BusheFlyer

In terms of my full spec:

AMD Ryzen 3800X
32GB 3600Mhz CL16 Team Group 8Pack Edition ram
Gigabyte Aorus X570 Master
Nvidia 2070 Super
 

Not overclocked anything. You can save a few dollars on the board, the Master however is an amazing board if you want all the bells and whistles. At 1080p the sim sits almost always at 60fps, with slight dips in the busiest areas like NY.  No stuttering at all, smooth as silk. At 1440p then the GPU is the limiting factor with frame rate between 50-60fps. I am only really interested in VR performance, so will see how well it does when VR is released.

All in all, bang for buck.. the Ryzen is a great choice. I came from Intel also, and not at all disappointed. If I all I did was play games then the Intel might be a better choice, but I don't play games really and use my PC for all kinds of work along with simming. 

I use the Ryzen 3800X, and personally couldn't be happier with it. MSFS runs perfectly smooth at 60fps on my setup, dropping to around 50fps in places like NY.  In terms of difference between this and the 3700X.. on paper not a whole lot, however, the 3800X chips are supposed to be picked from the best performing silicon and therefore tend to meet their spec a lot better. 3700X's are a bit like playing the lottery and hoping you get a good one. Mine boosts on all cores to 4500Mhz min.

Delta airlines have the same issue, it's impressive Asobo has chosen to model that. 

Weather working perfectly for me, flew multiple flights today through some very heavy rain. Strong gusty winds also, metars along the routes I flew agreed with the weather conditions. Honestly, it was the best weather we have yet had in simulation. No sudden wind direction changes etc.

Denwagg, not sure what your complaint is here, sids and stars being very close together happens in the real world.. so just fly it like a real world flight. There is something called direct, or VFR perhaps.

You do realize you can manually edit the route in the planner right? The ATC will always accept your route.

There is no issue to fix here, other than perhaps user error.

On 8/23/2019 at 3:17 PM, TechguyMaxC said:

You're complaining about performance drop on a CPU that was released in March 2010.  That's almost 10 years old.  Well outside the average or even expected lifecycle.  

In such an extreme circumstance you really can't be speaking for anyone but yourself.  The majority of users here are at least on Haswell, which admittedly sees more performance reduction from side-channel vulnerability mitigations than post-Haswell products, but nothing like what you're talking about.  

I don't see how this is helpful to anyone.  You can say there aren't any proven exploits in the wild, but that can change in an instant.  It is simply bad advice.  If you want to run 10 year old hardware and turn off protection against what is potentially the biggest vulnerability in the modern era of computing, that's your choice.  I suggest no one else do the same.  

First of all I am not 'complaining', please point out exactly where I was expressing a grievance? I am well aware of how old my choice of CPU is, bang for buck I guarantee you that it's the best single processor ever released for the consumer market. Incidentally.. I have my highly unimpressive Haswell 4790k sitting at on another desk as I write. (4.6Ghz on 4 cores.. at 1.4v).. please.. it still is outperformed by the 6c/12t Xeon at 4.5Ghz 1.3v. (Where is your triple channel memory support Haswell?).

Furthermore re-read my first post where I mention that it is individual choice and whether I recommend it or not.

You might bare the nickname Techguy I assume to add some implied gravitas to the value of your advice, however consider that you might not be the only one that may have had a career working in 'tech', I highly suspect that my career in tech is likely to be considerably longer than yours.

Instead of spending time coming up with implications that I am somehow offering unhelpful advice or indeed 'bad advice' howabout you actually spend time reading the posts I have made on this topic. Otherwise it's all a bit embarrassing isn't it...

20 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

There is no reason to do this.  CPU side-channel vulnerability mitigations do not adversely affect gaming/sim performance in any meaningful fashion.  This only matters if you're running I/O bound workloads, such as database software.

