Jump to content

DeeJay

Members
  • Posts

    264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Germany (South West)
  • Interests:
    music, family, friends, garden, aviation/flight simulation

Recent Profile Visitors

1,681 profile views

DeeJay's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/6)

58

Reputation

  1. @Pete: Thanks so much. This must be one of the best and most conclusive posts I've read in the past years!! I might give that SU10 thing a try, but I see myself ending up with a well cooled 3060 ti. I'm perfectly happy with the visuals of MSFS running with 1080p, and honestly I hardly see a difference there to 1440p, just the performance difference is very noticeable. However, running P3d in 1080p res with the 1440p monitor gives a very "milky", washed and ugly image, strange enough ONLY in full screen mode. That's why I'm running it in 1440p, which still looks perfect and performs OK, I can't say really very good. But, yeah, whatever I did so far, memory usage is always at max, and even if I clock down the GPU, the fans howl awfully.
  2. Hey flight simmers, I intend to buy a new graphic card soon. At the moment, I have a Palit RTX 2060 Super (8GB), and I'm running a i7 9700 @ 4,4 GHz and 16 GB DDR4 RAM. The cpu runs nice and quiet. My problem with the graphic card is not even so much performance, but temperatures and noise. I can't stand the whining of the 2 fans running at 2500 rpm at 85°C, even more in MSFS (which I hardly fly yet), less so in P3d v4, but bad enough there. And if I'm gonna upgrade anyways, I would look forward for some better performance, too, as I'm running an ultrawide monitor at a 3440 x 1440 resolution now, and that forced me to make some compromises with the settings in P3d. Now, I've found the RTX 3060 with 12 GB VRAM, for example here: https://www.alternate.de/EVGA/GeForce-RTX-3060-XC-GAMING-Grafikkarte/html/product/1727976 But in various forums I've read recommendations for the RTX 3060 ti as the better choice, but this one only has 8 GB VRAM. Now, my question is: How important is VRAM and what makes the ti "better" despite having less VRAM? I could see a biiiig improvement in loading times at my last upgrade (GTX 970 4GB => RTX 2060 super 8GB), and I concluded that this would be the benefit of having a lot more VRAM. Furthermore, I've read how important VRAM would be for P3d v5 - which I don't have yet, but who knows... I guess MSFS wouldn't complain either about 12 GB VRAM, right? I know, a 3070 ti would give me both, but apart from the much higher price, I fear this would be overkill compared to my CPU anyway (??). Thanks in advance. Dominik
  3. Thanks a lot. Oh I see, my hardware description in my signature isn't up to date anymore, sorry. Meanwhile I have: Intel i7 9700 @4.4 GHz, Zotac RTX 2060 Super (slightly "downclocked" for temperatures), 16 GB RAM, only SSD hard drives, Win 10 64bit, dual monitor: 1x ultrawide 3440x1400 for simlulation itself + 1x 1920x1080 for charts and additional apps. At that time, I was flying in the PMDG 777-200ER. However, 80% of simming takes place in the FSL A32X. OK, you clearly have the more capable graphic card, but you also have higher settings in nearly every aspect. So, if your past settings with a GTX 1070 has worked out for v1, then my system with my slightly lower settings should be able to copy with v1, too. The one thing that confuses me is that I get way, WAY better performance nealry everywhere else in the sim with the same aircraft and the same settings. For example at Auckland with FTX NZ installed or at Amsterdam with OLC EU and FT EHAM. I also remember I had better performance when I used the same FTX AU back in FSX times. But if AU v2 adds even more details, it might not be the best idea to add it, even if it looks amazing.
  4. Dear Orbx team, dear flight sim enthusiasts, can anyone of you tell something about the difference in performance between FTX AU v1 und v2? As I read the discription of v2, there is of course a lot more detail included. Does this come with a performance cost in comparison to v1? Or is performance even improved because newer scenery design or rendering techniques have been used? So far, I still have v1, because I switched nearly all VFR flying to MSFS. On the other side, I'm flying airliners in P3d v4 most of my time, and despite flying IFR, I still love some nice views outside the windows on departure or approach. And the default LC (only with FTX World textures) is simply poor without at least OpenLC sceneries installed. As they aren's availible for AU, I'm using FTX AU v1 in order to have something there at all. However, performance is terrible, especially around big airports like Sydney and Melbourne, I would say a lot worse than TE England on the approach to LCY for example (excluding loading times at the beginning). For the case of Sydney, I have FlyTampa YSSY installed, but performance is also as bad, when flying/looking away from the airport. Same thing in Melbourne with your YMML scenery. It's better in Brisbane. In Sydney, there are even flickering night textures in the middle of the city at daylight. Before I spend more money on P3d VFR addons, could you tell me if this is gonna be better with FTX AU v2? Thanks a lot. Regards, Dominik
  5. I've decided that my VFR time in P3d is over, at least concerning any further purchases. But you force me to make a few exeptions ... at least for Van Nuys and TE Eastern Alps!! Regards, Dominik
  6. If you're willing to spend as much money for a projector than for everything else together about flight simulation, then sure
  7. Amazing! I didn't know so much has happened to the real one since the last version. A whole new runway and another one closed! Looks awsome!
  8. Nice!! My first flight ever in my life landed exactly there on Luxair. Unfortunately I'll have to wait until I switch to MSFS which will take another while.
  9. I have everything in the UK (exept Northern Ireland, as I hardly fly there and hardly see any differences in the pictures) including the TE regions. Why? Because it's a relatively "closed" region (closed by the surrounding water), and it has a significant amount of small airfields to fly between, at least in the south. Plus some airports by other developers in Scotland. And they are close enough to each other. PNW, Alaska and Australia come close to it. But still, I've left out some airports there because the are oddballs pretty far away from the other ones or the location simply doesn't catch any of my attention... like Siletz Bay, Tyabb, Parry Sound, Horovice, Plum Island or Hobby Field. Most of the time I fly airliners, but when I really fly low and slow from time to time, I don't like flying very far distances. That's why I love "complete" regions with both good visuals AND good airfields close to each other, like England and PNW. I wished there were more of those places with such a density. Some of them had potential to become like that by FTX or TE region, but hardly any airfields (that were sometimes talked about) were really done - such as in Germany, Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, the Netherlands,... BTW, I would fly in nearly every region with this scenery infrastructure, and I would even be fascinated by more - for me - exotic ones (Let it be Rwanda, Costa Rica, Namibia, Thailand or South Korea). But unfortunately so many people only fly where they live and the sceneries also have to follow the money.
  10. Great it is gonna happen! :-) I hope I'm still at P3d v4 when OLC Asia 3 arrives. But at the moment I see no reason to move away from P3d - way too many good planes there.
  11. I'm running the PMDG aircraft in P3d 4.5 and they are running perfect and stable there. And so does the whole sim. That's why I never saw a reason to switch to either P3d v5 or MSFS so far. So, I have no comparison, but you might decide on the sceneries you have for the corresponding sim, where it makes most sense to install the PMDG planes?
  12. Michael, even as a very convinced P3d v4 user (which won't change for quite some time), I agree with you. I've given up Asia in the FS world meanwhile. I don't really see the OpenLC series as a real VFR flying experience, but as an acceptable view outside the windows of the airliners, when there is a phase inflight when not too much is to do. I enjoy departures and approaches in the airliners because of OLC, but the (limited) time that I spend in a Piper Cub or similar, I spend over TE GB or sime FTX region with plenty of airfields availible (so mainly England, Scotland, PNW, California and maybe Australia), because they are simply too good to fly elsewhere. Asia has been badly neglected concerning airports, at least in P3d v4. In FS9 and FSX it was better anyhow. But honestely, if there are so few good hotspots in Asia with so much "generic" space in between, there is no atmosphere for me when I fly to one of those, because there is no scenery infrastructure around it. I gave some of them a try: PacSim Manila, Taipei and Seoul, BinerSim Jakarta, WF Beijing, FlyTampa Dubai. But even if many of them are really good sceneries, they couldn't grow on me, because it felt like landing in the middle of a generic nowhere. There's never been a region with a halfway "complete" airport infrastructure, like Thailand or the Philippines in times of FS9. So, why invest so much time in making a good LC for Asia when there's so little to fly to in this huge continent. Similar problem with Africa. I purchased OLC Africa, but because of so few good sceneries, I end up in flying in the regions mentioned above instead. Regards, Dominik
