.
.
Rising up out of SFO
Across 3 monitors of view
from the cockpit of 747-400
67.5 degrees of view
.
.
.
Rising up out of SFO
Across 3 monitors of view
from the cockpit of 747-400
67.5 degrees of view
.
.
Very Nice!
Hi
Thanks HyFlyer. Went on a reconnaissance mission around Area 51 last night in search of the Easter Egg (am not going to spoil it for others by posting the shot) and afterwards departed that ultra-secretive area in an A320, flying for hour after hour while completely mesmerized by the incredible scenery flowing by across the *3 curved screens. Here's a capture from last evening, the shot being 5760 x 1080 before resizing it. Am flying at a magnification of 2x, giving a 67.5 degree of view across the 3 monitors. Seated at the center point at the end of the radius of the arc, am also physically positioned 67.5 degrees from between my eyes to the outsides of the aligned monitors. It's honestly the most amazing, immersive flight simming ever personally experienced. Am highly recommending this.
* 3 Samsung 32" CF397 curved monitors, 1980 x 1080 native @ 60 Hz, 1800R curvature, 35w max power draw each
Am seated 1.8 meters / almost 6 feet back from the screens @ magnification 2x with all views adjusted so, no pixels visible at this distance
.
Last edited by boxcar; February 15th, 2018 at 14:02.
.
3 monitors...... good to see you are still having nice Frame Rates.
Hi
Seems to me that flying NYC and Chicago will be the truer tests after getting them installed. The GPU is strong, fans for it as well as for the CPU cooler don't even speed up while running AFS2. The full system runs pretty cool. AFS2 must be making fine use of multi-core processors as well as handing off part of the load to the GPU. The 3 monitors' combined total of pixels in native resolution, 5760 x 1080, is only 3/4 of the pixels of just one Ultra High Definition screen (my original plan). The system is easy on power comparatively, and somewhat "future-proofed" for higher-demand applications. A shortcoming of my system is that much larger storage drives were not chosen initially to house 64-bit flight sims, for it now seems to me that if one were to completely dress out the entire globe in AFS2 it might eventually take a 4, 5, maybe 6 Terrabyte drive? But if all done properly, oh what a sim! In many ways it already is.Originally Posted by HyFlyer
southeastern Gobe Dessert shots.
The sim's illusions are so immersive it's as if you can actually feel Sunlight moving across you as you bank. Really. And those reflections are top shelf stuff.
.
.
The sim uses the GPU much more than our current sims. As an experiment a while ago, I downclocked my CPU from 4.8 back to stock 4.0ghz, with almost no apparent effect on Aerofly.
Hi
Am believing you, HyFlyer.AFS2 balances out the workload mighty nicely throughout available cores. Some of my recent posting in the IPACS Forum follows (for others' information: Integrated Performance Analysis of Computer Systems, the brains and brawn behind Aerofly FS2)...
"A little follow-up on fps performance: Last evening heavier clouds were configured along with moderate winds and turbulance (very nice configurable turbulance effects), then flying the Lear 23 into the thick of them in an effort to bring AFS2 off of my present lock of 120 fps. It worked, the sim mostly performing between the 80s and 90s with occasional micro-brief readings of 70-something to over 100 fps at times. What was interesting to me is that when the sim fell below my 120 fps lock then there began to be ultra-rapid micro-stuttering.
Am thinking that in the future, as more operational flight sim things get added to this software, that an optional 60 fps lock may be handy to have, even 30 fps as well. This is essentially what I'd tried to do initially by locking with G-sync using my 60 Hz monitors but AFS2 didn't like the setting on my system. As a consequence the stutters became quite pronounced, so 120 fps lock was re-selected and subsequently all was good. My rig, for reference: i7 8700, 1070 Ti, 16 Gb DDR4 3000, Samsung SSD"
.
Lear 23 on final in Arizona
.
The problem there is the current cloud implementation. The clouds are from a third party and are the cause of stutters. Ipacs is apparently not allowed to mess with them, and so will have to get rid of them entirely when they do their own weather engine.Am believing you, HyFlyer.
"A little follow-up on fps performance: Last evening heavier clouds were configured along with moderate winds and turbulance (very nice configurable turbulance effects), then flying the Lear 23 into the thick of them in an effort to bring AFS2 off of my present lock of 120 fps. It worked, the sim mostly performing between the 80s and 90s with occasional micro-brief readings of 70-something to over 100 fps at times. What was interesting to me is that when the sim fell below my 120 fps lock then there began to be ultra-rapid micro-stuttering.
