Jump to content

RGS

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. Could someone please let me know the directory structure when installing FS to a drive other than C:, via the MS Store? With Steam, I assume it'd be something along the lines of: F:\steamapps\common\microsoft flight simulator and then you'd choose another directory for the content during the actual installation, thus you could have: Flight Simulator (F:) > Installation (F:\Installation\steamapps\common\microsoft flight simulator) Flight Simulator (F:) > Content (F:\Content) Which seems relatively neat and tidy to me as I can have the installation and content in the same place and have control over the folder names etc. I tend not to like the way MS does things, case in point not being about to rename the user folder in Windows 10... Thanks!
  2. Wow, that's a pretty substantial OC. I think the 9900K can run 2 cores at 5 GHz, with all 8 at 4.7. Is the sim (P3D) making use of those extra cores on your 7920X? How do you find the processor outside of flight sim/gaming? Thanks.
  3. Thanks for the reply, Westman. Do you happen to know if that's the case at 4K as well? The 9920X is a slight step up from the 7920X, but I imagine not enough to make a significant difference. If I was just considering a machine for flight sim/gaming with a thought to changing it every 2-4 years I'd just go with the 9900K + 32 GB RAM and be done with it, but as I have to take into account the other uses for the system, namely Max and Photoshop and the fact that I'll be sticking with it far beyond that time frame (graphics card upgrades aside) things become less obvious. Totally get that right now the 9900K is the best gaming processor available; my dilemma however is, is it significantly faster than the 9920X in flight sims/games, and in particular at 4K (plus will that continue to be the case in the years ahead); also how much of an advantage would the additional 4 cores and quad channel memory give me regarding the work side of things? In some ways I suspect that the higher clock speeds of the 9900K may actually make it the faster of the two in Max and Photoshop (barring rendering), but not 100% on that front. As generally speaking I'm not rendering video from Max (only stills, lighting + normal map bakes), rendering time isn't as important a consideration as it might otherwise be. The 9900K is tempting, as the far cheaper option; my concern is whether it will it last as well as the 12 core part in the long run? I don't want to overclock as 1: I don't know what I'm doing 😉, 2: I need stability and don't want to spend a lot of time troubleshooting etc. and 3: component longevity is important to me. Sorry for the long-ish posts. Thanks for the feedback.
  4. Hi all, Looking for some advice on a new system and wondering which of the two above processors to build it around. My primary uses: Flight sim (P3D), obviously... Games 3ds Max (primarily model creation, but also rendering) Photoshop 4K All of the above are of roughly equal importance and are kind of linked, as I'm a developer. In addition, I'd like to add video editing, though that's of less importance right now. I do work with very large files and often have multiple apps open (Max and Photoshop for e.g.). My intention is to pair the system with an RTX 2080 Ti. Whilst expensive, it does deliver the goods at 4K. A few further points to bear in mind: This is my primary work machine and will see heavy usage for years to come I do not want to have to upgrade the processor/motherboard, but am OK with mid-life GPU + RAM upgrades (but ideally would not want to for at least 3 years) I will not be overclocking I will only ever be running a single graphics card System must be Intel/nVidia and be as future-proof as possible (I tend to stick with a machine for much longer than most, rather than frequent upgrades, beyond the graphics card) Price differential between the two systems is currently around £700-800, which is considerable (roughly £2,500 vs £3,200 for the entire rig, minus display) As I understand it the 9900K is faster at 5 GHz vs 4.5, but the 9920X has half as many cores again (12 vs 8) + supports quad channel memory, though not sure how important that is in terms of real world usage however. Benchmarks seem to show the 9900K producing higher framerates for games at lower resolutions (due to the higher clocks), but things flatten out at 4K. With that in mind, I'm tempted towards the 12 core part which ought to help with work (rendering if little else) and potentially be more future-proof as apps eventually embrace higher core counts (though a very slow process, if the past few years are anything to go by). On the other hand, 5 vs 4.5 GHz is a considerable margin in terms of raw speed,and those 4K figures may shift in the direction of the 9900K as games become more demanding. The 32 vs 64 GB RAM question is more to do with future-proofing. 32 is ample for now, work-wise, but in the past I've been burnt with RAM becoming discontinued and/or insanely expensive, so am considering just going the whole hog now. Would be interested to hear from others, particularly with regards to large files in Photoshop, heavy Max usage and video editing. I don't imagine flight sims/games will be taking advantage of over 32 GB for some time, though maybe 4+ years from now, who knows? Thanks in advance for the help. Cheers!
  5. I'd imagine LM need to write the rain effect shader first (and 3ds Max tools to go with it) - that's their job. Once the system is in place, devs then have the tools/control required to correctly implement the effects of a per a/c basis, flagging the appropriate polygons, setting wiper masks, parameters etc. Disappointed not to see the base effect added by LM at this stage, seems like a very odd thing to leave out when going to the trouble of re-doing the rain and snow, particularly when FSW now has the feature (and it can't be that hard to implement).
