Reducing the Flight Simulator to ONE computer.

[OmniAtlas]

With all the latest technology I would like to know your opinion if this is possible.

I know of several commercial flight simulator setups with the latest video card and CPU processor doing 3 projector setups with one channel (one computer) and edge blended. The setups are using Prepar3D. Most likely they are using the latest CPU intel processor as FSX/P3D is more CPU dependent. They are also probably using the latest Nvidia card (a 1070, 1080, or Titan) with the available video ram to process the video resolution and effects such as clouds and shadows.

I would like to downgrade to one computer simply because I would like to

1. Reduce my carbon footprint
2. Reduce the space footprint
3. Simplify the setup (less computers to manage)
4. Reduce any amount of lag that would present over a network.

Is Jeehell FMGS very much CPU, video card, or a bit of both dependent?

Would the latest Intel i7 be capable of such performance? Will hyperthreading be helpful?

The computer will need to output to 8 screens --

3x visuals (3x1080p)
3x MIP screens
2x MCDU

Running avionics software, and P3D concurrently. Thank you.

Ben

[jeehell]

Hi Ben

This is possible to run all soft on one PC (I do it occasionnally). You need a good core i7 CPU (best is to have many cores at high clock rate each...)
The CPU will always be the blocking thing (with P3D for now at least).
However, all soft + P3D *3 1080p projectors, this might be hard...

JL

[spiliot]

What I do - and works great - is to have the main GPU (1060) do only P3D visuals on my monitor or projector and one extra GPU (550ti, old and far less powerful) doing the extra two monitors for the displays.

My CPU is a modest old i5-2500K, overclocked at 4.5Ghz, managing everything although without any slack. The ND, and in lesser extend the PFD, are far more performance hungry than all other virtual displays. Even ActiveSky takes up a decent amount of CPU when it does its processing. A modern i5 or even better i7, certainly overclocked, (you do need all the juice you can get out of it), shouldn't be having trouble running an extra set of ND/PFD while feeding P3D.

The second GPU only needs to do the anti-aliasing rendering for the JH displays which is a relatively easy task for modern (up to 4y old, descent for their time) cards. I run PFD/ND/EWD/SD/MCDU/clock/ISIS/DDRMI with full AA settings on the second card and it stays below 40% GPU, which means I could probably add the second ND/PFD as well without it blinking, assuming of course my CPU could handle it, which it doesn't.

Finally, my experience is that FSX is out of the question, it doesn't utilize the GPU enough and so many things get processed on the CPU, eventually killing it. P3D offloads lots to the GPU and gets better at it all the time, so it's the only solution.

[OmniAtlas]

Hi all --

spiliot -- I currently already run off 2 computers -- the avionics (FMGS clients) similar to your setup on a 2500k and a cheap Nvidia 700x (I think) video card. This runs well but I would like to reduce the processing to one computer (why have double of everything - memory, hard drive, motherboard, PSU, etc, when one will do?). The P3D computer has now also become the office computer so I need to build another one.

JL -- some say the 6700k is best for P3D (highest clockable rate available), but as you are suggesting, if I am running off one computer aim for a CPU with the most cores? I am not too sure how computer architecture works, but if lets say P3D is on core 1, your software knows how to distribute processing over the other cores?

It seems the 6800k has more cores, but clocked at a lower rate -- http://ark.intel.com/compare/88195,94189.

[iwik]

Ben,
The bottom line is up to what you expect to see when flying. Ultimate detail and very smooth flying then multiple PC's. Flight Simulation is a hog on resources and the powers to be have said re graphics cards that multiple displays and high detail requires large GPU memory so a GTX1080 or higher would be required.
I would still not run what you do on any less than 2 pc's and you will get out of this hobby what you are prepared to put in ie the more hassles,equipment you are prepared to put up with the better your experience will be.

Regards
Les

[OmniAtlas]

Perhaps it is best to separate the avionics from the visuals -- the avionics computer has to sit at the back of the MIP, and the visual computer with the projector.

However worth testing and perhaps in my next build I can see if is doable with a 6700k or better processor.

I have heard you can now link up displays with ?firewire ?usb-c and this may simplify things.

[asessa]

I Ben, this is my experience.

I had 1 pc setup till last december.
My old configuration was :
-i7 960 3.2ghz
-12 gb RAM DDR3 1866
-GTX 660 2GB for Sim and MCDU and OVH
-GTX 460 1GB for the 2 monitor with pdf/nd and ecam/sd

I have a single sit setup (only cpt)

The sim was ok, fps was about 20fps (fixed)

But with 2 pc setup and a new pc i have now 30fps (fixed)!

this is my configuration now :

1st PC [P3D, OVH, MCDU]
-i5 6600K
-16 GB DDR4 2400Mhz
-GTX 970 4Gb

2nd PC [CPT SIDE and ECAM/SD]
-Cpu Q6600 2.4ghz
-4 GB DDR2 667Mhz
-GT210 1GB

So i think it's better 2pc than 1pc

[spiliot]

With my 5y+ old i5-2500k and a gtx1060 I get 31fps in one 1080 display (fixed to 31 so there's some slack to at least keep VSYNC at 30). Almost all sliders are set to the right producing excellent visual quality and JH is running in the same machine (as explained in a post above). In fact, overclocking is only needed for JH/AS16, P3D doesn't use more than 35% CPU by itself.

If a gtx1080 can handle three full HD displays/projectors (word has it does and at far more than 30fps) then a recent motherboard with an i5 processor will be able to handle both P3D and JH (with the help of an extra GPU to drive the aircraft displays)*. If one can go to an i7, even better, it might even not need overclocking**.

*: My overclock provides 35% better performance. A recent i5-6600K provides around 45% improvement against i5-2500K at stock speed which means an i5-6600K without overclock outperforms my overclocked i5-2500K.
**: i7-6700K provides 65%-85% better performance against stock i5-2500K.

(This is a paper exercise, with the complexity of each setup no-one can really vouch for the actual performance received beforehand)

[OmniAtlas]

My next objective is to see if I can cram an i7-6700k overclocked into the smallest possible case --

There are some nice small form factor cases out these days --

http://www.techspot.com/news/67062-m...tor-pc-vr.html

https://www.ncases.com/

[spiliot]

What drives you to do that? Effectively you'll be paying more to get rather limited hardware and options. You most probably won't be able to do any overclock, there won't be place for an extra GPU if you need it and most systems are going to be already soldered on the motherboard. A single isolated failure will render everything useless. For example if the MB fails you also loose the CPU and GPU that you could otherwise swap to a different MB.

A normal small size ATX case costs 20-25$. It might be two or three times the size of the slice you posted above but still it would be quite small and give you all options for PSU, MB, etc.