• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. PFPX and TOPCAT

    Thanks, you're welcome!
  2. PFPX and TOPCAT

    Yeah I've read that too somewhere. Yet I still see activity on the forum so I'm confused what they are up to. I wish they had made the format public, I would love to code some more. I've made a take off and landing performance spreadsheet using real 717 performance tables from the FCOMs, you're welcome to use it. You can download it from my OneDrive here. The interface has been inspired by Boeing's OPT tool. I've left it completely unlocked, so if you want to unhide tabs and have a nosey around, feel free! Cheers, Mark.
  3. PFPX and TOPCAT

    Hi Xiropillo, I've read in another post that the TFDi team may eventually release their own PFPX profile, but as with most things in the community, it's already been done by someone else and they may consider that this is adequate now. You can get the PFPX profile here. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/file/4371-pfpx-boeing-717-family-performance-profiles-pack/ The guy that made these doesn't do half a job by the way, if he can't get every last bit of real life data for every single scenario imaginable he won't bother making one. As for the TOPCAT profile, only the TOPCAT team can make aircraft files for this. Each Aircraft file is actually a .dll written in C++. Your request for a TOPCAT profile would be better aimed at the TOPCAT dev team. Hope this helps, Cheers, Mark.
  4. Latest beta performance

    Just wanted to throw another couple of ideas in there, make sure in the AA settings you're using an MSAA setting (A low one as well for testing,) and not an SSAA setting. This is a killer especially with Dynamic lighting enabled as well. Dynamic lighting another quick win, and shadows from vegetation completely obliterates mine at LOWI. dropped through the floor to 7FPS lol. Also locking your frames at 30FPS might help as well....
  5. Latest beta performance

    Hi, I'm speaking like FPS is the be all and end all but I'm assuming this also means the smoothness improves as well. How much did it jump by out of interest? I'm now thinking I might have to eat my words and it could be related to the core model. My machine is quite powerful and it is actually masking this for me. I.e. I'm running a GTX1080 OC which has enough overhead to take the abuse. I think the technical reason for your issues is your GPU has hit its limit. It seems to only just be maxing out with PMDG, I'd guess it's just sitting under 100% most of the time or running at it, you can see it duck under at one point in your tests. Problem is, even on my card, the 717 bumps my GPU usage up by another 10% over that of the PMDG. That's a fair bit for a GTX1080 to shift. You don't have that level of overhead spare, you're already running hot. The increase in FPS when you reduce your screen size in window'd mode also indicates the bottle neck is at the GPU and not the CPU (I know your CPU looked pretty low anyway, but I take it you're looking at a single logical CPU in task manager, if you use the separate physical/logical cores view, you'll probably see core 0 is maxed like mine. I wanted to make sure it wasn't too maxed. If it was, window'd mode would have had little effect on FPS.) I think you're on the edge now of where it can take you now with P3D V4 and high fidelity models. Not past it though! My personal opinion is you should still expect to be able to run it on a system like yours without issue, as long as you're carful with sliders etc. I don't think that's unreasonable. I think for now if you focus on reducing settings (temporarily) that are GPU intensive when you fly the 717 you might be able to use it. There's a really good thread here from a Lockheed Martin Dev that lists GPU specific settings: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6315&t=124753&p=158168&hilit=Use+High+Resolution+Terrain+Textures#p158168 perhaps try a lower screen resolution as well? In the meantime I think we've done more than enough work to give the devs a steer on where the pinch point is. It seems to be hammering the GPU pretty hard, the CPU as well according to your tests. If they can't optimise it better than this, it's going to have to be caveated for use with high end graphics cards only...... Perhaps having some flexibility in the choice of texture level in the VC, or the FPS of the cockpit display units, or being able to disable RealLight as well as TrueLight from the menu might help as well TFDi devs?? Sorry I can't be of any more help @FS98P3D, apart from tweaking your settings for now, you're at the mercy of your GPU.. But I'm now inclined to agree with you after seeing some hard core numbers...
  6. Latest beta performance

