I am proposing a theory on how to control AI performance in a high-density terminal area. I will define this region as:

1. An area with two or more medium airports
2. Both served by more than 30 flights per day
3. Within 30 miles of each other

The New York region fits as a prime example - Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark all are major hubs in their own regard and none is more than 18 nm apart. Roughly 25% of all U.S. flights arrive or depart the region on a daily basis.

 

My theory is simple; air traffic impact on the computer can be controlled through limiting the gates at an afcad of unused and terminal area airports. Whereas decreasing the overall volume of ai traffic in use has an adverse effect on the immersion at the intended departure or destination airport, this theory is capable of supporting 100 % ai traffic at the intended field. But eliminating the parking spots a the unused airports, ai traffic is no longer able to spawn, nor will the FSX engine allow ai traffic to land. The runways and taxiways, however remain available such that they can be used as a diversion field.

 

TESTING

 

My computer stats can be viewed on the left. While I do have a higher-end computer, the nature of x32 architecture limits my performance in a high-density terminal area with greater levels of ai. Here are the conditions I ran the test under:

• Kennedy Airport by FSDT with my own enhanced afcad
• Sunday, March 24, 2013
• 1245
• FSX default 'Building Storms' Weather
• FSX default C172 (student trainer, not G1000)
• 100% ai traffic by UT2 and additional cargo flights provided by WOAI
  • Some ai aircraft were UT2 default while others are AI Aardvark, TFS, etc. 

 

Control - KEWR and KLGA enabled with third party afcads providing enhanced parking. 

 

 

Test - KEWR and KLGA parking disabled and no ai at those fields.

 

RESULTS

 

As you can see, the average fps went from roughly 6 to 24. A huge difference in performance. 

 

FUTURE USE

 

I am exploring options to write customizable executable files such that you can choose which airports to turn off before beginning a flight. This would enable the user to optimize visible traffic into their intended airport. If you would like to test, I have prepared the two dummy, no parking files for KEWR and KLGA. Please report back any test results so that this theory can be further refined. Download Link

Interesting idea Anthony, I will give it a try.

This sounds like a great way to finally be able to turn up all my other settings at KJFK, now my *only* airport that gives me less than 30 FPS in my worst case test scenario.  What you propose is not something I've done before, could you provide more detailed instructions perhaps?

 

Thanks!

Would another approach be to edit the traffic files in use, to exclude the neighboring airports?

Would another approach be to edit the traffic files in use, to exclude the neighboring airports?

 

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how that would work when you've got many different sources of ai. The UT2 program uses simconnect rather than compiling a .bgl, for instance. 

Anthony,

 

I need to preface my reply by stating that I recently changed some of my OC and settings in my BIOS and have not flown out of JFK for some time.  With my current configuration I get 29.9 FPS almost constantly even when I set UT2 to 100% with its default setting at FSDT's KJFK.  Please note that my vehcile traffic is set to 0% as it is a known FPS eater.  

 

The only time I see a dip is when aircraft traffic are spawning but the frames do not go below 21 FPS.  The .BGL's you provided do make a difference and I am seeing a constant 29.9 FPS while flying around KJFK with PMDG's NGX, Aerosoft Airbus Extended and with the Default C172 Trainer.

 

Could the hit you are experiencing be attributed to your cloud and sky textures and some other non-friendly FPS eaters?  Hate to go there but what is your FSX.cfg set to?

 

My theory is simple; air traffic impact on the computer can be controlled through limiting the gates at an afcad of unused and terminal area airports. Whereas decreasing the overall volume of ai traffic in use has an adverse effect on the immersion at the intended departure or destination airport, this theory is capable of supporting 100 % ai traffic at the intended field. But eliminating the parking spots a the unused airports, ai traffic is no longer able to spawn, nor will the FSX engine allow ai traffic to land. The runways and taxiways, however remain available such that they can be used as a diversion field.

 

I did this same thing a few years ago after FSDT's KJFK came out since I wanted to find a quick and easy way to get rid of AI at LGA and EWR without the hassel of recompiling my AI traffic .bgls to eliminate traffic to those airports. 

 

Since I dont fly into EWR or LGA and have no 3rd party airport for either, I opened the default AFCAD for both airports and eliminated all the parking spots like you did. In addition, I also removed all the buildings and scenery objects for the airports as well to pick up a few extra FPS. In the case of EWR I also got rid of all the cranes which according to Umberto at FSDT are FPS killers. Like you, I gained massive FPS by doing so and it doens't bother me a bit that both of those airports are basically blank fields since I never used them anyway. Now when flying into JFK in the NGX with 100% AI (350+ WOAI packages) i can usually maintain FPS no worse than 20 FPS in the VC of the NGX, which is pretty good considering I am running an old E8400 at 3.85ghz and only 2GB or RAM.

 

I never posted about this thinking that not many people would want to take those steps since it takes a little bit of time to delete all that stuff in the AFCAD, but I am glad you posted it since it might help a few people here and there to gain a few FPS in that area.

Well good idea, will test tomorrow, thank you

Anthony,

 

I need to preface my reply by stating that I recently changed some of my OC and settings in my BIOS and have not flown out of JFK for some time.  With my current configuration I get 29.9 FPS almost constantly even when I set UT2 to 100% with its default setting at FSDT's KJFK.  Please note that my vehcile traffic is set to 0% as it is a known FPS eater.  

 

The only time I see a dip is when aircraft traffic are spawning but the frames do not go below 21 FPS.  The .BGL's you provided do make a difference and I am seeing a constant 29.9 FPS while flying around KJFK with PMDG's NGX, Aerosoft Airbus Extended and with the Default C172 Trainer.

 

Could the hit you are experiencing be attributed to your cloud and sky textures and some other non-friendly FPS eaters?  Hate to go there but what is your FSX.cfg set to?

Robert,

 

Undoubtly you are right. I am running REX and I've taken some time to tune my BIOS but it could be better. I've also dropped the moving cars and boats because they don't make a lot of sense when flying FL350. I just got tired of all the wasted power used on airports I'm not currently flying into. 

Can anyone answer my question please?

Can anyone answer my question please?

My bad, I overlooked your earlier post! 

 

If you have no addon LGA or EWR afcads or third party scenery, it is as simple as taking the linked file and adding it to your scenery library. 

 

If you do have a third party afcad or scenery, you will need to disable it from your scenery library OR remove it from FSX Main Folder/Addon Scenery/Scenery (sometimes used in the case of just adding a downloaded afcad).

Great, thank you very much!  Does scenery order matter?  I do not have any 3rd party KWER/KLGA airports.  

No, it will trump the default afcads at EWR and LGA. If you want them back just disable the file in your scenery library. 

Looks good.  I've got it working and managed to gain another couple FPS at the low end in my worst-case test scenario @ KJFK, now up to about 24 FPS minimum with 30 average (locked @ half refresh rate).  

Glad to see that it worked for you. Has anyone else been able to reproduce positive results?