TrueEarth: second flight

[NoLonger]

Okay, so I finally had the time to give TrueEarth another try. This time I did NOT fly low and use slew to compare what I saw to real world pictures but I simply flew (like I did the first time, see my not too positive First flight, first shot topic). That was wise decision number one.

 

Wise decision number two was that I also lowered a LOT of settings: both autogen density settings to Dense (which is quite low for me), autogen distance to High (but leaving Scenery complexity at Extremely Dense), water detail off and all reflections too, apart from clouds, all shadows off apart from in the cockpit, trees + buildings on receive only and clouds on, AA at 2xSSAA (instead of 4x) and well, this time performance was a lot better! I flew from Hilversum to Eelde and performance was above 30 almost all the time, topping at 45 to 50. Very enjoyable.

 

And I have to say that things looked totally awesome despite my lower settings! And that at a cruising altitude of 3.500 feet (in the A2A Comanche). Things looked crisp almost all the time apart from some obvious texture loading here and there. I didn't even miss the extremely dense autogen: forests look great and cities too, even though they sometimes looked sparse: but at 3.500 altitude it also sometimes looked better because too much autogen isn't always good, making things look too cluttered compared to the real world. 'Handmade' cities still looked extremely dense (thanks to scenery complexity, I think) and with all shadows off etc. performance stayed good even there. I also flew over the city of Groningen (unfortunately the king had left already) and it looked great even without shadows (although it would have looked even better with them) and performance stayed good too, fps was near 40 there! (Advantage of CityScape scenery...?)

 

All in all I am very happy with it. You just have to lower some expectations AND some settings. I will enjoy TrueEarth Netherlands in P3D for quite some time the coming months! (Although I also am curious to see how it will perform in Aerofly FS 2!)

 

Oh, and btw in Groningen I actually could see a former home of mine...!

 

Here is a picture of Groningen, looking pretty awesome, even with my lowered settings:

 

 

BTW This post contained a few smileys but I wasn't able to actually post the topic with them so I had to remove them all. Just so you know some remarks were made tongue in cheek.

[Sniper31]

Good report and a nice shot  

[kevinfirth]

I'm with Jeroen.  This scenery is excellent, and some relatively minor constructive criticism about how it could be even better aside, the fact that all this is there for the standard region price is outstanding.  There is loads to love and I'm sure this new line of scenery will evolve and get even better as it goes on   For me, I can happily run it at 30fps all settings on max til the cows come home.  Roll on the next instalment and congrats to everyone that has worked on and contributed to it...

[Mikael Cedergren]

I did a VFR flight today in my A2A Cherokee from Groeningen to Lelystad. I have never in the sim been able to follow roads, wind turbines, cities, parks etc like in real life the way I could now. Finding the entry point to the ATZ airspace in Lelystad was a breeze, I love TrueEarth NL folks! My system wont handle Rotterdam or Amsterdam very well so I stay away from those cities but everywhere else I get about 30 fps or even slightly better on my low to mid class desktop system. 

[AnkH]

Thank you for sharing this. I also struggle with the settings for TE Netherlands, so far I reduced them similarly to your approach, but I am not yet there. Still microstutters and lags all over the place and generally low FPS (often below 20). I will try your suggestions.

 

However, I am somehow disappointed from this product. The fact that I have to dial back the settings that much is simply... ridiculous. With my normal settings, TE Netherlands is no joy, while anywhere else on the world I get 30+ FPS (20+ on heavy Airports). I now use a custom preset called "TE Netherlands Adapted" for flying over this scenery, and almost every single slider and setting is reduced. And this with a 8700K running at 5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz RAM and an overclocked 1080Ti. Come on...

[kevinfirth]

13 minutes ago, AnkH said:

And this with a 8700K running at 5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz RAM and an overclocked 1080Ti. Come on...

