1 hour ago, AnkH said:

Interesting, but without giving any hardware specs... or did I miss those?

Like you Chris my PC is in my sig.😉

------------------------------------------------------

This topic is not about mine is bigger than your hence why I did %, its just a guild to what people will find and the % should work across PC's.

Edited March 23, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Ok, signatures not visible on my mobile then, sorry 😉

@Nyxx. Thanks you saved me some money (at least temporarily). I was going to buy the Aerosoft CRJ, despite my low regard for the P3d version, but then I saw your results. I went with the JF Arrow instead and I'm quite happy with it. And so is my GTX 2080 super.

On 3/22/2021 at 8:46 AM, Nyxx said:

 

Or as a percentage from the 172

 

Do you recall the "Petraeus Index?"  Some user made basically this test a long time ago comparing planes in FSX to default.  I then re-did it with a huge spreadsheet a few years later to update some payware.  A lot of people didn't really like it but I think it's really important to show how performance MAY be compared to the default 172 on a user's machine.  So thanks for re-vitalizing this!  The percentage off 172 is the most important part.

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by ryanbatcund

Performance hotfix (1.14.6.0)

PA-27

Not got time to do all but a very good start

Before JF PA-28                              FPS 54

After 

 JF PA-28                              FPS 62....<<<+15%

Edited March 26, 20215 yr by Nyxx

8 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Performance hotfix (1.14.6.0)

PA-27

Not got time to do all but a very good start

Before JF PA-28                              FPS 54

After 

 JF PA-28                              FPS 62....<<<+15%

Not bad it seems 

Performance hotfix (1.14.6.0)

UPDATE

Airport EGNX Runway 28 not an addon airport not in the middle of no where. But a good average airport to test.

Live weather was 6/8 cloud cover.

Setting Ultra, 1440p                          % gain with this patch

MSFS 172 (None Glass)      FPS 62 +   7%

JF PA-28  (0.3.0)                  FPS 62 + 15%

CJ4wt                                   FPS 56 + 12%

MSFS A320 Neo/FBW         FPS 56 + 15%

Carenado M20                     FPS 53 + 11%

AS CRJ                                FPS 39 +   9%

Or more importantly as a percentage from the 172

JF PA-28                            - 0%

CJ4wt                                 - 9%

MSFS A320 Neo/FBW       - 9%

Carenado M20                   - 14%

AS CRJ                              - 37%

Edited March 26, 20215 yr by Nyxx

Nice, Piper and FBW 320 getting better and better! 

Did a test at EGNX 28 ultra settings in booth 2560 x 1440 and 4K 3840 x 2160 

at 1440 its very balanced with my Ryzen 5950X paired with a 3090 i can see signs of cpu bottelnecking on CRJ but not as clear on C172 or CJ4-WT seems GPU bound.

4K its bottelnecking the GPU to 100%

i run the 3090 on two differnt core clocks to see if iam GPU bound if the fps raise with higer clock you ar bottleneckt by the GPU

                   2560 x 1440                         4K  3840 x 2160

C172        1850mhz 63fps                       41fps

                2150mhz 69fps                        45fps

CJ4-WT  1850mhz  54fps                        40fps

                2150mhz 59fps                        44fps

AS-CRJ  1850mhz 51fps                         40fps

                2150mhz 52fps                        44fps

Edited March 27, 20215 yr by westman

2 hours ago, westman said:

 

                   2560 x 1440                       

C172        1850mhz 63fps                  

                

CJ4-WT  1850mhz  54fps                    

              

AS-CRJ  1850mhz 51fps                       

             

Your numbers are the same as mine but your CRJ is way higher than i get.

I did a flight into Flightbeams KIAD and when parked at the gate. I could not get more than 26fps with the CRJ no matter what I did it got so silly that even when I turned Render scale to 200...yes 200 I still had 26 fps and still was cpu main thead bound.

IT seems we both have nicely balance PC's The only thing I can think off is does the CRJ eat VRAM?

Edited March 27, 20215 yr by Nyxx

20 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

 

IT seems we both have nicely balance PC's The only thing I can think off is does the CRJ eat VRAM?

0n 1440 9gb but much more at 4K 14gb vram in ultra, cj4 13-13.5gb

 

Edited March 27, 20215 yr by westman

3 minutes ago, westman said:

0n 1440 9gb but much more at 4K 14gb vram in ultra

 

Just did this to show you or anyone who can see why I cannot get your FPS.

VRAM is not high

My Default RS 140

RS 200

David have you GPUZ ? open sensors and let it run in background change renderscale as your screens.

intrested in gpu clock,  gpu temp ,board power draw, power consumtion %TDP, PerfCap reason, think you can get a clue there if lucky

 

I just disabled the FO screens and got a 20% up lift in FPS and at KIAD 70% uplift FPS in both cases went to 46 FPS.

29 minutes ago, westman said:

David have you GPUZ ? open sensors and let it run in background change renderscale as your screens.

intrested in gpu clock,  gpu temp ,board power draw, power consumtion %TDP, PerfCap reason, think you can get a clue there if lucky

 

I did as you said does not mean anything to me 🙂

This was started at KIAD RS 100 then 140, then 200 then 140 again.