Sign in to follow this  
Sesquashtoo

The **EXPLOSIVE** FPS XPX.41 'secret...shhhhh'....

Recommended Posts

Well, the preamble....

 

I purchased DD's New York XP this morning, and have been flying for hours (coffee'ed up, of course!) and in so doing, was playing with the RENDERING options, most notably; OBJECTSTREES, and ROADS, in various complexity combinations, with the running in the scope and area of DD's New York XP.

 

Now..I'd say that this is the most render-intensive scenery pack that I have on my system for XP.

 

Having stated that...let me tell you what I have discovered:

 

The plain and simple truth...is that it is actually EASIER on your system to load-in and render, all of the above settings at their MAX settings...

 

OBJECTS: Extreme

 

ROADS: Extreme

 

Trees: Tree Hugger.

 

This is what I normally run at, for all scenery on this sim.  

 

What I found out by diminishing/dumming down all those three visual parameters...was that I got by going to:

 

Objects: Tons

 

Roads: Tons

 

Trees: Filled In

 

 

was in fact, over a 5 FPS DROP in rendering performance!!!

 

I have always felt that when you dummy down/ restrict scenery visuals...the sim actually has to 'think' about NOT bringing up rendering objects and the like...and THAT costs CPU cycles.  It is much easier for the sim to render 'clean'...that is...what ever the developer placed as objects in the scenery...is loaded one time...and comes up in its developed hierarchy.

 

I have noticed this phenomena in the likes of P3D and FSX. If the options of the sim (visual/scenery) are just set full out, with no limitations, you will by and large, get better FPS performance, not less...and smoother animation of those scenes to the screen.

 

Try it out on your own system.  Go to different places you are famiilar with within XP...but with the three mentioned parameters/sections, chosen at the highest levels. You will be quite surprised, at the result and find it antithesis to what you would have logically expected!!!

 

Here's a few more shots of DD New York XP, shooting along the Hudson River, and the last pic, way upriver from New York, in the 'burbs:

 

 

Eclipse_3.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_2.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_1.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_4.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_5.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_6.png
 
 
 
Eclipse_8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The overuse of LODs inside objects and facades can be detrimental to performance I've found as the sim still has to have the object in memory to display it, but I've never seen a situation where max settings performs better than lower settings and it wouldn't make sense as you're simply pushing less triangles to your video card and it has less to do. I'd suggest you had something else upsetting your FPS in this situation, and perhaps trying to lower the settings and then restart the entire sim you'd get different results.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Shots!! I'm thinking about purchasing XP 10. I had FSX for years and deleted it last year for P3D. I like P3D but also like what XP 10 is doing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some ok shots, however I note that there is no FPS counter for us to see, yet the topic is titled as primarily about FPS. I see very few AI car traffic in the city streets, no AI boat traffic at all, and I see no tour planes/helicopters. I do see blurry textures.

 

Just being observant and objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some ok shots, however I note that there is no FPS counter for us to see, yet the topic is titled as primarily about FPS. I see very few AI car traffic in the city streets, no AI boat traffic at all, and I see no tour planes/helicopters. I do see blurry textures.

 

Just being observant and objective.

Actually, Pracines, I was one for always having the FPS counter in all my shots.  I've had a few comments that it irritates some viewers, and detracts from the scene, and also...I can give/show FPS rates..but then, really, it is only defining my single system. I thought about this..that each system will be different, and generate different FPS, of course.  So...like most persons around here...check the Screenshot Forum, most never have an FPS counter of what their system is giving in their shot captured. 

 

So..I am saying that on my system, I actually lost FPS performance by not having those three Groups to their max value.  Again around 5 FPS.  