Surprised at this.. I have the same CPU, and mem, but only a 980ti (at 4k) and I can get 30fps pretty much everywhere as long as I turn off dynamic lights and reflections.. :S

[NoLonger]

27 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Surprised at this.. I have the same CPU, and mem, but only a 980ti (at 4k) and I can get 30fps pretty much everywhere as long as I turn off dynamic lights and reflections.. :S

 

That's odd indeed. A 8700K running at 5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz RAM and an overclocked 1080Ti is more than I have. 

[kevinfirth]

2 minutes ago, J van E said:

 

That's odd indeed. A 8700K running at 5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz RAM and an overclocked 1080Ti is more than I have. 

AA could account for it? I dont run any SSAA at 4k with my 980Ti...

[Nick Cooper]

Hello AnkH,

I see both yours and J van E's comments.

I think one must accept that there is a huge amount for P3D v4 to do with this scenery

and that settings must be tempered to allow for that.

I strongly resist reducing the scenery and autogen settings but I have found that three settings

which have only a small effect on what can be seen, have a large effect on the quality of the performance.

 

The first is to limit the frame rate.

I have chosen 24 FPS because my system can maintain that figure.

 

Here is the frame rate as set unlimited, you can see that the V figures are much too high, indicating variable performance

trying to achieve a target that is too high for my PC.

Minimum frame rate 7.3 Average frame rate 28.8 Maximum frame rate 41.6

The flight stutters a good deal..

 

 

The second is to set P3D road traffic to zero.

Adding traffic has a less dramatic but nevertheless noticeable detrimental effect.

Minimum frame rate 12.6 Average frame rate 23.5 Maximum frame rate 24.0

The flight stutters somewhat.

 

 

Now set to 24 and no road traffic, the difference is clear and the flight is smooth.

Minimum frame rate 22.4 Average frame rate 24.0 Maximum frame rate 24.0

 

 

The third is not to fly a fiendishly complex and resource hungry add on aircraft.

 

Doing these three small things allows me to have my settings as follows and therefore see everything that the developers intend us to see.

 

 

 

 

 

Note that I am not attempting to run a 4k monitor or VR goggles, both of which decimate frame rates

and would be beyond the capabilities of my PC.

 

Yours and J van E's systems are both more modern and as far as the GPU is concerned, more powerful and you should easily be able to achieve the same.

[AnkH]

Ok, thanks for this comment, Nick, I will certainly try those settings once in a while. Could you also Show your TE settings within FTX Central? You turned off all road traffic, correct? And what kind of weather addon do you use? Are those screenshots with or without any clouds? Last: I use a 1440p display, so some additional performance needed for this as well...

[John Dow]

On my system, if I enable casting of shadows for anything but vehicle and clouds, I get a huge hit on fps. I don't miss object shadows one bit, having never used them in FSX.

 

Limiting fps to 22 has also got rid of the blurries.

 

I also find this statement a bit strange:  " And this with a 8700K running at 5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz RAM and an overclocked 1080Ti. Come on... "

 

Doesn't matter how good your system is, a current flight sim like P3D will always be designed to offer more detail and options than computers can handle.  That's because different users will demand different features.   So it is possible to overload any computer if you don't pay attention to your system's limitations.  With my GTX970 I have to run my 4K monitor at 2500x1440 to average over 20fps.  It's a compromise I'm willing to make.  However yesterday I flew across southern Australia away from cities, at 3840x2160, all sliders except sahdows maxxed out, and fps was well over 30 the whole flight.

 

And, when I upgrade in a couple of years, I expect to be able to run everything at a lot higher setting than I do today, which will make it seem like a whole new sim again!

[NoLonger]

Interesting posts and tips! However, for me the easiest and best solution is to wait for the Aerofly FS 2 version. Simple as that. I am sure I can 'tweak' P3D to get better performance but even then it won't get close to what Aerofly delivers. As I said elsewhere even a rock solid 30 in P3D never feels as smooth (and hence as real) as Aerofly. Obviously Aerofly is limited in a lot of ways but I intend to fly over the Netherlands mainly to enjoy the scenery so 'deep' systems and weather are less important here. I am 100% sure the Aerofly version will solve all the problems I am having in P3D.  The fact that I've been enjoying VR again (after not using it for a very long time) also makes this decision easy.

