TheGrunt

I haven't yet bought V3 but most definitely will. I'll wait until I can have at least some of my ORBX regions with proper installers and make sure that few other most important addons work as they should. It is also good to listen early adopter's opinions, so I'll gladly wait at least for a few weeks. Besides, I don't feel like spending hours for a fresh install ATM

This. It is business after all. Besides, in the long run it is also a life cycle question. Windows 7's exended support is ending on 2020 and it is not in the Microsofts or end users interests that huge amount of legacy Win 7 OS's is floating around at that point. Releasing new features to only newer OSs pushes users to new platforms. EOL of XP was already a farce even though it lacked many features and was complete rubbish later years compared to newer OSs. And PC and Windows IS a gaming platform, and bigger than any of the consoles. Only mobile gaming market is growing more, but it more or less competes with console gaming as HC gamers stay and even migrate to PC. Also PC gaming is a profitable business for many gaming accessories and component manufacturers. MS perhaps isn't making that much money out of PC gaming directly, but still, many home users are using Windows just because it is by far the best OS for PC gaming. Only alternative would be buying the console as Linux (including SteamOS) and OSX are far behind, though OSX limitations are not the only hinderance for Apples success in gaming market.

I didn't see this "case" on the P3D forums, but I suspect it was a bot spamming junk on threads. Bots are a very common issue on many forums these days.

SSW makes awesome planes and I'd say they are on the level of VRS Superbug easily. They have extended the sal till the end of month.

This is a real bummer as I installed these betas because of the Elite Dangerous profile. Well, I guess I have to live without PAPIs for a while...

Man, it seems like Justin has really hit the bottom. I sure hope he can make a decent living again, whether it is with flight simming related stuff or otherwise. FSG was very well established and known brand in FS community and I also agree that he made bad business desicions by releasing cheap memberships. Subscription would be okay, but life time membership for a hundred bucks? That surely dries out the income sooner than later. I hope he can clear things up with the FSG sale and perhaps get the ownership back. I would really like too see Justin again on the helm of FSG, I have nothing bad to say about the products or customer service back in the day. I even miss all Justin's rants about the difficulties few years ago :wub:

Not at least during rush hour on M-highways leading to and from London, what I've seen travelling there. 1 mph is more close to the truth in my experience

I can get things easily CPU limited with my GTX780 flying over urban terrain with lot's of autogen, custom buildings and especially vector data and traffic. This means low GPU usage in those situations and high CPU loading. I see nothing strange in your results, if situation is somewhat comparable.

I don't understand why so many people need to install their photoscenery again every time they blow up their installation? Pretty much from the beginning I've installed all my sceneries on a separate folder from the application if it is just easily possible and just add them to my library. When they are on different drive from OS, they are there even after OS reinstalI and fully usable after. If there is an effects folder with the scenery, it is easy to copy its contents to new P3D install folder. Same goes with ASN and other external software, just make sure you add proper entrys to exe.xml/dll.xml or use backups. When I do my reinstall after deleting the prepar3d folder, it is mainly just the aircraft and ORBX stuff I need to add, that is those things that pretty much force themselves to the P3D directory or overwrite . Two hours tops and I'm back in business.

Passmark is IMO quite bad CPU test mainly for two reasons: 1) it is very synthetic and close to the architecture, which means that it scales for example pretty much linearilly with the amount of physical cores and represents very badly the performance of many real life software. 2) It is known to give if not bad and erroneus, then at least very odd results. I myself have a 3930K running 4.6GHz and based on the reviews and different benchmarks I see no reason to upgrade at least because of P3D. I may opt the 5960x some day if I happen to have a chance to get it for a "decent" price like I had my 3930K back in the day, but I definitely not do it for P3D.

