Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Consistent higher-end FPS using DX9a

Recommended Posts

A short note to report that after having gone to DX9a from DX8.1, that I am getting top performance from my 16 FPS limited FS2002. I was concerned with using DX9a at first after having seen (what I thought was) a slower rotational speed of the test cube spin. But, funny as this is, that aside, my FPS pretty much now stay at 15.8.I have no 'reasons' to offer as to why my FPS performance DID increase and maintain.I maintain and groom my files all the time, so that discounts that the mere 'new' install of the DX files prompted the performance boost.There is the big hullabaloo about whether ANY new version of DX beyond what the program originally called for would show any performance improvement. I can only report what I have found after having used the new DX9a version for a number of days.In my case? There is a major improvement. Where, under DX8.1, my frame rates would dip to the 12's depending on what was happening in the sim, the FPS as stated above pretty much stay for the better part ((under DX9a) at the reported average of 15.8 FPS. Again, I have the sim capped off at 16 FPS. Use this information as you will. Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hey Mitch...Good post... Just curious, what are your system specs, and what scenario is used for the 16fps? I'd like a good benchmark to measure my system and upgrade against. Only thing keeping me from the DX upgrade at this point is bandwidth...it's one heck of a DL on dial-up...-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John!My present system is:Green Machine 1.4 Ghz CPU (Tuluatin Core)Abit BM6 MOBOGeForce 2 (32 meg) Video CardLive (Value) set to STANDARD ACCEL. (THIS TAKES CARE OF ANY SOUND PROBLEMS) Just one notch below FULL512 Megs of PC-133 RAMNothing at all exotic, John.----------------------------------------------Like you, I remained with DX8.1 because I did not want to SCREW AROUND with a DX version that worked flawlessly.Curiosity got the better part of me...and I downloaded and installed DX9a. I went through the DX test masks to make sure all was in order. I observed the CUBE SPIN test animation under all three parameters on the VIDEO page and after putting sound accel to STANDARD---then holding my breath..lol...I fired up FS2002.Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! It was a GREAT MOVE! As said, I have the sim with everything full bore over to the right with the only exceptions of ground object and plane shadows turned off. I run at 1024X768 rez. On ATC, I run with the IFR ONLY check box ticked, but at the full 100 percent.With a you-know-what-load of of AI operating out of and into my virtual world, it pretty much no longer matters if I am at taxi, landing on final, or taking off. I pretty much stay at 15.8 FPS for any situation in or out of the cockpit.Before, with running DX8.1, I'd get the dips to the 12's. under some graphic load conditions Under both versions of DX, I get/got smooth animation.Nobody....can tell me that you don't get a boost by running under the latest official DX9a release! Well..I guess that I should modify that...if they have a system similar to mine or better in the spec department---they sure as heck will!!! The proof is in the sim on the screen before me, ---on final approach down to the numbers and not some BENCHMARK score. My view anyway. 15.8 (16 capped in Hardware) FPS give me no reason to upgrade my system in order to simulate taxi, take-off, cruise, and landing. I'm one happy camper since throwing in DX9a. All aspects of flight have smooth and life-like animation--and THAT is the Holy Grail. You can put the cup down after that...:)I suggest you go for it. Just make sure that it is the latest official release off of the M.S. DX website.One final note..as per my original post, it appears that the TEST SPIN of the cube is slower in animation than spinning under 8.1 BUT...but...perhaps there are more processes going on? No matter---the proof is in the sim, and not on the DX test and diagnose mask.Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Squawk Box and DX 9.x is a nogo. Have you guys, or anyone else, tried VATSIM using DX 9.x?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the step... installing was a breeze...On first looks, I gained in general about 3 fps :-walksmile P4-1.8 Ghz - Geforce Titanium 4600 - Driver: 40.72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...that was my experience also.Told ya...lol:)Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using Nvidia's official 43.45 driver from off their site, and that I'm running Windows 98 SE with all updates in place.Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also report that DirectX 9.0a works just fine with VATSIM and Squawkbox. Actually, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as over the course of the past year, I've used DirectX 8.0, 8.1, 8.1a, 9.0, and 9.0a and have never had a single problem with VATSIM or SB.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Testerhttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 42.86 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click Here to Download my American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I wanted to point out that Windows XP does not use your processers L2 cache.To correct this, open regedit by clicking on the start menu and going into "Run" and typing: REGEDITBrowse to here:My Computerhkey_local_machinesystemCurrentControlSetcontrolsession managermemory managementOn the right you will see then on the right there is SecondLevelDataCache. Double click on this and on the right in that window there is "Base". Select decimal. Enter your processer cache value; IE. A Pentium 4 2.8Ghz is "512" cache.Use this at your own risk! I will not be held responsible for anything that goes wrong. This worked fine for me and even increased FS2002 performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this actually true?I'm not disputing this tip, but why would XP be programmed to ignore the cache memory, I wonder? Isn't this considerably faster than accessing main memory? Is this a bug in XP? I'd be interested in any thoughts on this. And a great tip, if indeed I understand correctly what you are saying.Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious Paul...I've seen a great change in the way you communicate your ideas in the forum in recent weeks. Even yesterday, you ignored a comment I made about one of your previous threads so you could post a "you miss the point" response, even though I quite clearly stated my point.What it comes down to is you are not the only sim guru on the forum. Certainly, not an elected "defender of the faith." What you are is someone I respect highly, and someone who has made posts which I feel have contributed highly to understanding of the sim. Posts like this, even if I tend to agree with them, do not, because they shut people down cold. That's how other forums choose to play things out, but I always thought members of this site had risen above that.And sadly, MS may be fueling this whole debate, as their own blurb on DX 9.0a cites better framerates. I still haven't taken the plunge, and likely won't until after I upgrade my system later this year. But I admit I made a mistake by barging in to one of these DX threads recently, and trying to debunk someone's evaluation of the upgrade. Truth is--it is none of my business whether someone perceives DirectX as being better, or whether it truly is. I, and no one here, have been selected as judge and jury. So, with my rant over, next time just suggest the old adage: YMMV....Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like another dud tweaking tip ?from this article #34 http://www.xptuneup.com/tip0050.htm----------------------------------"34. Correctly set your level 2 cache and improve performance !!I read about this trick the other day over Internet. Open Registry by going to START-RUN and typing REGEDIT. Navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSession ManagerMemory ManagementSecondLevelDataCache. Based on the kind of CPU you have, this value should change. Here are some of the defaults. Intel Celeron - 128 , AMD Duron - 64. PII and Athalon: 512. Cyrix and AMD K6-3 256. Pentium IV-1024. Figure out what your CPU type is and what L2 cache it supports and set it accordingly. It is important to know what critics have to say about this tweak. Opinions vary and I have put following three articles that have been brought to my attention which may help you understand why it may not be effective in some situations:Do not change the SecondLevelDataCache entry (from Microsoft technet article)Some third-party sources have erroneously reported that modifying the SecondLevelDataCache registry entry in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE System CurrentControlSet Control Session ManagerMemory Management can enhance system performance. The second level (L2) cache is recognized by the operating system and is fully utilized regardless of the setting of this parameter. (from Microsoft knowledge base item Q183063)This is not related to the hardware; it is only useful for computers with direct-mapped L2 caches. Pentium II and later processors do not have direct- mapped L2 caches. SecondLevelDataCache can increase performance by approximately 2 percent in certain cases for older computers with ample memory (more than 64 MB) by scattering physical pages better in the address space so there are not so many L2 cache collisions. Setting SecondLevelDataCache to 256 KB rather than 2 MB (when the computer has a 2 MB L2 cache) would probably have about a 0.4 percent performance penalty. (From an arstechnica article) One of the most infamous NT tweaks since the introduction of NT4 has got to be the "L2 cache" tweak, a lone registry entry which stipulates the amount of L2 cache (or secondary cache) that the OS will make use of. Well, as with many things in life, the effects of this tweak are not so black and white. If you're using a processor that implements a direct-mapped L2 cache design (like Pentium I's), then this registry adjustment is indeed for you. However, if you own any Intel processor post-PI, or any modern AMD processor (K6-2 and newer), then your processor is using a set-associative L2 cache design, and thus you need not specify your L2 cache size. Let me explain.If you choose not to futz with the registry key in question, the OS will call on the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) for retrieval of the L2 cache size when you boot your computer. If this happens to fail, a default value of 256KB is used for all logon sessions on that boot session. This is where the myth that NT can only use 256KB of L2 cache comes from. But it's false. See, the HAL is able to retrieve the processor (L2) cache from any processor using the set-associative cache design, it's only the relatively few processors out there with direct-mapped L2 caches that the HAL won't chat it up with. Thus, this tweak only applies to a select number of people anymore (like people with Pentium I procs between 166-233MHz, as lower rated procs had only 256KB cache).-" Kurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Search the Internet like I did."You mean like this?http://www.tweakxp.com/idealbb/view.asp?to...F-F6A07CE5128F}http://www.tweakxp.com/idealbb/view.asp?to...F-F6A07CE5128F}and to quote:"It's a bogus tweak.... it's been discussed before it only works for old cpus where the L2 cache isn't built into the die"This is from a site that I trust on XP upgrade issues. I'm not sure wherre you went to find this info.Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am curious Paul...>>I've seen a great change in the way you communicate your ideas>in the forum in recent weeks. Even yesterday, you ignored a>comment I made about one of your previous threads so you could>post a "you miss the point" response, even though I quite>clearly stated my point.If you didn't notice John, there is a full moon out tonight.:)Seriously, You think I ignored a comment you made so that I could post a "you missed..."?That is simply nuts. If you are more worried about how I post and the "feel" that may or may not be really there than what is actually being shared with you I can't help you as warm and tender have never been my hallmark here LOL!!!