Here's the proof:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-meltdown-spectre-intel-amd,5457.html

https://www.techspot.com/review/1659-intel-spectre-variant-4-performance-test/

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-does-patching-cpu-security-flaws-impact-gaming-performance

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13659/analyzing-core-i9-9900k-performance-with-spectre-and-meltdown-hardware-mitigations

There is every reason to do this IF you use older CPU architecture. Not a single one of those articles is relevant to Intel processors prior to 8th generation as I mentioned in the initial post. Case in point, my Xeon x5670.. I see between 10-20% and even arguably 30% performance drop measured in FPS in P3D with Spectre enabled. That is a pretty convincing reason in my opinion.

4 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

I ran the tool on my 6700k and it said all patched and performance "good".

So I presume no action is needed.

You can try toggling off the patches and then running p3d like a before and after and see if you get any difference or not. It does sound as though the performance hit for your CPU might well be negligible and therefore not worth turning off. For my Xeon it's pretty dramatic.

13 hours ago, rjfry said:

Spectre and Meltdown was patched by Microsoft 5 months ago.

Yes, this tool is designed to disable those patches due to the associated performance loss with them particularly with older CPU's.

So it doesn't launch? I'm afraid I don't know much about why it wouldn't launch. 😕 Perhaps there is some information on the grc page about problems running it.

2 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

I can not even run the app on my system.  Can't figure it out

You right click the InSpectre.exe file and select run as administrator. You are on Windows 10?

1 hour ago, LecLightning56 said:

Does the tool reboot automatically or do you reboot manually having enabled/disabled?

Edit:

I understand a restart is required to effect the changes.

I have an old Intel CPU predating the 8th and 9th series Intel CPUs but cannot see any significant difference enabled/disabled using this tool.

 

Yes, you can re-run the tool to verify the patches are disabled.

To my understanding the performance hit seems to be more exaggerated on the older architectures, like the X58/Xeon I use, hence why I am getting an immediately noticeable difference when enabled/disabled. Even just sitting on the tarmac in the default scenario I see around 6-8fps difference. It's repeatable and verifiable.

There is talk about the 6000 and 7000 series on the internet also suffering performance loss from this.. but I suppose it could be a much less noticeable loss. Perhaps the spikes to the low FPS values we get are less. I can not speaking of any personal experience however or have any way to test myself.

I am sure some or many of you will already be aware of the fairly recently discovered Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities with hardware and software. These have been fixed or patched in Windows 10 and in many BIOS updates for most vendors. However, if you are running an older CPU, basically any CPU before the 8th and 9th series Intel then these fixes have markedly reduced your CPU performance in Windows and also P3D. It is also highly suspect that Intel have 'nerfed' older architectures to make the current generations seem more appealing.. but that is a side issue.

There is however an option to disable these performance reducing patches, via a tool created by Gibson Research Corporation (GRC): https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm

InSpectre reveals the status on your system on both patches and allows you to enable/disable the patches, rebooting in between.

Would I recommend disabling patches for security vulnerabilities? That is your decision to make. However, the performance hit from leaving them enabled in P3D is pretty large on older CPU's.. anything earlier than (8000 or 9000 intel CPUs, and earlier Ryzens). If you have a PC which you mainly use for simming then the consequences of disabling these patches seem pretty minimal. Also.. consider that the vulnerabilities can be mainly exploited via direct PC access to your machine, or via a local area network (or VPN). Given that my PC is in my home and has several additional 'firewalls' of my two dogs and an armed human being to overcome first, I feel fairly safe in disabling the patches personally.

Edit: Just to add.. on my X5670 I see 20%-30% improvement in FPS in the same scenario by disabling both. That is pretty significant.

On 7/29/2019 at 11:43 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

You need to find a balance between CPU and GPU.  If you CPU is pegged at 100% and your GPU is at 50% then your balance is not optimal.

CPU Intensive tasks:

AG Building Density
AI Ground Traffic (road, boat, ships)
AI Air Traffic
LOD Radius

GPU Intensive tasks:

AA levels (SSAA will place a lot of work on your GPU)
Dynamic Lights (in aircraft and/or airport that supports them)
Dynamic Reflections
Shadows (building and Sim Objects)
Terrain, Sim Object, Building Reflections
3D Trees

Adjust these to balance out CPU/GPU usage ... CPU 90% or less, GPU 85% or less should give you "some" headroom to avoid stutters.

