6 hours ago, Afterburner said:

But I thought that "Maximum Performance" was the recommended setting for P3D and MSFS...

I believe it is otherwise you’ll get the dreaded DXGI error.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I believe it is otherwise you’ll get the dreaded DXGI error.

This was back before dx12. I’ve read some pretty interesting deep studies on this and say not only is it no longer requires in dx12. But also when numerous games were tested on vs off, the end result was no real difference between the two. But as we always say here. Everybody has different hardware and settings…

2 minutes ago, micstatic said:

This was back before dx12. I’ve read some pretty interesting deep studies on this and say not only is it no longer requires in dx12.

I can only comment on my own experiences. Never had the problem in v4.5 with DX11. It only started with v5.1. It was very easy to prove too. A vehicle change triggered it but once “maximum performance” was selected the problem ceased.

8 hours ago, Afterburner said:

I made an important discovery as to why I had 100% load when limiting frames via NCP: I set the "Power Management Mode" to "Maximum Performance" (as you can see in the video). When I reset all settings to factory defaults, it set that mode to "Optimal Power", and under that mode I had 70% or so core0 load - a reasonable value. After changing other parameters, I isolated the behavior down to this setting.

But I thought that "Maximum Performance" was the recommended setting for P3D and MSFS...  If you read guides on best NCP settings here on AVSIM and elsewhere, you will find that almost everyone recommends setting the power management mode to maximum performance, which intuitively makes sense ("Why should I limit the power of my GPU, right?"). But it pegs core0 to 100%...  You can give it a try to verify it.

Anyway, I am tired now - will do more experimenting tomorrow.

Yes, if you set up for NCP Prepar3D.exe Default/Apply and only changed the fps limit you will see less that 100% on the core0/LP0 graph. Changing the Power Management Mode to 'Prefer Maximum Performance' means that the system will give any available User Interface time (which is also the rendering screen of the simulation) to the program, that is on core0/LP0 (or rather the LP of the first task) in P3D and it will rise to 100%.

So you can set up initially for 'Use Global Setting (Optimal Power)' and adjust core load for that, then when satisfied, you can revert to 'Prefer Maximum Performance'. You will see that the settings you made to achieve your desired core load are still handled as they were with 'Optimal Power'.

Well, I’ve done a some testing in V5.2 HF1 and overall I’m very pleased. CPU utilization and LP load distribution is now much closer to what it was in V5.1 HF1. LP0 utilization is lower with HF1, but running a little higher than with v5.1. It’s averaging around 75% for me. Utilization for the other LPs is much lower with the new HF1 (none of them hit 100%).

The sim is very smooth (almost forgot that FFTF Dynamics wasn’t being used). EA lighting and haze seems better, too.

So far, I’d have to say great job Lockheed Martin.

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by DonMuskopf
correct typo

On 6/29/2021 at 6:47 PM, Dirk98 said:

Ok, PM me otherwise we'll flood this place in no time.

PS: PM = private message ))

Thanks for all of your help a few days ago! I updated to the new v5.2 and everything is rolling! You are the man!
 

Cheers, Pete

Now a question for Ray or Steve (or anybody who can answer this): how many LPs do you assign to Active Sky,  how many is enough? Can we see your batch for launching it? Pete has Active Sky running on the main Prepar3D PC whereas I run it on a networked one, so my method and experience are different.

Thanks.

Edited July 2, 20214 yr by Dirk98

4 hours ago, PilotPete99 said:

Thanks for all of your help a few days ago! I updated to the new v5.2 and everything is rolling! You are the man!
 

Cheers, Pete

I was glad to help and you learnt very fast. 

We have one last important task to solve yet: to properly assign LPs to your Active Sky as I requested the sages one post above. ))

2 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Now a question for Ray or Steve (or anybody who can answer this): how many LPs do you assign to Active Sky,  how many is enough? Can we see your batch for launching it? Pete has Active Sky running on the main Prepar3D PC whereas I run it on a networked one, so my experience is different.

Thanks.

One LP, 5 from memory. I use SimStarterNG to launch the various associated programs where it has a facility to assign the AF for each.

Dont run AS on a server. It uses very few resources and won’t be as efficient across a network.

24 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

One LP, 5 from memory. I use SimStarterNG to launch the various associated programs where it has a facility to assign the AF for each.

Dont run AS on a server. It uses very few resources and won’t be as efficient across a network.

Ray, in your case I would strongly recommend you to run AS on 2xLPs at least. Let's hear the suggestions here yet, but as far as I know, that AS being a communications app, it requires at least 2 LPs and maybe even more. Generally it's a good practice to assign any of your flighsim-related apps at least 2 LPs each, the most relaxed ones.

I'm curious to try running AS on the main PC just for the sake of experiment, perhaps, it's just a little more convenient than on the networked PC, but I doubt there will be any noticable benefit performance-wise either ways.

PS: I'd like to hear more thoughts of those who experimented with the above.

Edited July 2, 20214 yr by Dirk98

18 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Ray, in your case I would strongly recommend you to run AS on 2xLPs at least.

How could I possibly measure any improvement or worsening of performance by doing that? It’s one program that I just start and then ignore.

14 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How could I possibly measure any improvement or worsening of performance by doing that? It’s one program that I just start and then ignore.

It's not exactly about you measuring the performance. As I mentioned just give AS a little more headroom to run its tasks, you won't lose anything and AS will be thanking you obligingly for your thoughtfulness every time you launch it..

PS: besides as discussed before many times it's a good practice to assign any app 2 LPs at least for obvious reasons.

 

Edited July 2, 20214 yr by Dirk98

@Dirk98, are we not in danger of overthinking this. If I don't see any problems with injected weather why worry?

Have a look at what @SteveW suggested a week ago. I did as he suggested as I have 5 programs that run - all low demand ones.

Give the addon exe apps 2 LPs, even if on the same HT core, or two cores, especially SimConnect clients.

6 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Give the addon exe apps 2 LPs, even if on the same HT core, or two cores, especially SimConnect clients.

Will I see any difference? I'm not doubting your undoubted knowledge but when everything appears to run well I'm curious what benefit this will provide.