JcSk8

Already being at 4.7 Ghz I think the difference would be minimum.

I wouldn´t do it .Wait for Vulkan, see what happens ,and than maybe. Paired with your 1080ti your setup is as good as possible for now.

My bets would be the faster one thread CPU, bigger than 4.5 Ghz, but at least 6 cores.

32 RAM

At least a RTX 2080 (as the games is 4k itself)

Oh, and a fast internet speed.

18 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

TrackIR is another way to deal with the FOV problem. It's not immersion-breaking for me to swing my head a little bit to the sides or up and down, to see more of the cockpit.

Since we don't have 3D for depth perception on a flat screen, my main concern is not having a distorted feel for judging distance when landing a fixed-wing plane on the runway, or landing a helicopter. Too wide a FOV means the ground looks further away and I flare too late, and too tight a FOV means I flare too early. My current FOV setting is 65 degrees on a 24" monitor at 1920x1200. Subjectively, that feels about right to me for judging distance to the ground, but YMMV. 

I´ve used trackir in fs2004 for a long time. It worked, but in the end I felt tired in long flights. With it you have to stay with your head as stable as you can, so the screen wont move if you´re looking forward, or set a curve that it´s more stable in the center and than acentuates when looking sideways. The 1:1 rotation/view was almost impossible to use, in a 27" screen (maybe works better in 50" or bigger). You end having to look for a side while keeping your eyes the opposite to see into the screen, wich is eye fatiging. I ended up selling it and went back into the yoke hat view.

For sure the VR is the best solution, but heavy on my current system, and the resolution is not top notch yet. Maybe in a few years would be the standard.

"my main concern is not having a distorted feel for judging distance when landing a fixed-wing plane on the runway". 100% what I should had written. It´s that fidelity I wan´t, or closer to possible.

Perfect, Murmur.

Those formulas gave me a 53 FOV, but I loose instruments.

So for now The best I can do is set the bigger FOV for a more accurate speed sense and essential instruments panel view.

Gonna tought about a bigger screen at first. The ideia of side monitors I don´t like very much because it´s like the ultra wide. I can se more of the sides, and it´s good for movement perception, but worsen even more when I need to see down the panels.

I´ve struggled with that and we used 4:3 monitor, and I could see foward and also the PFD and ND in a 737 sim. Nowadays I have to set the view somewhat down to read them.

I have tought in two 16:9 monitors arranged vertically, instead of horizontaly, wich would give me a more square view.

Thanks for you ideas.

7 hours ago, sudqui said:

Hi. Where I can see the gpu and cpu frames? Thanks 

Try CTRL + SHIFT + F

It may starts to show your frames on the upper left corner. Than you can move into your usual scenery + plane and check what is being more used.

cpu time and gpu time should be equal to a balanced performance.

If the shortcut doesn´t work, and you have to activate it manally follow the steps in the begining:

https://www.x-plane.com/kb/setting-the-rendering-options-for-best-performance/

12 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

Vulkan will solve the CPU issue

It´s a great hope. If mine was improved it will be even better.

Maybe it will be released this year yet?

I´ve have been trying to set the best FOV (field of view) form XPlane for almost a month, but still haven´t found what is more "realistic"

Some say that FOV depends on the screen size, wich I agree partialy, but it acts like a zoom, as make things that is near become farther, and not only bigger and small.

Some say is up to your preferences, but I think that for simulation I want to be as real as it gets (oops).

If I enter in a 737 NG cockpit (ZIBO), and try to set the correct pilot seat position, (wich is seeing the top of the glareshield and the PFD and ND without interference from the yoke) I just can do it if I set the FOV to 85 and above. But at those settings things become somewhat distorted and I don´t think that is too real.

My main goal, at first, is to set the FOV that gives me the best perspective from the scenery, distance, and speed that a real pilot see. Than, if possible, adjust the "seat" to fly at that. If is not I´ll try the closer FOV possible.

I´ve been in a ATR cockpit once, in flight, but not on approach. So I can´t say what is correct or not in the approach speed, runway size, and how close/distant objects are in real life.

In the stock 60 FOV from Xplane is impossble to fly and see the instruments. I know that in the real aircraft we´re looking straight in the ruwnay, and down to the instruments. Not with a head movement, but an eye movement.

Currently I´m trying the range between 75 to 85.

I´ve tried to watch as many youtube videos as possible, but the different camera settings tricks me. Old cameras (VHS) seems to be more zoomed. Wich I don´t know if it´s real. GoPro style cams seems to have wider lenses, wich also isn´t accurate.

Maybe only a real pilot can say what is best, but they doesn´t seem to be around simulation forums as I like.

I´ve asked a real pilot that publishes Xplane videos ou youtube, and he said that he´s using 82 FOV. But I don´t know if it´s for a real perspective, or for panel readability. 

So I´m posting two real videos showing the different cameras used, trying to se how close/far the runway looks at the approach, and how the speed/sense of motion.