Am thinking that in the future, as more operational flight sim things get added to this software, that an optional 60 fps lock may be handy to have, even 30 fps as well. This is essentially what I'd tried to do initially by locking with G-sync using my 60 Hz monitors but AFS2 didn't like the setting on my system. As a consequence the stutters became quite pronounced, so 120 fps lock was re-selected and subsequently all was good. My rig, for reference: i7 8700, 1070 Ti, 16 Gb DDR4 3000, Samsung SSD"
.
Lear 23 on final in Arizona
Hi
Well, very minor, tiny cloud stuttering aside, will say that the clouds in AFS2 are the best ever personally flown in any flight sim. Flying into a cloud as well as exiting is a totally satisfying experience, the process smooth and consistent with reality. The clouds do not dodge out of the way as you get to the edge. The clouds do take a little "jump" in unison every so often, nothing drastic but noticeable.
The sole cloud graphics problem noticed so far was on final into KASE. The first cloud punched through was fine, though the second one revealed some darker things around the airport, like it is some scenery boundary that requires something to be able to display through clouds properly:
Thus, perhaps you'll know this: As the tinkering by IPACS of the AFS2 clouds is not allowable, are there other parts of AFS2 that are the same? What I'm trying to get at is if IPACS is a "grand conductor" of efforts by several software firms... or is it almost totally IPACS' baby?
Oh yes, another screenshot is in order...
.
"Comin' into Los An-gel-ez - - - Bringin' in a couple of..."
.
.
...Great pleasure...
.
Center 1/3rd of full screenshot
.
3 screens wide
.
.
soaring
and the surrounding regular scenery looks rather nice too...
..
left monitor
center monitor
right monitor
.
.
Downloaded and installed Northeastern USA. Wow, is it ever amazing! Set the sim for less visibility to match a cold NYC morning this time of year...
Across 3 monitors
and those window reflections move realistically, even the windshield wiper shadow is wonderful.
Awesome sim lighting
Aerofly FS2 are going places. Little by little, one goes far...
.
.
Last edited by boxcar; February 23rd, 2018 at 18:33.
.
.If I would be enjoying AFS2 any more then I'd have to be twins.
From Northeastern USA again, a cold misty NYC morning...
.
left monitor
center monitor
right monitor
All 3 monitors
.
Pretty much their baby, it seems, though they appear happy to work with other companies, especially to make sure that speed of the program remains as uncompromised as possible by "rogue" code that might slow things down fps-wise.
I think X-plane has been the same with their universal gps, working to lessen the need for outside code that might tend to be slower than an alternative, "closer to the metal" solution from the developers themselves.
Hi
Thank you HyFlyer. Presently Aeofly FS 2 runs very well overall. It'll be interesting to see how the incredible performance holds up. Smooth is the keyword here regardless of fps. With most places flown so far that have decent scenery with my graphics set for "Ultra" terrain-wise (first 3 "Custom" selections) and on "High" for building, trees and such (last 3 "Custom" selections), AFS2 is giving me a solid 120 fps locked, though once getting to more complex scenery then it falls to as low as 65 to 75 fps. (example: LaGuardia in the B-90 with Northeastern USA installed averaging 65 fps so far, 75 fps after taking off). It seems sizzling good, and it is... but as ATC gets added plus things (hopefully) like weather, autogen, air traffic, more controls over aircraft systems, etc. then if we end up with, say, even 30 fps with everything on "sliders right" so to speak then I'll be truly amazed. We already badly need a 60 fps lock in AFS2 the way it is, the choices of "Unlocked, 240 fps, 120 fps, and V-Sync" are not enough. Would dearly love to have a 30 fps lock, as well.
Switzerland: Am seeing 70-80 fps range, same settings, though it frees back up to mostly 120 fps when flying over the Alps at higher altitudes...
.
.
...plus the difference in all "Low" graphics settings to all "Ultra" graphics settings...
.
graphics all set "Low" - 120 fps
graphics all set "Ultra" - 65 to 75 fps
.
Aerofly really really likes powerful gpus, the faster, the better. Cpu's..... as I said previously, it doesn't care quite so much.
