Jump to content

AnkH

Members
  • Content Count

    673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

1 Follower

About AnkH

  • Rank
    Life Member

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Bern (Switzerland)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,195 profile views
  1. Nick, this link leads to a closed thread where it is written that more information will follow "the next weekend". This was written on Sunday, 16th of June, means the "next weekend" is already past us and no information was provided. Just that you are aware...
  2. Why should I use Process Lasso if my bat files do exactly the same and nicely limit all addons running with P3D on the cores I want? No need for any extra software... But I do anyway not get your comment, it is not me having any issues nor it was me saying the 9900K is not suitable or anything like this...
  3. Just to make those things clear (I was away for three weeks): I agree that P3Dv4.x is way better in taking advantage of multiple cores, but what you show in this thread is far away from proofing anything. I am a scientist and those images and videos might convince a person totally unaware about how to proof things (or deny it), but certainly not me. It lacks to many things, the proper "negative control" to compare the results to is the most important thing. How should a screenshot or a video of one single computer using processor X or Y proof anything? If you state that the 9900K is superior to the 9700K due to hyperthreading, the only valid proof is running an analysis with both processors and showing the difference. With a 9900K you could easily do this: run P3D once with hyperthreading on, record the FPS numbers etc., then run the exact same scenario again with hyperthreading off (as such mimicking the 9700K (kind of, the cache is different). Only then, you could state: ok, with hyperthreading on, the 9900K performs XY FPS better than without hyperthreading. And guess what? Surprisingly, it will even then greatly depend on the settings you use. Take my rig as an example: I use a 8700K at 5.0GHz and I get better results by limiting P3Dv4.5 with an affinity mask to six cores only and leave the "hyperthreading" for Windows and Addons. I DID this test, running my 8700K with or without hyperthreading and I can definitely say that P3Dv4.5 runs smoother if those "hyperthreaded cores" are disabled. As I do not want to loose the hyperthreading benefit for everything else, I keep it on and mimick HT off with the affinity mask. Then your example with the unclocked Ryzen... gosh, again the same "mistake". What should screenshots of P3D running fine on a unclocked Ryzen at 3.4GHz proof? Nothing except that it runs fine. But you can not tell if it would not run even better if the Ryzen would run at 4.0GHz instead or if the Ryzen would run at 5.0GHz but with half of the cores active as long as you do not test it and compare the numbers. Even your statement implies that I am right in the end: you yourself say that the 9900K is the best CPU for P3D. How come? It has only 8 cores and 16 threads. If your logic would be valid, a Ryzen 2700X should be as good (because single-core performance is not important, right?) and an AMD Threadripper 1920X with 12 cores and 24 threads would even be way more suitable with almost the same prizetag as the 9900K and the non-plus ultra would be the Threadripper 2990WX with 32 cores and 64 threads... Same goes for your 1080p versus 4K statement: this is about 90% depending on the GPU, not the processor. You can not just say that a 9700K is suitable for 1080p but not for 4K, how do you even come to such a conclusion...
  4. NIce shots, however, the ships in the first shot seem to be flying above the water. The reflections are somehow misaligned, no?
  5. And again one of those biased reports that do not even show the results they based their conclusion on. Even more, if your READ it, it says for example in the text undeneath the "winner" 2600: "The 8400 still retains a slight gaming performance lead, but the fact the Ryzen 5 2600 costs considerably less..." Now put this in relation to P3D, where, I repeat, single-core power is still more important than anything else and as such not entirely comparable with "gaming". If even this report states that a "lousy" Intel i5-8400 retains a slight gaming performance lead and only due to the price tag they put the 2600 on top, you can be pretty sure that a 8700K, 9700K or 9900K will deliver better results in P3D than any currently available Ryzen CPU... This article is just a very bad example. Other reviews put the Ryzen at least on par with the "bigger" Intel CPUs and with numbers instead of biased text, for example: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_2600x_review,20.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_9600k_processor_review,22.html
  6. Funny enough that we want 64bit simulators, photoreal sceneries, maximal details, wonderful weather depiction and all this stuff that sometimes even a 2019 version of a flight simulator struggles to provide properly and then we run this simulator on a operating system that appeared in October 2009, almost 10 years ago. Sorry, no understanding for this. How one can stubbornly stick to such an old operating system that will even be end of support in less than one year and then complain about a 2019 software not running with the expected results? Do you also still use Internet Explorer 6 or the office package from back then? And a cell phone from 2009? I guess no...
  7. Doug, don't you get tired by jumping into all hw threads and advertising a not yet released CPU? Furthermore, those numbers in the video are nice, sure, but it is not specified which of the new Ryzen 3000 they show. If it is the top model 3800X (what I guess), you will have a CPU with 16 cores plus SMT that outruns the 9900K with 8 cores plus HT by a solid 0.83% in Cinebench 15 Multithread test that scales very well with more cores... What will this tell us regarding P3D performance, where single-core speed is still the most important aspect of the CPU? Exactly, little to nothing... Don't get me wrong, the Ryzen 3000 series CPU will be a true alternative to Intel (already the 2000 series is) for many scenarios (gaming, rendering), but I doubt that for best results in P3D, it will be a game changer. If, then maybe the smaller 6-8 core variants that will be a lot cheaper than the 9900K/9700K. But until they are released and properly tested, it is just guessing...
