FSX is broken...

[bsupnik 23]

Hi Y'all,There is an astounding amount of conjecture here...about the internals of FSX and X-Plane, two closed source rendering engines, and about their relative performances, and relative efficiencies.In the case of X-Plane, I consider efficiency in terms of "real" output, e.g.- if you are getting 7000 objects on screen at 30 fps, you're doing okay...if those 7k objects don't add up to nice looking scenery, that's a real problem, but not an efficiency problem. (It'd be a problem with the choice of rendering settings or the underlying scenery, or both, e.g. the 7000 objects aren't being used where the are needed.)- if you are getting 500 objects on screen at 19 fps, that's a performance problem, an efficiency problem...since our rendering engine CAN handle this load, I would look at drivers ,etc...in other words, since lots of users handle loads much higher than that, it indicates a localized problem.It's going to be really, really hard to compare FS X to X-Plane performance and efficiency without an apples-to-apples comparison. Even a conversion of an FS X scenery via FS2Xplane isn't going to be a great comparison because the original content was authored for what FS X does well, not what X-Plane does well. (When I last looked at such an Apples to Apples comparison, that is, converted pack on FS 9 vs X-Plane-whatever-was-current on my P-IV back in the day, X-Plane provided higher fps. But that's a single data point from a long time ago. Still, it makes me think we might hold up okay in such a comparison.)Geofa, if you are using an 8800 and you get fps hits going to 1920x1200, soemthing funky is going on - that card should easily handle that res with X-Plane, even on aggressive settings...you may want to try using nv control panel FSAA instead of X-plane's setting...some users say that makes a difference.If you are using an 8400 and you get a fps hit at 1920x1200, turn down the ren stetings - the 8400 doesn't have good fill rate, this is perfectly normal (and any app that _does_ run well at that res isn't providing a lot of per pixel processing).cheersBen

[tf51d 284]

Hi Y'all,There is an astounding amount of conjecture here...about the internals of FSX and X-Plane, two closed source rendering engines, and about their relative performances, and relative efficiencies.In the case of X-Plane, I consider efficiency in terms of "real" output, e.g.- if you are getting 7000 objects on screen at 30 fps, you're doing okay...if those 7k objects don't add up to nice looking scenery, that's a real problem, but not an efficiency problem. (It'd be a problem with the choice of rendering settings or the underlying scenery, or both, e.g. the 7000 objects aren't being used where the are needed.)- if you are getting 500 objects on screen at 19 fps, that's a performance problem, an efficiency problem...since our rendering engine CAN handle this load, I would look at drivers ,etc...in other words, since lots of users handle loads much higher than that, it indicates a localized problem.It's going to be really, really hard to compare FS X to X-Plane performance and efficiency without an apples-to-apples comparison. Even a conversion of an FS X scenery via FS2Xplane isn't going to be a great comparison because the original content was authored for what FS X does well, not what X-Plane does well. (When I last looked at such an Apples to Apples comparison, that is, converted pack on FS 9 vs X-Plane-whatever-was-current on my P-IV back in the day, X-Plane provided higher fps. But that's a single data point from a long time ago. Still, it makes me think we might hold up okay in such a comparison.)Geofa, if you are using an 8800 and you get fps hits going to 1920x1200, soemthing funky is going on - that card should easily handle that res with X-Plane, even on aggressive settings...you may want to try using nv control panel FSAA instead of X-plane's setting...some users say that makes a difference.If you are using an 8400 and you get a fps hit at 1920x1200, turn down the ren stetings - the 8400 doesn't have good fill rate, this is perfectly normal (and any app that _does_ run well at that res isn't providing a lot of per pixel processing).cheersBen

Then the big question is, if performance isn't a problem for X-Plane, why is the visibility limit so low? There had to be a reason Austin limited it. If it wasn't performance then what?

[Aerodynamic 0]