My 1080gtx at Aerofly ultra settings, stays pegged on my 2k monitors (non-overclocked) maximum 144fps in a 747 over New york. In other areas (over open desert terrain) I have seen 500+ fps.
Hi
Now that is very interesting. Our CPUs are similarly performing, yet in many circumstances my EVGA GTX 1070Ti FTW2 has a better pixel fill rate than your GTX 1080 does. Would you think that my system has a configuration problem?
i7 8700, 1070Ti, 16 Gb 3000 Mhz SDRAM, Samsung SSD
Switzerland: Am seeing 70-80 fps range, same settings, though it frees back up to mostly 120 fps when flying over the Alps at higher altitudes....
...plus the difference in all "Low" graphics settings to all "Ultra" graphics settings...
graphics all set "Low" - 120 fps
graphics all set "Ultra" - 65 to 75 fps
.
.
..
Switzerland
left monitor
.
center monitor
.
right monitor
..
too much fun
.
This could be a case where the relative CPU speeds are actually far enough apart to make a difference. On a hunch, I might suspect your cpu is bottlenecking your graphics card.
Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X 11G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / EVGA Z170 Classified K Motherboard
Hi
Am doubting this, friend. My processor turbos to 4.6 Ghz, the same speed as your overclocked processor delivers.
.
*edit*- Have just noticed that you've subsequently listed your GPU as being a 1080 Ti. On post #16 you say it's a "1080gtx".
A 1080 Ti will definitely way out-perform my 1070Ti. That is the likely difference, HyFyer, not the CPUs.
..
.
My bad. Its a GTX, I'll correct that.
Then something else is going on. I include some old testing pics where you can see the readings in the lower left, of me putt putting along at 400FPS and above.
Hi
Ok, now that I'm actually awake, I checked and I was right the first time. Card is a Gtx 1080 TI
Hi
---.Cooking with gas now...
Where's Waldo?
inverted
.
.
Seems you may have been limiting your FPS?
Hi
Yes, have indicated a few times already in this thread that my practice is to lock at 120 fps, though
my measurements of anything else mentioned here were when AFS2 was unlocked/unchained.
IMHO, it's ridiculous to run at hundreds of fps. Wastes power, creates extra heat.
Better here than at the IPACS forum, where posts disappear after having put much respectful effort into them, not just some of my posts... which is okay in itself, except that the relevant observations and issues are subsequently not addressed either, just ignored. It also seems to me since last Wednesday that one of their moderators frequented this board in years past as well as at FlightSim's forum as a minor moderator there (under a completely different name), which would explain a few initially bewildering things to me.
AFS2 is in many ways incredibly immersive, displaying graphics that are sometimes so real that it's dizzying, seriously...
but there's no AI, no ATC, no autogen buildings, no rain and weather, no hanger-wide cold + dark, no FMCs, no multi-player, no plenty of other things. It's presently a very lonely flight simulator once the initial novelty of those amazing graphics of the tricked-out areas wear off. Once these needed things get implemented into the sim then performance will be taking a significant drop, though it will still likely be way smooth at, say, 60 fps or at least 30 fps. I along with many other simmers want a 60 fps and a 30 fps locks available in AFS2, and to the best of my knowledge we have never received anything more back from IPACS than "We know what you guys want. You tell us all the time here at the forum". They want feedback... yet they don't want to hear it. They're like 2 people wrestling in a potato sack over it, apparently consumed over what other flight simulators we might compare AFS2 with. So be it.
My Aerofly FS 2 is still being enjoyed though it's all but on the back burner now until it matures more, having returned to my beloved FS2004 for the time being. My FSX was dressed-out well with planes and scenery a-plenty and it still was less than 50 Gb on my drive. In comparison, have got relatively few areas of Earth spiffed up in my AFS2 and it's almost completely filling a 250Gb drive already. FS2004-ACOF has virtually everything I want in a flight simulator and it has already for a decade and a half now. Of all 8 of my flight simulators, FS2004 remains the clear favorite. It allows me the wonderful luxury of employing something that's never wanted to be lost: .Imagination
.
.
AFS2 - out on the howling plains of nowhere
.
FS2004 - ditto
.
.
Last edited by boxcar; March 2nd, 2018 at 14:57.
.
Members who have read this thread: 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks