Hello folks,

I'm really enjoying the latest round of P3D conversions and new projects - these days, I'm spending lots of time training, both at the various Yorkshire airfields and RAF Valley.

For some reason, RAF Valley - even with moderate or low levels of AI, really hits my pc's performance. This is not a complaint, as it's a modest PC, but rather a request to ask what bgls could I remove and have a decent looking representation, but with FPS closer to 30 rather than low teens.

I've already set scenery complexity to medium, and took out the car and fence bgls.

Any ideas of what else might helps?

thanks - love the scenery, and plan to use it a great deal.

cheers,

dl

I suppose the obvious question here is what Valley scenery are you using?

Hi - sorry I assumed.

I'm using the MAIW P3DV4 2019 version done by Matthew Kingscott as uploaded here:

https://militaryaiworks.com/download-ha ... ed-kingdom

Many thanks and apologies for not being clear in my original post.

dl

Not a problem, we just have to check. You would be surprised how many people use third party scenery and think we know how to fix things.

OK. I notice that the note says that it is made for v4, can we assume that you are using v4?

Then I will let people that use P3D see if they can help you.

One last question that I think should be asked is what is the difference with the scenery on it's own and the scenery with AI?

I just ran a test of the files in P3Dv5, measuring the frame rate at the threshold of runway 13 and viewing the bulk of the scenery objects off to the left. With scenery complexity at "Extremely Dense", Autogen Density at "Dense" and with no clouds or AI, I got 104 fps, which is really good.

If I remove the 4 .bgls suggested in the manual, I boosted the frame rate to 160 fps. Which is way in excess of what is needed.

This is with an Intel I7 9700K processor, a GeForce RTX 2020 card and 16 GB RAM.

I don't think there's any problem at all with the scenery. As Steve, asked, what frame rate do you get with AI turned off?

John

Hi, thanks John - your Hawk, JP, Gazelle and other RAF models have really motivated me to more UK flying, so I appreciate you piping in.

First, specs. PC is an i5 4430, 16G RAM, GeForce GTX 1050Ti (4G) running P3Dv4.5 on W7. I re-read the manual and found the other two landing light files that I had overlooked in deleting, and deleted those before doing another test, which helped a bit.

So ran a quick test with 4 aforementioned files removed and zero AI (airline, GA, airport veh) and it bumped up - the results were a constant fluctuation between 16-23 fps. Adding in a bit of traffic (25% airline and GA) dropped it to 14-19 fps. Reducing scenery complexity to medium from dense made no appreciable difference.

I should note I'm testing with the the closest to the Hawk T1 that I have, with is the Indiafoxtech T-45 by Dino. I find it's a bit of a hog, because with something like either the new Sim-Mech JP or even the Razbam Harrier GR9, I can get better those numbers by at around 5 fps. I peg to 30fps, as I've found that prevents some weirdness when doing carrier ops.

I need to reiterate that I'm not at all complaining - it's a lovely scenery and I acknowledge I'm running a slow pc. It's just that by contrast, airfields like the very detailed MAIW Coningsby, for example, I've left untouched, and with the above AI settings, get 23-28 fps. So I figured I'd ask. Failing that, I'll find another airfield with RAF Hawk T1s. There was an FSX version of Leeming I tried, but that had all manner of non-compatibility issues.

Thanks,

dl

Just tested Ian's RAF Coningsby in P3D4.5 under the same conditions as the Valley scenery and got 130 fps with no AI. Even though Coningsby is a far more detailed scenery, Ian really knows how to build, not just for visual appearance, but for frame rate too. In fact, I would think Ian's RAF Coningsby is one of the most efficient sceneries around and is a gold standard.

Valley is obviously less efficient, based on my results and yours, but I would think from your results that your specs are not really adequate in P3Dv4 for most scenery. You need to achieve a minimum frame rate of about 25 fps for smooth flying no matter what you are looking at. Apart from sliding your P3D settings further to the left, I don't know if upgrading your graphics card might help.

John

Thanks John,

I'll play around with some more settings, and for kicks, I tried DaveG's Hunter, which as a more basic model, I figured would help with processing. Sure enough, with some AI, the "stripped down" EGOV now yields me mid 20s fps. So part of the equation is a more basic and/or more efficiently coded plane. The Razbam Harrier, as I mentioned, gives me superb FPS, and that's with two MFDs as well. So maybe in the interim, until I do an upgrade, it's either fly the Hunter T7 from Valley or fly heavier planes elsewhere. The Yorkshire airfields are very light in frames, and are decent quality.

Yes, I fully agree, there's certain devs that really work magic with products that look gorgeous and perform with seemingly no hit to the pc. Ian's airfields, as well as the ACG products, and the RFN creators' flyable planes and their aircraft carriers are examples of truly amazing looking products that are both easy on the eyes and on the hardware.