vpwebsvc

Here's an embedded link photo to my previous post which used a link to my dropbox. Just figured out how to do an embedded link.

Here's a screenshot of what the PAPI lights look like at KMRY on approach after I made the adjustment in size by going into lights.txt, located at the Resources\bitmaps\world\lites directory and change the 5th element from .7 to 2.5 at line 368 that reads BILLBOARD_SW VASI 100 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 Although the lights are much larger and visible from distance take note that the two lights that should be all red are essentially white with a red halo around them. Haven't figured how to change that. PAPI lights on approach at KMRY

I also can assure you you're not the only one! When I first obtained the original x-plane 11 version this was not an issue. Since the updates the VASI and PAPI lights are not as visible from distance as they were previously and the red lights which once were quite visible show only a trace of red. I have found many others complaining of this. I have made no hardware changes to my flight sim computer so it's obviously something with the more recent updates of x-Plane 11. I was able to go into lights.txt, located at the Resources\bitmaps\world\lites directory and change the 5th element from .7 to 2.5 at line 365 that reads BILLBOARD_SW VASI 100 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 . This significantly increased the size of the VASI and PAPI lights but the so-called red lights are barely visible and washed out.

You are not alone. My VASI and PAPI just started doing the same thing. They are no longer visible from longer distances and they stay white all the time. Just started within the last week or so. I'm using x-Plane 11.11 and never had an issue until just recently. Have been trying to figure out what's causing it and what folder inside x-Plane controls this.

Appreciate the detailed info. This is very helpful.

I may need a little clarification as to what the definition of a "job" means as it relates to P3D. Could that term be equivalent to a particular unique task that is being performed by P3D? Can only 1 "job" exist at any time on a specific core assigned to P3D or can multiple P3D "jobs" exist on the same core? I'm assuming the latter unless there are only 4 unique "jobs" produced by P3D which intuitively I would suspect unlikely. Appreciate any clarification that would increase my understanding.

Got it. We can easily use the Calculator to see what the Hexidecimal equilavent is of the AM decimal we intend to use when utilizing a batch file.

SteveW: I think the proverbial lightbulb may have finally gone off in my head after reading your most recent post. All the various discussions about the AM issue were causing me confusion and I instinctively knew I was missing something. When I first read your statement about using a 248 AM I initially thought you were referring to inside of the P3D config file which made no sense to me. As it was obvious that you know quite a bit about this subject I went to the link (Starting apps with a batch file for affinity) and I realized that was not the case. So I think I'm now starting to grasp this subject much better. I do have some questions regarding the link but before going there I want to ensure that my current understanding is basically accurate. Under the assumption that we are talking about a 4 physical core processor with HT active and one has additional add-ons with the desire to keep them off some of the first few cores that P3D will use and we wish to have P3D use 4 of the eight cores available, it becomes necessary to use an AM=85 in P3D config file (01,01,01,01). It's my understanding that the reason for not using AM=15 (00,00,11,11) is that placing P3D on the first 4 logical cores created by the first 2 physical cores is not as efficient as putting P3D into the first logical core created by each of the 4 physical cores (0,2,4,6). We then could create a batch file to set an affinity mask = 248 (11,11,10,00) for one or more add-ons which keeps them off of core 0 and core 2 which are the first two used by P3D. Hopefully I have gotten this correct. Assuming I do I have some questions: In the specific assumptions above is starting the add-ons on core 3 going to cause any significant reduction in the effectiveness of P3D on core 2 inasmuch as they are both controlled by the 2nd physical core? Is there any merit to shoving add-ons to just cores 5, 6 and 7 allowing P3D exclusive use 0, 2, and 4? Perhaps the answer to both 1 and 2 is it depends on the add-ons in question and their particular demands. With regard to the batch link you provided I wasn't clear on a few things: In that post there is the following: I will use a fictitious weather program called FSWeather.exe found in the folder "C:\Program Files (x86)\FSWeather". Rename it FSWeather.bat. If I take it literally this seems to imply to change the extension of the fictitious program from .exe to .bat which didn't make sense. Perhaps it means that we are to create a batch file that will be given the name FSWeather.bat?? One the lines for this potential batch file reads: C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C start /affinity F8 FSWeather.exe. Below that batch example it then reads: "F8=248= . . . ." How did F8 become = to 248? Is there something else required to make F8 mean 248? I think that's it for now. Let me know if I'm on the right track and if you can help clarify the batch file confusion I'm having. Rick

