FlyTampa Las Vegas released!

[akita 429]

13 minutes ago, devgrp said:

Why do these devs insist on throwing everything but the kitchen sink in these sceneries? I've even seen a few sceneries boasting about 8k textures 🤦🏿‍♂️

It is NOT a bad thing.

When talking about texture resolution, it's really more about the available work space artists have.

What determines the quality of the texture is the cm/px ratio. So if 1 cm = 1 texel, this means a 4k texture can cover 40.96X40.96 meters with-out stretching.

Performance wise, better to have a 1 big 4k texture instead of 16 1024x1024 textures.

What I'm trying to say is that people should not be intimidated by 4K textures, it's more about how the UVs are planned and shared.

[honanhal 1,420]

53 minutes ago, Jeff_Fortuna said:

According to the latest Steam HW survey, only 2.25% game at 4K and about 7% at 1440. I don't think they were too concerned about the high VRAM usage because the vast majority of users would not experience it. Those of us with higher end HW assume that everyone is seeking (or can afford) the same experience but that simply is not the case. I think that FT will make some compromises to improve VRAM use over the next week but it really isn't all that necessary for most users. 

So is the crazy VRAM usage only happening at 4K or 1440? That's a totally different situation, if so. Would I be able to run this happily at 1080 with my GTX1070 and its 8 GB of VRAM?

James

[somiller 694]

29 minutes ago, honanhal said:

So is the crazy VRAM usage only happening at 4K or 1440? That's a totally different situation, if so. Would I be able to run this happily at 1080 with my GTX1070 and its 8 GB of VRAM?

James

I'm running 1440p on a 6700K, 16GB, with a GTX 1070 and I get great performance, even when flying the Longitude down the strip. My settings are a mix of high and medium and all res settings at 100. Even with a puny system like this it really runs well AFTER the hotfix. My VRAM runs between 7-8GB, 8GB-ish or a bit less after loading into KLAS, and then after flying around a bit it seems to settle back to around 7GB.

[CFIJose 5,485]

3 hours ago, steve310002 said:

For some reason when I get close to the Bellagio Fountain, my frame rates drop back to 11fps even with the hotfix. For sure there are some strange things at play here that can most likely be resolved with a patch.

I can confirm that there's a drop in fps near the Bellagio. Probably due the fountain animation. Maybe Emilios can tweak or remove the effect? I actually like the effect, but not for a 10fps drop.

[Snuffleupagus 327]

2 hours ago, honanhal said:

So is the crazy VRAM usage only happening at 4K or 1440? That's a totally different situation, if so. Would I be able to run this happily at 1080 with my GTX1070 and its 8 GB of VRAM?

James

I’m hitting 10GB VRAM on my 1080ti at 1080p resolution. 

[andy1252 3,754]

OK, so I hesitated at first after reading all the stuff here and on the FT forum, but couldn't hold out any longer. Put it on (v1.1) this evening and tried it out. I've no idea of the frame rate I was getting, I have absolutely no interest in that number and I'm capped at 30 anyway. I'm running full 4k and everything on ultra or higher (LODs are set to 500 via the config file). I am far more interested in the scenery than the flying, and I went round in the Pitts at tree height down the strip. I had the sim slowed down to half speed anyway, and it was still ever so slightly jerky.

I am running a 3950x, 64gb RAM, andTitan with 24gb VRAM, and I certainly hoped it would handle this ok, and it did. At my settings I was using about 19gb of VRAM on the Titan (and maybe 10-12% CPU, 30-50% GPU). So this scenery certainly eats VRAM if you want to run 4k and/or ultra.

I already have this scenery for both P3D and XP11, and I have to say I'm not overly impressed with the MSFS version. I think a lot of the best impressions when flying around actually come from the MSFS scenery and atmospherics itself, rather than FT's scenery. The LEVEL of detail is as amazing as ever, but for me, the QUALITY of the textures on the buildings is very poor. In fact, I was so disappointed I need to investigate to see if there's any other problem with my setup. But I have got plenty of far superior buildings in other bits of scenery.

The airport at first glance seems to be better modelled than the city, but again, I've just had one session investigating. Still very glad to see it here in MSFS, but it feels like it hasn't taken full advantage of the possibilities.

A couple of pix -

Like I say, glad I bought it, but if feels like "1st generation" scenery for MSFS. If I was marking this on a school report, I'd have to say "could try harder". I know that might sound cruel or picky, but remember, this is not a brand new product. It is already available for both the other main sims and so I have to believe that the bulk of the modelling work was already done.

 

[wthomas33065 994]

Has basic math comprehension taken a vaykay?

Most of us would consider a 4GB card to be the absolute minimum card to use on this sim in 1080p.  And pushing a 4GB card on ultra is a big ask, especially with the 200 LOD for Objects and Terrain.   We all know it's easy to fill up all 4GB of VRAM on 1080p.  I can often get close to 6GB on my GTX 1660 Super at 1080p, and that's with LOD at 100 and everything on "high end" except for clouds which is ultra.    So filling up 4GB at 1080p is pretty easy to do.  

Yet then people say they go to 4K and get terrible performance on their 8GB or 10GB cards....uh.  hello!???!

Simple math.  If you are at 1080p and you go to 4K, you are using 4 times the amount of VRAM to render the exact same frame.  Double the width times double the height = 4x the pixels.   So that means....16GB should be what we are using during 4K for the same quality settings.  And actually if "Ultra" can push 6GB usage for 1080p, then 24GB at 4K is not an outrageous ask.  Which is why 4K at ultra really is for the most part unobtainable in some areas.

How is this a mystery?  There is no "magic" voodoo in the video cards that suddenly allows 4x the number of pixels to fit in less than 4 times the space.

Granted, if you have a high end card that can spit out those frames and clear the frame buffer faster, you don't need to store as many frames as older cards.  But for a given GPU.  4 times the pixels = 4 times the VRAM usage.

So if you are going to run 4K on a system that doesn't have 16GB on board VRAM, something has to bend.  Which usually means your sliders or your frame rate. The ONLY way to make your frame use less VRAM is to decrease some of the things the VRAM is used for, such as texture quality, or texture resolution, LOD, etc...etc...  Or you take the Frame Rate hit.

Funny thing math.  It's not really subject to people's opinions on this sort of thing.....😀

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by wthomas33065

[Kilo60 660]

36 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

OK, so I hesitated at first after reading all the stuff here and on the FT forum, but couldn't hold out any longer. Put it on (v1.1) this evening and tried it out. I've no idea of the frame rate I was getting, I have absolutely no interest in that number and I'm capped at 30 anyway. I'm running full 4k and everything on ultra or higher (LODs are set to 500 via the config file). I am far more interested in the scenery than the flying, and I went round in the Pitts at tree height down the strip. I had the sim slowed down to half speed anyway, and it was still ever so slightly jerky.

I am running a 3950x, 64gb RAM, andTitan with 24gb VRAM, and I certainly hoped it would handle this ok, and it did. At my settings I was using about 19gb of VRAM on the Titan (and maybe 10-12% CPU, 30-50% GPU). So this scenery certainly eats VRAM if you want to run 4k and/or ultra.

I already have this scenery for both P3D and XP11, and I have to say I'm not overly impressed with the MSFS version. I think a lot of the best impressions when flying around actually come from the MSFS scenery and atmospherics itself, rather than FT's scenery. The LEVEL of detail is as amazing as ever, but for me, the QUALITY of the textures on the buildings is very poor. In fact, I was so disappointed I need to investigate to see if there's any other problem with my setup. But I have got plenty of far superior buildings in other bits of scenery.

The airport at first glance seems to be better modelled than the city, but again, I've just had one session investigating. Still very glad to see it here in MSFS, but it feels like it hasn't taken full advantage of the possibilities.

A couple of pix -

Like I say, glad I bought it, but if feels like "1st generation" scenery for MSFS. If I was marking this on a school report, I'd have to say "could try harder". I know that might sound cruel or picky, but remember, this is not a brand new product. It is already available for both the other main sims and so I have to believe that the bulk of the modelling work was already done.

 

 

19GB of VRAM!!!!!

 

Yikes!!!

[odourboy 1,286]

4 hours ago, pvupilot said:

I’m hitting 10GB VRAM on my 1080ti at 1080p resolution. 

Me too (10.6GB), but I'm at 4K with 80% render scale, LOD 200. It's actually quite usable. Rates tank to as low as 15 FPS in front of The Belagio at night, but it's mainly in the 20s and mostly smooth.

Edited December 16, 2020 by odourboy

[somiller 694]

2 hours ago, Kilo60 said:

 

19GB of VRAM!!!!!

 

Yikes!!!

You did notice he said he has LOD's set at 500...right? He does, because he can (24GB VRAM)...most of the rest of us don't, because we can't.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

I have 64gig or ram took all of it just to load these pics above holy word not allowed 

[CFIJose 5,485]

59 minutes ago, Richard Sennett said:

I have 64gig or ram took all of it just to load these pics above holy word not allowed 

What do you mean brother?

[Kilo60 660]

16 hours ago, andy1252 said:

OK, so I hesitated at first after reading all the stuff here and on the FT forum, but couldn't hold out any longer. Put it on (v1.1) this evening and tried it out. I've no idea of the frame rate I was getting, I have absolutely no interest in that number and I'm capped at 30 anyway. I'm running full 4k and everything on ultra or higher (LODs are set to 500 via the config file). I am far more interested in the scenery than the flying, and I went round in the Pitts at tree height down the strip. I had the sim slowed down to half speed anyway, and it was still ever so slightly jerky.

I am running a 3950x, 64gb RAM, andTitan with 24gb VRAM, and I certainly hoped it would handle this ok, and it did. At my settings I was using about 19gb of VRAM on the Titan (and maybe 10-12% CPU, 30-50% GPU). So this scenery certainly eats VRAM if you want to run 4k and/or ultra.

I already have this scenery for both P3D and XP11, and I have to say I'm not overly impressed with the MSFS version. I think a lot of the best impressions when flying around actually come from the MSFS scenery and atmospherics itself, rather than FT's scenery. The LEVEL of detail is as amazing as ever, but for me, the QUALITY of the textures on the buildings is very poor. In fact, I was so disappointed I need to investigate to see if there's any other problem with my setup. But I have got plenty of far superior buildings in other bits of scenery.

The airport at first glance seems to be better modelled than the city, but again, I've just had one session investigating. Still very glad to see it here in MSFS, but it feels like it hasn't taken full advantage of the possibilities.

A couple of pix -

Like I say, glad I bought it, but if feels like "1st generation" scenery for MSFS. If I was marking this on a school report, I'd have to say "could try harder". I know that might sound cruel or picky, but remember, this is not a brand new product. It is already available for both the other main sims and so I have to believe that the bulk of the modelling work was already done.

 

 

Where's all the people on the avenue!  Severely disappointed in this lack of detail!

 

There should be people everywhere walking the streets instead it looks like a deserted ghost town!!! 

[vbazillio 2,224]

3 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

There should be people everywhere walking the streets instead it looks like a deserted ghost town!!! 

Fly above helicopters tracks or even higher and then you'll be fine with the pedestrian 😉

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

13 hours ago, DJJose said:

What do you mean brother?

Took forever to load web page of Vegas screenshots - no need to quote a posting with same pics most of the time