Sign in to follow this  
J van E

Clouds a bit too heavy on the system...?

Recommended Posts

In my new install of P3D 2.0, FTX Global and Norway landclass (no airports etc. yet) I again noticed what I noticed earlier on already: that clouds are very heavy on the system. And quite a bit out of proportion, I think.

 

I just finished a flight in Norway where fps wouldn't drop below 30. It was rock solid from start to finish. When I landed fps and parked fps was around 33. Great. Then I decided to change the weather a little: I had the default theme enabled which I think is fair weather. I have clouds distance at 80 (which is medium) and density at maximum. I ONLY changed the cloud coverage to overcast while standing still on my parking spot and fps immediately dropped to 25/26...!!!

 

That's a bit too much, if you ask me. No wonder I started to get OOMs when I used heavy weather for the first time. (I am not saying the weather itself caused the OOM but everything together flooded VAS at some point. I didn't get an OOM now.)

 

In FSX I have flown with very heavy OpusFSX weather and although I could maybe notice a little change in performance, it never was as bad as this! This reminds me of the problem ATI users have with clouds in FSX! Are you also experiencing this huge drop in performance when you get more clouds?

 

BTW I am still using default clouds right now. I will see tonight what happens when I use REX clouds (cumulus only).

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

In my new install of P3D 2.0,

 

Jeroen which texture resolution do you use ;-)

Edited by n4gix
Removed excessive quote!

Share this post


Link to post

Jeroen which texture resolution do you use ;-)

 

1024. With REX clouds I always even use 512!

Share this post


Link to post

1024. With REX clouds I always even use 512

 

I use default clouds and don't have the issue at the same resolution... with heavy Opus weather...

As for AA i don't use SSAA

Share this post


Link to post

I use default clouds and don't have the issue at the same resolution... with heavy Opus weather...

 

Okay, then I suppose my GPU (GTX580) is a limiting factor here: I see you have a GTX770. Maybe all the weather or at least the cloud rendering is done using the GPU...? Still, when being parked on the ground and doing nothing else, even a GTX580 shouldn't drop from 33 to 25 when you load overcast, I think.

 

Anyway, I know for sure now that I won't be flying with real time weather and only with 'light' default themes...!

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, then I suppose my GPU (GTX580) is a limiting factor here: I see you have a GTX770. Maybe all the weather or at least the cloud rendering is done using the GPU...? Still, when being parked on the ground and doing nothing else, even a GTX580 shouldn't drop from 33 to 25 when you load overcast, I think.

 

Jeroen was running yesterday a GTX 660TI 2gb which didn't had the issue also.

 

Maybe the reload messed things up, I personally would try again but then with default clouds and

the same theme to start with and see the results and go from there.

Actually VAS is almost he same as FSX in my case and settings.

Share this post


Link to post

Cloud density slider defaults to "medium"

 

Maybe maximum is too much in v2?

Share this post


Link to post

Cloud density slider defaults to "medium"

 

Maybe maximum is too much in v2?

I'm flying with maximum on a GeForce 780, so that cannot be stated categorically. I also find that as long as I do not have too much AA, the amount of cloud coverage does not affect my frame rate too much.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Cloud density slider defaults to "medium"

 

Maybe maximum is too much in v2?

 

Could be although I have the idea that 100% cloud coverage is 100% cloud coverage...? I know that some Medium settings in P3D are the equivalent of some Max settings in FSX but it would be a bit odd if this was also the case with clouds. And it would also be a bit odd if P3D can't handle full coverage (so you would always see some blue in the sky). I will have a look at of though, of course.

 

 

 

Maybe the reload messed things up, I personally would try again but then with default clouds and

 

the same theme to start with and see the results and go from there.

 

Yes, I will see what happens when I change things before flying. I already asked on the LM if clouds are now completely rendered by the GPU and if that could be the problem here.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


In my new install of P3D 2.0

 

Jeroen, you mention 'new install'; I'm curious if this is this a re-install of P3Dv2?

 

I only ask because I've done a reinstall (3 of them actually, now) of P3Dv2, and my clouds are messed up, making the sim un-flyable to me if I care to use weather.  They do this strange rotate thing when I pan around, like they are completely 2d flat clouds, which they are not.  The volumetric fog is also not working correctly.

