Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Rafal

AI traffic performance - myths and reality

Recommended Posts

UPDATE

 

I have tried the FSUIPC Traffic Density Toggle, and I must say this is a great solution! :good:

 

I assigned a key (T) to this function and switching off all traffic is now a matter of the single click.

Restoring traffic simply requires pressing the key again. This time it takes two or three seconds more as it requires scenery reload.

But that is a very fair compromise for being able to enjoy landing at LHR or FRA.

 

Thank you, cmpbellsjc, for bringing this idea to my mind.

I think it temporarily removes my traffic performance frustration. :smile:


Rafal Haczek

sig_FSL-By-Wire.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A HD (2048 px, 32 bit) texture requires sixteen times as much memory (16 MB) as a SD (1024 px, DXT3/5) texture (1 MB). When using DXT5 compression on the HD paint, it's only four times as much memory. Take a realistic number of visible AI aircraft, say 50, and do the math for both cases.

 

That's the reason why I fail to understand why the painters for some AI models release those awfully impractical 2048 px paints. A few dozen of those paints in the simulator and you have yourself an open invitation to the OOM party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to reduce a few gigs of ai textures 2048x2048 to 1024x1024, not one by one but a few at once? 


 

 


Just a couple of other suggestions:
1. I have tried to optimize my AI aircraft by using FSX models whenever they are available. I also use DxtFixer to make sure the textures have alpha channels, are DXT3 etc.
2. Checking all your AI files to make sure there are no missing aircraft can make a big difference. If there's an aircraft missing then the program keeps trying to load it and that can cause serious loss of performance. I have found that just a few traffic files with a missing aircraft or two can seriously degrade performance. It's a bit time consuming, but using AIFP makes the process pretty fast and easy

So un-assigned aircrafts can also affect the performance? 


Ivan Majetic

MAXIMUS XII HERO, i9 10900k, NZXT KRAKEN Z73, ASUS STRIX GTX1080Ti OC, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 32 Gb, WD HDD 2TB, SAMSUNG 840PRO, SAMSUNG 850EVO, SAMSUNG 970EVO Plus, ASUS PG348Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The freeware tool AI Flight Planner 3.2 does have a feature that will identify any AI aircraft that are not assigned to a flight plan. Whether or not that actually has an effect on performance I can't say, though if there were a lot of them I'm sure it would increase loading times. I doubt it effects graphic performance, but the cleaner you can keep your installation the less likely you are to have problems so it's surely a good idea to store any unused AI aircraft into a folder somewhere and remove them from the active Aircraft folder... What does have a significant effect is when you have a traffic file active and an aircraft is missing in the folder... That's definitely something that is always worth checking and fixing

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i use AIFP extensively, and i know the tools how you can check the traffic files. What i wanted to say was, that sometimes i don't install all the aircraft that are listed in the flightplans, those are mostly short hauls flights in african, asian, south american flight plans, i only install long hauls from these plans, and since i never fly in those areas i don't see the need in installing complete fleets. 


Ivan Majetic

MAXIMUS XII HERO, i9 10900k, NZXT KRAKEN Z73, ASUS STRIX GTX1080Ti OC, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 32 Gb, WD HDD 2TB, SAMSUNG 840PRO, SAMSUNG 850EVO, SAMSUNG 970EVO Plus, ASUS PG348Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major performance hit caused by ai traffic is at busy airports when numerous of them in view causing rendering of large amounts of geometry. I was able to fly with ai and complex planes at 20+ fps with only a cpu upgrade (of 2x benchmark) where previously it was a complete slideshow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

http://stuff4fs.com/newpage.asp?Folder=TM&Docs=TextureManager.pdf

 

 

Make sure to create backups, otherwise a botched conversion will get messy.

Thank you! This might help with reducing the size of the ai folder :) Thanks again! Resizing should also help with performance, right?


Ivan Majetic

MAXIMUS XII HERO, i9 10900k, NZXT KRAKEN Z73, ASUS STRIX GTX1080Ti OC, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 32 Gb, WD HDD 2TB, SAMSUNG 840PRO, SAMSUNG 850EVO, SAMSUNG 970EVO Plus, ASUS PG348Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johny19 - if you have active flight plans for AI aircraft that are not installed I can absolutely guarantee you that you'll have performance problems. You can certainly leave out short haul flights to places you're not going to fly to, but you absolutely have to edit the AI flight plan file to eliminate those flights. If you have any AI files anywhere that have active plans for aircraft that are not installed, it will effect your performance. I hate to sound so dogmatic and I'm definitely not a tech expert, but I've seen the difference it makes when you isolate those files and fix them.

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kiwiflyer45 thank you for taking time to explain everything. Will edit (delete) the flight plans accordingly. I guess you learn something every day. Thanks again,

Cheers


Ivan Majetic

MAXIMUS XII HERO, i9 10900k, NZXT KRAKEN Z73, ASUS STRIX GTX1080Ti OC, G.SKILL TridentZ DDR4 32 Gb, WD HDD 2TB, SAMSUNG 840PRO, SAMSUNG 850EVO, SAMSUNG 970EVO Plus, ASUS PG348Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

http://stuff4fs.com/newpage.asp?Folder=TM&Docs=TextureManager.pdf

 

 

Make sure to create backups, otherwise a botched conversion will get messy.

 

Bjoern, this is exactly what I was looking for--I used the Skyrim texture compression tool on my AI models but that only affected DDS files. Since this does BMPs this will take care of that part of the equation, which is awesome!.

 

I'm a little confused about which options to use in the converter, though, even after reading the manual. I should select my traffic directory for "Source Folder", check "include sub-folders", and leave "mask/filename" blank, right? For "resize - largest dimension" I should check 1024, but what about the checkbox for "reduce _LM texture size by half"?

 

Finally, I'm confused about the options in the bottom half of the window. Do I need to specify destination directories? What I really want is to replace the original textures in their original directories. That means, I think, that I need to check the "update source" box, right? But then what about the folders specified at the bottom?

 

Sorry, looks like just the tool I needed, but want to make sure I get it right when I run it (especially since I'm sure it will take a while). Thanks for pointing out the utility!

 

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A HD (2048 px, 32 bit) texture requires sixteen times as much memory (16 MB) as a SD (1024 px, DXT3/5) texture (1 MB). When using DXT5 compression on the HD paint, it's only four times as much memory. Take a realistic number of visible AI aircraft, say 50, and do the math for both cases.

 

That's the reason why I fail to understand why the painters for some AI models release those awfully impractical 2048 px paints. A few dozen of those paints in the simulator and you have yourself an open invitation to the OOM party.

 

Thanks mate.

 

The last one, any difference in terms of performance or VAS using injected traffic with UT2 or using .bgl package. I know that with UT2 the ai planes follow a flightplan and with bgl they are going from point A to point B, but whats about performance and VAS?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The last one, any difference in terms of performance or VAS using injected traffic with UT2 or using .bgl package. I know that with UT2 the ai planes follow a flightplan and with bgl they are going from point A to point B, but whats about performance and VAS?

 

 There's no difference in performance from using injected or bgl traffic. One thing to note with the injected traffic on using "flightplans" is that while maybe better than going direct, they are nothing more than your typical default FS flightplanner generated routes (ie very basic and not very realistic). The injected traffic also doesn't use RVSM so you are always faced with traffic flying at wrong way altitudes.


i7-8700K, 16gb DDR4 3200,  GTX1080Ti, Win 10, P3d V5x

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    40%
    $10,150.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...