>>What it comes down to is you are not the only sim guru on the>forum. Certainly, not an elected "defender of the faith." >What you are is someone I respect highly, and someone who has>made posts which I feel have contributed highly to>understanding of the sim. Posts like this, even if I tend to>agree with them, do not, because they shut people down cold.I do apologize to you and anyone else who would take it that way, Sorry. Really.Mitch, if you felt I was talking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well whatever they say it improved mine..LOL Shane!The guy just gave you some "real" facts on the subject and you would be unwise to just blow it off.Geeshk, John C. U see what can happen? ROTFLOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't flame me for it - I thought it was pretty interesting myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....you as warm and tender have never been my hallmark here"Well, I wouldn't agree more :) but in spite of that, when you offer an opinion, I listen. Seriously, don't sell yourself short--you don't hide your brilliance very well. IMHO, your piece on the FS2002.cfg is one example, and your work on Rochester, another.Beyond that, I agree that the forum can take on an Ann Landers look sometimes, or perhaps better thought of as Jerry Springer? Still, why should we care? My PC won't fail if someone decided DX 9 is the cure all. And the fringe benefit--if enough people load it and somehow nuke their systems, those of us who know better will all have more bandwidth to share :) Seriously again, I don't feel we should hold members of this forum up to some type of litmus test of technical or simming accuracy. I feel the forum is a place to grow friendships, and to share our hobby. I didn't come here thinking I was going to find, or be required to provide, all the answers. I have more than enough technical rags at the office to satisfy my hunger for "truth." Among other things, I'm paid to produce a monthly newsletter which no one reads, that deals with such bytes of wisdom as our latest switch purchases, S/W deployment, and T1 contracts. Ask even my boss what I wrote, and he'd say "John's staff deployed "T1 software" so we could "switch" off the lights". Being ignored doesn't hurt me much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,One thing that I've repeatedly noticed in your DX9 "crusade" (so to speak :-)) is that you miss some obvious possibilities. One of the most obvious: compiler optimization. Indeed, the code may not have been any more "optimized" internally for DX6, 7 applications... But a different compiler, compiler options, etc. can dramatically effect existing code and its efficiency in execution. This is just one example of how one code base can be "improved" once compiled without actually changing the underlying code.Although I've read just about every post made concerning DX9, I haven't made a comment in them to date because essentially I agree with your position and thus have had nothing substantial to add. It is very possible however that some may see a "slight" increase in performance with DX9 depending upon many factors such as their platform, how optimized the new binaries are for that platform, etc. Lets not forget that regardless of video card and respective abilities, a substantial amount of processing is still done on the cpu in DirectX. Any claims that DX9 will "dramatically" improve framerates should indeed be dissuaded simply due to empirical evidence (in a nice manner - nothing prevents you from giving great advice in a friendly way there Paul ;-)). But threads like this claiming a "3fps increase" or slight improvements? Sure, I can see it - due to many factors.The main point here: no harm is done with a thread like this even if it turned out false (which I'm not saying it did), simply because everyone will eventually have to upgrade to DX9 anyway. Its the out-and-out stratosphere claims ("Look! 100fps with a simple FS ini change!") that really deserve your criticism, since those are the ones that truly lead people down a false path.Take care,Elrond ---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul, no offense taken. Never is! I have broad shoulders and man-oh-man, but life is way too short to get my 'johns' in a knot, LOLI can only report to you what my sim is producing, nonetheless any of my hardware is DX9 specified.Before with DX8.1---I had 'X' frame rates.Now...with DX9a--- I have 'X' plus 3 nominal.That's the end of the story, short and sweet. 3 more frames for the installing of DX9a.I don't write the code...and don't know what they can do to tweak. I only know what is before me and what my sim is publishing. If the sim is publishing 3 more...then they are what I call for lack of a better phrase, 'software real' and not my perceived notion. Those extra 3 frames make a true difference in the fluidity of the sim.Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch:Well, as someone with almost the same system specs as you, I am very excited by your post. I've never had any problems with VATSIM and the various DX upgrades released in the past, and it's encouraging to hear that people are using both without problems. I've been running DX9 without too many problems, though I have noticed that though rare, FS locks up and crashes a bit more often than it used to before I installed it. Maybe just a coincidence. One other thing worth mentioning, and I don't know what others have experienced in this regard, but even with 640MB RAM I'm amazed by how quickly my system resources are exhausted these days. This despite many tweaking tips about modifying Vcache, etc. I tried resurrecting my old copy of CACHEMAN, to see if it might help in this regard, and lo and behold my simulator sessions seem to be running smoothly, and without incident, and most importantly, without exausting the system resources so quickly Just a thought to those of you who might be having similar issues with easily exausted system resources.http://www.expedia.com/pubspec/images/airlines/smNW.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZMinneapolis, MN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this