 

These issues only cropped up on a re-install; the first installation I had done was fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Could be although I have the idea that 100% cloud coverage is 100% cloud coverage...? I know that some Medium settings in P3D are the equivalent of some Max settings in FSX but it would be a bit odd if this was also the case with clouds. And it would also be a bit odd if P3D can't handle full coverage (so you would always see some blue in the sky). I will have a look at of though, of course.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I will see what happens when I change things before flying. I already asked on the LM if clouds are now completely rendered by the GPU and if that could be the problem here.

 

Well I run maximum cover and draw distance 70:-)

Share this post


Link to post

Jeroen, you mention 'new install'; I'm curious if this is this a re-install of P3Dv2?

 

I only ask because I've done a reinstall (3 of them actually, now) of P3Dv2, and my clouds are messed up, making the sim un-flyable to me if I care to use weather.  They do this strange rotate thing when I pan around, like they are completely 2d flat clouds, which they are not.  The volumetric fog is also not working correctly.

 

These issues only cropped up on a re-install; the first installation I had done was fine.

 

That doesn't sound too good...! Yes, it was a reinstall of P3D. I only noticed a rotating cloud this evening when I accidently moved my TrackIR the wrong way and looked straight up in the sky. But this would be very odd...! When I reinstalled I made sure all files were completely gone, also the shaders cache and the files in hidden folders.

 

I just tested what happened with a fresh flight, so before starting the engine or flying. Clouds at Few: 34 fps, clouds at Overcast 27 fps. That's still too much.

I also tested REX clouds (only cumulus) and even though the size of the REX file is around 350 Kb (the original cumulus being around 80 Kb) the results were the exact same.

 

Concerning changing the coverage to anything lower than Max: that's a no go for me. I tried it and as expected the sky looked a lot like Broken (which I also gave a try)! Obviously there wasn't an overast anymore. And in the end I of course want to be able to fly also with heavy real weather. Mind you, OpusFSX usually adds a lot more layers to the mix: I never had problems with that in FSX so I would like to also not have problems with it in P3D. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Test results. ^_^ With my fps limited at 34.

 

Few - 60 mi 34.1 fps - 70 mi 34.1 fps - 80 mi 34.1 fps - 110 mi 34.1 fps

Scattered clouds: exact same as few

Broken - 60 mi 28.4 fps - 70 mi 27.6 fps  80 mi 26.4 fs - 110 mi 25 fps

Overcast - 60 mi 25.1 fps - 70 mi 23.9 fps - 80 mi 22.9 fps - 110 mi 21.3 fps

 

So with Few and Scattered there is nothing to worry about. With Broken fps starts to drop and there is a difference of around 1 fps for every distance settings. Things get worse with Overcast.

 

Hopefully a new GPU will fix this. And all my other problems too. ^_^ As I said, for now I will only fly with light weather themes, that's for sure!

Share this post


Link to post

Test results. ^_^ With my fps limited at 34.

 

Few - 60 mi 34.1 fps - 70 mi 34.1 fps - 80 mi 34.1 fps - 110 mi 34.1 fps

Scattered clouds: exact same as few

Broken - 60 mi 28.4 fps - 70 mi 27.6 fps  80 mi 26.4 fs - 110 mi 25 fps

Overcast - 60 mi 25.1 fps - 70 mi 23.9 fps - 80 mi 22.9 fps - 110 mi 21.3 fps

 

So with Few and Scattered there is nothing to worry about. With Broken fps starts to drop and there is a difference of around 1 fps for every distance settings. Things get worse with Overcast.

 

Hopefully a new GPU will fix this. And all my other problems too. ^_^ As I said, for now I will only fly with light weather themes, that's for sure!

 

Interesting you could also test with this setting too Jeroen in the cfg file OPTIMIZE_DENSE_CLOUDS=0 to 1 just curious...

 

Also you cloud save the clouds as DXT5... now it's 32 bit very small file size but still.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


That doesn't sound too good...! Yes, it was a reinstall of P3D. I only noticed a rotating cloud this evening when I accidently moved my TrackIR the wrong way and looked straight up in the sky. But this would be very odd...! When I reinstalled I made sure all files were completely gone, also the shaders cache and the files in hidden folders.