 

Another user's FPS mileage will of course vary...different sub-system components...etc.  But the gist of the topic is relevant to all.    Try upping the settings to full...if you  gain even one FPS over the lower settings,....then the force is with you... :)

 

That is why I have for the last few years...have run all scenery sliders within P3D and FSX to max...and have enjoyed great rendering performance (FPS readings) from both...as well as XP, of course! :)

 

I've just decided to go with the flow on any further Screenshots...and leave all counters off. Just the scene to enjoy, for what's in it.   :smile:

 

Being observant and objective, works for me... :)

 

Cheers,

 

Ses

Great Shots!! I'm thinking about purchasing XP 10. I had FSX for years and deleted it last year for P3D. I like P3D but also like what XP 10 is doing as well.

You bet...why have just one or two?   You will find that to populate XP with great scenery and planes...is way less than doing so within any M.S. based sim platform.  I say..run 'em all!

The overuse of LODs inside objects and facades can be detrimental to performance I've found as the sim still has to have the object in memory to display it, but I've never seen a situation where max settings performs better than lower settings and it wouldn't make sense as you're simply pushing less triangles to your video card and it has less to do. I'd suggest you had something else upsetting your FPS in this situation, and perhaps trying to lower the settings and then restart the entire sim you'd get different results.

Tony...I have noticed this within P3P as well as FSX.  I will stand behind my assumption, that even though you are putting more render-load, upon the GPU, to screen-output, it is the CPU that does not have to filter out the objects that are in the scenery package by means of a sim-coded scenery-gate threshold.  I've noticed this for quite awhile...and so being that scenery is a CPU/GPU partnership...if you relieve one, the CPU and/or the sim coding, from throttle gating the scenery file...it is only natural that things will pan out for a positive reading.  This has been the case over three flight sims, on my system.  This has been the case, in XPX.41 rendering DD's New York XP.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the same, I mostly run everything on max except the cars. I do this because I develop scenery and need to see everything I place. Anyway, I've just done a simple test in my Massachusetts scenery and I assure you this is absolutely not the case for me. On max settings with all objects, trees etc it's about 30fps, drop that to medium settings and it jumps up quite significantly. This is exactly what one would expect. When using default autogen, I generally have to lower settings.

 

Disclaimer: I'm guessing here on what I've read from various articles written by Ben Supnik and my own experience, I could be wrong and I'm sure others may know better.

 

X-Plane doesn't stream single objects in and out on the fly as you are flying, the objects to be displayed are predetermined during the loading of the DSF tile (i.e. The type of object from the library, its position, whether an exclusion blocks it, etc). LODs of course are different, but we're talking about density of objects/trees and not different versions of objects based on distance. If an object is told it won't appear or only appear 50% of the time at medium settings, it is calculated even before you are sitting in the cockpit for that tile. This is easy to test, simply look at an autogenerated house, or a tree from a forest, fly away from the tile a few KMs, and come back again to the same position. The tree and house will be the same tree and house unless you forced a reload of the tile (Remember lowering density chooses which trees or houses to show at random). The CPU is not causing a bottleneck determing what to draw, as it has already been determined during the loading of the tile

 

If you are getting worse performance on a lower density setting then this sounds like a nasty bug and is something you should report to LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have to jump in here to correct this before it goes too far.

 

"I have always felt that when you dummy down/ restrict scenery visuals...the sim actually has to 'think' about NOT bringing up rendering objects and the like...and THAT costs CPU cycles."

 

This is absolutely 100% completely factually wrong.

 

There are two ways that you can lower visual detail in X-Plane and both save CPU time.

 

1. Some settings load less data into X-Plane.  The OBJ, forest and road settings work this way.  Because the objects are never loaded, the CPU spends no time deciding on whether to draw them or not.  The cost of not drawing is zero and the time that would have been spent drawing them is saved.

 

2. Some settings change the search criteria for drawing.  World LOD is like this.  X-Plane uses a data structure (a quad tree) that lets us efficiently skip parts of the world that will not be drawn.  The world is divided into larger chunks that contain smaller chunks, and if an _entire_ large chunk is not going to be drawn, we skip it once and _save_ the CPU time of evaluating the smaller ones.

