• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Good

1 Follower

About Noel

  • Rank
    Member - 3,000+
  • Birthday 02/23/1953

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Paradise, CA
  • Interests
    Golf, music, too many others to mention!

Recent Profile Visitors

4,261 profile views
  1. With this AM, 11 11 11 11 01 00, as I mentioned I have some FS related apps as we most all do running along side, and in general I have them assigned to LP 11/12, and Windows 7 processes that are assignable I have going to LP 0/1. Isn't this configuration therefore minimizing interference w/ the sim? It must be because it seems to run great! One possibility is to turn HT off, and then O/C Core1 to the max, and Cores 0/2/3/4/5 a bit lower to conserve wattage and target the O/C. My BIOS can do this but I've not been able to successfully set it up, but haven't tried to hard at it yet. Right now they're all at 4.45Ghz@1.32v or up to 4.55Ghz at 1.35v is as high as I'm comfy with.
  2. Which part? So does it make sense to use 111111110100 from a theoretical sense, for someone who isn't running apps that might need a whole LP to itself? If I didn't see LPs 5-12 all bebopping along in complex scenery I would guess turning HT off instead, and just go 111110, but I do! In fact it makes me think 8+ cores would even be better.
  3. I'm playing around now with 111111110100 on my 3930K. And...other apps running along side P3D V3.4 just don't seem to need much, so I have them mapped to share w/ two of the LPs P3D is supposed to be using for terrain texture loading, and the main windows processes to 0/1 LPs. My thinking is that the main thread could use one whole core, so this is why I have '01' in the AM above. This could be complete misunderstanding of something I thought you were advising previously I really am not sure! What I don't understand, and I say this because of watching CPU utilization on those terrain texture loading LPs w/ the AM above, why I think you said in the past there was no purpose in using 111111110100 over something like 010101010100. In really complex scenery with the former AM I sometimes see all the texture loading LPs cranking out well over 100% when you combine the values in each pair, for example LP-11 shows @ 68% CPU, and LP-12 @ 71% CPU, totaling well over 100%. In addition and this seems to corroborate this line of thinking, I see temps per core going up as well, as well of course wattage goes up over one of the AM's like 010101010100. And this would certainly seem to imply the 3930K is indeed doing more processing breaking the assignment to both LPs, rather than just the first one of the pair. I can see a theoretical justification if P3D, in initiating terrain texture loading, that each call is an individual thread so can use individual LPs, whereas the main thread perhaps can only use one LP, and perhaps Windows ignores it's HT state if splitting that core 1 into two LP's if there's just one thread being run.
  4. I'd be curious to see what the diff is for initially loading both P3D and a given flight in complex scenery. Sure takes awhile on my current SSD, but perhaps the CPU is playing a role here too. If it would reduce the load time of these two events by 50-70% it would be well worth it to me.
  5. I recently moved from v3.0 to 3.4 and in the process I notice the ATC window now contracts its displayed text and leaves a 'Previous' entry you have to click to read what was previously always in view w/o the need for yet another 'click'. Any way to revert to the prior behavior, present since...around 2009?
  6. Vector I think is pretty taxing on performance, so I don't use it. Are you monitoring both CPU and GPU utilization so you can best know how to adjust sliders according to need?
  7. I don't quite get it--is the entire contents of your PC submerged in this stuff? That would only work if you removed the fans from GPU and CPU correct?
  8. I've used GSX prior versions and the current one w/ Q400 and it's been great--it even integrates w/ FSCaptain quite well for the Q400.
  9. I've never understood this but when I have CPU voltage set to say 1.32v in the BIOS the CoreTemp I think it's called indicated 'VID' will be right around 125v. What is VID and how does it relate to voltage set in the BIOS, and is VID any indication of the current going thru the CPU, so that even though 1.32v is available as the maximum supplied voltage, a VID of 1.25v for example demonstrates it is only using 1.25v? Help! While we're here, I have a 5y/o 3930K running at 4.42Ghz w/ core voltage set at 1.32v. What I'm really fishing for is a consensus about what voltage set in the BIOS my 3930K can *safely* tolerate. Obviously w/ 5 years of nearly daily use and many hours/day, clearly 1.32v has been safe by this test. I can go to 4.55Ghz at 1.345v or so, but I don't want to kill it before Ice Lake appears if possible.