  13. Absolutely! In the past, I only got new sims because there was a bigger problem with the old sim that only the new sim would be able to solve (with the disadvantage to get all the addons working again). But with P3d v4.5, there is simply no problem! So, no need to change anything.
  14. I've got the feeling that Aerosoft praises some new developments a bit too much and early. Sure MSFS might have a big potential and be one of the main sims in future, if not THE simulator, because it unifies quite some advantages of all the longer existing things into one - something that other sims were never able to do complete. But it's like with all new sims: When it is previwed, it's breathtaking. But when it's out and read first reviews, bug reports and see youtube videos of "avarage" simmers like you and me, it will be a bit annoying. Not too long ago, P3d was celebrated THE sim of the future, and developers couldn't praise them enough about how well LM works together with the developers, how much they improve the former FSX code and what they would be able to make out of it. This seemed to change when X-Plane was suddenly there again for developers. And now you suddenly read a lot about how bad that marketing strategy of P3d was because of their EULA, the missing retail platforms, the unability to update the inbuild nav database, no in-game live weather,.... As a simmer, I can't really share this: Since P3d v4 came out, I didn't touch any other sim only a single time anymore, because it delivered exactly what the community has asked for such a long time: a very stable sim with a huge addon base at a great quality in the average and no more 32bit limit. When they introduced dynamic lighting and PBR they brought it over the top for me. So, I don't see a single reason to switch NOW, maybe anytime in the longer-term future, but flying 80% airliners/IFR and only 20% VFR, I will surely stay with P3d v4.5 for now. No need to even switch to v5, because v4 is now very "complete" as it is. It's the first time with so many really good quality addons in both the aircraft market (B737, 747, 757, 767, 777, A32X, A330, B717, Q400, MD-80, Learjet, the A2A series...) AND the scenery market (the Orbx world, FSDT, FSDG, FT, FB,...), let alone those extremely useful addons such as Active Sky, ChasePlane or FSUIPC. I might be out of place here, but I'm still willing to invest into P3d v4 addons ...OK, if possible those ones that will be upgraded for MSFS for little money. The main reason not to invest too much into P3d anymore, is that fact that I've already got so much! A lot of important addons do exist, and I've got almose more stuff than I can fly to/with. It's more like niche regions that I would want to invest in. On the other hand however, from the developers' point of view, I can understand that they want to push MSFS. If it's true that the customer base is so much bigger (and obviously it is), they can easily sell more products for a smaller price and make more profit in the end. If the P3d market is almost satisfied, then there might be people who still FLY in P3d for a longer time, but few oddballs like me who are willing to still spend a few bucks into P3d addons. So, if I was new to the hobby, I would certainly go for MSFS. But I'm now, so I won't change my well running system and stay with the older sim this time.
  15. Add to that, that such small, but detailed regions mostly have very sharp and straight borders - which don't blend to the area next to it at all. And sometimes the colors fit within the region, but not to the global environment. France VFR comes to mind: It's done very well, but the colors of the PR textures look weird compared to the autogen trees. Yet it's fantastic together with LLH sceneries for example, but the is a very unnatural line around the very small areas covered and it's also very expensive compared to their size. (Well, the price for French satellite imaginary doesn't really help that fact, as people say). You could also argue that this is the same with the borders of the TE regions and in some way also the LC regions, but there is a way larger area covered, so the chance of seeing those borders while low and slow is smaller. Having said that, I still like to fly to LC based regions, even if I have new hardware for a few days and for the first time I'm able to run TE regions at all in a sensible way (which is of course absolutely fantastic). But concerning loading times and texture resolutoion over very large areas, I still don't mind flying over well made LC regions with good autogen and a few important PR texture spots.
×
×
  • Create New...