 

So lowering the world LOD distance lowers the search area over which we will draw.  This in turn lowers the number of small chunks we -ever- evaluate because more of the big chunks are discovered to be "totally not drawn" (allowing us to stop CPU processing early).

 

By comparison, at high LOD, every drawn small chunk is inside a big chunk that was also evaluated.  So less is less work, more is more work.

 

 

I do not know why a particular setup and scenery pack runs faster at higher settings than lower ones.  But I can say that X-Plane categorically does -less- work with lower settings. There is no -cost- to not drawing -- we made very, very sure that this would be the case!

 

Cheers

Ben

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have to jump in here to correct this before it goes too far.

 

"I have always felt that when you dummy down/ restrict scenery visuals...the sim actually has to 'think' about NOT bringing up rendering objects and the like...and THAT costs CPU cycles."

 

This is absolutely 100% completely factually wrong.

 

There are two ways that you can lower visual detail in X-Plane and both save CPU time.

 

1. Some settings load less data into X-Plane.  The OBJ, forest and road settings work this way.  Because the objects are never loaded, the CPU spends no time deciding on whether to draw them or not.  The cost of not drawing is zero and the time that would have been spent drawing them is saved.

 

2. Some settings change the search criteria for drawing.  World LOD is like this.  X-Plane uses a data structure (a quad tree) that lets us efficiently skip parts of the world that will not be drawn.  The world is divided into larger chunks that contain smaller chunks, and if an _entire_ large chunk is not going to be drawn, we skip it once and _save_ the CPU time of evaluating the smaller ones.

 

So lowering the world LOD distance lowers the search area over which we will draw.  This in turn lowers the number of small chunks we -ever- evaluate because more of the big chunks are discovered to be "totally not drawn" (allowing us to stop CPU processing early).

 

By comparison, at high LOD, every drawn small chunk is inside a big chunk that was also evaluated.  So less is less work, more is more work.

 

 

I do not know why a particular setup and scenery pack runs faster at higher settings than lower ones.  But I can say that X-Plane categorically does -less- work with lower settings. There is no -cost- to not drawing -- we made very, very sure that this would be the case!

 

Cheers

Ben

Well...thanks for your input, Ben...but I have to tell ya...at least on my system...graphics run better full out, than held back by lower settings. I guess then that I will enjoy the effect/result, no matter how it is then coming my way... :)   But hey...if I can mention this...and someone tries it..that never has...and has the same, uh..er..'perk'...then the post was a success for even just one user besides myself.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see Ben Supnik posting here. Straight from the horse's mouth :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see Ben Supnik posting here. Straight from the horse's mouth :-)

Right Tony..I was just coming back here to edit..and say that I guess the matter is closed on my assumption due to what is happening with my experience.

 

He is the authority.

 

Still though...I have this happening.  Believe me...I'm not crying about it at all...LOL!

 

I just thought to share my system experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, thanks for answering here. My personal impression is that the LOD has the biggest impact on FPS, followed by autogen. In XP as well as in P3D. Makes sense to me and maybe the differences between sceneries is then depending on their autogen amount and design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have to jump in here to correct this before it goes too far.

 

 

 

Cheers

Ben

 

Welcome to our cosy little forums,Ben :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Came for the fun tabloid title, stayed for the post from Ben".

 

Glad to see you posting here Ben.  We're very friendly 'round these parts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with the lighting ?

A nice bright sky but it's almost dusk down below

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with the lighting ?

A nice bright sky but it's almost dusk down below

 

Cloud shadows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I created the 'theme' of the title of the thread, I thought to make it fun, and hope I got a few smiles :)

 

I appreciate Ben coming onto the thread to share some of the background from a dev of XP.  But with respect, and in light of that, I do find across, not only XP, but other sims...that I actually do get better FPS performance, if I do not throttle back the scenery sliders in any of them. Whether this quark is just with my system specs, the cpu, motherboard, gpu, other supporting sub-systems, whatever...it is a true observation, coming from the use of my system.