  10. I got what I needed up and running which was everything as it was in 3.0 including FTX NCA and SC , OpenLC, Global Base, REX textures, FTX Airports NA, HD Trees, except haven't added a couple of other airports that I wasn't going to use in today's test flight. Test flight from FTX KPSP to KSBA in the Majestic Dash 8 w/ very high scenery settings I got no pauses whatsover just liquid smooth w nary a hiccough--that made it worth the effort to update to 3.4. I'm guessing most of that was just cleaning up a bunch of corrupted scenery and other clutter from almost 2y of continuous use w/ no re-installs. Previously I would have come into some choppiness when frames go less than 30 (vsynced to refresh rate of 30) when flying over LA Area but it was perfect once again. Thanks all ;o)
  11. LOL! Get left behind, what is there a purchasing window after which I'm locked out? IMO there truly are only a few meaningful improvements beyond what 64-bit offers for users like myself, and I'll bet the vast number of users are in a similar boat. Show me one thread that highlights a massive $300 difference beyond OOMs in user experience for using V4 over v3.0, and remember I don't get OOMs. If you can't find one thread that makes it obvious, how about mentioning one feature in v4, beyond the OOM issue, that really justifies for you personally the $300 charge. Features that matter most for real improvements for me would be enhancing ATC, even fixing a few of the minor annoyances in the now 8y/o ATC build would be meaningful, and fixing how some cloud/ground mist drastically impacts frame performance. Next, I'd love to see LM build in a realtime smart algorithm that would for example, as one descends to near touchdown, reduce LOD dramatically as the plane starts to get closer to the ground where large LOD no longer can be seen and appreciated. When you're near the ground you need a progressively lower LOD and as you're having to process complex 3rd party airports it would be great to pick up resources by reducing LOD since you can't see it anyway. As well, recall how you will be flying thru clouds and terrain w/ shadowing on, only to see GPU utilization start going up to 100% which now starts to impact frame performance and smoothness? That could easily be modulated to a target GPU utilization percentage, for example decreasing the shadow distance range or quality such that you kept GPU utilization under say 90%. Right now I have to stop the sim and make the adjustment. These sorts of improvements matter to most all users, whereas the massive list of 'improvements' in each incremental update beyond bug fixes apparently apply mostly to commercial users or to their long term vision of where they want to take the program.
  12. Quite frankly I don't see the point for me because I don't get OOMs--unless that changes w/ 3.4 at which point I'll likely pay the freight then. When I do my next major hardware revision I will definitely jump in then as well, and right now I'm not sure when that will be. Now if LM decided to make a few minor revisions to ATC and a few other things that interest me that would be a different story, but as I say w/o OOMs I can hardly see the point.
  13. No I don't and as I may have mentioned I've really not added anything in the last 4 or 5 months or so except FTX OpenLC NA that seemed to be when I began seeing these pauses AND also . And I've not been able to start or end a flight at KSAN nor KPDX, so I went ahead and started the process last night. Everything is proceeding well so far w/ P3D 3.4 installed, Global, OpenLC, FTX NCA/SC, KPSP and KRDD. I'll stop after installing the Dash 8 and see how she goes now. I'm pretty amazed how long this install went w/o needing any fixing, but then again this is why when something works well I don't like to mess with it, thru and including doing the incremental updates which I really want no part of. In fact, I'd much rather see LM avoid these incremental 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 updates and just do a complete update every 1.5y-2 years or something along those lines, and beta test the hell out of it prior to release. This would give all of the content developers some breathing room instead of them having to try to keep up with these incremental updates.
  14. Well, I'm prepping to reinstall P3D and will probably go w/ 3.4 for now. I was getting major pauses up to 4-6 seconds flying the Dash 8 over LA area which I never had before so I think it will be worth trying to start over w/ a complete new install. I don't have much of anything installed on this Win 7 OS except for P3D w/ its addons so I tend to doubt these pauses are coming from other Windows services.