Brian Doney

I know this is not the specific question you are asking, but, for the type of flying you do, it's no contest, P3Dv2 will significantly enhance your experience. No question about it, and it will give your 680 something to do :lol:

Well, smooth or not I still want to know/test the impact quantitatively. I get the feeling that a lot of the reported smoothness has to do with the much more tolerable experience of being GPU limited, over being CPU limited, which just always sucks.

Really is a PITA without FSUIPC, but I am too impatient to wait and it is raining here today...so LET TESTING BEGIN !

Definitely let us know how you get on. @Shaun A still (mostly) working X45 ? That is impressive. Though I have had my X52 since they were released. Something like 8-9 years.

I will eventually start testing this more thoroughly...I have a nearly complete set of AI models I recompiled for FSX, and I plan to test them as well as eventually recompiling them with the P3Dv2 SDK. What I can say so far is the low poly FSX models seem to perform well enough. I have noticed that specular highlights seem to be lost for FSX models, but so far I haven't really done much testing with P3Dv2 SDK compiled models to see if that would restore them (not really a big thing either way). I do think I preferred the older style shadows that FSX and previous used for simobjects, as the perf penalty is very high at comparable quality. That's also a pretty minor point though. The new shadows do seem to respond to actual conditions far more accurately.

Yeah it should work fine, just use DVI, DVI, HDMI and you should be set. That said I have zero experience with nv surround and any of the sims, so it might be a good idea to get some feedback on that. The card itself though shouldn't have any issues with that setup.

Thank you Arwen :smile:

See, that's kinda my point about being conservative I guess. The log is explicitly stating that FSUIPC is having issues. I am in no rush, and will wait for Pete to recompile for 2.2, it's no big deal :wink: Nice weather my way through the weekend, so I won't really want to be inside anyway*. There are real cloud shadows outside, and the resolution ! *Nothing to do with the 6-page honey-do list my wife has for me, nothing at all.

LUA scripting and macros are the two things I "need" that aren't working fully, and if you have a look at the log, you can see that it isn't able to properly access variables in 2.2. Pete has explicitly stated that new builds will usually require a module update. As far as FTXG, I thought there were reports of issues with the night lights and autogen texture issues with earlier builds of P3Dv2. Maybe a better way to word it would have been is P3Dv2 now compatible with FTXG :unknw: Just asking for some opinions on it as it stands today. I am extremely conservative about adding things to P3Dv2 until they have been vetted over time. Especially considering the extensive/invasive (not meant in a bad way) nature of FTXG, I just wanted to get a little feedback first.

Same here, installed that patch version over a hotfixed 2.1 with no issues. As with the sun angle issue you reported, the only issue I had was unrelated to patch vs full install. Now it's just time to wait for Pete to have a chance to update FSUIPC before I can really begin testing other parts of the sim properly. Would the consensus be that FTX Global is compatible now ?

I wish it were that easy. You'll likely have to keep your LOD radius and autogen/scenery complexity settings rather low, and any kind of AI traffic is most likely not going to be an option. After that, it's more a matter of what you are willing to compromise. You're going to have to start sliders left and work your way up. On the bright side, the 290X will allow you to enjoy the newer features of P3Dv2 without issue, once you can balance the rest for your CPU.

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=6363

Even if they aren't directly related, anyone that might search (HA! like anyone does that nowadays :lol: ) for a similar issue will benefit from both issues being discussed. Glad that you got an answer, even if it isn't the best news.

I hate to say it, but it isn't the 290X, it's the 9370. P3Dv2 has improved multi-threading to a certain degree, but overall it is still heavily dependent on single threaded performance. I have run FSX and P3Dv2 on my main intel rig, and my 4.8Ghz 8350 rig, and their just is no contest. And no, AMD have not dropped DX9 support in their drivers. The only real benefit nv still holds are the combined AA modes, which are quite nice, but even those aren't such a big deal any more.

I like all of it too of course :wub: I guess I was just a bit grumpy seeing the thread on the LM forums drop to page 2 without a response (not even saying a dev response, just any response). I know we all have different priorities, and I am well aware that for now I am definitely in the minority of the P3D user base, as someone that spends most of my time in the tubeliners near the large airports. I just had hoped that such a large and obvious perf hit would be worthy of a little investigation. In any case, I am curious what your fresh install shows you. For me it made no difference. I'm going to go try and re-create your scenario in the ocean now. Alright so again I can't really say I see much of a direct impact from the sun: ...and a quick dusk shot: Out here definitely isolates the lighting away though which is good.

Unfortunately, this community is far more concerned with the icing than it is with the cake, so it looks like this will go nowhere either way. 1 minute to load the sim and have a look is a lot to ask I guess :unknw:

Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) www.fmc.gov/‎ Federal Maritime Commission Established in 1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the regulation of shipping in the foreign trades of the United States.

I hear they are making a 777.

Not even getting into the EULA violating sections of this post, to these last two '"tips" specifically....no no no no no no no. Just no. :lol:

Yeah no worries, you know by now just to ignore me when I'm being a smartass :lol: I'm going to go try a flight or two now in the Q400, with the ASN beta, and we'll see how it goes. I do hope others will be willing to chime in either here or over at LM with their experiences, and I really hope this isn't just a side effect of the lighting changes made.

:lol: ...but yes I sure have. http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=6363 I just hope I don't have to bump the thread for a month to get a response like last time (the AI texture swapping issue). Maybe if I title my thread "something something autogen" :lol: I wonder if testing out in the middle of the pacific might narrow down the sun/moon issues. EDIT: Thinking about the KPIT shots where I was testing the sunrise, it is interesting that the lights themselves do not need to be in the frame, though I'm sure there is an airfield somewhere in the distance. What matters more, it seems anyway, is just that the night lighting system is active, lights in view or not.

I see it in both for sure, though it's not too bad in either relatively speaking. Zoom levels play a big part of it too, IIRC the default zooms for the Airbus or quite small. Apparently I can't tell north from south today though so take that all with a huge grain of salt. :lol:

It has a very nice view selection system but, all cameras are defined in the same way, and therefore just as susceptible. The thing is, the smaller the aircraft, and the closer the camera definitions are to the reference point, the less pronounced this issue is. So you're saying it is instead the proximity to the equator that is the issue ? Closer being worse ? EDIT: Wow Changi isn't even IN the southern hemisphere...time for my meds and a nap I think. :fool:

Yeah, this is what it feels like turning in the pattern anywhere in the southern hemisphere: :lol: The rest I agree with completely, I only replied for this issue alone. EDIT: OMG ! Snoop uses FSX !!!

Yeah that zoom level is what lessens the issue for you. When you run your test try it temporarily at a zoom closer to default and you can't miss it. I run on a 27" 19x12, with this being my preferred viewpoint for T/O and LDG: and this once enroute: