Jump to content

brucewtb

Members
  • Content Count

    1,293
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Neutral

About brucewtb

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Markedly hotter on my 6 core with HT on for no obvious gain - so kept off. bruceb
  2. Well I have done another test looking at this elusive smoothness thing flying the Marub6 departure in the NGXu from 34R at YSSY (Sydney Australia). I have flown this many times in real life (as pax) and in the sim. The procedure calls for a very sharp 90 deg plus turn to the right at 500 ft so rather than following the FD as i would suspect you would do in real life I turned on the autopilot just after rotation and switched to the right wing view and checked for "smoothess". I repeated this several times with vsync on and unlimited frames and no FFTF dynamic and with no vsync and frames set to 120 and 29 in ncp and with FFTF dynamic on. In all honesty I could detect no improvement in smoothness with FFTF dynamic or without and I get no blurries either way. Maybe folk are seeing different things here depending on the type of flying they do - GA of large jets or whether they have a 30Hz monitor or not. What I also see is that setting frames in P3D to anything other than unlimited leads to a significant fps penalty which you can recover using FFTF dynamic but that is all. So to justify using FFTF dynamic there needs to be some other payoff which I have yet to find. Bruceb
  3. Hi Noel Thank you for you posts what you report is pretty much identical to my experience. Bruceb
  4. Bert when I do this I lose frames compared to vsync on and unlimited in the sim. Now it does seem to make FFTF dynamic work but I only recover what I lost - so a bit of a zero sum game unless I am missing something here. Smoothness is very subjective but I could see no difference. Bruceb
  5. Another simple test. PMDG 747-8 on runway 28R Aerosoft EGLL with my long term setup ie vsync on and unlimited frames my fps is 28 without FFTF dynamic. With FFTF dynamic and the AGL scenario no difference same frames. Now with Vsync off and frames set to 120 in sim and 29 in ncp my fps drops to 24 without FFTF dynamic and with FFTF dynamic it recovers back to 28. Now I don't notice any difference in "smoothness" between any of these setups so I am at a loss to see any benefit of FFTF dynamic for me. However if this is all a case of user error I am more that happy to be put right as I paid good money for this utility. Bruceb
  6. Well all I can say is that this has not been my experience but I will test further. Now 90% of my sim time is in heavy iron the PMDG range etc at 4K - I rarely fly GA at low levels over complex scenery so maybe this is a factor. Bruceb
  7. Well I have done some testing with approaches in the NGXu to Orbx YSCB. While rather unremarkable and dated this airport has always been hard on frames. With my long term setup ie Vsync on TB on and unlimited fps in sim and no external limiter frames go down to 21-23 on short final and recover to near 30 once on the runway without FFTF dynamic. With FFTF dynamic no difference which now seems to be expected with frames set to unlimited in the sim based on previous posts in this thread. If, on the other hand, I follow advice posted earlier in this thread and turn off vsync and set frames to 120 in the sim and to 29 in NCP frames drop to 17 on short final without FFTF dynamic but to 22 with FFTF dynamic - so a small gain but compared to vsync on and unlimited in the sim and no FFTF dynamic it amounts to a zero sum game. This I should add is with P3D4.5 HF3 and using the AGL scenario in FFTF dynamic. Bruceb
  8. Well this is all very confusing but I guess explains why I have never seen any benefit from using FFTF dynamic. Bruceb
  9. Sorry wrong thread. Bruceb
  10. Thanks Bert. Yes I thought someone would point this out but the main attraction for me in having the library outside the sim would be to free up space on my SSD drive. Also I would have thought that to move your Orbx stuff to another folder on your P3D drive there would need to be enough space which there isn't even if after the move there would be. But up to now I have had no issues with reinstalling Orbx stuff in successive P3D4 versions. I am contemplating purchasing a second large (2-4 TB) SSD for v5 if I decide to upgrade and/or FS2020 so this may all change. Bruceb
  11. My reason for not installing outside the P3D folder is that to do so would mean having the library on a separate mechanical drive whereas my P3D install is on an SSD. It seems logical to have P3D and the orbx library on the same type of drive be it NVMe, SATA SSD or mechanical HDD. Perhaps if I get a second larger SSD I will make the move but in the meantime if you keep a backup of your ORBX folder anywhere on your PC or an external HDD it is quite a simple process for reinstalling all your ORBX stuff after an upgrade without having to download very much at all apart from FTX global. Bruceb
  12. Wow that is an admission I wasn't expecting - certainly gives someone like me who is sitting on the fence about moving to v5 pause for thought. At present I am flying in the Carenado Bonanza along the beautiful south coast of NSW Australia near where I live, the area so ravaged by bushfires over the summer, and P3D4.4 HF2 has never looked so good and I find it hard to believe v5 could improve on it. It seems that for every simmer who thinks v5 is the greatest thing since sliced bread there is another who is asking for a refund! Bruceb
  13. Is your old drive the spinning rust type or an SSD? I could install an M.2 drive in the unoccupied M.2_2 socket (M.2_1 has a small M.2 with just the OS) but it will be a PITA to do so and will lose SATA 5&6. Comparing load times with the M.2 drive on my P3D PC with my other PC which has the OS on a SATA SSD I find no difference both are very fast compared to spinning rust drives. Bruceb
  14. Thank you for these replies. Just by way of clarification installing M.2 drives in the the M.2_1 and or the M.2_2 sockets that most current generation MBs have does not have any bearing on GPU PCIe lane usage this only comes into play when you install M.2 drives into the DIMM.2 slot that is available on the high end Maximus XI Extreme MB and possibly others. From what I can make out this issue would have very little impact on the performance of a 1080ti that I have and maybe about 3% on a 2080ti but could become more significant for future GPUs down the track which is my main concern. I'm inclined now to just go with a 2.5 inch SATA 2 or 4 tb SSD as from what I also understand the very high speed of M.2 drives is throttled by current generation CPUs. Bruceb
×
×
  • Create New...