Explain this troubling performance issue

[Brian Doney 127]

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 ?

[styckx 1,871]

  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.. 

[Brian Doney 127]

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.

[laserit 93]

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.

[gandy 18]

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.

[Noel 4,501]

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?

[styckx 1,871]

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

 

 

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.

 

[Noel 4,501]

 

 

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...

[Brian Doney 127]

 

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

 

I give up..

 

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

[gandy 18]

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

[styckx 1,871]

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

 

I agree Gandy.. Things are different, that's it..  It's no big deal.. Which is all a lot of us have been trying to explain to Noel.. The issue is a non-issue.. 

[Noel 4,501]

Touche-you must have had that video right there eh?  Touche... 

 

From all of this I did learn a few things, so thank you for those:

1. Topdown view will behave so differently than FSX's rendering engine as to have no value as a comparator.   
2. Same same for other rendering situations.
3. The mystery 737 performs as well or better than in FSX and that is news to me so thanks for that.
4. High demand situations seem to generality do better than in FSX.  This one isn't so obvious to me as when I fly default planes around high demand areas I don't see this.  But comparing apples to apples is hardly even possible, so this too is difficult to make definitive statements about.

Cheers

[Noel 4,501]

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

 

Paul, thank you for your comments.  I have tried to get something more than anecdote as that is pretty easy to come up with on your own.  This is where I first started trying to get some real understanding of the basics of the rendering engine but haven't had a reply:

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=4611

[mganz121 159]

One thing I have learnt Noel is that change will always bring .... well change. And often we can worry needlessly. It always takes time for 3rd Party Developers to catch up which of course leaves us in the dark and maybe a little anxious.

 

FS9 and certainly FSX brought a new bench mark into the hobby - frame rates, and with that a new hobbyist that I refer to as a "Frame Chaser"  :lol: . I think you will find (and I certainly hope this is the case) that LM are trying to go back to basics and work around fluidity and immersion. Fingers crossed huh?

[Noel 4,501]

 

 

One thing I have learnt Noel is that change will always bring .... well change.

 

Sure, but I have also learned not all change is good either!    I would also maintain that there is nothing necessary about assuming if one part of the sim performs better then all scenarios will.  As for the argument about add ons not being native or optimized, does anyone know what that means, really?  My take is the optimization for DX11 is mostly about implementing DX11 effects and therefore become useful for enhancing visuals more than raw frame rate.   I've been here long enough to understand the difference between frame rate and smoothness.  And at some point below a certain level this distinction becomes moot too I'm sure all would agree.

 

All, please accept my apologies for not slowing down enough to try to ascertain who are self-proclaimed experts w/o sufficient knowledge or credentials versus solid sources of reliable information.  As long as you have been here you would know there is plenty of claimed expertise here that is hardly justified.  Bill made the point in another thread it is nice to have development team members who can give reliable information and I wholeheartedly agree which is truly why I went to LM and posted the polite request there but w/o a response.  In any case it was my bad for not looking deeper at Brian's response where at least some evidence of how V2 performs under high demand situations was illustrated at least somewhat.  

 

If anyone here knows where I can learn about the coding approach that was never responded to on the LM forum it would be much appreciated.