Ok, as per Efrain's request here we go.

 

System matching does not matter one bit, as long as the user is comparing apples to apples on their own machine. I could care less about comparing high end systems to low end, or systems running 19" monitors to guys with upcoming wrap around screens like Efrain. As long as the individuals tests are equal, apples to apples, that's all that matters.

 

So, scenery could have been an issue, other than the fact that everyone has KSEA, Seattle, with a Xplane install. So I did my "static" tests sitting on runway 16L in the default Cessna 172, no weather (clear) and daylight from the main menu when starting. I used X-Plane 10.2 Beta 11 64 bit, because it's what I run everyday.

 

The tests I did were with HDR on and off. To go along with that I toggled WDD (World Detail Distance) between Medium and Very High. Because the findings became interesting, I also did the tests with 2d and 3d panel view, as well as my screen resolution, because it played a huge roll in how well Xplane (or the video card) scales up / down. The only resolutions I'm able to run are 3840x1024 and 1280x1024.

 

It really doesn't matter what resolution you run at, as long as your settings are apples to apples. Were trying to quantify Pascals statement about the effects of WDD with HDR on. His claim is you can still run with HDR on, provided you set your WDD to Medium from Very High. I contend that you can't run with HDR on at all, with other settings high to very high. I will not sacrifice a bunch of "other" eye candy, just to run with HDR on. My point being that, HDR requires too great a system hit and compromise, that far outweighs it's benefit. Hope I got that right Pascal, if not please correct me. :blush:

 

So here are my numbers.

 

 

No HDR - WDD Very High - 1280x1024 2d panel 80fps

HDR - WDD Very High - 1280x1024 2d panel 51fps

 

No HDR - WDD Very High - 1280x1024 3d panel 75fps

HDR - WDD Very High - 1280x1024 3d panel 50fps

 

No HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 2d panel 92fps

HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 2d panel 70fps

 

No HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 85fps

HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 68fps

 

No HDR - WDD Very High - 3840x1024 2d panel 48fps

HDR - WDD Very High - 3840x1024 2d panel 27fps

 

No HDR - WDD Very High - 3840x1024 3d panel 46fps

HDR - WDD Very High - 3840x1024 3d panel 20fps

 

No HDR - WDD Medium - 3840x1024 2d panel 65fps

HDR - WDD Medium - 3840x1024 2d panel 38fps

 

No HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 60fps

HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 25fps

 

So for me, I run 3840x1024 all the time in 3d panel with WDD very high.

 

Here's those numbers.

 

HDR off - WDD VH - 60 fps

HDR on - WDD VH - 20 fps

 

Now compare that to everything being the same, only with changes to WDD.

 

HDR off - WDD Med - 65fps

HDR on - WDD Med - 25fps

 

Yes Pascal, there was an increase, 20 - 25fps, still not flyable with HDR on though.

 

Like I stated in the other thread, with everything being equal, my fps go from 60 with my normal settings (which is fantastic), no HDR, to 20 with HDR on. HDR kills my high end system. If I leave HDR on, and do as Pascal suggests, and switch from WDD Very High to WDD Medium my fps go to 25 from 20, although that is a 25% increase, it's hardly worth it. I'm already dead in the water at those frame rates. This is a static test, no weather, no shadows etc, and the frame rates are still in the 20's with HDR on, what's going to happen when the system is loaded. It's going to be unflyable, with frame rates in the teens, unless you turn a bunch of stuff down, or fly in the boonies all the time, so much for the "prettyness" of XPX then. The only time my fps were greater than the 20's with HDR on, was in the 2d panel with WDD at Medium, not a suitable flying situation these days. Perhaps it was ok to use 2d panels 8'ish years ago, those days should be long gone with todays hardware. Some developers don't even offer a 2d panel anymore, good, they can spend more time making the 3d panels look that much better. Besides, Trackir doesn't work to well in 2d panels.

 

You do see a bigger increase in what Pascal suggests at the lower resolutions, I'll agree to that, 28% if my math is still correct, although not many run at 1280x1024 these days.

 

Here are my Rendering Settings...

