Sign in to follow this  
Noel

Explain this troubling performance issue

Recommended Posts

FTXG is installed.  I start my flight w/ the default P3DV2 behavior of launching into a flight w/o giving access FIRST to the built-in planner, at KSBA in the EMT installed CS Super MD80 Pro.  On RWY 07 at dawn, locked at 60fps.  This is to be expected IF the MD80 performs well as it clearly does in FSX.  Now, I start me real intentioned flight from KDEN > KSAN in the MD80.  At Gate A something, at point-blank range from the side of the terminal at the gate looking at the building from whence the jetway emerges, frames are now at 24.  In the FSX world this would have been so easy to process I would likely still be looking at 60 fps locked.  OK, no problem I pan to the left and I'm up to 40 fps.  Now however, I do a top-down view:

post-101053-0-73321500-1387477624.jpg

 

Note the frame rate now.   And the sim is 'in focus'.  I have never seen anything like this in FSX, this kind of random-appearing mega-deterioration in frame rate in any top-down view anywhere even in FTX scenery.  Display settings in V2 have very little impact on this as well, and as this is the airport I'm guessing FTXG doesn't have much influence on this.

 

There are some oddities that seem very random and hard to predict in V2...

Share this post


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

Here's another example of some real potential trouble.  I am in the same plane now the MD80, NOT looking thru the VC but just front view, point blank range at a medium gate at KORD, and see 24 fps.  There's almost nothing but a building in front of my view.  Now, here's a screenshot of the topdown view, typically locked at 60 frames in FSX, down to a paltry 17 frames.  But that is not the real troubling piece:  look at GPU utilization--it's hardly there, and clearly the CPU isn't keeping up well either.  This is a default airport.  This is suggesting a big big part of the default airport complexity must be rebuilt to utilize whatever V2's rendering engine can do.  The problem of course is that the full complement of FSX default airports are what are packaged w/ V2, yet anything w/ any complexity appears to want to tank terribly in V2 by comparison to FSX--saying V2 is not FSX doesn't add anything because what is packaged with V2 IS FSX airports.  Now I'm in the CS Super MD80 which is clearly no more difficult IN FSX to process to than default planes, which makes it the most useable bigger plane for V2 so far.  Now, try sitting at this same gate in the PMDG NGX.   I can't imagine how this can be improved.  Again, I'm looking at the gate building WITHOUT even the VC in the MD80 and frames are a really weak 24.  This DOES NOT bode well at all for V2 evolving into a useful sim for larger tube liners. 

 


Here's another example of some real potential trouble.  I am in the same plane now the MD80, NOT looking thru the VC but just front view, point blank range at a medium gate at KORD, and see 24 fps.  There's almost nothing but a building in front of my view.  Now, here's a screenshot of the topdown view, typically locked at 60 frames in FSX, down to a paltry 18 frames.  But that is not the real troubling piece:  look at GPU utilization--it's hardly there, and clearly the CPU isn't keeping up well either.  This is a default airport.  This is suggesting a big big part of the default airport complexity must be rebuilt to utilize whatever V2's rendering engine can do.  The problem of course is that the full complement of FSX default airports are what are packaged w/ V2, yet anything w/ any complexity appears to want to tank terribly in V2 by comparison to FSX--saying V2 is not FSX doesn't add anything because what is packaged with V2 IS FSX airports.  Now I'm in the CS Super MD80 which is clearly no more difficult IN FSX to process to than default planes, which makes it the most useable bigger plane for V2 so far.  Now, try sitting at this same gate in the PMDG NGX.   I can't imagine how this can be improved.  Again, I'm looking at the gate building WITHOUT even the VC in the MD80 and frames are a really weak 24.  This DOES NOT bode well at all for V2 evolving into a useful sim for larger tube liners. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

poor performance is the risk of running non supported addons in v2 at this point in time, I have tried the Aerosoft Airbus Extended and the fps was very good ( 30+ at its lowest ) while the Ifly 737ng using the P3Dv2 installer i was getting 20 to 25 fps. This was with a stock clocked cpu and not the overclock that's in my profile.

