JesC

@alhefner You may want to take a look here as well, may be a simpler solution for you and less learning curve: http://www.aero.sors.fr/navaids3.html Jesse

I have noticed the same thing lately. I think it has been since the Windows 10 update to 1709, but not certain. I have also been curious about this but have not experienced any ill effects from it. I have never used the black out desktop setting as I have a second monitor for running other utilities, so not sure that is the reason for the change. Jesse

@vortex681 That's an interesting point. I hadn't seen any of the kind of comments you reference and it seemed to be working for me. Of course it is difficult for me to be certain about what "isn't" happening and you are certainly correct about the wording. I may have simply not had any driver updates during the time I tried the setting. In short, thanks for the information. I will certainly be watching my updates carefully. Jesse

@odourboy To stop all driver updates from Windows you can go to: Control Panel/System/Advanced System Settings/Hardware Tab/Device Installation Settings and bullet the "No (Your Device May Not Work As Expected)" setting. Jesse

Hi Folks, I have found that locking frame rates has a significant effect on the relationship between CPU and GPU usage. With a 120 Hz monitor and unlimited frames I get very high GPU usage and frames generally over 90 fps, although when stressed it will drop to around 60fps. Locking frames to 60 fps I can maintain very near 60 fps and GPU usage drops to the 40%-60% range. Locked at 30fps cuts down GPU usage even more but TrackIR isn't as smooth so I keep mine at 60fps. The locked frames also keeps my 1080Ti nice and cool. In any of these scenarios P3D v4 has been very smooth. While I am not good at explaining the technical reasons for this; it remains true that is is all about balance. There is a very interesting thread on this subject here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/522852-locking-frame-rate/ Jesse

Precisely my preferences as well. Jesse

Thanks Steve. I think that is just what I needed to understand. Also explains why I couldn't discern any difference with Vsync on or off. Jesse

I am getting a little confused. Without wanting to hijack the thread may I ask? With 120hz monitor ( 27",1920 x 1080) and frames locked at 60 fps; should I then have Vsync off or is there still some benefit to using it? And if "on" should I expect triple buffering to be of benefit? Thanks, Jesse

I have had the same experience with Jetline. After receiving my new system, I had a little difficulty calibrating my Virtualfly TQ6 the way I wanted it. Barely three days after Hurricane Irma passed through their area they were on the phone with me. They logged into my system in seconds and did the set up remotely. I had a sense that they were truly enjoying providing the support. Very refreshing experience. Jesse

I really like the UTX lights and use them as well; but I didn't think they would effect taxiway lights. Do they?

I just recently purchased a Jetline System. At some point I was looking at the possibility of a new monitor and thought the Samsung u28d590d 28 4k uhd 3840 x 2160 monitor was what they were offering at the time. But I'm not 100% certain at this point.

Thanks Vic. Exactly what I wanted to know. Jesse

I may be the odd man out in these discussions; but, I was just wondering if this plays well with Ground Environment and Ultimate Terrain. Or is it intended for Orbx users only? Can default sims benefit as well? And the big one is does it interfere with or change any sim settings or other scenery settings???

That's what I have as well. Perhaps I am just remembering the speeds incorrectly. Just thought they were a bit higher. Thanks for the help. Jesse

Then why are the restrictions so much below the aircraft specifications. Did all of the developers get the speeds wrong? They didn't seem to be wrong in FSX. If you are saying the developer got it wrong, then is there a way to edit these settings to get the actual aircraft speeds?

