Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
AviatorMoser

A Frame-Time Analysis of P3D v3 -- Clouds

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I've been meaning to do an analysis on P3D with clouds for a while now, and also compare it to results from FSX:SE.

 

This is a simple experiment, and the motivation for this experiment arrives from my dissatisfaction with P3D's performance when it comes to heavy cloud conditions. From just a visual evaluation, it had appeared P3D ran much more sluggishly in overcast conditions than it did in light weather, but I had never completed a quantitative analysis until now to confirm what my eyes were telling me.

 

So this is the objective of this little experiment: determine what is the performance hit of overcast conditions in P3D versus FSX:SE using the same addons, the same ASN settings, and the same benchmark.

 

My P3D display settings. They are identical to my previous frametime analysis post here.

 

yDSHYib.png

 

SK8MuOr.png

 

3zC9Xz6.png

 

VG7xSOA.png

 

Identical settings were applied to FSX:SE as much as possible.

 

In the case of P3D, I have no modified nVidia Inspector settings from the stock profile. That means no SGSAA is applied whatsoever in P3D. However, in the FSX:SE case, 4X SGSAA is applied, along with 8X CSAA (equivalent to approximately 4X MSAA in performance). This should actually put FSX:SE at a disadvantage since it has additional antialiasing to perform, but we'll have to confirm that in the benchmark results.

 

The Benchmark:

 

  • Left traffic pattern at PAGY in an Alabeo DA40 model
  • FTX Southern Alaska
  • A REX 3 cloud texture set
  • Volumetric cloud effect is disabled in P3D.
  • Two cloud layers in Active Sky Next
  • Historical weather at 15:45 UTC December 26, 2015 -- results in overcast and precipitation

Control experiment:

 

I will monitor the frame times in the above benchmark for both simulations without Active Sky Next weather applied to see what their performance is in clear conditions.

 

Prepar3D 3.1:  Clear Weather, FTFF = 0.1, 4X MSAA, 30 FPS Lock

 

Ua94flk.png

 

Here we see pretty good performance. The average frame rate is about 28 FPS. The frametimes are stable. 99% of all frames are rendered at a rate > 21 FPS. There is variation from 33.3 ms to 40 ms between frames, but that is not discernable in the naked eye. This is good performance that is comparable to the final results found in my previous frame-time analysis thread.

 

FSX:SE:  Clear Weather, FTFF = 0.1, 8X CSAA, 4X SGSAA, 30 FPS Lock

 

xiNqBkr.png

 

Despite more aggressive AA and SGSAA, FSX:SE performs slightly better and smoother than P3D in the clear weather case. Avg frame rate is 29 FPS, but the variation in frame times are even lower. 99% of all frames are rendered at a rate > 23 FPS (21 FPS in P3D), and 99.9% of all frame rates are rendered > 21 FPS (18 FPS in P3D). A surprising result considering how much smoother and better P3D is touted to run better.

 

Wintry weather conditions benchmark:

 

Now, Active Sky Next is applied. ASN settings are identical for both simulators.

 

Prepar3D 3.1:  Wintry Weather, FTFF = 0.1, 4X MSAA, 30 FPS Lock

 

MivRPb5.png

 

The results are a bit unsatisfactory. Avg frame rates have dropped to 23 FPS. That is less than a typical feature film. There is much more variation in the frame times with 99% of all frames being rendered > 17 FPS, which leads to roughness in the rendering discernable by the naked eye. Also, there are some spikes in the time series. Some frames when I am taking off and landing lead to long frame times in excess of 120 ms. These are stutters and that is no good. There is definitely a performance hit caused by only two cloud layers which leads to slow frame rates that can be agonizing over time.

 

FSX:SE:  Wintry Weather, FTFF = 0.1, 8X CSAA, 4X SGSAA, 30 FPS Lock

 

ZtCaKqj.png

 

FSX is barely bothered by clouds, even with sharper AA and less shimmering with the SGSAA. A surprising result again. With SGSAA, I would have expected there to be a major performance hit when overcast is enabled. It seems FSX shrugs it all off.

 

The average frame rate was maintained at 29 FPS. 99% of all frames were rendered > 22 FPS (17 FPS in P3D), and 99.9% > 20 FPS (12 FPS in P3D). So the variance in frame times has decreased ever so slightly, but one can argue this decrease is so small that it would be undetectable to the naked eye. For all practical purposes, one can say there is no change between FSX performance in clear or wintry conditions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Something is not right with P3D and its cloud rendering, at least on my system. It struggles to render two overcast layers even without SGSAA. FSX on the other hand doesn't even to notice the clouds. I can actually go far and say FSX performs better with 8X CSAA and SGSAA in heavy overcast conditions than P3D in clear conditions with less AA and SGSAA. It should be the other way around, and I wish it was considering how much development has been put into the rendering side of P3D. However, some optimization in the cloud rendering needs to be done.

  • Upvote 3

Daniel Moser

 

92logo4.png

Share this post


Link to post

From a quick analysis, I'd say your video card is weak particularly for P3D which uses more the video card than FSX.

No doubt P3D is having a hard time with clouds BUT your system is possibly unbalanced...