  6. Good topic. I'm particularly interested in the impact that going to a bigger screen might have on one's vision. I've always used large monitors, from 21 inch 4:3 CRTs (back in the day!) to 2x 24 inch 16:10 LCDs and for the past 8 or so years a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display (I'm not a fan of multiple monitors; the 2x setup was prior to working for myself). The 30 inch ACD is by far the best monitor I've owned to date and has given me less eye strain than any used previously (with the CRTs being the worst, particularly as they aged). I would have thought that a larger screen could actually be a lot better for your eyes than a smaller one as: 1. You tend to sit further away from it. 2. Your eyes actually have to move *a lot* more, darting from corner to corner (compare this to reading on a phone/tablet at close range). Ideally I'd like to switch to a 55 inch 4K 60Hz Sony TV, for both full-time work (3D/2D graphics/design primarily) and simming/gaming (I remember the upgrade to the 30 inch being a real eye opener; it felt as though I was no longer looking through a window, but now it feels a little limited and 4K offers the chance to go bigger without compromising the details). I view my current monitor at arm's length; the TV would be about double that distance. Due to the large size I'd be moving my eyes even more than the 30 inch, which I'd have thought would be a good thing, but am slightly concerned about sitting in front of such a beast for such extended time periods, particularly as it's a TV and not a monitor (not sure how much of a difference there is these days, but obviously one was designed for extended use at close-ish range, the other not). Luckily I sit next to a window with a great view, so giving my eyes a rest every now and then is easy . Thanks for your thoughts, Robert
  7. Is it possible to still download + run MS Flight? I'm interested to look at full SpeedTree integration + also see what they did with some other effects such as sun glare etc. I did give it a test at time of release, but due to its arcade/casual nature quickly dismissed it. Cheers, Robert
  8. Yeah - I really hope so. That'd be excellent .
  9. LODs should take care of the worst of the performance worries (obviously there'd still be a hit) and instancing help address the memory issues. It's very important to have an consistent world IMO; a mix of high quality and low quality visuals is a real enemy of immersion. These trees, applied globally, would make such a massive difference to helo flight.
  10. @Brandon Thanks for the info. I reported the shadow bug on the LM forums a while ago; I understand it's a little difficult as you're effectively having to render the shadow of a hidden object (exterior model) but don't want the performance hit of having to calculate it (and it's handled differently to FSX). Still there must be a solution, it's clearly broken and shouldn't just be left as is IMO. Shame about the lack of a sun glare; unlike the shadow issue I really can't understand how this has escaped them. It's such an easy effect to get in (you could probably even buy it off the shelf!) and aside from adding greatly to the immersion is also rather important for realism and accurate training I'd have thought. I really don't understand the absence of things like this. Rain on the wind shield (not the ancient FS9 rendition...) is another one. The effect would have to be setup by third party devs for their a/c, but requires the coding, tools and shaders to be set up by LM (as they are now doing with the SpeedTree tech). Though more difficult than the sun glare, this effect (Train Sim version embedded for ref. at end of post) should be pretty easy to get working from a graphics programmer standpoint I imagine. I'm sure it must be present in a number of modern racing games too and thus shouldn't require a lot of R&D (rain running down the a/c skin would be another nice touch, though far less important). I don't mind LM leaving certain things to third party devs, in particular aircraft and high detailed sceneries (which makes total sense to me), but I really think they should strive to increase the fidelity of the base sim across the board. We've seen some great stuff with the cockpit shadows, HDR, volumetric fog and 3D waves (and I'm really looking forward to the avatar mode) but there are some simple things, which would not be difficult to introduce and provide an instant 'win' that just seem to get ignored. Rain on wind shield effect:
  11. I really hope we'll see these as an official LM replacement for all autogen trees. They're clearly a big step up from the old 3 plane ones and have a good track record in the games industry. Couldn't the models simply overwrite the old ones (on a like for like basis) without even having to touch the autogen tree placement? Whilst I totally understand that there will be an FPS hit; one of the good things about SpeedTree is the LODing system. All of the distant trees will just be quads anyway, it's only those you're close to that are high detail. Not only that, but the existing models and textures can't take up a lot of space - I imagine it'd be easy to just add a tick-box under performance settings for low detail/legacy trees. I think it'd not only be a great shame to limit these to third party airports and sceneries, but it also creates an inconsistent world filled with massive quality gulfs. As a helicopter pilot, you'd desperately want to see these new trees wherever you fly and not just specific locations. In fact, due to the inconsistency, I'd almost rather just the old quad-based models than an awkward mix of the two which impacts on immersion and the sense of a believable world. Here's hoping...
  12. @Brandon Thanks a lot for the info, much appreciated. So A and D are used for turn rather than strafe? That might feel a little on the odd-side... I'd have thought a middle mouse click or similar to toggle mouse look on/off would have done the trick, but I guess I haven't tried it yet so maybe best not to comment . Does it feel natural and smooth as a standard FPS would, or is it a little on the clunky side? Also, I added a cheeky extra Q about the sun glare (or lack thereof) above if you have time to answer. Thanks again. (if there are any extra graphical tweaks they've made that have impressed you I'd love to hear them!)
  13. One more quick Q for you beta guys: Does the aircraft's shadow cast on the terrain now correctly reflect that of the exterior model or is it still the VC? EDIT: Actually, make that two Qs Is there a new sun glare effect? I notice that 'removed old sun glare' was listed in the log, but in Rob's most recent video there doesn't seem to be any glare at all. Cheers. Am pretty sure it's been confirmed (via Orbx) there are no new trees actually included in the sim as such, only the separate models and the tools with which they can now be added by third party devs. Bit of a shame really; upon reading the change-log I'd hoped they'd updated the base autogen. Still, it's a nice feature for further down the line.
  14. @Brandon How does the avatar mode work? Is it simply another viewpoint you select (and then first of third person) or is there more to it than that? I assume controls are via keyboard and mouse as with a standard FPS? Also, do you happen to know whether if the a/c is developed with the avatar in mind you can use the same model as the pilot? Thanks for the info.
  15. ATC window looks great. Really nice; clean and minimal just how I like a UI .
×
×
  • Create New...