Hi Folks, Well... I am new to P3D (3 days) and using v4. I have a bit of problem with the speeds for lowering landing gear and approach flaps. It seems that some setting is preventing their operation above the landing flap speed (white arc). I think this is true of all aircraft but I mostly have tested in the Carenado Cheyenne and the RealAir Duke B60. As you know, most aircraft allow deployment of gear and approach flaps at much higher speeds than the white arc landing flap speed. It all worked fine for me in FSX but I am a little lost at what may be influencing this in P3D. I suspect a realism setting may be causing this behavior but have not identified which one. Just wondering if anyone may have experienced this quirk and have suggestions or solutions. Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks, Jesse Cochran

Sent a ticket to Carenado and had a response within 2 hours or so. They are coming out with an update in a couple of weeks and will include the fix. Jesse

I just purchased and installed the 690B (v1.1) in FSX. I noted that my graphics card was being challenged even in the Lite version. Checking the .mdl files it seems that the full version and Lite version are both the same size. I thought the Lite interior.mdl should be much smaller than the full version. Anyone else notice this? What file size is the Lite Versions interior.mdl in your installation? Jesse Cochran

The Lite version has definitely fixed the fps/stutter issues I was experiencing. I think this is now destined to be a real favorite for me. Thanks to Carenado and everyone who took the issues to them. If you have been sitting on the fence {Scott) with this one I think now is the time to jump in. Jesse

Take a look at the size of the interior model. It is up to 128 mb. Most other releases 30 mb or less. I really don't see much benefit from this increase either. And I don't notice any frame drops on the exterior views. Exterior models are still 30 mb or less. Compare exterior and interior models frame rate performance and .mdl file size. The real strain on my system is the graphics card which runs at near 100%, dramatically raising GPU temps on this one, and of course drags the cpu down lowering fps and causing stutters and even freezes. I have been a fan of Carenado/Alabeo for a long time, but I think they are catering to a customer base with graphics cards that are more advanced than I am currently willing to invest in. I suspect they have lost me as a customer and supporter. Not to mention their consistently "buggy" initial releases. What Graphic cards are you guys using? Jesse

Worked a charm, Thomas. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! You definitely deserve the "Genius of the Day" medal in my book. Now I will start to look at the work ability of creating a cold and dark start from this file. But, it seems obvious that there is definitely a conflict with my normal start flight. Blue Skies to you. Jesse

Thanks for taking the time to test and respond Thomas. I have done most of my testing from KSAT; and whether with live weather via AS16 or the default "Fair Weather" theme I notice the issue. And, yes it is present on the ground as well during climb out. I have also tested at KDEN and KAXX where, with the higher altitudes and lower temperatures, the difference is significantly reduced. Anti-ice was one of the first things I considered as well as the bleed air settings. Both produced expected results as you describe. I have also tried loading over a default Cessna 172 flight. In fact, have even tried re-installing and the repair tool to no avail. Thanks again for the input. I will continue looking. Jesse

Allow me to try again. My explanation may have been less than clear. The issue I am seeing is that the left engine is producing 150 lbs. - 200 lbs. more torque than the right engine. This difference diminishes with higher altitudes/ lower temperatures, and will eventually not be present. It then returns slowly on descent. At this point if anyone could let me know whether you are or whether you are not seeing this performance it would help me. I just think I am missing something obvious but at this point I am completely stumped by it. Other aircraft are not exhibiting this behavior, but this is the only Garret powered twin I have. Thanks, Jesse

I am seeing a significant difference in the throttle positions necessary to achieve the same torque readings when at altitudes generally below about 5,000'. In other words the left throttle is farther forward than the right throttle when the torque readings match. This is true of the VC throttles as well as my throttle quadrant. By the time I have climbed above about 5,000' they are back to very similar positions for the same torque. Is this normal behavior for this aircraft and does anyone know why it is that way? Or, perhaps more likely, is there something I am failing to set or do correctly? I'm betting some of you who are more experienced with the Conquest and the Garretts will know what is happening. Thanks, Jesse EDIT: I stated that backwards. The left throttle is farther back than the right. I also think the "about 5,000'" is related to density altitude or temperature and is only an approximate level to begin seeing more even behavior.

Just gave it a test. Brilliant!! A masterful solution. And, thanks again for being so responsive to, what many, may think is a trivial issue. You have certainly gained me as a very satisfied customer and fan. Jesse