http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VixkiuuFIlA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VixkiuuFIlA

 

Limited to a 142nm square area... not exactly what's needed to simulate the world. :wink:

Limited to a 142nm square area... not exactly what's needed to simulate the world. :wink:

 

Hummm!, how many square Km does Flight as, as far as I can remember they started with Hawaii only and were going to sell other regions (don't ask, I know)? You can always start with this one and add more to it, it's not like it can't be done, who know? 

The Hawaiian Islands are around 6400 square miles.  Cincinnati, Ohio is around 78 square miles.  Los Angeles is around 500 square miles.

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=VixkiuuFIlA

 

The graphics in this engine is even better than Outerra. But we would need the whole world...but interesting indeed B) I really want my sim to look something like that someday.. In terms of graphics we really live in the past with FSX and X-Plane..

I used GPU-Z to compare the GPU loads. For Outerra it was a solid 99% but for FSX it fluctuated around 55%. Similarly the CPU loads were 48% and 36% respectively

 

Don't know what system you have but on my system the CPU load was around 20% in the Anteworld(Almost maxed settings). Not too bad, and with time we will get better CPU's and GPU's. Haven't checked the GPU load yet though..

Don't know what system you have but on my system the CPU load was around 20% in the Anteworld(Almost maxed settings). Not too bad, and with time we will get better CPU's and GPU's. Haven't checked the GPU load yet though..

 

It's the comparative figures that are significant. The Outerra and FSX examples were on the same system. Outerra needed more GPU and CPU resources than did FSX even though FSX was doing more than simply rendering a scene.

 

I had previously developed a small DirectX 11 application. It shows 89% GPU load with 23% CPU load at 1100+ fps With unlimited frame rates. When I limit its frame rate to a realistic 65 fps, it runs with 6% GPU load with 0.24% CPU load with no visible difference on the monitor.

 

High GPU load isn't always a good thing if its side effect is an unnecessarily high CPU load which limits the CPU's use by other threads. It's a matter of balancing the competing requirement for resources.

It's the comparative figures that are significant. The Outerra and FSX examples were on the same system. Outerra needed more GPU and CPU resources than did FSX even though FSX was doing more than simply rendering a scene.

 

So, did you compare the FPS as well? Did you limit the FPS to the same values and compare the load then? Without that the comparison is totally meaningless, and you managed to interpret it that a system without inherent pipeline stalls is somehow worse than an unoptimized one. Seeing that you know about frame rate capping and its effect on the utilization ... I wonder why you presented it that way.

 

Besides, your system is biased towards the CPU performance, as it's typical for FS, and that's pretty unballanced for a GPU optimized stuff (GT520 is a pretty weak card).

 

 

So, did you compare the FPS as well? Did you limit the FPS to the same values and compare the load then?

 

It's your demonstration and if you chose to release it with unnecessarily high frame rates that's your problem. Demonstrations are to be questioned and even criticised - not just admired.

 

 

Anyway, tell me how to limit the Outerra demonstration frame rate and I'll limit it.

It's the comparative figures that are significant. The Outerra and FSX examples were on the same system. Outerra needed more GPU and CPU resources than did FSX even though FSX was doing more than simply rendering a scene.

I tested on the same system that FSX... I have rerun the test now 20-30% load on the CPU but the first 3 cores is almost unused the last core is 70% loaded. On the GPU when close to ground is around 80-90% and around 40%, , at higher altitudes. The memory use on the card is around 1,1GB

 

FSX uses 80-90% on all cores, of the CPU and around 40% GPU on the same system

 

If this project will ever to become a sim someday it would probably take some years anyway, 2-4 years and by then we would have a lot more power than today. So I think it would be possible, I haven't even the highest specs available today so a GTX780 would probably eat this engine even better... And I have also pushed the settings to the max so it can run better on lower settings until hardware catches up..

 

Remember how FSX runned when it came out on the hardware those days...

It's your demonstration and if you chose to release it with unnecessarily high frame rates that's your problem. Demonstrations are to be questioned and even criticised - not just admired.

 

The choice is usually left on the user, and they can also force the app to sync to the monitor frame rate in graphics control panel.

In the demo you can go into the graphics settings and select "Vertical sync" to half or full refresh (30 or 60 fps, respectively, for a monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate).

Wow... some posts are getting down right aggressive and rude.  A shame.

I tried all Vertical Sync settings of  "Off", "half refresh", and "Full refresh" but they made no significant difference. GPU-Z reported GPU Load as 99% and Process Monitor showed outerra.exe Average CPU fluctuating between 48 - 51%.

 

Obviously I tried all the setting several times, and waited until the second (terminated) outerra.exe process finally stopped before noting the Average CPU when restarting after having changed the settings. I also tried starting GPU-Z and Resource Monitor before and after outerra.exe. but the results were the same.

OK guys, please be careful of the way you say things.

 

This thread is far too interesting to mess it up with irritation and poor conduct.

 

Kind regards,

I have accounts on most of these and I've been involved in a couple of discussions there, though no crusading. I'm not inclined to fight lots of small battles with grumpy men, my time is better invested into the development than into refuting every claim made there, especially at this early stage of basically a market analysis.

 

I see that mgh posted his comparison over at flightsim too, he clearly doesn't (or didn't) understand what the utilization numbers mean and actually fights with the interpretation opposite from the reality! Wow. Now I believe that he really just wants to say that it's too early to judge, but he manages to sound pretty negative trying to convey just that. I might go jumping through all the flight sim forums and aggitating, but ...

 

Outerra has still a long way to go, and flight simulators are but one area where it might find its use. Coincidently, flight simulators are one of the most demanding areas and one of the most niche areas at the same time. Making a new simulator that will gain the critical mass and survive in the long term is no easy feat. That's why connecting multiple simulation areas into one world and into a common platform for 3rd party developers would be beneficial for the flight simming, and it's maybe the only way to get it actually done, and with Outerra it's actually possible. But it's a very complex thing nonetheless, and it will definitely require cooperation with other developers and lots of other things in addition to the community support.

 

We are heading towards that goal in any case, and with limited resources some areas get the priority while others wait. Of course, the ones that make economically more sense, which are less risky and have supportive communities are likely to get a headstart. This thread is really just a poll to find if there's a way to kickstart it earlier from the community at some point in the future.

 

 

First off I just want to say it appears on many forums people just don't understand development and write things off without fully understanding their voting against their own best interest.  I'd love for Outerra to prove the naysayers wrong especially in the Aerosoft camp.  As this is a product in the making I believe it can be anything the developers deem it to be, it's their creation.  All these people chiming in stating,  'what won't work' in favor of an inferior, aged, buggy, platform is just plain shocking...