    Hi, Very thorough thanks. One more quick question, if you put the P3D in window'd mode and reduce the window size so it's about 50% of your desktop screen size, does that increase your FPS whilst using the TFDi 717? Cheers, Mark.
  7. Latest beta performance

    Interesting.... What OS are you on? Windows 10? What's your high level spec? Hopefully you've not been asked any of this yet, don't want to send you round in circles. Is your Anti Virus set to exclude the path to P3D, all folders within it and all other add-ons folders as well? (that are outside the P3D directory) If it's like Kaspersky, is it set to allow the individual .exes as well? Sat on the same runway as before, ready to fly with cockpit lights on in the dark, what does your processor, ram and GPU look like in task manager? I get 100% on core 0 and then around 50% on all other cores, Ram is about 4GB for the P3D process and my GPU is 70% This gives me 46FPS As a comparison, (although I'm not sure how fair a comparison,) exactly the same airport, ready to fly, all lights on, in the dark in the PMDG 737, I get 49FPS. How about you? Do you have Hardware Rendering enabled for the 717? Cheers, Mark.
  8. Latest beta performance

    You're completely missing my point though, people are also getting 46FPS. I've just checked my average. So it's unlikely to be a flawed model as we'd all be getting 5FPS right? So let's try and isolate the issue on your machine, and everyone else who is getting 5FPS. We already did it once when we found AS at fault. If it's not AS for you, there's got to be something causing it. So I just sat on the default airport runway, KVPS in the dark. I disabled TrueGlass and RealLight and then I tweaked my P3D.cfg to show me averages for FPS. I got 46FPS average. Then I enabled TrueGlass and RealLight again, same airport, in the dark, and I still got 46FPS, with the cockpit lights on or off, but when I made it rain they dropped to 42FPS. What do you get if you try the same? The best way to disable TrueGlass and RealLight is to go into the C:\Program Files\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v4\gauges folder (Assuming default install location) and then rename the TrueLight.dll to TrueLight.off and RealLight.dll to RealLight.off, whilst P3D is closed. You can also display your average FPS by adding AverageFrameRate=1,5 to your TextInfo.2 section in your Prepar3D.cfg, (which is found here: %appdata%\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v4) so it looks like this: [TextInfo.2] FrameRate=1,1 LockedFrameRate=1,2 GForce=1,3 FuelPercentage=1,4 AverageFrameRate=1,5 Then you'll see it on the second SHIFT + Z press. The numbers are in a trio in brackets. [Min fps, Avg fps, Max fps] Does having TrueGlass and RealLight disabled improve your FPS? P.s. Please don't use Active Sky to generate weather whilst you're doing this, it really does absolutely batter the 717. Mine drops to 2FPS once the bug kicks in...
  9. Latest beta performance

    Hey Dimkzr, Yeah I know he's not on his own, your frames don't sound too bad though, I sat on the ramp yesterday at ENBR and hit 40FPS +, depends on the airport for me as well. UK2000 EGBB with UTL full blast gives me 30FPS instead. My point is, especially with the other models you mention, they were dog food for everyone. It was a clear core problem with the aircraft. In this case, it runs fine for some as well, better than PMDG for me, which means it can't be core, it must be specific to something. It could be something really common, say 4K. 4K is popular enough to be on a few rigs now, perhaps it doesn't like 4K, I'm not on it so can't call it. Perhaps it utilises the GPU better than PMDG and therefore shows up weaker GPUs This means all of us comparing it to PMDG aren't comparing apples for apples. (I'm just making this stuff up but you see my point.) But, referencing Turbofandudes post at the top of every post on here, it's a beta, this is meant to be a bug reporting forum not an outlet for whining or venting. It needs to include detail so they can reproduce it. Coming on here with generic statements like 'it's too slow' with literally nothing else to back it up is about as helpful as a chocolate fireguard. Once upon a time I dev'd, so these guys have my sympathy, that's why I went to so much effort to track down whether it was AS or not for my specific fault. If you can't reproduce the fault, you can't fix it, period. There's only so much generic best practice you can perform. How can they reproduce it with 'It's a bit slow on my rig boss'?
  10. Latest beta performance