As someone who has had FSX for several years and only a couple of weeks ago added P3D v. 3.1 into my dedicated flight simulation computer it became immediately obvious that there are significant differences or improvements in this particular version of P3D versus FSX. A brief comparison of the two configuration files, while similar, also have some striking differences with many settings in P3D that don't exist in FSX. After my initial flight in P3D the most obvious visual difference on my system was the inherent better smoothness of P3D. I don't pretend to be an expert in why this is the case but I suspect it's the addition of Hardware Tessellation if you have a graphics card that can support it. It also became evident fairly quickly that the settings that many of us used in NV Inspector were not needed or relevant. We no longer needed to have Anisotropic filtering set in Inspector as P3D v.3.1 has multiple settings available within the program. AA control is also different inasmuch as P3D has various multisampling settings available that do not exist in FSX. There's also HDR lighting, shadow reflection and distance controls, and mipmapping of VC cockpit panels that are not in FSX. There is also a P3D pdf file entitled Settings that contains a section entitled Advanced Settings that indicates a number of P3D settings in the configuration file that can be altered that are not in FSX. It is, however, worthy to note that two popular "tweaks" that many use in FSX (LOD_RADIUS and FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION) are still relevant in P3D. Many use 6.5 for the LOD_RADIUS setting in FSX which had to be done by changing the default value from 4.5 in the FSX config file. That is no longer required as P3D has changed the Level of Detail Radius slider in the Scenery setting tab to take the setting to 6.5 if set to Max, 5.5 if set to Ultra, etc.. FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION which doesn't exist in either the FSX or P3D configuration files can also be added to both. By default this setting is 0.33 but for upper end computer systems it can be lowered which will improve frame rates. Typically many use 0.15 as starting setting. At some point a low setting will start to show the "blurries". I'm much less concerned with the similarities between P3D and FSX as I am with what's different, new, and improved in P3D V3.1. Thus the question regarding hyper threading and it's relevance to P3D. I'm also curious if P3D has improved the default mesh and landclass that existed in FSX among other things. In my desire to increase my knowledge of the inner workings of P3D V3.1 and what various settings can do for increased quality and/or performance I have found many conflicting suggestions and recommendations which make it harder to determine what's correct and what's not.

I'm not seeing dramatic differences between the samples you posted. There are some subtle differences in the average FPS over time. It appears that the 116 example doesn't have its average FPS dropping quite as much as the 212 example but the difference to my eye doesn't seem dramatic. Can I assume these are being tested on P3D and if so what version and are you using the same flight or something else?

I assume the Y axis is FPS. What is the X axis?

I'm not sure I completely understand your explanation of how FSX and Prepard3d ver 3.1 differ, if indeed they do, on how they work with Hyper-Treading activated. According to Nick N who seems to be an acknowledged Guru on FSX he states in his FSX Bible that: "The real terrain 'guru' Adam from Aces as well as Phil Taylor specified years ago that FSX does not support any logical core threading (hyper thread). The reason you SEE logical core activity in the Windows CPU monitor window is because the physical cache is used for each logical (hyper thread) core. Logical core means there is no 'physical' hardware core but the hardware cache in use is there and FSX is DUMB so a thread is spawned due to the physical cache in use, but the data is never processed by FSX!". In my experimenting with my dedicated flight simulator computer utilizing a Haswell i7 4790 processor with hyper threading on and off I never saw any indication of FSX improvement with hyper treading on and it fact it appeared to be detrimental. What prompted my question is at the Gatwick website dealing with how to calculate the proper Affinity Mask depending on what cores to use, there is a statement that says "Please be aware that P3D V2.x & V3.x by default will use all Cores and most importantly all Threads also on CPU's that have Hyper Threading enabled. On machines with four or more cores, it will dedicate logical core 0 and thread 0 to rendering tasks. To this end, it is suggested that the Expert Mode calculator be used to tune your P3D V2.x or V3.x Affinity Mask". That statement suggested to me that Nick's claim that FSX cannot effectively use hyper threading is accurate and more importantly that P3D V2.x or V3.x can use it. Since I've just recently installed P3D V3.1 on it's own dedicated SSD drive on my flight simulation computer this statement implies that even if I choose not to run an Affinity Mask I may want to activate hyper threading when I run my P3D simulator. Thus the reason for my initial question, is the statement that later versions of P3D do in fact effectively use the additional logical cores created by activating hyper threading accurate regardless of whether one chooses to use an Affinity Mask? With regard to the use of an Affinity Mask it would seem to me the only likely reason one would need to use one is if they have too many other programs or services running that are interfering with FSX or P3D operating effectively. Giving up one or more cores to either FSX or P3D to use seems counter productive to me. The better solution might be to use Task Manager to assign a program (TrackIR for example) to using just the last available core rather than taking cores away from the use of FSX or P3D. I also find the use of Alacrity a very helpful initial program to use to shut down unnecessary programs and services prior to running FSX or P3D.

I get the exact same result when I installed REX Essential Plus and use it with Prepar3d v. 3.1. Regardless of which REX wave animation I select the result is always the same similar to the photo attached above. The black bands appear to be waves and depending upon where you are in relationship to the sun (or in this case the moon) the light is reflecting off the top of the "wave". I've tried unchecking the REX wave and ocean water settings but nothing changes. Nor do using different REX wave animations if I leave them checked. I do not have this problem with REX Essentials and FSX. I will note that a file is created each time I start Prepar3d labeled WaveConstantsV3.xml in the same location as the Prepar3d config file. I've tried to change the name to a .bak file and even delete it and a new one is always generated. I suspect this may be the culprit but not sure.

I'm curious if it's been confirmed that Prepar3D v.3.1 can effectively use the logical cores created by activating hyper-threading? FSX does not use it and since this is a byproduct of FSX that obviously has been enhanced perhaps it can. The Gatwick website regarding using the affinity mask indicates that Prepar3D version 2.x thru 3.x does use both the physical and logical cores but wondering if that is indeed fact.