Which is more stable V4 or V5

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

My experiences with v5.1 are only two weeks long. Previously I used v4.5 which was very stable but poor at handling dynamic lighting.

v5.1 gives around 25% boost in performance over v4.5 with its use of DX12 and is much better with DL. More work is ported over to the GPU but that means more VRAM is used so you need a GPU with a minimum of 8Gb. My 1080Ti has 11Gb and despite running in 4K performs admirably.

I’ve had no DXGI errors when flying but oddly get one when changing vehicles within the sim. Even default to default. But I’m a tiny minority with that problem which I’m hopeful can be fixed. I don’t change vehicles in the sim as a matter of course so it’s a low priority problem. Changing them in the Scenario menu is fine.

Overall I’m happy with v5.1. With only one hotfix it’s pretty stable and can only get better.

[CFIJose 5,485]

It looks like Bob has already jumped ship. He gave up after a day. LOL

The best advice I can give any AVSIM member is to take the time to read these forums regularly. If Bob would have simply downloaded RivaTuner he would have know how much system memory was being used by MSFS and he would have avoided a lot of aggravation caused by CTDs.

Lastly, whether one chooses P3D v4 or v5, the key is really in the add-ons. Without the right add-ons neither one of these sims is worth the money or the time it takes to set-up and enjoy.

[G-YMML1 582]

I'm still with the 4.5 simply because I have a ton of add-ones and I'm a bit lazy to switch.

Honestly speaking, I'm waiting for the V6 😉 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

15 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

I'm still with the 4.5 simply because I have a ton of add-ones and I'm a bit lazy to switch.

Honestly speaking, I'm waiting for the V6 😉 

I copied and pasted scenery folders from my v4 install into v5 and either copied and modified the addon.xml or created an entry in scenery.cfg. Using Lorby’s Addon Organiser made it easy.

I currently have v3, v4 and v5 installed on an SSD. It really is easy to do. Any ORBX scenery packages are even easier. What are you waiting for with a 20-30% improvement in fps awaiting?

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I am still using v4.5 because my enthusiasm for flight simulation is up and down like a yoyo these days. I would be a fool to upgrade to a new simulator at this moment in time.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Christopher Low

[neilhewitt 493]

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I am still using v4.5 because my enthusiasm for flight simulation is up and down like a yoyo these days. I would be a fool to upgrade to a new simulator at this moment in time.

I will admit that my frustration sometimes get the better of me, and I think about just quitting the whole scene. But I can't stop being an early adopter. I always want to see what's new 🙂

[GSalden 4,657]

TrueSky can look so good. Imho better than the “new” sim clouds and they are looking also.

At this moment I am using the AS VolumetricClouds.cfg which looks better than my versions :

 

 

[simon747 185]

5 hours ago, GSalden said:

TrueSky can look so good. Imho better than the “new” sim clouds and they are looking also.

At this moment I am using the AS VolumetricClouds.cfg which looks better than my versions :

 

 

Agreed EA can look good can give a good representation of the atmosphere and clouds. 

[neilhewitt 493]

27 minutes ago, simon747 said:

Agreed EA can look good can give a good representation of the atmosphere and clouds. 

It can do... but I just did a flight with ASP3D and EA on (and all the 'cloud improvement' options turned on) and I still got a grid overcast effect. Once the clouds went to broken ASP3D tweaked them into more pleasing forms. And that's with EA cloud density on High.

It's hit and miss at the moment. LM needs to give developers much more control over TrueSky and an interface to read the cloud placement etc for WX and network cloud sync for the likes of FSGRW.

I'm wondering if anyone out there has a multi-channel setup using P3D's native multi-channel support with v5 and EA on - can it even sync the clouds across the displays in the viewgroup? Because you certainly can't do it with Wideview and EA (@gsalden I believe your setup is single-client, yes? So that's fine. But multiple IG PCs would generate different clouds per IG because of the randomness used to make them look 'real'.)

On the subject of EA, I flew into EDDB tonight and after being surprised by some windshear on final that made me stall at 50ft and slam it down onto the runway in a manner that I think would have damaged the aircraft in real life, I came to a stop and thought - hey, what's that visual noise on the display? And then realised it was rain. So you can see it, if you look hard enough 🙂.

