6 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

Hmmm interesting. I loaded the 320Neo with the latest FBW mod at FlyTampa Sydney at interestingly, virtual core 15 is pegged, all others around 20%. I'm not sure what is going on, but I guess this is normal. 

 

Yes, that looks normal. On my PC it's usually core 15, too. Don't know why it was on other cores today. Maybe because I loaded the plane in developer mode.

Just another to resolution examples for those who want to see the difference between 4k and 1k. A mangnified area from the VSI:

1080p  2160p

 

Good to hear from you n4gix.

Are you okay? - not going too deeply in to things, e.g; Sooooouuuunnnnddddddd.!

 

Well I've had some good flights today.

First this morning with Aus flight simmer, whilst others experienced some stutters my experience was fine.

Then just before sunset a quick flight from Guernsey to Jersey, whilst I had to reboot due to 3fps on the flight planner/world map I then had a great flight in the Robin.

Ultra 2k with lods at 100, trees and bushes on high my FPS was hitting 50, and I have to say the SIM looked absolutely beautiful with real world weather and live time - why can't it be like this all the time, is that too much to ask?

 

4 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Yes, that looks normal. On my PC it's usually core 15, too. Don't know why it was on other cores today. Maybe because I loaded the plane in developer mode.

Just another to resolution examples for those who want to see the difference between 4k and 1k. A mangnified area from the VSI:

1080p  2160p

I tried as you said, and loaded the 152 and Core 15 is no longer pegged. Also my fps is 45-55 at the same spot. These airliners hit hard. 

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by SolRayz

7 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Ok, now we are cooking.

I do not have the 787 so I checked with the 748 at King Khaled 33R. First time I ever use the Jumbo, just for you 😉 . The sim was ever so slightly stuttery,  barely noticeable. Certainly not a 1 FPS disaster ! I suspected that my oldish computer didn't like the 748 so I tried again with the Spitfire (in Israeli livery of course, what else ?). A totally smooth pattern.

Maybe another good soul could check with the 787 but I strongly suspect that your problem comes from an addon.  Try with an empty community folder.

oh great so i have to empty it again.

14 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

 

I tried as you said, and loaded the 152 and Core 15 is no longer pegged. Also my fps is 45-55 at the same spot. These airliners hit hard. 

because the whole f r e a k e n thing is written in a language that was developed for webpage design, just crazy.

32 minutes ago, n4gix said:

One does not have to "hear" the lowest bass notes. One can "feel" it!

I just took the liberty of cutting this quotation and sending it to a friend of mine.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that you love organ music and are located in Hammond :-)))))

Andrea

18 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

 

I tried as you said, and loaded the 152 and Core 15 is no longer pegged. Also my fps is 45-55 at the same spot. These airliners hit hard. 

That has always been the case. I stopped flying PMDG aircraft because I got tired of the crummy FPS, with my last PC. Fly with A2A, and it was fine. The only semi complex aircraft I flew with acceptable FPS was the Majestic Q400. 

25 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

because the whole f r e a k e n thing is written in a language that was developed for webpage design, just crazy.

Simply wrong.     Poorly written code in any language is likely to perform poorly, but well-written JS using a modern JITter is perfectly capable of providing performance on par with C# in many use cases.

Even beyond that, the commercial products tend to be using WASM, rather than the JS stack.  (And using C++, which is not remotely a "webpage design language", to boot).  Not only does this have an inherently better performance on its own, but the sim goes one step further and AOT transpiles the WASM librares to native bytecode the first time they are loaded.  This is why the very first load of the CRJ can take a while -- the sim is transpiling all the WASM.

In the end, you get much the same performance you would if everything were written in C++ and compiled to DLLs as it was in FSX.  The "crazy" performance bottleneck you're asserting simply doesn't exist.

Complex aircraft simply have a lot of stuff to compute. The CRJ of course needs computing power but never produces stutters of any kind. As @kaosfereexplained, the ahead-of-time transpiled wasm code runs almost as fast as native/unmanaged c++ code. I don‘t think that JavaScript CJ4 or A320nx are "inefficient", either.

49 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

Simply wrong.     Poorly written code in any language is likely to perform poorly, but well-written JS using a modern JITter is perfectly capable of providing performance on par with C# in many use cases.

Even beyond that, the commercial products tend to be using WASM, rather than the JS stack.  (And using C++, which is not remotely a "webpage design language", to boot).  Not only does this have an inherently better performance on its own, but the sim goes one step further and AOT transpiles the WASM librares to native bytecode the first time they are loaded.  This is why the very first load of the CRJ can take a while -- the sim is transpiling all the WASM.

In the end, you get much the same performance you would if everything were written in C++ and compiled to DLLs as it was in FSX.  The "crazy" performance bottleneck you're asserting simply doesn't exist.

we agree to disagree, personally... it should have been done in assembly.  As you state, WASM and C# are 'on par', therefore why change.

21 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

it should have been done in assembly

Find me 10 commercial games written for the PC the past decade that used assembly language extensively for anything and I'll buy you lunch.  Find me 10 third party developers willing to write flight sim addons in assembly and I'll buy you dinner.

 

21 minutes ago, Mike S KPDX said:

As you state, WASM and C# are 'on par', therefore why change.

I don't feel like arguing about whether or not their reasons for going with WASM were sound.  If you really want to rehash that you can go back to plenty of threads here from the development period.  I'm only here to call out the FUD about performance being bad because of the technologies in use.

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by kaosfere

7 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

That has always been the case. I stopped flying PMDG aircraft because I got tired of the crummy FPS, with my last PC. Fly with A2A, and it was fine. The only semi complex aircraft I flew with acceptable FPS was the Majestic Q400. 

Do you have a recommendation for something like NGXu or 777 from PMDG that performs significantly better?  Right now I use them both frequently along w/ FSCaptain and GSX II.  I do exclusively dusk/night/dawn flights in P3D which lets me dial scenery detail way back so these PMDG planes easily handle wherever I find myself.  But it takes flying in low light to overcome the very marginal scenery.  I kind of like P3D's night lighting which to me in most ways is far less 'realistic' than MSFS' night lighting.  As I say, in most ways.  I do like stars in P3D that twinkle and can be very crisp.  Whereas in MSFS to me they look like small blobs, no twinkle, rarely crisp looking and especially in the dawn/dusk time to me they look like off-white paint splatters and do not look like the exist light years away.  

6 hours ago, crimplene said:

Complex aircraft simply have a lot of stuff to compute. 

This is the common explanation but to be frank, w/ today's computing hardware, it seems almost ludicrous to think the demands of say a PMDG NGXu is anything for a 9900K to have to handle blindfolded with one core behind its back.  But sure, there has to be an explanation, it just surprises me with the computing power in that chip that it's all demanding.

10 hours ago, kaosfere said:

This is also why 8k textures can be relevant even on a 4k screen.  You rarely put the whole texture on screen at once, and the denser the portion you do put on screen the better.

Then low resolution textures on a 4k screen will also be relavent in the opposite direction it would seem.  My question once again:  what is the native resolution of textures used in MSFS and P3D?