Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Good

About PurdueKev

  • Rank
  • Birthday February 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Frederick County MD

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

550 profile views
  1. Thanks to the OP for pointing out the mystery of the Tesselation Factor setting - to this day I still don't understand how it works or what impact it has. I understand what it is described to be doing - which is supposedly offloading more of the terrain rendering to the GPU - but I have yet to find any scenario where I can detect any actual difference in performance. I would suspect that with a capable GPU you should see a difference in moving that from the CPU to the GPU, but I haven't seen it. I believe you are supposed to need it set to Ultra if you also run water at Ultra - but frankly, I usually max out water at High as the Ultra waves are often way too much under certain weather conditions, especially in a float plane.
  2. I am on a fresh install as well. I completely uninstalled P3D v5 and all addons before trying HF2, so this is with the full installer and I am slowly adding the addons one at a time. I am going to try to uninstall/reinstall all of the Visual C++ Redistributables this evening to see of that makes a difference. The unhandled exception just prior made me wonder if antivirus might be a factor? I have exceptions in my anti-virus and firewall for all of my P3D-related folders, but there are so many places where program data can be stored that maybe I am missing a something.
  3. I just had a similar crash for the first time with HF2: Faulting application name: Prepar3D.exe, version:, time stamp: 0x5eebf566 Faulting module name: VCRUNTIME140.dll, version: 14.26.28720.3, time stamp: 0x5e74aeb1 Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x00000000000012de Faulting process id: 0x40cc Faulting application start time: 0x01d64f3abf50ae98 Faulting application path: D:\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v5\Prepar3D.exe Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\VCRUNTIME140.dll Report Id: 2da27e3d-f8d9-43a5-8787-7ee40b6b1354 Faulting package full name: Faulting package-relative application ID: 3 seconds prior, this .NET runtime error was reported in Event Viewer: Application: Prepar3D.exe Framework Version: v4.0.30319 Description: The process was terminated due to an unhandled exception. Exception Info: exception code c0000005, exception address 00007FFAF46712DE I ran the system file checker, and it didn't find any issues. I have Orbx NA and OpenLC, ActiveSky, ChasePlane and was flying the Aerosoft A320 and approaching FSDT KCLT (about an hour into the flight) when it happened. Same deal - ATC called me and "bam." I had completed several flights with the Airbus without an issue, so I don't know if it is related to the scenery. But as mentioned, it is really frustrating to try to pinpoint issues because these errors don't always have a pattern that can be traced to a specific addon - unless it is repeatable, it is hard to know if you are fixing it by removing the addon.
  4. Is 19041 part of the new 2004 release, or are you still on the previous one? I wanted to update to 2004 but Windows won't let me even when I signed up for the Insider program - Windows Update runs a compatibility check and then says "nope." I guess I still have something in my system triggering the "compatibility hold." I do agree that HF2 is noticeably smoother (and faster), even with slightly older drivers. In dense locales, I don't see many long frames either.
  5. That is the method I used. At least for me, the Turbine Duke is one of the aircraft with which I saw a fair number of repeatable "display driver hang" crashes with the initial release version of P3D and with HF1. I have been pretty methodical with HF2 to introduce addons slowly so I can isolate any "problem" addons, and so when I experienced the same type of crash I repeated the same flight with other aircraft and completed those flights without issue. Granted, I did not test thoroughly to isolate that the Duke was indeed the culprit, and it is certainly possible it isn't the source of the problem; I just don't really want to spend the effort to do controlled de-bugging when the aircraft isn't technically updated for v5. Believe me I hated uninstalling it, because the Turbine Duke is my favorite and most used aircraft in P3D. I still have my copy of v4.5 installed and the Duke lives on in there - if I have time I may bring it back in to test further. If you are having success with the Duke in v5 that is great! I just haven't had the same success with it on my system yet.
  6. I am having a great deal more success with HF2 compared to the earlier versions. I completely uninstalled everything related to v5 (program and addons) and started over clean with HF2. Thus far, several scenarios and addons that for me would have crashed under HF1 have been fine in this latest version (so far - knock on wood), and the performance overall is noticeably improved over HF1 and earlier. An encouraging step in the right direction. I am slowly installing addons and testing them methodically; so far, the only CTD I have experienced with HF2 is when I tried the Realair Turbine Duke (which of course is not - and almost certainly never will be - updated for use with v5). Sadly, I may have to retire that wonderful bird, which is a shame as there is really no other turboprop replacement currently officially compatible with v5. Cautiously optimistic as I introduce more addons... I am not using Enhanced Atmospherics right now, as I find the lighting much too dark in daytime overcast conditions, the tech just isn't yet effective in representing varied cloud types and the cloud-to-ground interactions are still off-putting (although improved). I think I am going to avoid EA for now until it is further advanced or out of beta.
  7. Well, YMMV... I too followed that guide once upon a time and ended up with a mess of a Windows install because of it.
  8. This is my experience as well with 9700k. Heat is a much bigger pain for me with it than when I had an 8700k, where I was fine with cooling but I would be uncomfortable with the voltages. I have had to go with AVX 1 or 2 to get the 9700k stable.
  9. Hi Rob - I am not necessarily saying they are obligated to share exactly how they employ them, and yes AVX instructions are good tools to employ to improve performance - totally agree. It would be helpful though if they were more communicative in what issues they can replicate and what they can't as people wait for a hotfix. Personally, I would prefer to get an overclock stable without AVX offset, but sometimes you get every other stress test to pass and yet you crash out immediately with the latest version of Prime95 (that uses AVX instructions), and it just isn't worth the added voltage and heat to try to get that to work with AVX=0. It all depends on the use case you have and how much time you put in.