Actually cheaper LCDs are usually with 6-bit color reproduction per colur, which makes them capable of displaying 262144 colours compared to 8-bit LCD which again puts out 16.7 million colours and then some. These 6-bit LCDs use dithering technique, which applies slightly different shades for adjacent pixels to fool the eye and display those "missing" colours. This may again cause banding for surfaces which naturally have low variance for different shades and dithering can't make up for the difference. On the otherhand, fastest panels (TN) are usually 6-bit so speed is their advantage. Best and most expensive monitors designed for photoediting and such professional tasks, where best possible colour reproduction is required, are always 8-bit panels. They are in most cases very bad choice for gaming, though, as they usually have very slow response time and tend to display ghosting and may also have extensive input lag. There are some PVA panel models out there that are capable of good colour reproduction and decent response time. One example that comes to my mind are Eizo's Foris multimedia/gaming monitors.

To the question, I don't know about the possibilites of the platform in the video, but in general why on earth it wouldn't be a preferred idea to develop new sim platforms and why someone would want to vote against something like new sims? I'm baffled by the amount of NO answers already at this point. No one is after all forced to buy a new sim and can stick to the FSX/XP/P3D for the rest of their lives if they want to. If there would be new platforms popping up even now and then, it would be just good for hobby and take simming software technology forward thus offering best possible performance and compatibility with new hardware and OS. I see many people complaining about FSX/P3D/XP problems and restrictions all the time and it is strange if some of those still choose to vote no. I'm quite happy with my P3DV2 right now, but new sims are always welcome and I will gladly try them out to see the potential.

It is not the limitation of the CPU but the type of software. Multithreading efficiently so that the task can be distributed between several cores is very difficult if not even impossible for a complex real time software like P3D or almost any other modern game for that matter. It is way easier to efficiently multithread tasks like encoding/decoding or encryption/decryption. You can offload stuff to different threads, but ultimately as everything needs to be in sync, the performance is always according to the slowest thread, which usually is the main one, no matter what. Now, as P3D still carries quite a lot of old code from the days when multicore processors were nonexistent or just in their beginning and multicore OS scheduling for windows was bad (XP), there may still be room for optimization and improvement to a certain point. But in the end, main thread will be the one that is going to be loaded the most, but it pretty much also needs to be so.

I think one difference could be the amount of vector data. For example, with ORBX Vector some urban areas have vector roads a lot. I've noticed that if you keep all the smaller roads enabled, they can have huge impact of FPS even without any traffic turned on. This might be one explanation, so that the autogen buildings aren't actually the main culprit.

I have had no problems with EZCA with any of the P3D versions since the "beta" P3D patch arrived. Camera config tool has also worked flawlessly with EMT with every addon, although it is not a big deal to edit them manually. There is one mistake in EZCA itself that might cause an error during the launch of the sim, though. If you have quotation marks (") on the aircraft title, EZCA will fail because it tries to write .ini file based on the title name to its directory concerning the aircraft specific camera setups. Because quotation marks are illegal in Windows file name, .ini file also fails and EZCA most likely crashes. This has nothing to do with P3D, but it is the only problem I've run with the program. It took a while back in the day when I bumped in this problem the first time until I realized what was causing the failure with certain AC

LM isn't a consumer retail company and P3D isn't selling P3D quite the same way MS is selling Windows for consumers. Also, P3D is hardly the main product category LM is selling and it is not aimed to home simming market, but as a part of their professional training systems which most likely include separate support contracts. And for corporate use, MS has totally different licences which pretty much get the activation every time from the installation server. That is just to show, that the world is very different for normal consumer retail. To me it seems that some people think that P3D is just regular consumer enterntainment product, although with my experience, most of them have a lot worse support. I have used P3D since 1.3 that is before the current smooth activation scheme, reinstalled it numerous times and sent reactivation emails probably half a dozen times. Response time has been from one day to few days depending on how the weekend had matched my request. I am very happy about that and there is nothing that requires them to act any faster. Because of the nature of the company and the product, you might get faster support by making separate (and costly) support contract with LM which is common in business-to-business ICT services, if waiting of one day or few days in maximum is just too long. I'd understand the complaint if we'd be talking about full week or several weeks here.

1. After update and a short test flight, everything worked fine. I hadn't much trouble with 2.3 either, so no big improvements noticed as of yet, though.