 

That's extremely interesting that you noticed a rotating cloud... That said, all my clouds were behaving like that.  Extremely disconcerting when panning around.

 

I had also done a complete clean, making sure the shaders cache and all the configuration files were all removed.

 

The only thing that had changed on my system was on my first install, I had a ATI 6970; on my subsequent installs it's a 780Ti.

 

My issue aside, I can tell you that with a powerful card, I don't get as much of a noticeable performance hit from clouds being at maximum density / distance.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeroen, are you using volumetric fog or not?  I had terrible frame rate penalties with cloud cover until I turned volumetric fog off.  After that, there was very little performance hit even with heavy overcast set at maximum density and distance.

 

In general, I've found that clouds have the heaviest performance impact among graphic items - that was true for me in FSX and again in P3D V2 - so I suspect you're right that the graphics card is the limiting factor.  But going without volumetric fog helped me improve my odds.  

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Hopefully a new GPU will fix this. And all my other problems too.

When might you be acquiring this new video card.  Would love to see your in depth reports when you get it.  :)

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting you could also test with this setting too Jeroen in the cfg file OPTIMIZE_DENSE_CLOUDS=0 to 1 just curious...

 

Also you cloud save the clouds as DXT5... now it's 32 bit very small file size but still.

 

That setting made no difference. It even seemed to reset itself to 0 after using the various menu's...!

 

 

 

My issue aside, I can tell you that with a powerful card, I don't get as much of a noticeable performance hit from clouds being at maximum density / distance.

 

Good to know!

 

 

 

After that, there was very little performance hit even with heavy overcast set at maximum density and distance.

 

BINGO! We have a winner! Turned Volumetric fog off, set distance and coverage to MAX... fps steady at 34!!! Loaded an heavy Orbx theme, fps while flying (for a very short while) around 32. Turned volumetric fog on: fps 21!

 

Well, that's clear then: bye bye Volumetric fog, at least for now! But er... this is yet another new feature down the drain! Apart from the autogen not popping up (but having to have it at Very dense instead of Extremely dense) things are looking more and more like FSX now. No building and vegetation shadows, which I wanted, no real clouds to fly through, which I wanted... Okay, I have to say that with all those options OFF the performance is better than FSX where I could maintain around 30 fps but frequently dipped into lower 20's and where I often had microstutters. So the question is: is 'steady autogen' and smoother performance and the possibility to make things even better with a new GPU (which wouldn't make much difference with FSX) worth the 200 bucks I spend on P3D 2.0? Well, I guess so. And let's not forget actual support and a future that might things even better. Yes, it think it's worth the 200 bucks to me. I always disliked FSX for a few things and those things are solved now. As I said before P3D was released: everything else would be a bonus. Well, I guess I will have to wait a bit more for that bonus but what I wanted at least, I've got now.

 

 

When might you be acquiring this new video card.  Would love to see your in depth reports when you get it.  :)

 

I bet you do. Letting me do all the hard work. B) :P I am still undecided if I should get the GTX780 or GTX780Ti. Think it will be the GTX780 (the price difference between the two cards is almost exactly what P3D itself cost so that's a bit too much. I probably will buy it somewhere this month. But when I do, I will sure let you all know! ^_^

 

EDIT

One little problem: Volumetrig fog prevented the Orbx lights from showing up as little white dots in the distance. So now I have THAT problem again! I will see what happens when I turn those lights off completely... Sigh...

Share this post


Link to post

That's extremely interesting that you noticed a rotating cloud... That said, all my clouds were behaving like that.  Extremely disconcerting when panning around.

 

 

This is a huge bugbear with P3Dv2 for me, yet I keep reading about the fantastic 'new' clouds, that are sadly nothing of the sort, and I can't believe more people don't notice it. The clouds are not only more taxing, but the visible spinning is far-far worse than it ever was under FSX, which is a great shame. It is also not possible to set Custom-Advance weather, to create you own weather, as you lose all your clouds 99% of the time.

 

Clouds seem very broken with v2, although the fog is certainly better.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


BINGO! We have a winner!

