P3DV6 / P3DV5 FPS issue with newest HW and volumetric clouds

[rtopinka]

We have spent 4 days looking for optimal FPS settings. P3DV6 is 30-50% less FPS compare to P3DV5 in 4K resolution with similar graphics settings. When we switch for 3x projectors, each one fullHD with multicamera view, we get literally half FPS compare to 1x 4K LCD testing setup. Finally we found out volumetric clouds slider gets ULTRA =20fps, HIGH = 40fps, MEDIUM = 60fps with multicamera view. How you can have such huge impact just on clouds with P3DV5? I do not really mention poor FPS with P3DV6 at all. How you can even release such poor P3DV6 version and P3DV5 where multiview takes half of frame rate with volumetric clouds FPS demand computing? Have you ever see how well works the FS2020 with multiview setup on 12K, 3x 4K with different level graphics?

My PC setup: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 64 GB DDR5, Nvidia 4080 Super, and a resolution of 3x FullHD 1920x1080 on multiview setup for 180 degree visual.

What CPU is more optimized for P3DV5, latest AMD / Intel? What GPU? I guess P3D V5/6 still used OLD FSX engine tweaked with DirectX12, will you ever support Nvidia DLSS?

regards, Radek

[JorgenSA]

Radek,

As a starting point, go here:

https://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv6/prepar3d ... ation.html

To calculate your AffinityMask, use this calculator:

http://izn-flightsim.s3-website-us-east ... inity.html

Your AMD CPU has a base clock rate of 4.2 GHz, overclock that to at least the other side of 4.5 GHz (beware of temperatures). Also overclock your RAM to the same clock rate as the CPU.

Jorgen

[rtopinka]

Dear Jorgen, thank you for reply. I can switch for different HW and use this HW for something else. I need to understand more how this P3D V5/V6 works, what CPU should I use to increase FPS and best visual quality in the same time. This AMD is supposed to be best CPU / price for most games on the market, but is it also for P3D? regards, radek

[JorgenSA]

Well, this could lead to a flame war!

But anyway, traditionally, AMD CPUs (and to a degree, GPUs also) were seen as being more for "office use", e.g. as wordprocessors and the like.

I will emphasize STRONGLY that this was in the past.

But these days, there does not seem to be too many differences in performances. Sometimes, AMD has the models with the best performace, sometimes nVidia does. The market fluctuates constantly, and the competition is fierce.

It more seems to come down to what people are used to working with. In my own case (personalized, opinionated opinion) I prefer Intel CPUs, ASUS motherboards (i am used to working with their BIOSes) and nVidia graphics cards.

To push the frame rate I would say overclock the CPU (but not the GPU, that could lead to instability) and the RAM. How much depends on your temperament, and the risks you're willing to take - there is always a risk involved in overclocking. But remember that frame rate is only one component of the simulation experience, overall smoothness is what I aim for.

And to be sure that everything is working optimally and stably, make sure your BIOS and your system's various drivers are updated. Not only those for your graphics card, but also those for example for the various devices on your motherboard.

Jorgen

[bullfox]

I get frame rates in the high 30s to 60s with my setup at very high settings, all the way right or next to all the way right. My system specs are below. Resolution of the screen is 3440x1440. I am using vsync and triple buffering because it is much smoother with my setup at high settings. I use Rex Sky Force for clouds and don't use volumetric clouds.

I find that SSR and SSAO are big frame rate sinks, 15 or 20 fps, but I use them anyway because they look so good. I fly mostly private aircraft and regional turboprops.

With frame rates in the low 40s the CPU is running at about 50% utilization and the GPU can be all the way up to 99% utilization. I'm thinking of uprating the video card to an RX Radeon 7900XFX latter this year in hopes that prices will drop. One benchmark site rates it at about 50% faster than the card I have. Now that I can use IFR flight plans again, I'm pretty satisfied with my system and P3D6.

[rtopinka]

Please consider, we are talking here aboutmultiview, 3x projector for 180 degree visual. When you switch to multiview, you are in half of one channel compare 3 channels/

[bullfox]

The trade off that has to be made is visual detail vs. smoothness. Frame rates are bragging rights. Its how smoothly the software and hardware presents the experience of flying in the real world that gives the experience immersion and verisimilitude. By smoothness I mean lack of jitteriness, lags and hesitation. If you are getting those artifacts you have to cut back on the visual settings and/or look for the bottleneck in your hardware.

The latest version of P3D6 is much richer in detail and especially in lighting than P3D5. My experience is that it increases the load on the video card since in P3D5 my video card was rarely maxed out.

Also, I rarely fly into large urban areas like Chicago or Seattle. And when I do I have to lower the settings or I get frame rates in the 20s and jitteriness. There are always compromises.