 

So, with that being said, and the eye-grabbing style of this thread title, aside (smile)!,...I still suggest that everybody try the highest settings on their system, and see exactly what FPS you get...across different demand loads...and who knows...perhaps you will see this against-logic 'perk' as well. It costs nothing to post a thread, and it costs nothing to act upon it, as well....it certainly won't hurt your system, but only have you slide some virtual bars to the 'west'....and observe the result, let alone a much more immersive, and virtually gorgeous world around, and below you....

 

Cheers,

 

Ses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I created the 'theme' of the title of the thread, I thought to make it fun, and hope I got a few smiles :)

 

I appreciate Ben coming onto the thread to share some of the background from a dev of XP.  But with respect, and in light of that, I do find across, not only XP, but other sims...that I actually do get better FPS performance, if I do not throttle back the scenery sliders in any of them. Whether this quark is just with my system specs, the cpu, motherboard, gpu, other supporting sub-systems, whatever...it is a true observation, coming from the use of my system.

 

So, with that being said, and the eye-grabbing style of this thread title, aside (smile)!,...I still suggest that everybody try the highest settings on their system, and see exactly what FPS you get...across different demand loads...and who knows...perhaps you will see this against-logic 'perk' as well. It costs nothing to post a thread, and it costs nothing to act upon it, as well....it certainly won't hurt your system, but only have you slide some virtual bars to the 'west'....and observe the result, let alone a much more immersive, and virtually gorgeous world around, and below you....

 

Cheers,

 

Ses

 

 

Do you mind posting your settings and a few pics (before and after) with XP's frame counter, cause what you are stating here just doesn't make any sense. I have tried what you are suggesting before, all it does is bring my system to its knees and I have a pretty strong system. I need a least 30+ and for that I need to cut down on settings. .

 

I have never played a game where increasing eye candy or other goodies for that matter would yield more performance, it just doesn't happen, that is what I have experienced along the way so far.

 

Carlos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mind posting your settings and a few pics (before and after) with XP's frame counter, cause what you are stating here just doesn't make any sense. I have tried what you are suggesting before, all it does is bring my system to its knees and I have a pretty strong system. I need a least 30+ and for that I need to cut down on settings. .

 

I have never played a game where increasing eye candy or other goodies for that matter would yield more performance, it just doesn't happen, that is what I have experienced along the way so far.

 

Carlos

Sure Carlos...but already beat ya to it..(smile)..  I documented a real-time flight today in the Screen Shot Forum, under XPX.41 KFNT to KJFK, Dawn departure. In that flight, with the sim at  Trees: Tree Hugger   Objects: Extreme Roads: Extreme, HDR, DSF,  Water at: Advanced,  Airport Detail at extreme (or the highest wording)  Shadows: 3D on aircraft,  RESOLUTION: one level below full out...,  The monitor set to my 60Hz montior so 60 FPS if obtainable, etc...you can view the whole flight with most FPS readings, before the deadly detailed DD's New York City and area 3rdP scenery pack came into play at the last of the flight, staying at 30-31 FPS (displayed), until about 50/30 miles out of New York, where XPX.41 started loading in their whole scenery pack...and I stayed at 15-20 FPS for the duration in the area with a direct fly-over of New York City under the above full -out sim settings,...and didn't go below 15, mostly stayed at 16-18 FPS, which for the scenery discussed, and the sim full out...is most excellent FPS/my system performance, to be sure.  As you know, even at 15, you have smoothness and no stutter with XP. At least, on my system you don't.  So, go and check it out...that's why I purposefully left the FPS and Speed Data refs on my shots.  On shots with no FPS showing, I wanted those for wallpaper. During this flight, you can see, with XPX.41 set to the above parameters, over farm fields of Michigan, and then the mountains of New York State, en route to New York City.  Many different cloud-scapes as well...

