gpb500

Free yes, but donations help the cause...or think of it as a tipping, same as going to a restaurant but in this case he spent months on it, not an hour. His work is amazing.

"The short of it is that, in every test we ran, GeForce GTX 1070 is as fast as, or faster than the $1100+ GeForce GTX Titan X." http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-6.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/222280/nvidia-also-announces-usd-379-faster-than-titan-x-gtx-1070 Both are supposedly faster.

That's interesting, I've never seen a high oil pressure situation. High temperature, yes. There is indication from Blue Sky Star they are going to do a soundpack for this plane. It was mentioned some time ago but haven't heard much from them lately. I don't mind the less than sharp textures since it's easy on the FPS, but I wish a few more of the systems were enabled...even so, it's a great plane to fly. Not sure how realistic it is...maybe a REP is needed for it. blueskystar.net

That's amazing.

Just a follow-up...finally picked up the F33 REP and I must say, the plane is so much more real feeling...much more controllable...even taxiing. Feels like a different plane. Completely worth the cost IMO...fortunately I picked up the F33 during the holiday sale...now wish I had grabbed the centurion too. Not a pilot IRL...but this exceeded my expectations. Some planes seem too difficult to fly (won't stay trimmed at constant speed, climb nose up on take off even with supposed proper settings, etc)...this one NOW feels realistic. Recommended.

Found this blog entry but it's really old and not sure it's applicable any longer. But the test outlined might prove something (or not). http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2007/08/texture-compression-is-your-friend.html And recent general explanations: http://www.x-plane.com/?article=setting-the-rendering-options-for-best-performance

Thanks! Looks like your GPU load % is consistent with my numbers here (with a 970) if I haven't max'd out my VRAM. And you clearly have headroom in the amount of VRAM. So I don't personally see an issue. Actually I think you're right on the texture compression thing. That's probably fine. But I wonder if you can run a test with that checked...(more for me than you). I'm curious if you can see a difference in quality and/or performance even though you have plenty of VRAM. I tried once to not use that option and my performance came to a crawl. I'm just wondering if you can be pushing 100 FPS with that turned on...well probably not with 8x AA but still. And that would also confirm the question as to whether you really are CPU bound or not. Also that Anisotropic is pretty low demand, you can probably dial that up to 16 and not see any change in performance. I'd love to try that card in my rig but I'm trying really hard to wait for the next gen.

Would it be possible for you to use GPU-Z and screenshot the sensors tab when you're getting sub par percent utilization? I'm curious...VRAM used, clock speeds, GPU load, bus interface load, and really, would like to see the others too. Even though there probably won't be anything surprising in those numbers, I can compare with mine to see if something sticks out. The only thing I see that's unusual with what you have above is rule of thumb I believe is to always use compress textures (first option). And 8X anti-aliasing is aggressive but with your 1920 rez...I doubt that would be a big problem (and shouldn't impact GPU util %). I get anywhere from 20 to 80 fps at 2X with G2XPL textures (ZL17)...but I'm exhausting my VRAM at the same time. If I switch to 4X AA for the most part, the sim is screwed...and barely usable. That said, my GPU % usually maxes out at 75%. When I first got the card, I swear it would be 99% and just stick there. Not sure what changed...but I had the same issues with a 3GB AMD card which was awful in comparison.

I can't even imagine...and...it's unusual they wouldn't milk it by giving us 2GB at a time over a couple years rather than going straight to 16. Skeptical but looking forward to it.

Yeah because depending on the airport I'll push beyond the 4GB I have and then the bus interface activity number (memory swapping I presume) jumps way up and performance dies. With 6GB I would think he'd be set...aside from cranking up the anti aliasing settings...I find I have to run at 2X max with extended DSFs.

Just an FYI....KPSP v. 2.5 is up...finally got time to rebuild/re-texture the terminals and found a new/recent photo online of what the commuter terminal actually looks like. Google Earth/Streetview can only get so close. Also new runways. Rebuilt a few other buildings too...all showing much higher definition in the texturing and details (I personally hate when things get blurry up close). More can be done (always) but it's one more step. Also, for those flying San Luis Obispo, I posted a big update to that a couple weeks back if you missed it. The link a few posts up still takes you there. Enjoy! -- Greg

Oh yeah, "that". Agreed. Could that be a limitation in how many tiles they can display at one time I wonder.

I don't think I've ever seen this wall. Haze yes. I do not have RTH installed. I'll look for it next flight. Edit: I recorded this a couple days ago...is this what you're referring to?