  8. Well, then, I would go for a M.2 SSD but only for the system. Means: Windows and all this stuff installed on the M.2, 256 - 512GB should do it. As such, your computer will fire up in no time and when not flying around, you will have the fastest possible build. Buy a 4TB SSD with SATA connection for your sim, those 4GB will last for some days. The motherboard you want to buy has at least six SATA connectors, means: you can add additional 5 x 4TB SSD SATA disks, I guess this should be enough headroom for the future. One thing: do you really need 64GB of RAM? I know some will not agree, but for the sim, fast RAM in both bandwith (clock) and latency (CL) is also something I would not miss nowadays. If you can afford at least 3200MHz CL14 RAM with the size of 64GB, fair enough, but 32GB should be sufficient for now, no? Furthermore, if you plan to have 64GB with 4x16GB, be aware that still some mainboards do not like fully loaded RAM slots.
  9. For this generation of Intel CPUs, you should go with a mainboard that has the Z390 chipset. Z, because you want to overclock those -K CPUs, 390 because that is the chipset designed to support those CPUs. The "older" chipset, the Z370, is also capable of running the 9900K, but only when the BIOS is updated. However, for P3D alone, I would rather go with the 9700K instead (8 cores no HT). The 9900K and its hyperthreaded cores do not help you much in P3D (if at all).
  10. Personally, I think M.2 SSDs are still to expensive to be widely used as simming storage space. A M.2 SSD is about three to five times faster than a SSD connected via SATA. The biggest difference however you will notice when switching from a HDD to a SSD, this is like day and night regarding loading times. For the final flying, it is not that much of a difference if the sim runs from a SSD via SATA, via M.2 or even a HDD. Terrain loading might be a little bit faster with the SSD, but if the rest of the computer is anyway not top notch, you probably wont realize this anyway. To me, for your rig in your signature, I would definitively go for a SSD via SATA III. You do not have a M.2 slot anyway, and adding it via PCI-E card is also not very sophisticated...
  11. Some aspects: it is a freesync monitor. Since nVIDIA made it possible for the newest two GPU generations to also work together with some freesync monitors, chances are there that you will be able to use freesync even with a nVIDIA graphics card. A list of all currently supported freesync monitors you can find here (it will be expanded constantly): https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/ However, as I am a GSYNC monitor user, I have to admit that for P3D, I specifically turned off GSYNC for P3D, as on my monitor, GSYNC only works from 30FPS onwards and my FPS cutoff is at 30FPS. Means: I can not use GSYNC for P3D unless I would configure P3D as such that more than 30FPS are reached and I do not want to turn down the settings that much. Freesync is even "worse", as most of the freesync monitors only work from 48FPS upwards, means you would need your P3D configured as such that you get 48FPS or more... Then, be aware that big jumps in resolution need to be covered somehow. If you now struggle to get 30FPS with a FullHD monitor, you will even struggle more to have reasonable FPS when going to 2560x1440. Otherwise, those 144Hz monitors are a dream for gaming. Never going back to 60Hz once you played with 144Hz (not talking about P3D, but about other games I play). Verdict: all together, the monitor is for sure a great gaming monitor and chances are there that freesync will work with nVIDIA. BUT: if you use the monitor only for P3D, you might be better off with a variant not offering freesync or GSYNC, such monitors will also be cheaper.
  12. I dont think so, your arguments are totally valid, I just tried to explain why in my point of view todays YT videos are recorded in that way. That this could be improved or that it would be nice if people make "true" tutorial videos, is of course totally correct.
  13. That is a good point, for those people it might be extremely useful. But your argumentation is also rather strange: someone not intelligent enough to read and understand a manual will certainly not be capable of realizing what things are done wrong in such tutorial videos. If you are capable of realizing all those errors and mishandling in the video, this means you should be capable of reading the manuals, no? Personally I doubt that anyone who is really interested in properly using a complex aircraft addon is unable to use the manual. This is mutually exclusive to me, if you are smart enough to use a PMDG or FSL the way it is meant to be (they are almost real...), you should have no issue whatsoever with reading the manual. If you are not that smart and you would need a tutorial video to understand how the addon plane works, then you might anyway never be able to properly use it. Sounds arrogant, but come on. If you just want to understand the basics so you can fly the plane from A to B without going into the details, then yes, a video might be better. But in such a case, the above argument comes into place: for those users, it is not that much of an hassle if the sequence of pushing the buttons is not as it is in reality, it is not that much of an hassle if the video has some flaws, no?
  14. I guess this is how those vids are made nowadays. It is meant to be entertainment. People post vids of whatever they are doing, without any claim of anything. Means: they show exactly what they want to show: how they use the novel aircraft addon for the first time, including all mistakes they do. Not for others to show HOW to use the addon...
  15. Well, unless it is a Carenado aircraft addon, usually something called MANUAL comes along with it and includes example flights with written instructions down to each single button you have to press. Personally, I load them on my tablet and have the document next to my computer when flying the first time with a new aircraft addon. Then I start in cold and dark mode and I go through the manual step by step. YT videos I only use for entertainment or for getting a first impression about the aircraft. Never for learning procedures, as they are usually quiet individual, as you stated.
×
×
  • Create New...