About the processor, the 5820K has by far the best performance/price ratio. In the end, if money is not an object here, then go by any means with the 5930K. If you are doing something else also with your computer, like video editing, modeling or such, faster alternatives may be a better choice. If I'd be you and looking for the setup with about the same price, I'd pick the 5820K instead and change the 970 to 980. But that's just me.

I don't suffer from stuttering at least to the point it bothers me as long as FPS is good enough (30ish and above), but yes, for example Milviz B55 (P3DV2 version) GPS displays eat huge amount of FPS. With them turned off, the plane isn't any worse in terms of performance compared to pretty much any other detailed GA plane. Loss is easily perhaps 15 fps or so with them turned on. I believe FSX/P3D1.x also took performance hit from glass cockpits, but it at least feels to me that for V2 impact is even worse, at least looking at the B55. Gladly, I like to fly with older planes that have steam cockpits more.

I had EVGA GTX670 FTW 2GB before I got my GTX 780 3GB last spring and definitely the biggest handicap for my 670 was its 2GB of VRAM. As I use surround setup with over triple the normal FullHD resolution, I can very easily get my VRAM usage over 2GB. If usage is capped and more, GPU goes to hybrid mode utilizing system RAM through PCIE. This gives huge performance impact and something that could be easily observed in FPS numbers.

If you are using only APU's integrated GPU, yes, you will be struggling with FPS. As A10 is also quite a bit slower on the CPU side compared to Intel top-of-the line desktop CPUs, it will have an effect too. I quickly looked some reviews of your APU, and for benchmarks with modern AAA games, sites usually ran games on low to medium details and in many cases with 720p resolution to get somewhat acceptable frame rates (over 20). As good CPU performance is still required with P3DV2, performance problems with APU are possibly even more pronounced compared to regular games, which tend to be more GPU limited. AMD APUs are good processors for low-power and affordable multimedia use with light gaming capabilities, but for good gaming or simming platform you are going to need beefier system. As you are complaining about the cloud performance mostly, that could be definitely remedied with a better GPU.

This. I was about to suggest the Fury too, but the name of the developer just escaped me and didn't include it to my suggestion. But definitely great choice too! This great to hear! AF Corsair was somewhat aged model at that point (although still very good looking!) and sales were probably quite low and if sales boosted up significantly, it pretty much sums up the quality of your work! If I remember correctly, you did some co-operation with A2A/AF developing your Corsair package, right? There might be a chance to do the same at least with Flying Stations regarding the Fury. For F8F sadly, I believe that Vertigo doesn't have any of the source files left for the Bearcat as the developer doing the work pretty much vanished and took everything with him. Of course air and cfg editing, paints and RE module are always possible, though.

Exactly what I meant. I think you guys could do miracles with tweaking the air file and .cfg and perhaps adding proper RealEngine model for it. And not to forget bunch of beautiful paints, of course! A2A Corsair expanision is awesome and a nice challenge to fly, just like Corsair should be.

Ditto. This is really beautiful package and not only the flight model, but all the paints are just top notch! Big thanks for all the effort! :Applause: How about taking the Vertigo F8F next to the works and putting some racing power on it too

Generally GTX980 is the fastest single chip GPU available at the moment. I'd say if you are running with 600-series or older GPUs, GTX980 or 970 are the way to go and they offer good performance improvement over earlier models. In fact, these new Maxwells are as amazing as 680 was back in the day: thermally efficent but yet fast. Performance improvement over 780Ti is very marginal according to benchmarks. I'm with "regular" 780 and I will wait for the "full" size Maxwell GPU to come out. Memory bus width isn't something that is determinative to GPU speed. In fact, new 980 has also 880 cuda cores less than 780Ti and it still beats it. It is the overall architecture that matters and with new Maxwells it has improved significantly. Like the [H]ard|OCP's review article stated, as a result of these changes, each Maxwell CUDA core is able to deliver roughly 1.4x more performance per core compared to a Kepler CUDA core, and 2x the performance per watt. Quite amazing results in my opinion and when we get out the next full size Maxwell, that will be one beast of a GPU.