 

By going to to Trees: Filled In  OBJECTS: Tons  Roads:Tons....over the same scenery and area....I lost 5 FPS average on all readings.  Also, you can check out my SMP 3.0 settings in this Forums' SMP 3.0 forum thread...where I displayed to FKANE, a fantastic cloud base shot, and on the second shot...displayed the settings that I use all the time. Those also were in play for my flight this morning, as well as my claims of yesterday as I observed the initial FPS performance, after loading DD's New York from an early morning purchase. 

 

Post Edit:  BTW, Carlos, to speak to your point about maintaining 30 FPS for your needs...as you will see...I ran the whole trip basically at 30-31 FPS no problem under the stated sim settings...and again, went no less than 15 for the nuclear system load-in above and near, New York City at 2,200 feet!   We are a totally B.S.-free zone here... (smile).  Even my leaving Bishop-Flint at early morning (no light), as well as at the airport, was a non issue, maintained  29-30 FPS.  Some of the early pics of the flight didn't have the FPS meter running, as they were going to be wall-paper to me.  But trust me...they like the others that show it...all were the same, 29-31 FPS.

 

Be sure to keep scrolling to the very bottom,  towards last post of the thread, to see all the descent and approach/fly over pictures, all with FPS readings displayed.

 

 

Hope this encourages you .....

 

Cheers,

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought to post, that who knows how much whatever operating system, you have in play, results, or adds to the final performance from any sim you run?

 

For the record, I never ever migrated to W10. I stayed with W7, and will see how the W10 winds howl, perhaps on the first of the last week, you can migrate for free.  I want to read upon the Net, yea, or nay comments...with W10 having been out for a whole year...

 

But anyway, my statements are with W7 driving my system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Sesquashtoo's back. We missed your over-enthusiastic posts. As we said earlier - you could do some serious marketing for the LR team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Sesquashtoo's back. We missed your over-enthusiastic posts. As we said earlier - you could do some serious marketing for the LR team!

"Over-enthusiastic posts"... perhaps my posts....measured as viewed by your personal 'enthusiasm' watermark, Scramjet333.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

My watermark, ... **is** my lifetime personality, and exuberance shown from exit from the womb, thereon.  I'll choose my level and energy of life involvement, its level of enthusiasm, thank you,... being any moment there is still breath in the lungs....

 

My family, growing up as a kid, with dad, mom, and sisters...., later on, my wife, my kids, my grandchildren, my colleagues, my clients, and friendship circles...also seem to have no issue with my level of general enthusiasm in all that I do. Not a one....

 

I must be doing things alright...as they are...   :drinks:

 

I won't be changing....anytime, soon.   :Shame On You:  :Shame On You:  :Shame On You:

 

Sesquash-'enthusiastic'-too

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Over-enthusiastic posts"... perhaps my posts....measured as viewed by your personal 'enthusiasm' watermark, Scramjet333.

 

My watermark, ... **is** my lifetime personality, and exuberance shown from exit from the womb, thereon. I'll choose my level and energy of life involvement, its level of enthusiasm, thank you,... being any moment there is still breath in the lungs....

 

My family, growing up as a kid, with dad, mom, and sisters...., later on, my wife, my kids, my grandchildren, my colleagues, my clients, and friendship circles...also seem to have no issue with my level of general enthusiasm in all that I do. Not a one....

 

I must be doing things alright...as they are... :drinks:

 

I won't be changing....anytime, soon. :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You:

 

Sesquash-'enthusiastic'-too

I never meant it in a negative connotation, but unfortunately you took it that way. :( Interpretations would vary, ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never meant it in a negative connotation, but unfortunately you took it that way. :sad: Interpretations would vary, ah well.

That's good to read.  I know that my personality gravitates in a big way, to those that show uber enthusiasm and passion, in what they do.  I'm sure that most of us would say the same. :)

 

All is good!

 

Ses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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