 

Edit

 

Oh yeah forgot the add, The Aerosoft Airbus Extended is built using the p3d 1.4 64bit sdk/tools and the Ifly is not, if that makes any difference.

Share this post


Link to post

What happens when you try this with P3D at default?

 

 


Now I'm in the CS Super MD80 which is clearly no more difficult IN FSX to process to than default planes,

 

This isn't FSX. As gandy said, this might well be due to non-compatible add ons. I even regard FTX Global as not compatible because there still are some serious bugs: I don't have it installed anymore right now.

Share this post


Link to post

Noel, I must be blindly stupid because I am missing some obvious point here.

 

I have done everything you have in both P3D and FSX and the results are quite similar. The obvious differences to me are that:-

 

1. At higher zoom levels, P3D(v2) is loading substantially more autogen than fsx, hence the drop in frame rates. Interestingly they increase again after a period of time.

2. Zooming out to a much higher level again, they are both similar.

3. At both gates the frame rates are similar, although P3D(v2) is loading more autogen.

 

Other obvious issues to me are:-

 

4. Flying stock aircraft in both sims, from both airports in my virtual cockpit - provides similar frames, but P3D has a better overall "atmosphere" with more scenery and runs smoothly.

5. My "mystery" 737 performs as well as, if not better than, in P3D(v2) as it does in FSX.

 

Sorry to labour the point, but what am I missing here?

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to labour the point, but what am I missing here?

 

 

I have autogen at NORMAL in P3D (I know they aren't equivalent), and I have autogen set at Extreme in FSX.  Here are two topdown views from FSX, same bird.  Clearly the farther out we zoom in V2 the airport detail remains, so that is conceded:

 

 

 

But this is true as well:  same bird, point blank range from the side of the terminal same gate, FSX frames at 57, P3DV2 at 24 and this IS NOT even in VC view--it's just external front view.  Throw the NGX in there and we will be seeing low to mid teens.  I hope not, but this is quite believable, albeit pure conjecture.  

Share this post


Link to post

I've never used that view on purpose my entire time using Flight Sims.. Not sure what the problem is here and I'm not being snarky either.. 

Share this post


Link to post

I cant quite understand it either, is it slewing performance were worried about?  Let's give P3D a couple SP's and a few native addon's before we rush to any judgment's

 

I'm more interested in seeing how good the addon's that are designed from the ground up with DX11 in mind, look and perform.

Share this post


Link to post

He needs a top-down with a billion fps for some reason and he does not understand how p3dv2 renders the planet in that view mode which is a lot different from fsx and why the fps drop happens, there might be a way round the fps drop by using multichannel with some custom settings on that channel.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


He needs a top-down with a billion fps for some reason

 

No you are clearly missing the point.  The point is that if complex area default airports function this way, i.e. direct view of a blithering wall gets you 24 frames without even being in a VC, then how does that bode for complex birds like PMDG products?  The top-down view point was just demonstrating some fundamental differences in the rendering system that may have some very dark implications.  In terms of waiting to see how native apps functions, do you think it's practical to wait for all big terminals to be built in native V2 mode?  That will not happen in the near term, and in fact speaks to building an entirely new simulator if that is the case.   One of the huge draws for P3D is that the entire airport world is packaged w/ the initial install.  Remember, these screenshots were done without even being in a complex aircraft and moreover not even looking thru the VC.

Share this post


Link to post

What you are ignoring is that a good number of us have already been testing these scenarios with great success. 

 

If anything, my flights into FSDTs KJFK were smoother in P3D2 than FSX. Not necessarily higher FPS (don't really know, stuck at 30 limit in both) but in no way worse.

 

You instead seem to want to cling to this scenario you've created as evidence of something others have already tested directly.

 

I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 



I cant quite understand it either, is it slewing performance were worried about?  Let's give P3D a couple SP's and a few native addon's before we rush to any judgment's

 

Sure, we have to wait and see.  Right now put me on record as speculating after what I observe with default planes in V2 that PMDG NGX & T7 will perform terribly at most if not all large metropolitan areas, and that is where those sorts of planes are flown in and out of.  We'll see, but it looks very iffy right now to me.   