 

 

 

Glen

Awesome finding, Musk! I swore by HDR but after your findings, it's kind of an eye opener! O.O

 

Quick question before I start doing the same tests... Do you have nVidia Inspector? If so, what settings do you have? Just leave everything set to app controlled? I deleted NI from my system because if I was going to set it to apo-controlled, I figured why not just delete it and avoid any conflicts.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I contend that you can't run with HDR on at all, with other settings high to very high. I will not sacrifice a bunch of "other" eye candy, just to run with HDR on. My point being that, HDR requires too great a system hit and compromise, that far outweighs it's benefit. Hope I got that right Pascal, if not please correct me. :blush:

 

You do see a bigger increase in what Pascal suggests at the lower resolutions, I'll agree to that, 28% if my math is still correct, although not many run at 1280x1024 these days.

 

Well, the reason is both screen resolution and HDR are basically dependant only on GPU ( http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/12/tips-for-better-frame-rates-pt-1/ ) . So at high screen resolutions (in your case, 3840x1024) even a powerful GPU becomes a bottleneck when rendering settings are high. In these conditions, HDR has a bigger hit on fps:

 

No HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 60fps

HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 25fps

 

That is a decrease of 42%.

 

On the other hand, at lower resolutions, GPU is not the bottleneck, so enabling HDR has less impact on fps:

 

No HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 85fps

HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 68fps

 

That is a decrease of only 20%.

 

This explains why many people prefer having HDR on, since in their cases the fps impact is much less than in your case. Remember that most people use a single monitor, and hence in most cases play with a resolution equal or less than 1920x1200, much less pixels than 3840x1024.

 

Marco

Awesome finding, Musk! I swore by HDR but after your findings, it's kind of an eye opener! O.O

 

Quick question before I start doing the same tests... Do you have nVidia Inspector? If so, what settings do you have? Just leave everything set to app controlled? I deleted NI from my system because if I was going to set it to apo-controlled, I figured why not just delete it and avoid any conflicts.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Knew I was leaving something out. I have Inspector installed, but let Xplane handle everything. Looking forward to your findings.

 

Really interested to see if you have the drastic swings like I do with HDR on and off.

 

Well, the reason is both screen resolution and HDR are basically dependant only on GPU ( http://developer.x-p...ame-rates-pt-1/ ) . So at high screen resolutions (in your case, 3840x1024) even a powerful GPU becomes a bottleneck when rendering settings are high. In these conditions, HDR has a bigger hit on fps:

 

No HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 60fps

HDR - WDD Medium -3840x1024 3d panel 25fps

 

That is a decrease of 42%.

 

On the other hand, at lower resolutions, GPU is not the bottleneck, so enabling HDR has less impact on fps:

 

No HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 85fps

HDR - WDD Medium - 1280x1024 3d panel 68fps

 

That is a decrease of only 20%.

 

This explains why many people prefer having HDR on, since in their cases the fps impact is much less than in your case. Remember that most people use a single monitor, and hence in most cases play with a resolution equal or less than 1920x1200, much less pixels than 3840x1024.

 

Marco

 

Marco, thanks, I figured that much out on my own. :smile: Efrain and I were more interested in overall impact of HDR, and how World Draw Distance plays a role.

 

You can't dispute the fact that HDR is a heavy hit of frame rates, as per the numbers. Most people are migrating to larger monitors with higher resolutions, this is what we are exploring. Really not interested in lower resolution comparisons. I only included them for initial comparisons, something to look at.

 

Glen

 

Efrain is not going to spend a ton of money on a wrap around monitor system ( whatever it is ) if he's only going to get 15 fps with HDR on, then again, maybe he will. And, the notion that you can only enjoy Xplane if you run with a lower resolution monitor is kind of limiting. Were trying to dig deeper into the performance with larger screens and high end systems. What can it REALLY do with today’s hardware, without having to turn everything to a default setting, that's all.

 

It's just some information for those that might like to get into a multi-monitor set-up, and or run a higher resolution single monitor.

 

I don't mind turning things down a bit, but don't forget, these tests are with no ai, no atc going on, no clouds / weather, no shadows, no water effects, pretty bare XPX.