[Nick Cooper]

20 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Ok, thanks for this comment, Nick, I will certainly try those settings once in a while. Could you also Show your TE settings within FTX Central? You turned off all road traffic, correct? And what kind of weather addon do you use? Are those screenshots with or without any clouds? Last: I use a 1440p display, so some additional performance needed for this as well...

 

Hello,

 

I agree also with  what John has just written. For you, I think his suggestion of reducing screen resolution

until the next super computer is developed is a very good one.

I am happy to trade smooth flight for a slightly less sharp screen resolution.

I am told that VR users are happy to trade virtually all their screen resolution in exchange for the experience.

 

I use Active Sky for P3D v4 and it was running but of course there are no clouds visible in my illustrative screen shots.

I attach my control panel settings, which are all at default but in the respect of traffic are all over ridden

by disabling road traffic in P3Dv4. Otherwise, they are set to see everything.

 

[FalconAF]

1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said:

For you, I think his suggestion of reducing screen resolution until the next super computer is developed is a very good one.

 

I have to seriously, and respectfully, disagree with that advice.  The two computers are massively different in their hardware capabilities.  Nick has to use a 1920 x 1080 x 32 screen resolution because of his hardware (like he said, it wouldn't run a 4K resolution very well).  And he uses (has to) 8 x SSAA to compensate for the lower resolution.

 

AnkH's computer is much more powerful (see his system specs) and is FULLY capable of running a 4K resolution without any problems.  And by using a 4K resolution, he does not NEED to be using anything near 8 x SSAA for a primarily photoreal scenery product even WITH autogen. The 4K resolution alone with his CPU, memory, and 1080ti GPU should be fine to produce "crisp textures" as long as he has his Anisotropic Filter setting at the max 16x (Anisotropic plays a large role in photoreal scenery clarity).  At most, he may want to use a 2 x SSAA, but should be able to get great performance and clear scenery even with just an MSAA setting.  Using a 4K screen resolution with an 8 x SSAA is overkill in almost all cases, and just strains the heck outta your hardware for no good reason.  And the opposite...using a lower screen resolution (1920 x 1080 x 32) with 8 x SSAA...is crazy if your computer hardware is totally capable of running a 4K resolution without HAVING to use a massive SSAA setting.

 

Be careful when comparing settings between computers that have massively different hardware capabilities.  Settings on one of them may be totally wrong for the other one.

 

 

 

[Nick Cooper]

Thanks.

 

The idea is not to dictate or make comparisons but to suggest differing settings to maximise 

the enjoyment of the scenery.

As I don't have the hardware to try the 4k settings , I can only make suggestions to customers.

If they are tried and do not improve things, nothing is lost but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

My thinking was that if the hardware is not trying to produce such a high screen resolution,

it might be able to instead maintain an acceptable level of performance.

Once again, for me, trying to increase screen resolution, though only by using DSR, has a devastating

effect on performance that using 8 x SSAA does not.

I find that the shimmering of small objects in the distance if I do not use 8 x SSAA is unacceptable.

Looking at some of the 4k "showcase" videos that have been produced, clearly not everyone shares my point of view.

 

None of this advice is obligatory and is in fact offered to try, as the present settings used by AnkH do not

seem to be satisfactory.

Hopefully, if my suggestions do not produce an improvement, yours will.

 

 

 

 

 

[AnkH]

That's how I understood it. I will first try the suggestions here (except the resolution thingy, I do not buy an expensive 1440p monitor to run lower resolution...) and see if I find a good mix between image quality, good settings and smooth gameplay. If I do not find such a combination, only then, I will complain further ;-)

[caleb1]

This is a great discussion.  I have a PC with a Intel i7 6700 @ 3.4 to 4.0 GHz with a GTX 745.  Would anyone else who has a similar PC and Orbx Netherlands be able to report on how performance is?  Or would anyone have an idea?  It would be preferred to get at least 22-26 FPS.  I am beginning to worry that I will not be able to use any TrueEarth products without upgrading my PC, is this true?

