So I thought about firing up P3D and/or XP last night...

[Doug47 574]

You should just stick with MSFS Rob. You’re system, and setup with it look soooooo much better then your P3D. 
Glad you’re now the offical setup guide for us MSFS users. Good to have you onboard!

Edited September 25, 2020 by Doug47

[L3m0n 56]

5 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Ugh, I wish Steve B. (GamerNexus) never mentioned this (nVidia spin) ... in most cases usage will be within 70-90% allocation if MSFS dev mode internal display (I mentioned this in another thread) and it's also very dependent on how the game/sim/app is coded.  Also, unless there is a bug in MSFS Dev Mode FPS Display, there are instances where GPU Budget/Actual in MSFS show the Actual exceeding the budget (in the screenshot below 26GB VRAM actual vs. 23.5GB budget) but in RTSS it shows allocation less than "actual" in MSFS FPS display at 22.9GB, so I'm not sure how reliable MSFS internal FSP data is?  See image below, you'll need to zoom as it's a 4K screenshot from running video.

Probably just because of the location EDDT, in say KLAX FPS would be MUCH lower and GPU VRAM and system RAM higher.  9900K at 5.2Ghz AVX 0, RAM DDR4 32GB 4133Mhz, Titan RTX 24GB.

3090 will certainly be better (I hope) than my Titan RTX at LOD 9, but I drop down into the 10 FPS range, so even if the 3090 is 2X faster, that's still only 20 FPS ... but again this is dense area LOD 9 very high settings.  I think we'll need a couple more GPU generations and CPU generates before this can be done at 30 FPS.

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Its not any kind of spin though but just how things work. If you want to see how much vram a game is really using then your only options are specialk or graphics debuggers like renderdoc/gpa/nsight. Afterburner and the like are just not accurate for most games.

[L3m0n 56]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I guess we’ll have to disagree somewhat, as I posted in my other thread regarding CUDA and DX12 memory allocation ... see nVidia dev blog.

Regardless, per my screenshot MSFS showing 26GB GPU actual vs. RTSS showing 22GB VRAM allocation.  So in this case MSFS are reporting higher actual vs RTSS allocation.  So the assumption RTSS show higher than actual is false or MSFS internal process of reporting is wrong.

So There’s definitely a spin somewhere;)

Cheers, Rob

I didn't say anything about MSI over reporting though. Just that it isnt accurate and doesnt show how much VRAM is really in use. Which is exactly what you've demonstrated.

How is that spin? Especially when this affects AMD/nvidia/intel equally?

[Noel 4,578]

7 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

True, but the way it’s being spun by nVidia and some YT presenters is the lack of accuracy is around allocation and hence less need for more VRAM on the GPU in an attempt to justify 10GB only on the 3080.

If that isn’t your implication fair enough, but MSFS is showing 26GB actual VRAM.  So as it relates to end users and buying options, 10GB 3080 is probably not a great option as the GPU could sustain higher FPS if it had more VRAM.  We need more VRAM not less.

The DDR6 high speed memory chips aren’t that expensive, going from 10GB to 24GB is less than $200 (probably even lower given the quantity nVidia buy at).

The spin is trying to convince everyone they don’t need more VRAM.  Perhaps not your intent, but I’ve seen/read several sites that are proposing such false information.

Cheers, Rob.

Do you think an RTSD 3090 is just right for MSFS for now?  I'm still contemplating if they ever become available.  I liked the looks of the FE version's cooling method it looks pretty simple and heat flows out of the case.  Do you know if that's true for the non-FE versions which seem to have 3 fans on the bottom?

[Jeff_Fortuna 59]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

True, but the way it’s being spun by nVidia and some YT presenters is the lack of accuracy is around allocation and hence less need for more VRAM on the GPU in an attempt to justify 10GB only on the 3080.

If that isn’t your implication fair enough, but MSFS is showing 26GB actual VRAM.  So as it relates to end users and buying options, 10GB 3080 is probably not a great option as the GPU could sustain higher FPS if it had more VRAM.  We need more VRAM not less.

This has been my contention all along... I purchased a 2080 TI a while ago because it is obvious that when gaming at 4K you need as much VRAM as possible. What I noticed is that 11 GB is simply not enough. It was too easy to fill the VRAM. Once VRAM is full, you WILL get stuttering as you pull in data from main memory. The exact amounts of VRAM used are certainly up for debate but it is obvious enough that when VRAM is full it will stutter. 

What I find fascinating is that many, many people claim that they can run MSFS at 4K ultra settings on an 8 GB card (or even a 10 GB 3080) and have absolutely smooth performance under all conditions. The bottom line is that a great many people report performance based on ego - as in, I'm better than you because I get better performance. Even though it is clear to me that these exaggerated claims are complete fabrications, many folks that are not as computer savvy believe this stuff... 

Bottom line - if you want stutter free performance in 4K with this sim under a wide range of conditions a 3090 is a better call. I need the 3090 for some machine learning work so I'll be purchasing one once I can but I will admit, they aren't cheap. 

[VFXSimmer 1,313]

12 minutes ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

This has been my contention all along... I purchased a 2080 TI a while ago because it is obvious that when gaming at 4K you need as much VRAM as possible. What I noticed is that 11 GB is simply not enough. It was too easy to fill the VRAM. Once VRAM is full, you WILL get stuttering as you pull in data from main memory. The exact amounts of VRAM used are certainly up for debate but it is obvious enough that when VRAM is full it will stutter. 

What I find fascinating is that many, many people claim that they can run MSFS at 4K ultra settings on an 8 GB card (or even a 10 GB 3080) and have absolutely smooth performance under all conditions. The bottom line is that a great many people report performance based on ego - as in, I'm better than you because I get better performance. Even though it is clear to me that these exaggerated claims are complete fabrications, many folks that are not as computer savvy believe this stuff... 

Bottom line - if you want stutter free performance in 4K with this sim under a wide range of conditions a 3090 is a better call. I need the 3090 for some machine learning work so I'll be purchasing one once I can but I will admit, they aren't cheap. 

You're also going to want the 3090 if you switch to VR when it arrives even if your 2080 is running well enough right now.

[warbirds 555]

Give Rob a break,,he is a simmer,,we are simmers he will do the best for the best sim that shows a future...

As for me,,I do graphic work for flightsim devs and they are all still doing P3Dv5 so I will use that for work,,but,,I will fly in MSFS 2020.

[L3m0n 56]

50 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

True, but the way it’s being spun by nVidia and some YT presenters is the lack of accuracy is around allocation and hence less need for more VRAM on the GPU in an attempt to justify 10GB only on the 3080.

If that isn’t your implication fair enough, but MSFS is showing 26GB actual VRAM.  So as it relates to end users and buying options, 10GB 3080 is probably not a great option as the GPU could sustain higher FPS if it had more VRAM.  We need more VRAM not less.

The DDR6 high speed memory chips aren’t that expensive, going from 10GB to 24GB is less than $200 (probably even lower given the quantity nVidia buy at).

The spin is trying to convince everyone they don’t need more VRAM.  Perhaps not your intent, but I’ve seen/read several sites that are proposing such false information.

Cheers, Rob.

I'd just like to see accurate numbers for VRAM use. I'll be upgrading sometime late october or early november. I don't know why people keep posting afterburner numbers when the game has a built-in framerate counter with accurate ram usage figures. 

 

17 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

You're also going to want the 3090 if you switch to VR when it arrives even if your 2080 is running well enough right now.

Imho anyone buying a GPU now is making a mistake. It makes a lot more sense to wait until RDNA2 hits along with the DX12 update.

[andy1252 4,091]

4 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

In this test, everything maxed out except Rendering Scaling = 110, Depth of Field = Medium (and of course the LoDFactor tweak).

Cheers, Rob.

Thanks for the info here Rob. I was feeling quite hard done by after the last patch as if felt like I'd gone back to FSX days with blurry middle distances and popping scenery again. It was only after a bit of sniffing around in here I realised what had happened, and then to find this info was magic. I also have a Titan RTX at 4k, my CPU is relatively lowly clocked compared to yours (R3950X so between 3.6 and 4.4ish) but I put these settings in and I feel like I got my sim back.

Frame rates are well down with the LOD set at 9, but it still feels smooth enough for me, as I'm primarily interested in sightseeing. In fact I'll frequently reduce the sim speed so I can look round more. I seem to be primarily "limited by main thread" (whatever that means <grin>), my VRAM was around 19gb according to GPU-Z and CPU was maybe 15% (but the MSFS threads looked up around 60-80% on their processors).

So at least I know I can do this now if I want to. And I can always set things back for a higher FPS if I'm sightseeing in places with smaller horizons. And who knows, Asobo may even put things back the way they were at some point.

(this is Toronto with Romandesign's Enhancement Packm in case anybody seeing this is interested. I have photogrammetry turned off most of the time - I find it a bit ugly for my sort of trips, usually)

[RobJC 2,082]

Easy 3 FPS. Turn off Volumetric clouds in the Devmode app. If you are going to fly clear skies anyways might as well get your money's worth. 

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

39 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

I have photogrammetry turned off most of the time - I find it a bit ugly for my sort of trips, usually)

Great shots - what am I missing you shut off photogrammetry how do you get scenery then ? 

[Murmur 3,978]

4 hours ago, L3m0n said:

 

Edited.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Murmur
OT

[andy1252 4,091]

50 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Easy 3 FPS. Turn off Volumetric clouds in the Devmode app. If you are going to fly clear skies anyways might as well get your money's worth. 

Magic! Thanks Rob, I'll try that tomorrow now. I do tend to fly clear skies when I'm sightseeing - the sun always shines in my fantasy world (hey, why not?)

[andy1252 4,091]

15 minutes ago, Richard Sennett said:

Great shots - what am I missing you shut off photogrammetry how do you get scenery then ? 

Hi Rich, it uses autogen / modelled scenery instead. For close up flying it's often better. Photogrammetry does look really good if you don't get too close - around 1500 feet works for me.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

10 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

Hi Rich, it uses autogen / modelled scenery instead. For close up flying it's often better. Photogrammetry does look really good if you don't get too close - around 1500 feet works for me.

Thanks Andy but wouldnt you get less scenery if its off or its just a texture difference ? 

You loose trees also ? 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Richard Sennett