Ok Musk, the only thing we are flipping back and forth from is HDR ON and HDR OFF. What AA and AF settings do you use when enabling HDR ON? I already see what you use for HDR OFF.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

 

Knew I was leaving something out. I have Inspector installed, but let Xplane handle everything. Looking forward to your findings.

 

Really interested to see if you have the drastic swings like I do with HDR on and off.

 

 

 

Marco, thanks, I figured that much out on my own. :smile: Efrain and I were more interested in overall impact of HDR, and how World Draw Distance plays a role.

 

You can't dispute the fact that HDR is a heavy hit of frame rates, as per the numbers. Most people are migrating to larger monitors with higher resolutions, this is what we are exploring. Really not interested in lower resolution comparisons. I only included them for initial comparisons, something to look at.

 

Glen

 

Efrain is not going to spend a ton of money on a wrap around monitor system ( whatever it is ) if he's only going to get 15 fps with HDR on, then again, maybe he will. And, the notion that you can only enjoy Xplane if you run with a lower resolution monitor is kind of limiting. Were trying to dig deeper into the performance with larger screens and high end systems. What can it REALLY do with today’s hardware, without having to turn everything to a default setting, that's all.

 

It's just some information for those that might like to get into a multi-monitor set-up, and or run a higher resolution single monitor.

 

I don't mind turning things down a bit, but don't forget, these tests are with no ai, no atc going on, no clouds / weather, no shadows, no water effects, pretty bare XPX.

 

Ok Musk, the only thing we are flipping back and forth from is HDR ON and HDR OFF. What AA and AF settings do you use when enabling HDR ON? I already see what you use for HDR OFF.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Turn your World Draw Distance (WDD above) from "Medium" to Very High" as well, each test. Pascal claimed there was some relief in performance when you changed the World Draw Distance from Very high to Medium, with HDR on, and it was visually the same. I noticed some relief, but it wasn't huge. I also didn't fly around to see the visual difference, didn't want to complicate things, too much.

 

AA I left at 4x with HDR on to match 4x AA with HDR off. AF I always have at 1x, don't see any difference right up to 16x. I don't know if OpenGL is affected like Directx is with AF. In Directx (FSX) I see a lot of difference with AF settings, I don't in OpenGL?

 

I know it's not a very scientific test, but just the fact that my frame rates drop from 60 to 20 by just turning HDR on and off is surprising enough.

 

I also normally run with 16x AA, absolutely no shimmering. There's no way you can do that wiith HDR on. Is 16x even an option under HDR, not there to check?

Turn your World Draw Distance (WDD above) from "Medium" to Very High" as well, each test. Pascal claimed there was some relief in performance when you changed the World Draw Distance from Very high to Medium, with HDR on, and it was visually the same. I noticed some relief, but it wasn't huge. I also didn't fly around to see the visual difference, didn't want to complicate things, too much.

 

AA I left at 4x with HDR on to match 4x AA with HDR off. AF I always have at 1x, don't see any difference right up to 16x. I don't know if OpenGL is affected like Directx is with AF. In Directx (FSX) I see a lot of difference with AF settings, I don't in OpenGL?

 

I know it's not a very scientific test, but just the fact that my frame rates drop from 60 to 20 by just turning HDR on and off is surprising enough.

 

I also normally run with 16x AA, absolutely no shimmering. There's no way you can do that wiith HDR on. Is 16x even an option under HDR, not there to check?

 

Ok, Musk, this is what I've come up with so far:

 

When it comes to AF, 16X has NO impact at all. Trying ALL AF settings yielded no fps loss whatsoever, so for all tests, HDR ON and OFF, I left AF at 16x.

When it comes to AA with HDR ON, ALL settings up to 4x SSAA + FXAA, yielded no fps loss whatsoever, so for all tests with HDR ON, I left AA at 4x SSAA + FXAA.

When it comes to AA with HDR OFF, I left it at 4x (hardcore), as per your settings.

Everything else stayed the same for all tests, as per your rendering settings screenshot and only flipped from HDR ON/OFF, 1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 800 and WDD Medium/Very High.

Below are my results...