Yeah that's been a disappointment. I really liked SMP at first but again the thing I hate is that clouds just hang around the plane even with max distance set. I completely understand that you're limited by what XP is providing but it might be a nice touch to just create some fake weather at a distance (same as XP does) that eventually fades (or do I have a setting wrong). I say this as if you guys haven't thought of it...I'm sure you have. I'm sure there are technical issues as a user I'm not aware of. Just hope it gets better, but for now I'm back to stock. I do like your cirrus layer options. Also appreciate your presence here.

Thanks alpha...appreciate the reply and after posting figured it wouldn't be so clear-cut or I would have already found the answer.

Does anyone know if the Carenado + Expansion Pack is more realistic than the AirFoil Labs Cessna? Looking for most realistic experience...and since I don't yet have this particular carenado the cost is the similar. Recommendations? Thanks!

OK thanks. Apparently I'm having difficulty reading today. :(

Oh yeah, my mistake. I thought you were saying you thought you would have to reduce your resolution because you bought a larger display, but you actually said the new display (TV) had a lower resolution. Yep...it's clear now. By the way, are you saying you're running the 8xSSAA setting on the nVidia setting directly? If so, then what do you set it to inside XP? Thanks!

The physical size of a monitor is not relevant to performance, it's the resolution setting/number of pixels. At 1920 x 1080, that's 2,073,600 the video card has to drive. Getting a physically larger monitor with the same resolution (1920 x 1080) looks exactly the same to the video card and work load is identical, so no changes to settings would be needed. Reducing the resolution to 1366 x 768, that's only 1,049,088 pixels, or half the resolution. So it's like doubling the power of your video card or halving it's workload. So it's no wonder you can drive the setting up higher. A 4K monitor has a resolution of 3840 × 2160 which is 8,294,400 pixels which equates to 4 times the resolution of your prior 1920 x 1080 settings. That would put quite the load on the video card. So when quoting settings, it's important to also point out what resolution you're running at to keep things in context. I run 2560 x 1440 (3.6M pixels)...no way can I run 8xSSAA+FXAA. So keep in mind that if you're shopping for a 4K monitor, it's probably going to require a new video card or reduced settings (maybe substantially) from a 1366 x 768 setting. Also a monitor looks best at its native resolution, which is always the number of physical pixels the monitor contains. Using a lower resolution will create artifacts because a 1366 x 768 (as an example) just doesn't fit exactly into a physical 1920 x 1080 matrix...so the video drivers will interpolate as best they can. Artifacts are particularly noticeable when looking at text in windows. In many cases it can look awful...and that's the reason. And with lower resolution on a large monitor, fonts will tend to look less smooth overall. But like Jiimmy said, if it works, enjoy!

OK after further tests, it turns out to make a very meaningful difference here. I'd imagine it varies depending on number of objects, etc in the area you're in. I'm going to wait for the next gen video card next year...gives me something to look forward to. Good luck.

FlyBaby...what are your results if you turn off extended DSF? I know that's not fun...but was thinking (for myself) about using it when needed vs. all the time. Ben said they're loaded whether on the ground or not.

And as I'm sitting here working on scenery I notice that this time starting XP I'm using beyond 3.9GB (1GB in use with XP closed...photoshop, chrome, firefox w/google maps, WED) but suddenly getting awesome FPS. Now, I suppose it could be argued that XP somehow got the fast memory below the 3.5GB mark. Or is it that it's overcast this time? Would be nice to have some consistency. Weird. Here's a cropped screenshot. Not sure why it won't show directly. Screenshot.

Well, I *thought* that last 0.5GB was a lot faster than it apparently is. For me, I'll wait for the next nVidia card. I've had this one a full year and surprisingly the price hasn't dropped much at all. I think what you wrote is all good advice. Haven't seen anything in the news regarding next gen products...will search that up. Thx.

Never heard about the 16GB limit...interesting. Windows 10 is excellent and a good upgrade from 7 (if you're worried about privacy, download the O&O utility to disable the "spy settings" conveniently. Just take a full image of your HDD before you upgrade in case things go bad and you can get back to where you were. I always prefer a clean install too. Regarding the 980 Ti...I don't think you'd be disappointed based on what I've read. Regarding my performance, in a flight from KSBP to KSNA, I noted that when my VRAM dropped to 3.5GB, my FPS shot up to 50, more than double when I was at 3.9GB. So I guess I'm convinced it's VRAM for me. I've had that card for a year and it's been great...probably extended DSF's pushing it over the limit. BTW, I'm not sure Ti stands for Titan as there's a model Titan X that has 12GB of VRAM.