active netherland frame rates

[thenikos]

hi, i got yesterday the new netherlands scenery. i didn't fly much because of work, lets say 1 hour around Amsterdam. in general i was happy with the looks and everything.

but i have 2 questions:

 

1. the frame rates went very down. i tried everything, unlimited, 30 or 24. but in general i get around 10 to 20. i use the exact settings the manual is suggesting, ex large level detail radius, 5m mesh, 7cm texture etc etc. i fly around with pmdg 747 v3. i also use all the orbx related products, vector, lc, global but not any add on airport from other company. the computer i use is i7 8700 at 4.3ghz, 32gb ram, nvidia 1060 6gb, 2 x 1tb nvme samsung pro hd. so the question is .... what kind of computer you need to run netherlands... descent?  is it my vga card? if i upgrade to 1070 or 1080 i will see top frames? (30-40+ to be in the safe side) or it will be a gain of ... 5 frames that for me, it doesnt worth the cost? because i think the cpu is good. of course i could "kill" the suggested settings in p3d to get better frames..... but i didnt have time to play around with the settings. i also dont use any fsaa or stuff like that. or shaddows. they are all to 0 or disabled.

 

2. something i didn't understand, dont worry orbx, i dont accuse you  my english is bad  the major airports like shiphol , are included? or they are just taken care of to look better than the defaults?

i ask this because im thinking to get flytampa's shiphol one. is it going to work fine with the new netherlands scenery? or in general did you test any payware netherlands airports with your scenery?

 

thank you very much

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

your PC should give you acceptable frame rates.

Mine is older and yet gives a consistent 25 plus

with this scenery.

The airports have indeed been upgraded to Orbx region standard.

Any addon airport that is correctly placed should work well with this scenery

[thenikos]

thanks nick fo your answer. can you pls give me a basic list of your settings?

[NoLonger]

I did a short flight around the middle of the country with all scenery sliders full right (so I could see everything TrueEarth offers). FPS hovered between 15 and 30 on my i7 4790K@4.5, GTX1080, 16 GB RAM + SSD system. That was with the default Maule. Things look great up high but it wasn't smooth or consistent: my PC was clearly struggling. Of course this also depends on where you are looking at: looking at Amsterdam sure is more problematic than looking at some empty fields in the north of the country. Don't forget that there is an incredible amount of detail to be seen!!! In that regard I must honestly say that performance is better than I expected!!! But I obviously need to turn some settings down again if I want a smooth and steady performance. Although I will probably wait for the Aerofly FS 2 version for that smooth and steady performance. I rather have a struggling PC with all details on than a smooth ride with less detail. 

[thenikos]

i will try also today to do a flight with the maule to see how things are and i will write more here.  thanks

[maxkillers]

Mate, if you get an ssd, not only will your loading off prepar3d v4 will take run like the flash, everything else in your system well, especially if you run it on your main drive. I think having a ssd can help the frames as well as it helps load everything faster meaning less stress on the frames,  or try put your main systems on the ssd and that would help with everything else on your pc as well as the flight sim, also running the pmdg747 is a frame rate killer for most things, I often turn down my autogen to normal since I don't see as much difference, and I set my addons suhc as as16 to highest performance (I don't see any difference in looks)... If you do get a ssd for p3d make sure you get a tb, plus you get to add any other things like video editer's on it for extra speed!

[thenikos]

thanks max, as i mentioned above i use 2 x nvme hard disks. 1 has the operating system and the 2nd has p3d with sceneries etc.

[thenikos]

i tried the default maule. from schiphol eham over amsterdam city. min frame was 25, max was 50, usually between 30-40. cockpit view. when i tried views out of the plane, i could go up to 60-70 fps

 

 

[thenikos]

i forgot to say that i fly around 2000ft to make the tests.

i tried again pmdg 747 v3. at 2000ft, min fps 10, max 30, average around 20.

so the pmdg makes the biggest impact.

[thenikos]

final test with pmdg 747 (and recommended graphics options), i raised it around 4000ft over eham and frames were improved at 20min , 25 usually, 30max.

 

[Guest]

Don't forget to use the control panel to remove any items useless for a liner flight

[thenikos]

hi richard, yes i know i can cut things off but it was a ... retorical question, like : what system do you really need to run everything in full in a decent frame rate

if i use the control panel at orbx products and i reduce also the p3d sliders to half/low, everything is fine. just the whole experience is reduced. thank you

[Guest]

Keep in mind it's not logical wanting to do VFR with a complex liner. That's not the case in the real life so why doing it with a simulator ? No high end existing personal computer can garanty that

[FalconAF]

As Richard said, photoscenery requires a different concept of thought if you want acceptable performance.  The file sizes of photoscenery files are huge.  If you increase your Level of Detail Radius setting to maximum in the sim, you better be flying slow enough to allow the computer to load LARGE amounts of VERY LARGE photoscenery for your extended range viewing pleasure.  The SLOWER you need to load the files while flying over the scenery, the better off you will be.  With 1 meter per pixel resolution, it can be darn near impossible for ANY computer to keep up with loading the photoreal files in a timely manner if you are zooming over the scenery at 250 kts airspeed in a PMDG complex high demanding airplane.  Or even flying a default P3D F35 at low altitude hair-on-fire speeds.  You will bring almost ALL computers to their knees doing that with photoscenery, and suffer blurry ground textures because the photoscenery files just can't get loaded fast enough as you travel over the ground at those speeds.

 

Photoscenery is fantastic for slower speed general aviation flying at altitudes above 2000 - 3000 feet.  The AUTOGEN should still look crisp and in focus at lower altitudes, but when you get down to the less than 1000-foot altitudes, you may even be stationary in a hovering helicopter and see "blurry ground textures" below the autogen.  1-meter per pixel resolution still means the smallest "thing" you could expect to see at ALL would have to be 1-meter in diameter, and whatever it was would be using only one pixel to display it.   Not much detail displaying anything using only one pixel to do it.  It's not the same as using a texture/landclass scenery combination to display the ground.  And it's TOTALLY less clear than displaying something like an airport runway or taxiway at 7 CENTIMETERS per pixel.

 

The best use of even today's high technology large geographic area photoscenery (usually 1 or 2 meter per pixel resolution for large geographic areas) is with a slow(er) flying aircraft for VFR at an altitude of at LEAST 1500 feet AGL.  If you have hand-crafted or third-party airports that have been "enhanced", those will look great even when you are taking off and landing at them.  But once you get outside the airport boundaries, the surrounding photoscenery can still end up "blurry" if you are too low to overcome the pixel resolution limit, or traveling too fast over the photoscenery. 

[thenikos]

hi falcon ! yes, imagine with the 747 i was down to 170-180 knots, with flaps at 20. i totally agree with you in everything, i just tried to test following the recommended settings of orbx together with the recommended system