 

 

1920 x 1080 (Highest I can go on my projector)

 

NO HDR - WDD VERY HIGH - 75 fps

HDR ON - WDD VERY HIGH - 50 fps

 

NO HDR - WDD MEDIUM - 94 fps

HDR ON - WDD MEDIUM - 74 fps

 

 

1280 x 800

 

 

NO HDR - WDD VERY HIGH - 83 fps

HDR ON - WDD VERY HIGH - 62 fps

 

NO HDR - WDD MEDIUM - 98 fps

HDR ON - WDD MEDIUM - 82 fps

 

 

The above fps readings were taken after letting the sim settle for 1-2 minutes, as the fps will spike initially and then settle down. As you can see, by enabling HDR on my system, I am losing an average of 25+- fps across the board on most tests. This is with no AI, no clouds, no shadows and no reflections...

As Marco rightfully stated, resolution is playing a very large roll, that's not surprising. Again, Pascals claim holds true, and even shows better results at lower resolutions. Although, were not flying around to see the visual impact the lower WDD setting has. I wasn't seeing the same results he was reporting, because of the resolution I run at, I guess.

 

It's not surprising that the higher resolutions are taxing on HDR. What does surprise me is the amount. Your still not too bad at 50fps, but your at a much lower resolution, and were not running with any of the visual "goodies". I'm only getting 20 fps with HDR on, with a bunch of settings off. Maybe it has to do with the available AA options under HDR? I was thinking of going to a single 30" monitor that runs at 2560x1600, I guess that's out of the question.

 

I don't know anything about the technical aspects of HDR. Like I said, I need 16x AA for XPX to look nice, and it looks nice, but the highest I could conceivable go with HDR on is 4x AA, and that doesn't look near as nice, obviously. And, as we see my fps are only 20, not really a viable option. Guess I'll just leave HDR off, so I can turn other things on / up.

 

Your thinking of running a multi-system setup for a wrap around effect? You may be ok as long as any given monitor isn't too high a resolution?

 

Anyone out there have a 30" monitor running at 2560x1600 that can comment on their performance with HDR on / off?

Ok guys, thanks for the extensive testing !

 

Sorry if I raised some false hopes with my theory. Maybe that needs some clarification.

 

First, we can't talk about hdr without saying which antialiasing method we use. Because penalty of high AA settings is much worse on HDR. So that is my trade off: I noticed that for a given amount of objects drawn on screen, 2xSSAA+FXAA and HDR ON is roughly equivalent to 4xSSAA+2xMSAA and HDR OFF on my Ubuntu 64 system in term of FPS. But naturally, the AA quality is not the same, i.e. much worse with HDR, and that's why I pointed out it's essentially a choice with some trade off.

 

In that sense, I'm sure that if you can find any AA setting that has the same visual result in both, HDR will tax much more FPS !

 

My test area is not exactly comparable with yours. I used some extremely dense scenery: Paris with OSM buildings and level 16 orthophoto. My aim was to find the worst place over Paris and try to reach at least 20fps. This is not much, but flyable, and as soon as I'm out of these few critical zones fps easily go over 35.

 

Now, my new experiments have brought something intersting, I have to take back part of my earlier findings:

 

Contrary to what I said, HDR does not display buildings at a higher distance than nonHDR, except in one curious case: field of view set at 75°. I did all my earlier testing with that setting, and that was misleading. Strangely, at 85°, and at 65°, and whatever other value I tested, the viewing distance harmonises again between the two modes. Anyway, I did all comparisons with the same number of visible objects, this time at 65°.

 

So here is what I get. X-plane 64bit Linux, no clouds, AI traffic, resolution of 1920x1200, textures extreme with compression. Field of view 30°(first two) and 65°. The noHDR AA setting is not visible here, on Linux I have to tune it with the Nvidia config tool. It's set to 4xSSAA + 2xMSAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all the shots there is a difference of 3-4 FPS between both modes (). Didn't see more significant differences, on the contrary the numbers often converged.

My testing was not as extensive as yours, but some flights I did these days in different conditions seem to confirm I can actually use HDR if I trade off (quite) some AA quality. It depends on my mood.

 

Muskoka, after looking at your system's spec, I'm not sure whether your motherboard supports PCIe-3.0. I ask you that because I suspect that X-plane 10 is heavy on banwidth. And yes, your resolution is quite impressive.

 

Pascal

 

I'm using the latest beta and if I turn HDR off, I don't have a difference in the AA settings. No matter if 2x or 16x, the aircraft has jagged edges. Strange. Definitely it does no AA at all.

EDIT: In default AA, "changes take effect when restarting the sim".

Hey Pascal, great to see you join in........

 

No, :( it's not 3.0, something that would probably give my system (gpu) a nice boost. It's in the near future.

 

I had a bunch more to add, deleted it all, no pulpit today.

 

 

Glen

I will post my findings ASAP. Using the latest version of Nvidia Inspector I found a mix of settings between the XP10 Options menu and the Inspector menu that gave me a much better performance and graphic quality!

I will post my findings ASAP. Using the latest version of Nvidia Inspector I found a mix of settings between the XP10 Options menu and the Inspector menu that gave me a much better performance and graphic quality!

 

Please, do share, anxiously waiting.......

Hey Pascal, great to see you join in........

 

No, :( it's not 3.0, something that would probably give my system (gpu) a nice boost. It's in the near future.

 

 

Given the results, it's probably not the bottleneck, but I'd kill to know how much banwidth X-Plane uses because I'd like to join the multiscreen wave we are all tinkering in this thread , with the difference that I'd like to run two instances (or more) of X-plane on the same machine, with two video cards. Talk about an exotic config ! And the fact is that the bus is shared by the two GPUs, thus dividing the banwidth by 2. That's why I'd like to know.

 

Attentively considering your results with 3840 (!) resolution I think I'm positively surprised. You are focused on the fact that HDR draws fps down at that resolution. I'm more impressed that the NoHDR option is actually able to run at an impressive frame rate. In fact, at about half that resolution I don't even have better results. See my point ? NoHDR allows you to push resolution much further!

 

Frankly, at day time, HDR is not essential. As I said, some times I use it, sometimes not. When it's off, I add 200 units (?) in digital vibrance in Nvidia panel, and push up my monitor contrast. With my base 1.8 gamma setting, the result is pleasing as well.

 

During the night, it's another story: you must use HDR !!! Fortunately, you can also bring other graphical settings and visibility way down and still enjoy the amazing global lighting with excellent framerate.

 

Ok, out of interest, I did my testing with exactly the same settings and situation as yours. Except for the huge resolution. Also, I can't use 1280x1024 with full screen, X-plane forces my native resoution, and the results are not very consistant when I run windowed (KDE desktop here).

I must leave texture compression ON, because my GPU doesn't have 4Gb like yours ! Apart from that, everything is rigorously the same.

 

Only tested with 3D cockpit.

 

Res 1920x1200 fullscreen, WDD medium:

HDR off 4xMSAA        57
HDR off 4xSSAA+2xMSAA   56
HDR on 2xSSAA+FXAA    52
HDR on 4xSSAA        49
HDR on 4xSSAA+FXAA    45
HDR on 8xSSAA+FXAA    27

REs 1920x1200 fullscreen, WDD very high:

HDR off 4xMSAA        42
HDR off 4xSSAA+2xMSAA   41
HDR on 2xSSAA+FXAA    39
HDR on 4xSSAA        36
HDR on 4xSSAA+FXAA    34
HDR on 8xSSAA+FXAA    20

Res 1280x1024 windowed, WDD very high:

HDR off 4xMSAA        51
HDR off 4xSSAA+2xMSAA   53
HDR on 2xSSAA+FXAA    51
HDR on 4xSSAA        50
HDR on 4xSSAA+FXAA    50
HDR on 8xSSAA+FXAA    30

 

 

 

Man, those testings take all my time ! Cheers !

 

Pascal

Great thread guys. On my system, there is quite a big jump between HDR on and HDR off. Mind you I am running at 6000 x 1080 so I guess there should be. I can't recall what the exact figures are and I'm away from my machine at the mo, but at a rough ball park if I'm pulling say 17-18 fps with hdr on, I can expect say just under 30 with it off. Of course it's all location dependant.

 

Jess B