 

But er... this is yet another new feature down the drain!

 

Glad the "fix" worked for you.  

 

In general, I agree with you - the new graphic feature set carries a real performance penalty.  I'm able to maintain some shadows on a GTX 680 - buildings, sim objects and own vehicle, set to cast and receive.  There's a small but acceptable penalty.  Can't work with terrain or vegetation shadows though.

 

But speaking personally, even without all the new graphics, I'm happy to have something that looks like FSX but runs much better.  That's partly because of my preferences - I do most of my flying in the US northeast and mid-Atlantic, and it's a thrill for me just to be able to fly into New York City, which I was never able to do in FSX, even on my current rig - any kind of weather took me down to single-digit frames, even with a framerate-friendly aircraft like the Q400.  A similar situation in P3D V2 gets me a more-than-flyable mid-20's framerate.

 

I think that before we can work with the new graphics features, we'll need to upgrade video hardware, and developers will have to do some optimization.  I'm looking forward to that - I'd like to be able to get more atmosphere out of the sim.  But for the moment, I'm also OK with what I've got.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


I am still undecided if I should get the GTX780 or GTX780Ti.

 

This is always purely a personal call.  I doubt that there's real, noticeable, measurable improved performance in P3D of a GTX780 vs a GTX780Ti that would justify the increased cost of the Ti.

 

I personally went the Ti route; but then, it's been 3 years since I had upgraded my video card.  I tend to extract a fairly significant lifespan from video cards, which then makes a great argument (to myself) for upgrading to a current top-of-the-line card.  I should be good for another 3 years. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

I think that before we can work with the new graphics features, we'll need to upgrade video hardware, and developers will have to do some optimization. I'm looking forward to that - I'd like to be able to get more atmosphere out of the sim. But for the moment, I'm also OK with what I've got.

 

That's my view on it too now (well, for today, because I am known for switching my view on flightsims on a daily basis... :rolleyes: ). The fact alone that we've got something, whatever it is, to look forward too, is (almost) worth the 200 dollars alone! ^_^

 

 

 

I personally went the Ti route; but then, it's been 3 years since I had upgraded my video card. I tend to extract a fairly significant lifespan from video cards, which then makes a great argument (to myself) for upgrading to a current top-of-the-line card. I should be good for another 3 years. ^_^

 

Mine is tree years old too... so now you only making it harder for me to decide LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Flew ENBM again today but this time I downloaded the latest Opus beta. Thought I'd do another flight with today's date just to check what happens. The snow was very heavy and visibility was terrible. With heavy cloud cover. My FPS had dropped slightly, maybe 2-5 but the flight was smooth without issues. I abandoned after about 15min as I hadn't got a clue where I was. You couldn't see the lakes at all.

 

Checked summer, and after doing large circuits for about an hour I landed without issues.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


I personally went the Ti route; but then, it's been 3 years since I had upgraded my video card.  I tend to extract a fairly significant lifespan from video cards, which then makes a great argument (to myself) for upgrading to a current top-of-the-line card.  I should be good for another 3 years.

 

I tend to upgrade cards more frequently, since each upgrade seems to buy me a big performance improvement.  In FSX, going from 480 to 580 to 680 got rid of all my "sound freezes" (the lockup where the screen would freeze and the sound would continue).  So I'm planning to move to a 780ti - but since I've got the graphics card in my water cooling loop, I'm waiting either for the EVGA Hydro Copper release or for a third-party water block that I know will fit the card.  One of the downsides of water cooling - yet another compromise, but one I can live with.


 

 


...this time I downloaded the latest Opus beta

 

I haven't tried the latest Opus betas but in general I've found that Opus is harder on frames than default weather themes or user-created weather, especially with volumetric fog selected.  Try Opus overcast with volumetric fog off and see if that improves things.  In my experience, the cloudcover still looks very good and the performance, as noted above, is much improved.  

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't tried the latest Opus betas but in general I've found that Opus is harder on frames than default weather themes or user-created weather, especially with volumetric fog selected. Try Opus overcast with volumetric fog off and see if that improves things. In my experience, the cloudcover still looks very good and the performance, as noted above, is much improved.

Ill give it a go, but your right opus does put the brakes on the sim somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post

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