Also three videos that I´ve made, at the same approach, with 65, 75 and 85 FOV respectively.

Thanks for your attention and responses. Let´s fly as real as possible.
 

40 minutes ago, HumptyDumpty said:

You sure Ryzen is not good for XP ?  

 

This las generation is. Ryzen 5 3600, 3600x, 3800x etc.

The last (2600) can be used, but the performance is about half what you got on same range intel chips.

Not on other games, but in P3d and Xplane 11 the old generation is not so good .

Just went into AMD when I see good reviews, and now I can recomend them.

But not for VGA. Unless Vulkan can change that.

11 minutes ago, dal330200 said:

I would invest in the RTX just because it will boost performance in X-plane and help your system be more MSFS friendly too.  I've been using a 1080ti for a little over a year- it's a great card, but still not enough to run all the eye candy I want.  ESPECIALLY if you're running multiple monitors. 

I doubt that the 2070 Super is faster than the 1080 ti for Xplane. Even the 1080 can be at least equal.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1907-geforce-1080-ti-vs-rtx-2070-super-vs-radeon-5700-xt/

I´m currently on Ryzen 5 3600, gtx 1070 ti and 32 Gb ram. And doing very good.

Get a processor with a fast single core performance, at least 32 Gb RAM and pair with a gtx 1060 at least (higher you let you use more antialisign ant stuff) and you gonna be ok.

i5 9600 is also a good recomendation, if the price it´s ok.

GPU is the mair reason. Flight simulators doesn´t like AMD video cardos. But also, your Ryzen generation is not good for Xplane. 

Take a look: 

I´m on Ryzen 5 3600 with Nvidia card. Very good performance.

What do you have in cpu frame time and gpu frame time?

How much RAM do you have? 

My first tought is that your vga is struggling, even more with three monitors.

There will ne no PMDguys in ZIBOland. 

With CH Eclipse you can control the rudder with yout thumbs, as said by PATCO LCH.

15 minutes ago, Skywatcher said:

On this, I bought the DVD version. You get a forum key you need to enter somewhere to show you are a legitimate user. Haven't had to re-register on the forum since I bought it years ago so forgotten the procedure for registering on the forum. Just make sure you have entered this key somewhere so it validates you as a legitimate iFly owner and you should then have full forum access.

As for your problem with FSUIPC, it's as I explained in the other post. You should have no further problems now that it's working and just do what I said for any future iFly installs.

Maybe that happened with fsuipc, but it solved alone. Maybe the license in the modules folder was accepted and the configs are ok.

Regarding the key, I have, but it´s for registration of the product. But first you must register in the forum to have an user name. That´s what´s not happening.

I´ll wait until tomorrow and see what happens.

Thanks.

Thanks vc10man. Well, I just reestarted PC and the sim and now seems have worked. I´ll do a quick flight to see if everyting is ok. I still need the reg to get their last updates.

But I´ll wait until tomorrow. Maybe the weekend factor applys. I´ll check for the registration mail. Will post later if something went wrong.

Excited as a kid to fly this baby. Lol.

Sorry if this is not the correct forum, but I need help.

I bought the iFly 737 NG for the fs2004 and instaled it. When I started, the dislplays shows "your fsuipc is illegal" and the aircraft doesn´t work.

My fsuipc is the latest version, paid and registered.

I tried to sign un into iFly forum this morning, and it says "registration approval required. Please contact the forum administrator" There is no place to contat the admin and I reiceved no info more than 8 hours before.

I also tried to register in the simforums as they are the same forum and it thows "information given in your registration has been flaged by 3th party anti-spam databases and has been therefpre rejected".

To complete I can´t open a ticket in the flight1 site, were the product was bought because of a 500 - Internal server error

There is something I´m doing wrong? Is this difficult to buy an aircraft from them? Just read good things but I see that if I need a refund I´m probably lost.

Thanks.

Of course that a fast processor is good for the fs, but he already has a good processor. When people says processors are needed they probably talking about older processord as athlon xp versus newer dual core.What I doubt is the benefit that a newer processor will have on an older aplication as fs9. It wasn't designed for multi cored processors. I've saw excelent frame rates on older amd 64 processors. I still think a powerfull videocard with the same processor will make more difference than a new processor with the same vga.

I don't believe. I also have an core 2 duo, 2.9 Mhz. The processor mainly works on polygons, like airports, autogen, artificial traffic, etc. For textures like clouds the video card is the differential. I tried stock clouds with active sky evolution and the frames dropped a lot. Then i've installed resized 2d and 3d clouds, smaller, avaiable here in avsim library. I'm using the 6th version, the smaller of them. The 2d clouds are on the 3th version I believe, just search for resized 2d and 3d clouds. They look very good at distance, but a little boxed when near, but the benefits are good, all clouds settings at maximum and frames locked at 25 fps without any drpos, with pay aircrafts and heavy scenery. Try them or consider a powerfull videocard.