Remove your Affinity from the Prepar3d.cfg.

If you are not satisfied with adjusting graphics settings and/or reducing Add-On settings, then I'm afraid you'll have to buy a newer CPU (motherboard/RAM etc.).  The 4790K is a good CPU, but it is over 5 years old.

Add-ons are more than capable at reducing your FPS by 50% or more (Orbx Germany alone drops my FPS by 37%).  You might want to also take a look at what Options you have set for the Airport you're at ... I've found that enabling ALL options at a 3rd party Airport can be a bad idea in terms of FPS and sometimes it might only take one or two options disable at the Airport to make a world of difference in FPS.  For example I recently had very low FPS at YBBN, tried everything in P3D graphics settings to increase the FPS and it made almost no difference (even with very low settings) ... then I went into Orbx YBBN control panel and experimented with options and sure enough it was a few of the Airport options that were triggering my FPS issue (and very high CPU utilization). 

Cheers, Rob.

A modern high end GPU, Nvidia 9 series or greater should be so underwhelmed by anything that P3D can throw it.. except when moving into 4K territory. It is almost entirely CPU bound. All tests and results bare this out. If someone has poor FPS then I would expect 99.9% of the time it is due to not enough drawcalls being produced fast enough.

It's highly unfortunate that Flightsimmers have almost become accustomed to it having lived with FSX. If P3D was released as a 'game' the performance would be considered an absolute joke. It's shockingly bad. What is really needed is a new simulator with a modern engine behind it.

2 hours ago, rwilson881 said:

Still no replies to my emails to Sean.

Still no luck on getting interior sounds.

Hope I didn't waste my $$ on this, because I really like this aircraft in real world and sim.

 

You didn't. The sound works fine, something about your install is causing this. I am certain we will get to the bottom of it. I would help debug this for you, but right now I am about 2 minutes from leaving the house. Will be back later tonight and if not already solved then I will offer my assistance.

All these complaints about SIDS/STARS.. I just don't get it. What is stopping you just flying those, you have nav radios do you not? Get the plates and fly the procedures.. it's not brain surgery! Have we really become so dependent on GPS just doing it all for us?

The baffling thing.. the GPS takes most if not all of the actual thought and sense of accomplishment of the tasks of flying instrument approaches. Surely in a simulator where your life is not in your hands is the perfect place to keep instrument skills sharp? Why on earth rely on a G1000 doing it all for you.. just to sit back and watch it happen..

Despite my post above.. I was planning on changing my CPU/Motherboard/Memory to the 9700K. Although at the moment it's really not a great time to upgrade... with Intels 10th Gen CPU's on the horizon. So, personally I am waiting a bit to see what arrives in the next few months.

In your case, it is vexing.. you should be getting, if not stella performance at least acceptable performance from your hardware. Have you considered trying a more aggressive overclock? Aiming for 4Ghz? If your chip just won't do it, then one thing you might consider.. replace it with an ebay Xeon X5670 or X5675. These can be picked up for only $20-$40.

I still use the X5670 although at 4.3Ghz overclocked. (22x 196FSB @ 1.37V from memory)

I was using a GTX 1060 but changed to a RTX 2070 Super just a few days ago. It sounds like something is not right with his setup. Even before upgrading the graphics card I was getting decent frames. My settings are here: (ignore the resolution.. I use these exact same settings on a 1080p monitor): https://ibb.co/album/eCnBrF

The main difference between upgrading the card.. I get no performance hit at all from running Ultra Shadows and 4xSSA. I have therefore increased the shadow settings.

Some things I can think of, check your windows version is up to date along with your drivers first, also look for any heavy tasks running in the background. Check also how hard your CPU is being pushed by P3D.. you should be seeing high utilization on most of your cores.

22 hours ago, joepoway said:

 

Here's a dropbox link to a complete settings spreadsheet I put together for P3Dv4.5 as well as Active Sky and my complete hardware set-up:

                       https://www.dropbox.com/s/vs3knubixs6sjrx/P3Dv4.5 Settings Chart 7-24-2019.xlsx?dl=0

It has a column of settings for my 4K monitor set-up and one for my Oculus Rift-S.

