13 COMMENTS

  1. Nico, Are you sure you didn’t get all these settings from my work? 😉

    I think you mean the 7900X, there is no 9700X?

    But what you didn’t point out is that P3D V4 runs about 25% faster than P3D V3 when you apply “equivalent” settings … V3 max = V4 medium on the sliders and don’t enable features exclusive to V4 … so when you run an apples to apples compare V4 will be about 25% faster than V3 even on older hardware (hardware within the last 5 years). I don’t consider this as “getting worse” … gets better even for older hardware.

    Cheers, Rob.

    Report comment

    • I have to disagree. Although you may see a performance increase in certain instances, I have seen largely a performance decrease from Prepar3D v3. Granted, my system is quite old (Running a i7 4790K, a GTX 970), but still I have seen a performance decrease even with Dynamic Lighting disabled. In short, I have noticed that faster systems are able to run v4 a lot better. I’m sure various people have gotten different results, however.

      Report comment

      • I’d need to see how you are comparing V3 to V4 to ensure you’re doing Apples to Apples compare on a base no add-on installation (assuming all your drivers, BIOS, etc. are up to date). I’ve done pretty extensive testing with V3 to V4 “virgin” installs using a variety of hardware (3960X, 7700K, 6900K, 5960X, 7900X CPUs and 970, 1080, 1080Ti, Titan, Titan X, Titan XP) … in every case V4 was about 22-25% higher FPS with fewer long frames (stutters).

        Your 4790K and 970 combo should provide the same performance increase in V4 over V3. I’m sure there are variance but if you’re seeing a decrease then something else might be going on (motherboard driver updates, memory timing, OS update, etc. etc.), but on average with the hardware CPU/GPU combinations I used above (which are not that dissimilar to yours) I saw average 23% with low at 22% to high at 25%.

        Cheers, Rob.

        Report comment

    • You are a prominent figure of of the Avsim forums, we all took your advise at some time or another. And yes, you are correct. I will fix the CPU model. All I am saying is that going forward (i.e. not today) when add-ons are coded for the V4 SDK, there will be less attention to optimization and more eye candy. This will without a doubt put a strain on the older systems. My bigger-picture view is that we dont have FSX with 64bit, we have P3D VXX that is 64 bit. So the lack of OOM errors will create other bottlenecks.
      If you have my same system… Please share with us your experience!

      Report comment

      • There is so much that could be optimized in any product, the question is development cost and compatibility and the “rewards” of that optimization. But either way, any optimization would benefit old and new hardware in “most” cases on the CPU front, but not always on the GPU side.

        For example the move in P3D to CUDA v8.0 libraries will benefit 10xx series nVidia GPUs as there are optimization (from nVidia) in those libraries specifically for the 10xx series … these benefits will surface with CUDA type operations like the Water = Ultra setting in P3D V4.x.

        But, look at Majestic’s Q400, Oleksiy has done some amazing work with optimizations to make that aircraft work well both in V3 and V4 … one reason it took him longer to move the aircraft from V3 to V4 was due to keeping the aircraft well optimized. No idea if he was able to recover the cost of that additional work, probably did it out of pure integrity.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m always for optimization, but being a software engineer for 30+ years there are many things to consider when one embarks on the process of optimization:
        1. Time
        2. Cost
        3. Return investment
        4. Stability with OS variants
        5. Stability with GPU variants
        6. DX stability
        7. Program maintenance (is the optimization so extreme that the code becomes un-maintainable by anyone other than the original programmer)

        Recall the “Assembler code” used in FSX and how no one wanted to touch that because of it’s complexity yet seductive performance benefits … took a decade to flush that code out so progress could be made.

        In addition, optimizations come in many forms, is using less memory beneficial for performance … the answer to this question is “that depends”, in some cases wasting memory is actually much faster (it takes CPU cycles to free memory) and then there is the case of keeping data memory resident even if not immediately needed as to avoid I/O operations which are slower. So there are situations where wasting memory is better for performance … optimized to performance rather than memory usage.

        I was jesting on the advice front … we’ve come to very similar (almost identical) solutions for hardware to meet “our” needs (actually more like if there was anything better we’d buy it) … all good and I agree folks like you and I and a few others are certainly NOT the mainstream Flight Simmer (there are however a surprisingly more very high end flight sim users out there in world, more than I thought as I seem to bump into more and more every week).

        But I do agree with you that as more features are added to any flight simulator, they “may” come with a requirement to improve one’s hardware … but it’s entirely an end users “choice” to decide if they want to use the new feature(s). No one is being forced to check the box next to Dynamic Lights. But V4 is faster than V3 when you do Apples to Apples compare. I will ALWAYS keep wishing for more and more features (from physics to FX) and visual candy … that’s what defines “simulation”.

        Cheers, Rob.

        Report comment

  2. Nico,
    I could not agree more and is something I have been contemplating since P3D V4 came out. Are the developers going to go so wild just to sell a product that I am going to have to upgrade my system every year? I am currently running an i7-7700k that I just purchased in July of 2017. I had to wait 5 years to get that upgrade as I live on military pension. I am lucky to have an EVGA Titan as a video card out of the kindness of a friend who had 2 of them and no longer needed them (his other 1 went to someone else before me gosh darn it!).

    What I am getting at is will we see Flightsim become an elitist hobby only for those who can afford the latest monster PC’s? I guess time will tell.

    Ross G.

    Report comment

    • Absolutely not! You have nothing to worry about. Like Rob mentioned, it becomes the user’s choice to check the box. But lets face it, we all want to check as many boxes asvpossible.
      Your situation is more what my article was about. You actually have a great system, which would have served you well throught the life of FSX wich was long. We are reaching a point where those users that want to push the limits are going to hit brick walls. For instance, VR is something new for p3d. And it is arguably unaffordable to the resources of the average simmer.

      Report comment

    • Good point Greg. I actually chatted about this with Pet in great length at the Prosim forums. He basically accepted the fact that 20 FPS at FT EHAM is as much as he is going to get. He has his 7900x clocked at 4.8GHz and does NOT use viewgroups. He uses the P3D v3.2 method of setting up multiple displays. I will touch base with him again and report back.

      Report comment

  3. In my opinion, P3Dv4 has moved so far away from FSX that now for the first time in over 12 years we finally have a platform that is ahead of current technology. Dynamic lighting thus far is the most impressive new addon but impossible to use at night no matter how advanced your configuration is. This is more or less FS2002,2004, & FSX over the years where we received features that our computers could not keep up with at the beginning. No doubt I have seen a vast improvement in V4 with my system to the point where I’ve been able to increase my settings even further to the point where I’ve been able to increase my settings even further to achieve the same performance as version three which was good and my streams denote that. The only downside is my 1080FTW is screaming for air now.

    This article although far beyond what the average person can afford, does certainly denote what will be necessary in the future it’s just a matter of waiting on prices to come down which they certainly are as new tech comes out.

    Report comment