[NoLonger]

4 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

The idea is not to dictate or make comparisons but to suggest differing settings to maximise 

the enjoyment of the scenery.

 

Well, amen to that. Read the topic I just posted here: I am totally back in business again!

 

 

 

[Hansonius]

Hi,

It is awesome scenery indeed. One of the big differences with freeware NL2000 is that objects are not placed on top of the scenery but are an  integrated part of the scenery.

But there also was one disappointment. I have never seen Rotterdam Airport and Eham(Schiphol) so empty. Hardly any static and/or AI aircraft, no big (static) airliners at all.

The scenery is running smoothly at 28FPS  with a V% of 10/12% at EHAM, which is very good.

Keep up the fantastic work.

Hans

The Netherlands

[Edgar Waelpoel]

On 30-4-2018 at 6:50 PM, caleb1 said:

This is a great discussion.  I have a PC with a Intel i7 6700 @ 3.4 to 4.0 GHz with a GTX 745.  Would anyone else who has a similar PC and Orbx Netherlands be able to report on how performance is?  Or would anyone have an idea?  It would be preferred to get at least 22-26 FPS.  I am beginning to worry that I will not be able to use any TrueEarth products without upgrading my PC, is this true?

 

Don't worry. I have almost the same configuration and flying TrueEarth without problems (reaching 25fps). BUT, until the super computer is there, you have to make choices. I followed the advices of Nick and JvanE and made two sets of settings (see below).

The first set is for ultra high graphic experience, but only use it with standard P3D aircraft, no weather engine and fair weather and no traffic.

The second set is for good graphic experience, but flying with fps consuming addon aircraft (like Carenado SR-22), weather engine (Active sky) and dynamic/complex weather.

 

No system is the same, so see it as an advice.

 

Regards,

Edgar

[caleb1]

Ok. Thanks for the reply. I like option 2. I hope orbx comes out with a true Earth demo so we can test performance before purchasing. How do those settings work out in the areas with large FPS hits such as big cities? Do you maintain at least 22 FPS?
And do you mind me asking your exact PC specs?
Thanks.

[Edgar Waelpoel]

Even over areas with large FPS hits 24fps is no problem.

My specs: Intel core i7 6700K (4.00GHz), 32GB RAM, GeForce GTX 970, Asus Z170 motherboard, one 2TB harddrive, two 850 pro 512 GB SSD drives, hydro H110i GTX liquid cooler.

Software: Windows 10 pro. FlightSim software: P3D V4.2, AS for P3D, REX4 texture with softclouds, ORBX Base, vector, openLC Europe, Netherlands TE (and many more) and a lot of addon aircraft.

 

[caleb1]

 

Thanks for the reply.  you PC seems to be a good bit better than mine (adding a "K" st the end of the CPU name changes the CPU a good bit ), but like I said, (I do remember JV mentioning it once) it would be nice if Orbx comes out with a TE demo soon so I can test performance.  @John Venema how are thing coming on a demo?  My current PC is not incredible, but it is only temporary.  I hope to build myself a new one when P3D v5 comes out with a 1080 Ti, i7 8700K and all that good stuff as I don't think my current one will be able to handle a v5!  

 

Thanks

[Mark Speechley]

I just had to chime in and thank Nick for suggesting changes to graphics settings, in my case P3D v4.2. I have been stuck on a combination for years with only minor changes but his suggestions have given me greater clarity in the visuals with no stutters ( unless the weather turns really nasty).

I have a Learjet cockpit with three projectors. Last night we flew around the Himalayas and circled Mt Everest and I can tell you that we were in awe looking out the window. Actually it will save us a lot of money as now we don't have to travel there in real life !

Worth a try with anyone struggling. I have a 4790K CPU  OC'ed at 4.4ghz and a 1080ti and that combinations mileage has now been extended a bit further.

Thanks again.

Mark