I also colored coded some of the settings to illustrate whether its a GPU or CPU hitter, these performance factors are a bit old based on P3Dv3 but still are pretty good indicators.

The settings for P3Dv4.5 are optimized for my rig but they are a good baseline on what I change to get good performance in my Rift-S.

Also I suggest you use the Oculus Debug Tool included in the Oculus software folder to set the pixel density (PD) to 1.5 -1.7 and disable ASW.

You need to launch and set the debug tool settings before launching P3D Oculus VR. If you want to change the PD setting close P3D VR make the change hit return and then go back into P3D and select Oculus VR again. 

Good Luck

Joe

Joe, brilliant spreadsheet! I am however more than a little surprised at your choice of settings with your hardware spec. I am running a brand new RTX 2070 Super on a very old chip (X5670 xeon) overclocked to 4.3Ghz. I have extensively tested with shadows at all settings in high intensity areas like New York, my conclusion is the card is easily coping with it and I do not get any noticeable performance impact from running:

P3D Settings for RTX2070

The card never seems to get beyond 40% utilization except when in VR. With the Vertx DA62 I get between 50-70fps in exterior view and in the cockpit 30-60fps. In really intense areas like New York or London it will sink to between 20fps-45fps. 

I am in addition using Tomatoshade which contributes to a slight loss of frames rate.

The thing is it is totally smooth, no stuttering. Lots of eye candy and shadows at anything less than Ultra is really missing out IMHO. Same with Reflections. Those details add a great deal to the immersion factor. Given your hardware, you should perhaps retry turning up shadows and reflections and see if you get any performance hit to speak of.

Honestly, running shadows on Low or Medium for distance is also a massive immersion breaker.. not seeing cloud or terrain shadows where their should be out to the horizon looks so bad.

I think it is the same for most pilots or simmers, once you have slipped the surly bonds your eyes are forever turned skywards. For myself, I confess it's an almost child like wistfulness that keeps me flying, whether in reality or when in the simulator.

4 hours ago, AlphaInfinity said:

All,

 

Thank you for the suggestions! It does in fact look like A2A has the market cornered for GA.

Yes all of A2A's aircraft are excellent, I also use their AccuFeel for non-A2A aircraft. I am hoping one day they add a turbo prop. Until then the Flight1 B200 is the best around.

I am so grateful for developers like A2A, much of the sim world is resolved to modelling the most boring tube liners with ever more automation. I also consider it highly unfortunate that in the real world boeing and airbus pump out increasingly profit seeking models at the expense of actual flying enjoyment. The Concorde remains as the last great airliner.

Anyway I digress.. 

3 hours ago, AlphaInfinity said:

So to be clear, this aircraft has rain effects, visible icing and tcas or taws capability?

It has visible icing which is also modelled on performance (up to a point anyway). It also has TCAS and TAWS. The one thing it doesn't have is rain effects, although it does have wipers.

11 hours ago, fakeflyer737 said:

DO NOT BUY THE F1 KING AIR whatever you do ... 

The F1 King Air is very good IMHO. The refresh rate on the G1000 is lacking yes, however generally speaking it models most of what you need. VNAV is not implemented, but who would use that anyway? It's a beast of a turbo prop, with amazing performance, it handles very nicely and lends itself really well to hand flying instrument approaches.

Basically I use the autopilot simply as a heading/altitude hold for the cruise. Using it for anything else would be missing the point entirely of this hugely upgraded B200.

For a study level, it's close.. it is not perfect but it will give you lots of enjoyment.

Still doesn't work for me. I can't even launch 4.5 without the line to disable VirtualReality in the config. Eagerly awaiting a fix or reversion to 4.4 which was fine.

33 minutes ago, simbol said:

I saw same results in LecLightning56 PC.

I took a full report of diagnostics, I have submitted the data now for more investigation.

Can you do me a favour? run a DXdiag report, save the data and email it to me please at support@fsreborn.com 

S.

Certainly, and your doing me the favour! It's on it's way to you.