 

[GSalden 4,657]

7 hours ago, neilhewitt said:

It can do... but I just did a flight with ASP3D and EA on (and all the 'cloud improvement' options turned on) and I still got a grid overcast effect. Once the clouds went to broken ASP3D tweaked them into more pleasing forms. And that's with EA cloud density on High.

It's hit and miss at the moment. LM needs to give developers much more control over TrueSky and an interface to read the cloud placement etc for WX and network cloud sync for the likes of FSGRW.

I'm wondering if anyone out there has a multi-channel setup using P3D's native multi-channel support with v5 and EA on - can it even sync the clouds across the displays in the viewgroup? Because you certainly can't do it with Wideview and EA (@gsalden I believe your setup is single-client, yes? So that's fine. But multiple IG PCs would generate different clouds per IG because of the randomness used to make them look 'real'.)

On the subject of EA, I flew into EDDB tonight and after being surprised by some windshear on final that made me stall at 50ft and slam it down onto the runway in a manner that I think would have damaged the aircraft in real life, I came to a stop and thought - hey, what's that visual noise on the display? And then realised it was rain. So you can see it, if you look hard enough 🙂.

 

If you want ASP3D to improve the VolumetricClouds.cfg that option need to be unchecked. 
Checking prevents ASP3D to take control.

And, if your system can handle it, check details clouds too in ASP3D.

[andreh 125]

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

If you want ASP3D to improve the VolumetricClouds.cfg that option need to be unchecked. 
Checking prevents ASP3D to take control.

And, if your system can handle it, check details clouds too in ASP3D.

Indeed. Detailed clouds improve things a lot, except up close sometimes where the edges are a bit fluffy. The 3D sensation when flying through and between clouds is quite impressive. I also find that it dimishes the grid effect quite well. Not completely, but well enough. But I think this option only exists in the beta.

Anyway, I'm quite baffled that there are people who still prefer the legacy sky. I switched EA off to check a while back. It looks like an 8 bit game from the 80s by comparison. EA went right back on.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

1 hour ago, andreh said:

Anyway, I'm quite baffled that there are people who still prefer the legacy sky. I switched EA off to check a while back. It looks like an 8 bit game from the 80s by comparison. EA went right back on.

Personal preference. I’d rather have accurate weather than enhanced clouds. When I tried EA I found it quite underwhelming but that was from a ground view.

When Active Sky can tap into EA that’s when I’ll switch. For now I’m more than happy with how ASP3D / ASCA handles things.

[neilhewitt 493]

6 hours ago, GSalden said:

If you want ASP3D to improve the VolumetricClouds.cfg that option need to be unchecked. 
Checking prevents ASP3D to take control.

And, if your system can handle it, check details clouds too in ASP3D.

Hmm. I'm actually not sure if that's checked or not. I'll have to... check. But I definitely intended to let ASP3D have control over the volumetric config. Detail clouds is definitely on.

Edited March 30, 2021 by neilhewitt

[andreh 125]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Personal preference. I’d rather have accurate weather than enhanced clouds. When I tried EA I found it quite underwhelming but that was from a ground view.

When Active Sky can tap into EA that’s when I’ll switch. For now I’m more than happy with how ASP3D / ASCA handles things.

I'm curious. What's considered inaccurate with EA? I've heard people complain about only one cloud layer being rendered but I had 3 distinct layers flying out of Singapore a few days ago (as just one example). It matched what AS said there should be. Is it the type of clouds being rendered? Surely, the winds would be correct with EA on? I've heard people complain about rain and snow, but I have rain and snow when I expect there to be.

Edited March 30, 2021 by andreh

[GSalden 4,657]

34 minutes ago, andreh said:

I'm curious. What's considered inaccurate with EA? I've heard people complain about only one cloud layer being rendered but I had 3 distinct layers flying out of Singapore a few days ago (as just one example). It matched what AS said there should be. Is it the type of clouds being rendered? Surely, the winds would be correct with EA on? I've heard people complain about rain and snow, but I have rain and snow when I expect there to be.

With AS you can have multiple cloudslayers in EA.

With the default Shaders rain is hardly visible. With EnvShade it already looks a little better.

When using large screens the raindrops have a correct size and are also better visible.

And a side view shows them even better.