4096 and shows 2 pennies and a nickel some poor soul lost, all while not realizing that DX11 was hitting us on vram overages with a system memory buffer. We were happy because we locked our frames at 24 or 30 etc and thought it was ok.

now low and behold they are having to be held accountable for more performance optimizations in regards to rampant over texturing etc whilst angry consumers blame LM instead of the 3rd party developer for not making the decision to actually optimize and limit their vram useage considerations vs quality of product.

Lol if I can't see the door handles on the parked cars then it just isn't good enough. 😂