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I'm going to ask the obvious question here, so that we can slowly move away from assumptions. Have you tried with the PMDG NGX Noel?

Share this post


Link to post

What you are ignoring is that a good number of us have already been testing these scenarios with great success. 

 

If anything, my flights into FSDTs KJFK were smoother in P3D2 than FSX. Not necessarily higher FPS (don't really know, stuck at 30 limit in both) but in no way worse.

Brian, I'm not ignoring anything, I'm doing some testing maybe you aren't.  Try being open to new information maybe.  Are you comparing default planes in both V2 & FSX at KJFK?  I found performance in the exceedingly easy to run MD80 at FB's KPHX to be quite weak, and compared to PMDG stuff that bird is on a par w/ default plane performance.   Sure, take the MD80 out of a smaller terminal like KSBA and I'm locked at 60 as predicted.  A troubling finding to me is how the GPU is utilized at only 38% while frame rate is a paltry 18.  I'm seeing this in other scenarios as well, so while the engine does clearly exploit VRAM & GPU better and differently in the most taxing areas frame rate can suffer greatly while there is still ample headroom in the GPU.  Throw in a PMDG bird and quite frankly I'll be shocked if they are even useable in V2 in the types of terminals they typically fly in and out of, even when 'optimized' whatever that will mean.  I'm happy to eat these words later but right now I think it looks exceedingly poor for complex aircraft within V2.    We can revisit this if and when PMDG follows thru.  If they don't follow thru that may be tacit support that is is not possible to run these simulations well in V2.  As I say, I'm happy to eat these words and I never have said I'm certain it's bad, but these behaviors point to potential problems IMO.

Ok, I'm going to ask the obvious question here, so that we can slowly move away from assumptions. Have you tried with the PMDG NGX Noel?

Nope.   Tell me what we know about that.  I'm not here to prove I'm right I don't give a rip, I'm just reporting what I observe.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it's becoming obvious at this point that you aren't actually reading the replies you are getting, no offense but I in the other thread linked you to a flight I did from FSDTs KLAX to FSDTs KJFK in the QW757 (which while not as complex, isn't all that much more FPS friendly than the PMDGs) I even have custom AI traffic running though at a low percentage. Here it is again: 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/429602-p3d2-long-haul-test-strikes-backsort-of-caution-large-images/

 

There is a shot in this very thread of the Airbus X (again, on par FPS wise with PMDG) at FSDT's KJFK looking towards Newark in heavy weather. If anything, the NGX is demonstrably faster on my machine than the AAX.

 

What else would you like to see ?

Share this post


Link to post

  I'm not here to prove I'm right

 

When you make statements like

 

This DOES NOT bode well at all for V2 evolving into a useful sim for larger tube liners. 

 

 

It sort of does kinda help to prove you're right.. 

Share this post


Link to post

When you make statements like

 

 

It sort of does kinda help to prove you're right.. 

 

Exactly. This is where I take issue with the entire thing. It's not that there might not be a potential issue here (I don't think there is but who knows), it is taking one anecdotal experience and saying definitively that there is a problem, whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary that gets old.

 

One thing I will say is that you absolutely should not expect the raw FPS FSX generates in P3D2, and that is no different than how it is with FSX vs FS9.

 

P3D2 does seem to be much better about handling itself in high demand situations though, from my own experience and those of others that have been posting here.

 

These aren't "I think it might be this way" posts. These are "This is what happened when I did it" posts. To me they have a good bit more value than strange hypotheticals.

Share this post


Link to post

Noel, I still don't get it.

 

I don't know about you, but I'm running P3Dv2 for the future 3rd party releases that I'm hoping take full advantage of the P3Dv2 SDK. Why waste time, it's like complaining at how crappy an FS9 PMDG product ports into FSX. remember it was backwards compatible too.

 

Quite frankly if 3rd parties are just going to do a straight FSX-to-P3Dv2 port for there future products, I personally wont be purchasing them.