    It’s a Beta........ You can’t take part in a beta trial and moan it’s not perfect lol. The whole point is to reach perfection, if it was already there it would be in production. What spec are you running on? Do you have any ‘tweaks’ in you .cfg? Are you using SMAA instead of MSAA? You’ve got to think outside the box because it’s running fine for others, if the aircraft was flawed it would be crap on everyone’s, so what’s the difference between your rig and ours?
  11. Latest beta performance

    All, I did a TON of testing for this over in the thread posted below. They/I am pretty confident that it's Active Sky that's causing this in one way or another. I more than proved it with loads of test flights. (Each one detailed in the post) In fact, since that day, I've always flown the 717 without Active Sky and I've never had another problem. I find the frame rates better than PMDG both on the ground and in the air. Nice plane, nicely optimised. They're working on a fix for it, they've still got to find exactly why it happens. Maybe radar integration or similar. My advice, assuming you're using active sky, kill it for 717 flights until they've fixed the bug. Other than this, look for dodgy edits you've made and forgotten about, or other add-ons causing conflicts. You can see the specs of my machine somewhere in the same post, it's not 'amazing' I'm also running at the same time; UK2000 airports (Nearly always take off from one) ORBX Global, Vector, LC, England My VAs tracking software An Autosave application Navigraph Charts Pro-ATC X Track Hat ECZA2 UTL I've also posted all of my settings in the post below. They're nearly all fully right. (This is starting to sound like 'haha look what I can do' but I'm just trying to prove the point that I hit my machine hard, and good FPS are still possible.) I get 30-40fps on the ground and 80+ in the air at cruise, with a steady increase in FPS as I climb, regardless of cloud amount and type around me.
  12. Ahh right, yes I see your logic now. OK that makes sense, I’m sold! 😉
  13. Thanks dimkzr, Good information. In the actual aircraft, I believe that there should be an announcement when approaching the transition level/altitude. It's not modelled in the TFDi I don't think, but the idea behind it is to remind the pilot to change to STD or vice versa. This all makes sense and what I would expect, logically, a little like the 737 starts to flash away in yellow to remind you of the same. This is obviously the reason for having them in the FMC in the first place, but as you've pointed out, they're variable (transition level is anyway), so I'd assume not capable of being held in a database, except maybe for a placeholder or perhaps if they can put some logic in regarding the pressure bands as well then maybe, but either way it should be capable of correction otherwise there's the potential for misinformation to creep in and before you know it the pilots don't have a firm grasp of their actual altitude. I wouldn't even currently say they're for information, because they're wrong. They're more of a distraction. (Fake news! ) I can't imagine a situation in this day and age where manufactures would purposely design a system where the outcome could so easily be that the pilots are not aware of their actual altitude because they haven't switch to STD or local at the correct time. It has air crash investigators written all over it lol.
  14. Hi, OK thanks for the confirmation, yup certainly is hard to find info on the 717. I know a couple of active commercial pilots here in the UK, but neither fly this airframe... If I ever come across anything I'll let you know. My personal opinion is, at least for the Transition Level, it would have to be editable, it's hardly ever standard on the approach plates and always assigned by ATC, therefore you'd have thought an unknown like this would have to be configurable... Otherwise they might as well have omitted it from the system as it serves no purpose..... Thanks for the reply, Cheers, Mark.
  15. Hi all, Happy new year!! Just thought I'd give this a bit of a bump. Also, clean up the actual issue, as I've complicated things by trying to include too much information and my own guesses. Please disregard my AIRAC comments etc. The actual problem is this, you can't amend either the transition level or transition altitude on the climb and descent pages respectively. They seem to have a standard figure in of 7000 (on both) but this can't be changed by simply enter a new figure and hitting the respective LSK. Effectively, the 717 is stuck with a default 7000 and I don't seem to be able to change it. I've noticed the value changes for different airports, it's 5000 for EGLL, but I still can't change them. Cheers, Mark.