  10. This is very encouraging to hear Rob. What is so frustrating is that L-M themselves are practically "radio-silent" on feedback related to the pages and pages of reports on their "support" forum - and I am using the word in quotes deliberately, as I see a bare minimum of useful support or engagement from L-M staff on issues that people are having. Instead, they have the same couple of users - who do not appear to be affiliated with L-M in any official capacity - who chime in on every bug report or tech support request and get in the way of people who are trying to report substantive information that may be useful in solving a problem or get people up and running, or that L-M could use to investigate a potential bug. I am to the point where I don't bother posting issues there, because it is like getting onto one of those endless customer support hotlines where you never interact with a real human. Your comment on the use of AVX instructions, for example - that is a massively important piece of information for people to know. Overclocking isn't exactly an obscure thing anymore; I have searched and searched for anything where L-M acknowledges anything related to how they employ AVX, and yet that is incredibly useful information for people who are setting up overclocks, particularly if P3Dv5 is turning out to be particularly demanding in terms of stability. The overall level of engagement with the community on their part is discouraging. Other than "the next hotfix will be coming in the next few weeks" they have said little to nothing on which issues might be legit areas they are addressing, which ones aren't in their wheelhouse (because the addon developers need to work on them, or maybe it is a driver issue that falls to Nvidia or AMD), and which ones are really limitations due to the users' systems or settings. And so everyone is left to speculate and try to come up with their own home-brewed work-arounds. I mean, which drivers have they tested on? Are there issues they are working on with AMD or Nividia to address stability under DX12? Should people be updating to the next Windows build? They have an add-on eco-system that is a core part of the value proposition for this software, but they don't talk about which issues they might or might not be looking at that impact the use of popular add-ons. V5 is brilliant when it works, but L-M are just taking the wind out of their own sails on this when they don't address the customer end of things very well.
  11. It's possible that nothing you try will solve that crash; there are several pages of similar errors on the Prepar3D forum right now and there is no common thread, add-on, or cause connecting them. You may end up spending several hours reinstalling drivers and trying to diagnose where this is coming from, and still see the same crashes. Some people are not seeing these errors, or are reporting that they can minimize or eliminate the crashes by turning down settings, but others are not having the same success with those strategies. It seems like the next Windows update might be successful in addressing this, but we have had no official guidance or statement from Lockheed-Martin other than that they are working on the next hotfix. Personally, I am waiting on those two developments until I spend any more time with v5.
  12. Anders: It isn't a poor or "trolling" question, because I think you are asking it without just making a snap judgement (to be fair, some people are making the opposite snap judgement... i.e. that the issues must absolutely be the user's setup or settings and not even accepting that there might be some common issues in the software that need to be addressed). And it has definitely crossed my mind that the overclocking might be a source of problems (I am an engineer, that's how I think). Yes, I do have my CPU overclocked and running the manufacturer's factory XMP profile for my memory, though no GPU overclock or anything else. But like Steve I have also tested P3D v5 without any overclocks as well - just stock BIOS settings as you said to test performance under default conditions, and I have still seen crashes. I haven't done near enough testing to pinpoint if it less frequent or the same, or if there are certain combinations of settings that trigger things, but that's part of the problem... my system really does work flawlessly for every other demanding application that I throw at it (the only other sim I have these types of issues is the latest beta for X-Plane - and that's a public beta where it is accepted that there are going to be bugs and instability), and I can't justify spending the time to go troubleshoot a specific combination of settings that are causing a problem on my rig when it is literally only P3D that is a problem for me (at least as far as non-beta releases go). I guess that is part of the point - yes, there could absolutely be a combination of settings or interactions in my system that don't "play nice" with this version of P3D. But I am a user of the software, not a tweaker or a tester, and I can't justify compromising system performance on everything else just to be able to run this version of P3D without crashing.
  13. Unfortunately, I am getting more than the usual volume of CTD's in v5 with this aircraft (only 2 out of 6 flights finished successfully), despite quite conservative settings. I am not sure if it is the ECAM hardware rendering, the beta TrueGlass or something else, since my VRAM numbers never get close to my limit and I have quite conservative settings. This probably goes back in the hangar until at least the next v5 hotfix or update - I just don't have time to go chasing where the issue might be. Focusing on my more stable aircraft for now.
  14. Again, where did I say that? Some people may need to turn down their settings because their hardware is not capable. Some people may have poorly-optimized overclocks on their GPU or CPU. But more than enough users are reporting CTD's who actually have more than capable hardware, have their sliders already turned down, aren't overclocking anything and/or do know how to properly maintain their Windows environment that such suggestions are overly simplistic for this initial release of P3D. Multiple developers have confirmed L-M is working on addressing issues and that the current release is not fully stable yet. It sounds like that is being addressed. "Just turn down your sliders/buy better hardware" is not an acceptable long-term solution in that context. Thankfully, it doesn't appear L-M thinks that is a long-term solution either.
  15. Please don't put my words in my mouth. I never said software releases are perfect. I am referring to certain commenters around here who dismiss any CTD reports with the tropes "just turn down your settings" or "don't overclock your hardware."
  • Create New...