Share this post


Link to post

Noel you really are missing the point, you are using fsx addons in p3dv2 which has a new rendering engine now as you are getting poor performance from those fsx addons you have to go to the developer and report your problems but as the addon is not supported and i doubt you will get support its the risk you take. plenty of people have installed fsx addons in to v2 and had issues so you are not alone in that but you dont really have any right to complain about fsx addon performance in a sim they are not made for.

 

If you read up on the the way p3d renders the planet as well you will understand that you wont see massive fps in top down view as that is not the way the sim works this is not fsx so you should not compare it to fsx.

 

The sim really has changed and you need to except that change and know the future is bright of the sim.. and if you have issues with non p3dv2 addons then thats your issue not the sims issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I'm going to ask the obvious question here, so that we can slowly move away from assumptions. Have you tried with the PMDG NGX Noel?

OK, I'll bite.  How does the NGX perform?

Share this post


Link to post

Noel you really are missing the point, you are using fsx addons in p3dv2 which has a new rendering engine now as you are getting poor performance from those fsx addons you have to go to the developer and report your problems but as the addon is not supported and i doubt you will get support its the risk you take. plenty of people have installed fsx addons in to v2 and had issues so you are not alone in that but you dont really have any right to complain about fsx addon performance in a sim they are not made for.

 

If you read up on the the way p3d renders the planet as well you will understand that you wont see massive fps in top down view as that is not the way the sim works this is not fsx so you should not compare it to fsx.

 

The sim really has changed and you need to except that change and know the future is bright of the sim.. and if you have issues with non p3dv2 addons then thats your issue not the sims issue.

 

To be fair I get can 30FPS in the over-head map mode no one uses with default airports.. Like everyone else though I just fail to understand why this a problem.. Especially when it isn't linear..

 

For example.. Going by Noels experience.. If I'm getting 30FPS on the tarmac, I should be getting 16FPS in overhead

 

But it's 24 in map mode

 

9QA7OQo.jpg

 

and 31 on the tarmac w/ crap weather and 10/10/10 tube/ga/and road traffic.. And this is SunSkyJet KPHL which I renabled.. This airport isn't exactly light by any means.

 

8oGoyhh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Well it's becoming obvious at this point that you aren't actually reading the replies you are getting, no offense but I in the other thread linked you to a flight I did from FSDTs KLAX to FSDTs KJFK in the QW757 (

 

I read partway thru the post Brian but stopped when I hit the link that took me here:

 

http://www.flyingtigersgroup.org/acarsftg/ftgacars/liveacars.php

 

Well, looks hopeful then for complex aircraft I'm happy to hear this.  What had me looking deeper was what I saw at FB's KPHX in the external view, no VC, out of the MD80.  From that I extrapolated something like the NGX would be horrifically awful since the MD80 is very much like default planes and I was seeing frames in the low 20's on approach w/ frames unlimited.  As well, the point-blank forward external view of the side of the terminal at KORD & KDEN being the low 20's didn't look to hopeful either.


When you make statements like

 

 

It sort of does kinda help to prove you're right.. 

Oh, ok.  Tell us everything you know about VRAM!!


 

 


5. My "mystery" 737 performs as well as, if not better than, in P3D(v2) as it does in FSX.

 

OK, I get it.  Thanks for that...

Share this post


Link to post

nathan-fillion-well-nevermind1.gif

 

So you made it...not even to the first image and then....

 

I give up..

 

I've tried...but I just...yeah...

Share this post


Link to post

Bill very true while the fps is not the same and wont be and using fsx addons would mess with any results, i believe LM have said the way the planet is rendered is a work in progress so down the line we should see some improvements as they started with rending the whole planet as one object and got good results but they had to break it up for us end users.

 

In fsx this is done as 100 meter squares ( from what i understand but it could be a little more ) and in p3d i believe this could be 20 to 40 mile squares or maybe more. when we are flying along the sim only needs to render so far ahead of us but in top down view it will try and render most of the planet and that includes the water which is something fsx did not do.

 

Water in v2 is a work in progress as well so down the line we could see better effects with out an fps cost due to it being tessellated.

 

For me understanding how the basics of the sim works is the key to knowing what to expect from it in terms of performance but it is a fun learning curve again :)

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