FlyBaby

I have received some good feedback on this forum concerning my search for a new CPU. However, I only fly the Carenado sr22, but I get stutters...I get smooth flying when using default planes. Can anyone fly the Carenado Sr22 / TBM 850 / Phenom 100 stutter free? If so, what is your CPU and GPU hardware?

Yes, the sr20 will be perspective. I dont mind simming with the avidyne system; I do this with the X-plane version. However, the eaglesoft version also cripples P3D. I am now more and more convinced that P3D does not do well with more complicated aircraft (glass cockpits, etc), I have a modest system that can run "smooth" with pretty high settings (and FTX Global, Vector REX) with default aircraft. However, complicated aircraft hinder P3d. My concern is that we simmers are out here upgrading and tweaking, when the problem really needs the attention of payware ac devs and LM to figure why P3D struggles to run complicated aircraft...it is beyond graphics and loading textures.

You and I have similar PC specs… With that said, my main stuttering issue was due to addon aircraft. I can get 30+ fps and a smooth stutter free experience with default aircraft and max settings, even with FTX Global, Vector and REX. I put in a GTX 970 (from another gaming machine) to replace my GTX 670 and the performance remained the same…bad stutters with payware aircraft and smooth performance with default aircraft. No amount of slider adjustment and tweaks changed the fact that “P3D performs perfect with default aircraft” (with no glass cockpit) and performs horrible with more complicated aircraft. I would imagine that PMDG aircraft would stress P3D into bad performance much like my Carenado SR22 does. So what are devs doing to optimize the performance of payware (more complicated) aircraft within P3D? Does the internal architecture within P3D allow for seamless integration with more complicated aircraft? I am not sure where either side could start with a solution, but I am convinced that no CPU, GPU, cfg, or tweak can overcome the flaw that exists within running complicated aircraft within P3D.

I may do the same...it is actually the only plane I am interested in because I want to get my pilot's license in the Cirrus sr20; and I wanted something in the sim as close to it as possible.

Thanks...hopefully I can get things running smooth with the Carenado sr22. I wasn't sure about damaging the CPU...getting into additional cooling etc. I will look into the CPU you suggested.

Pretty much the same...14 -24 for payware; 30+ for default. Thanks, I am assuming that you get this performance with payware planes (like Carenado).

I have narrowed my performance issue down to my CPU and payware (also default Carenado and glass cockpit planes). With payware planes, I can only get 14 - 24 fps and stutters no matter what other display & cfg settings / tweaks I use. I also resized Carenado's 2048 HD textures down to 1024 DT3 textures for the SR22 and still got the same 14 - 24 fps. With default planes, I can easily maintain 30 + FPS and a stutter free flight. With default planes, I can run max settings (including shadows, cloud shadows, 8MSAA , 8 SGSS in NI) and still maintain 30+ about 80% of the time. When flying, I don't actually use cloud shadows or many other high visual settings to give me some headroom for performance in dense areas. I also get the exact same performance in the scenarios above if I am using a GTX 670 4G or a GTX 970 4G GPU. The difference in performance (FPS & stutters) seems to be related to the type of plane I am flying. This all makes me believe that my CPU does not handle payware aircraft well. My CPU is an i5 running at 3.3 Ghz stock with a turbo boost up 3.7 Ghz. Can anyone recommend a good CPU (does P3D make use of 4+ core CPUs) that you “know” can run smooth with payware planes like Carenado? Right now, P3D runs very smooth with default planes; however, I would like to add payware to the experience without tanking my FPS and introducing stutters.

HI, I currently have the Carenado Sr22 plane installed on P3D; unfortunately, it tanks my performance. Does any have the Eaglesoft brand Sr22 (or Sr20) and can comment on the performance hit to P3D? From what I see from the screenshots , the font on the PFD / MFD screen looks really small (speed, altitude etc). I fly in wide-view with a .60 zoom. Can anyone comment on their experience with reading the screens for this plane?

Same here...purchased as a backup; I will install if future updates bring more benefits. But at $5, I could not resist.

+1 BK-117 is a great heli for XP10.

I would like for LM to fix the spinning cloud issue (especially with track ir). This issue (along with stutters and AA) is why I haven't reinvested in P3D yet. Your vid shows what I saw in version 2.0.

Just to clarify your description... On my machine, FSX has always ruled the day (flying), and XPX has always ruled the night (flying). I have alway thought that XPX has an awesome way to cast light onto objects that seemed real (and not just glowing textuers to appears as if light is casting). Such as, the car headlights that cast onto roads and sparkles across water etc in XPX. So...are you saying that P3D now has that "casting light" effect that is similar to the way XPX looks at night? Meaning, I could finally have the best of both worlds in one sim?

I purchased P3D PRO v2 earlier this year and then got a refund from LM. I have been keeping up with each update to see if I should reinvest. Things are getting better, but not worth the hassle (stutters, AA) for me just yet. I am sure I will get P3D again once it is more polished. It does look amazing though...from the vids I have seen.

No amount of dislikes, disagreements or comments to the contrary can erase that fact that LM presented a “bug filled” release. If you want to sympathize with LM, then I am sure they “appreciate your support” all the way to the bank, while you have yet to have the “sim” experience you expected (or hoped for) when you bought it. If you can’t see the scam of using your paying customers to do your testing, then you may have been victimized by it for so long by other developers (like x-plane users), that you now "defend it" because you don’t know any better.

I have worked in the software industry (I develop both games and financial software solutions) and there is such a thing as "pushing back" the release date or not "announcing" a release date until a more stable package is available. Time pressure is no excuse for a "black screen" after loading. Anyone who develops software knows that releasing poor quality software is a bad business ethic, plain and simple...having your consumers pay to be testers is a scam that has somehow become the norm.

I am excited about the upcoming patch. However, P3D was released with “many” obvious bugs that should have been caught during the beta testing period. At best, the patch will get P3D to the state that it should have been when LM released it back in November. I like LM’s dedication to fixing the bugs, but their biggest problem lies within their testing efforts that should not fall back on the consumer. Yes, there will always be bugs, but many of these patch issues were due to “poor” quality control.

I thought that you enabled AERO by setting your Background / Desktop Theme in Windows 7. I just read on another from that there is also an "Aero Peek" option located in another Windows configuration (Performance management / taskbar properties). Does P3d require just the "Areo" theme or the "Areo Peek" option enabled? Or are they one in the same, triggering each other?

Thanks...learning something new every day.

Quick question...I am not at my pc right now. I remember a tessellation checkbox in P3D, but where is the slider?

No access for me...

I thought I would abandon FSX after getting P3D. However, P3D’s performance is not much better than my FSX install, FTXG looks bad, and the AA is awful (especially the runway lines with REX4 installed). If things don’t improve with the upcoming patch, I am going to return it and wait until things get better

I see your point...

Thanks for your reply...this vid looks like a good example, but the altitude is low.

Thanks to all...I got it working.

I have heard others say that they have autogen as far as the eye can see and I have seen some videos where this seems to be the case. However on my machine, I can see that the autogen does not place far from my aircraft. My detail radius setting also has no effect on the autogen I see. Setting it far left or far right makes no difference. I am using FTX Gobal and my scenery settings are all to the far right at the highest level. I am I missing anything? I have i5 2500k @4Ghz, 670 4GB, 8GB RAM, 256 SSD.