Hi Y'all,There is an astounding amount of conjecture here...about the internals of FSX and X-Plane, two closed source rendering engines, and about their relative performances, and relative efficiencies.In the case of X-Plane, I consider efficiency in terms of "real" output, e.g.- if you are getting 7000 objects on screen at 30 fps, you're doing okay...if those 7k objects don't add up to nice looking scenery, that's a real problem, but not an efficiency problem. (It'd be a problem with the choice of rendering settings or the underlying scenery, or both, e.g. the 7000 objects aren't being used where the are needed.)- if you are getting 500 objects on screen at 19 fps, that's a performance problem, an efficiency problem...since our rendering engine CAN handle this load, I would look at drivers ,etc...in other words, since lots of users handle loads much higher than that, it indicates a localized problem.It's going to be really, really hard to compare FS X to X-Plane performance and efficiency without an apples-to-apples comparison. Even a conversion of an FS X scenery via FS2Xplane isn't going to be a great comparison because the original content was authored for what FS X does well, not what X-Plane does well. (When I last looked at such an Apples to Apples comparison, that is, converted pack on FS 9 vs X-Plane-whatever-was-current on my P-IV back in the day, X-Plane provided higher fps. But that's a single data point from a long time ago. Still, it makes me think we might hold up okay in such a comparison.)Geofa, if you are using an 8800 and you get fps hits going to 1920x1200, soemthing funky is going on - that card should easily handle that res with X-Plane, even on aggressive settings...you may want to try using nv control panel FSAA instead of X-plane's setting...some users say that makes a difference.If you are using an 8400 and you get a fps hit at 1920x1200, turn down the ren stetings - the 8400 doesn't have good fill rate, this is perfectly normal (and any app that _does_ run well at that res isn't providing a lot of per pixel processing).cheersBen

Ben, thanks for taking the time to reply. You nailed home a lot of the points I was trying to touch upon. I also am curious why X-Plane doesn't offer unlimited visibility as a possibilty. Don't get me wrong, I love and prefer X-Plane's appearance as far as weather and visibility is handled, but I am just curious since a lot of people ask about that.Scott

[Aerodynamic 0]

Sorry.....................I don't have those problems.

I'm pretty sure you do and that you are just used to "working around them" by using DirectX 9 and locked spot view. I have tried with both ATI and Nvidia equipment with similar results. If you enable DX10 Preview, you will see flashing runway textures and your nav lights will mysteriously vanish when panning around your aircraft. I have posted in numerous forums asking about these issues, including here at Avsim. I received responses from others indicating that is "normal" and to watch the replays in locked spot view, which does cure the problem. As for the DirectX 10 Preview glitches, those are well known and widespread. If you are in the .000001% that are not experiencing issues with DirectX 10 Preview, you need to be thankful to some diety somewhere!Scott

[Geofa 108]

Hi Y'all,There is an astounding amount of conjecture here...about the internals of FSX and X-Plane, two closed source rendering engines, and about their relative performances, and relative efficiencies.In the case of X-Plane, I consider efficiency in terms of "real" output, e.g.- if you are getting 7000 objects on screen at 30 fps, you're doing okay...if those 7k objects don't add up to nice looking scenery, that's a real problem, but not an efficiency problem. (It'd be a problem with the choice of rendering settings or the underlying scenery, or both, e.g. the 7000 objects aren't being used where the are needed.)- if you are getting 500 objects on screen at 19 fps, that's a performance problem, an efficiency problem...since our rendering engine CAN handle this load, I would look at drivers ,etc...in other words, since lots of users handle loads much higher than that, it indicates a localized problem.It's going to be really, really hard to compare FS X to X-Plane performance and efficiency without an apples-to-apples comparison. Even a conversion of an FS X scenery via FS2Xplane isn't going to be a great comparison because the original content was authored for what FS X does well, not what X-Plane does well. (When I last looked at such an Apples to Apples comparison, that is, converted pack on FS 9 vs X-Plane-whatever-was-current on my P-IV back in the day, X-Plane provided higher fps. But that's a single data point from a long time ago. Still, it makes me think we might hold up okay in such a comparison.)Geofa, if you are using an 8800 and you get fps hits going to 1920x1200, soemthing funky is going on - that card should easily handle that res with X-Plane, even on aggressive settings...you may want to try using nv control panel FSAA instead of X-plane's setting...some users say that makes a difference.If you are using an 8400 and you get a fps hit at 1920x1200, turn down the ren stetings - the 8400 doesn't have good fill rate, this is perfectly normal (and any app that _does_ run well at that res isn't providing a lot of per pixel processing).cheersBen

Thanks Ben-as usual these threads take a mind of their own. There is no way to completely compare-but what started all this was less about xplane and more about fsx. My original point and I still stand by it-if you tune fsx to show a similar amount of objects and rendering condition, the performance is the same, if not better on my machine. I am actually delighted with the performance on each.I have and 8800gt-I will try turning off aa and antialising in xplane and use the control panel instead. <edit> Turning off aa, and antialising to 1 gave me 10 more frames,and now reducing from 1900 to 1240 gives about 5.

[MatthewS 761]

Then the big question is, if performance isn't a problem for X-Plane, why is the visibility limit so low? There had to be a reason Austin limited it. If it wasn't performance then what?

Maybe this is "legacy" code from v7 or v8 that never got updated? Modern CPU/GPUs should be able to handle more than 25NM. I run a 2 year old Q6600/8800GT and still get 50-60fps (@1920x1200) in XP. Surely this extra FPS is just sitting around being wasted when it could be used to render more than 25NM visibility?Maybe XP10 (or even XP 9.5 :() can have a slider of 25,50,75,100NM max visibility options (and default to 25 like in XP9 9.41). To me XP9 can feel a little claustrophobic especially at high altitude, 25NM is just not enough. This is the only thing I really "hate" about XP compared to FSX.Also, I thought this was Ben's coding responsibility (and not Austins). Please let it be so :( because Ben frequents these forums and is likely to take notice of such suggestions. I don't think Austin spends much time on community forums.edit: And surely XP only needs to draw the "mesh" (mountains/waterbodies) for distances greater than 25NM. No "autogen" or scenery objects are going to be visible at distances greater than 25NM anyway.

[MatthewS 761]

I have and 8800gt-I will try turning off aa and antialising in xplane and use the control panel instead. <edit> Turning off aa, and antialising to 1 gave me 10 more frames,and now reducing from 1900 to 1240 gives about 5.

I have a 8800GT too and always use the nvidia control panel and not the XP render options. Sounds like your getting more FPS now, XP FPS are not so bad with a little tweaking.

[Geofa 108]

I have a 8800GT too and always use the nvidia control panel and not the XP render options. Sounds like your getting more FPS now, XP FPS are not so bad with a little tweaking.

Again-I never complained of bad fps with xplane..

[MatthewS 761]

The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."I will agree with that when xplane has finally caught up and surpassed fsx. Until then fsx will be very alive. I see nothing "evasive" about that. I think my last post was extremely clear, and I am going to rest on that.

If you read my statement you will see I'm talking about the "core" platforms (as developed by ACES and Laminar Research) and not third party extensions.What I state is fact. And still you cannot accept it?Take for example hardware instancing that is available on 2009 graphics cards. This has the potential to increase graphic detail immensely whilst improving performance also! How? Well look at the CRJ200 video, the cabin is modeled and there are about 80 seats in it. Each of those seats is identical. Currently the geometry of each seat needs to be transferred across the bus. With hardware instancing the geometry only needs to be transferred once and the graphics card will create multiple instances as required.If XP10 could take advantage of this new tech then we would see very detailed models with faster FPS. FSX can never take advantage of this tech because it didn't even exist in 2006.IMHO this is an area where Laminar need to focus in XP10. Give the XP10 core platform the power to utilize the latest advances in GPU tech. :( Third party developers will use these capabilities to build outstanding aircraft models that leave FSX models "for dead".

[Geofa 108]

If you read my statement you will see I'm talking about the "core" platforms (as developed by ACES and Laminar Research) and not third party extensions.What I state is fact. And still you cannot accept it?Take for example hardware instancing that is available on 2009 graphics cards. This has the potential to increase graphic detail immensely whilst improving performance also! How? Well look at the CRJ200 video, the cabin is modeled and there are about 80 seats in it. Each of those seats is identical. Currently the geometry of each seat needs to be transferred across the bus. With hardware instancing the geometry only needs to be transferred once and the graphics card will create multiple instances as required.If XP10 could take advantage of this new tech then we would see very detailed models with faster FPS. FSX can never take advantage of this tech because it didn't even exist in 2006.IMHO this is an area where Laminar need to focus in XP10. Give the XP10 core platform the power to utilize the latest advances in GPU tech. :( Third party developers will use these capabilities to build outstanding aircraft models that leave FSX models "for dead".

Mathew-you are talking in circles now.Suggest you go back and read what I said.

[MatthewS 761]

Mathew-you are talking in circles now.Suggest you go back and read what I said.

Really? Just face it Geof what I say below is true but you seem to be not able to accept the reality of my statement for some reason and continue to evade an answer.The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."Case in point, Hardware Instancing, see my example above.edit: Another example is Order Independent Transparency which Ben talks about specifically in his blog posts. FSX can never do this! XP10 can if Ben takes advantage of this new GPU tech.http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/12/...ter-humans.htmlhttp://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/10/...hrough-you.html

[Geofa 108]

Really? Just face it Geoff what I say below is true but you seem to be not able to accept the reality of my statement for some reason and continue to evade an answer.The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."Case in point, Hardware Instancing, see my example above.

Mathew-I will address this one more time and then I am out of here as this is getting really, really pointless.There are certain things I require for a flight sim to be useful to me. That would be extremely realistic working instruments that resemble their real world counterparts, fm's that give rw expected responses and fly by the appropriate numbers, ai traffic that behaves in a realistic fashion and that populates airports and airspace, geography that resembles its' real world counterparts including bodies of water and geographic features, aircraft that match with high fidelity in every respect to those that I fly, worldwide approaches, airport buildings in their correct places at all airports, atc. Right now these features are for the most part missing from Xplane, and for the most part they are present in fsx. The Fsx core still has room to grow, can be enhanced, and presently is much further with add ins in all these areas. This is very largly missing from Xplane at present-both the features and the add ins. So I really don't care if a future xplane is run by quark theory pi-meson programming techniques using megagixel phaser shader technology, or if the passenger seats will look very cool because of this. Yes the xplane core was updated a few weeks ago-but I still don't see any of the above basics. Until that happens, fsx and its present ability to improve on its basics thru add ins will be my sim of choice, and I see many, many more years of that happening as a good deal of what fsx has to offer is just being explored and implemented now.There is no evasion here-it just seems your priority is on new technology and mine is on the basics, and improving those basics.It seems companies like Lockheed Martin, Flight One, and Redbird sims took a hard look and came to the same conclusion-why they went with Esp. I appreciate you are a big xplane fan-I think that is great-I like it too-I have bought nearly every version and spent quite a bit on the limited add ons that are available for it now. Continue to give it your support,I will to, and believe me-when it meets my needs I will be the first to convert. Until then, even with 2006 technology, I'll be using fsx because it isn't the technology I am interested in-it is the end results of what the sim has to offer. If an old technology offers more of what I require, I'll stay with it. I use the sim in a very serious way to supplement and enhance my rw flying so I am always searching for the best available at any time that can do that. When xplane achieves these needs it will be my primary sim. In my opinion it will take a long time to catch up with the feature set we currently have with fsx. It really is that simple. Being stuck in 2006 technology has no bearing whatsoever. Features do.

[LAdamson 240]

.The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."

Since you like to state your case over and over ---I prefer to say that third parties work around FSX's core..................because in many cases they do. Can't change everything, but they do make changes.On the other hand, with X-Plane making changes every few months, MSFS 3rd party developers are wary of writing for a sim, that seems to break things so often. And it does, because I read about it all the time. Dealing with a vast amount of customers as is customary with MSFS releases, could cause considerable wariness that would lead to possible panic every time a new X-Plane beta release or final is imminent.It's just the way it is.....L.Adamson

[MatthewS 761]

The Fsx core still has room to grow

You are confusing my terminology (maybe on purpose?)When I say "core" I'm taking about what is delivered by ACES or Laminar Research, and not third parties.The FSX "core" is in stasis. Last updated in 2006/07 and will not be updated again (ACES is disbanded).The XP "core" was updated 3 weeks ago by Laminar Research.The "core" graphics capabilities especially of FSX will continue to fade in comparison to the "core" capabilities of X Plane as Laminar takes advantage of new GPU tech (eg Hardware Instancing, Order Independent Transparency etc).

[LAdamson 240]

The FSX "core" platform is stuck with 2006 tech, it's never going to improve because ACES have been disbanded and the FSX source is locked up in a Microsoft safe somewhere gathering dust. The X-Plane "core" platform was last updated a few weeks ago. Laminar Research are actively developing the core platform and the platform will continue to be optimized and take advantage of improvements in new hardware/software tech."

BTW ---- Sometimes, especially in airplanes, old tech just works better. In regards to aircraft engines for GA sized aircraft, we have what we call the "alternative guys". These people are highly motivated to convert auto engines to aircraft use because of modern technology. To them, our 60 year Lycoming designs are know as Lycosauras, etc.Of course the Lycoming was designed for airplanes. It turns the prop at the proper speed (prop tip not going supersonic) without requiring gear reduction. It uses the simplicity of air cooling instead of trying the place radiators in drag causing areas, as well as the extra weight for the radiators, coolant, and pumps. The Lycs may also use magnetos which do away with a separate electrical system, and the possibility of a malfunctioning computer..........such as you'll see in road vehicles every so often.So how's it turning out? The alternative auto engines just keep getting installed...... usually weigh more, have a ton of cooling problems, and blow the gear housings in the gear reduction units. They require a backup electrical system, and they usually sound lousy too! Lycs/ Continentals still work the best!So what does this have to do with this thread. Not much! It's just airplanes & old technology, and forum filler... :( L.Adamson