But good tests anyways. Tests are always useful.

The conclusion is therefore wrong. P3Dv3.1 is quite a different overall engine than FSX.

The right conclusion could have been: My system performs better in FSX in clouds than P3Dv3.1.

My 2 cents


Pierre

Share this post


Link to post

From a quick analysis, I'd say your video card is weak particularly for P3D which uses more the video card than FSX.

 

I would agree with that assessment, but my video card is only truly stressed by P3D in cloudy conditions where the usage spikes to 99%, and performance begins to dip. Outside of heavy cloud conditions, the GPU usage sits around 70-80%, and the video memory usage is about 75% regardless of clouds.

 

So the card is more than capable of pushing a locked 30 FPS in non-cloudy conditions, but you can throw that right out the window when overcast conditions come into play.

 

Now seeing that the clouds look identical between FSX and P3D (after disabling the volumetric effect in the shaders), I think the rendering changes to the ESP engine by P3D may need some optimizations because this performance hit is a bit too much. Has there been a major change in how clouds are rendered? Is this supposed to translate into a large visual improvement?

 

These clouds after all are only rotating 2D sprites, and you shouldn't need a GTX 970 to render them considering they are based off 2004-2006 technology and methods.

  • Upvote 2

Daniel Moser

 

92logo4.png

Share this post


Link to post

These clouds after all are only rotating 2D sprites, and you shouldn't need a GTX 970 to render them considering they are based off 2004-2006 technology and methods.

 

Reality and theory are sometimes far apart, no? Fact is, your GTX-660 is not a rocket anymore. Just as an example: my 980Ti is about 300% faster than your 660 and guess what? I have almost no drop in FPS no matter how overcast my clouds are. Only thing dumping my FPS in P3Dv3 is still the AI traffic....

 

And your calculations are really illustrative: while you lock your FPS at 30, you are basically running into a CPU limit while flying around with no clouds, no wonder your GPU then only uses 70-80%. As soon as you load your GPU with the drawing of clouds, you switch from a CPU Limit to a GPU Limit and then your FPS start to drop below 30, as the GPU simply can not handle the load anymore. Video memory usage is a very bad indicator of GPU load by the way...

 

Still, you are of course perfectly right about the comparison between FSX and P3D, I would also have guessed that P3D has also improved the rendering of the clouds and obviously they did not. But to be fair, you can only properly compare FSX and P3D when you also chose the right and corresponding settings. In above screenshots, you have HDR active, something FSX does not offer at all...


Greetings, Chris

Intel i7-8700K@5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz CL14 RAM, Gigabyte AORUS 1080Ti, Windows 10 Home 64bit, Prepar3D 4.5

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah you really need to get rid of frame locks when benchmarking anything.


Ryzen 7 3700X @ 4.4GHz · 16GB DDR4 3600 16-16-16 · nVidia GTX1080Ti · Gigabyte x570i WiFi PRO · Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2 PCIe

Samsung 860 EVO 2TB M.2 SATA · BenQ Designer PD3200Q VA 32" QHD · NZXT H210i · Fully Watercooled · Seasonic Core 650W 80+ GOLD

38.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post

Reality and theory are sometimes far apart, no? Fact is, your GTX-660 is not a rocket anymore. Just as an example: my 980Ti is about 300% faster than your 660 and guess what? I have almost no drop in FPS no matter how overcast my clouds are. Only thing dumping my FPS in P3Dv3 is still the AI traffic....

 

And your calculations are really illustrative: while you lock your FPS at 30, you are basically running into a CPU limit while flying around with no clouds, no wonder your GPU then only uses 70-80%. As soon as you load your GPU with the drawing of clouds, you switch from a CPU Limit to a GPU Limit and then your FPS start to drop below 30, as the GPU simply can not handle the load anymore. Video memory usage is a very bad indicator of GPU load by the way...

 

Still, you are of course perfectly right about the comparison between FSX and P3D, I would also have guessed that P3D has also improved the rendering of the clouds and obviously they did not. But to be fair, you can only properly compare FSX and P3D when you also chose the right and corresponding settings. In above screenshots, you have HDR active, something FSX does not offer at all...

 

Ha! My GTX 660 was never a rocket :)

 

I expect a $600 card to not be overwhelmed by two cloud layers. Overall I just wanted to see if the performance hit for clouds is similar between the two programs. I use a frame lock exactly for the purpose of leaving a GPU 'reserve' for the clouds in either simulation, so that neither are already overwhelmed before adding clouds. I only mention VRAM as a check on whether all of my video memory is consumed in P3D, hence the lower performance, but it is not.

 

In reality, I could probably add 10 cloud layers with 4X SGSAA in FSX with a minimal performance hit, but I expect P3D to become a slideshow due to the inefficiencies in the cloud rendering. I don't think HDR is the culprit.

 

Maybe you're right in that this is an apple and oranges comparison, but I would have really liked if the development team left the cloud rendering as an apple, because this performance hit is a regression, and I shouldn't need at least a $500 GPU to render cloud sprites, especially when it was done easily enough before for much cheaper.

 

But oh well. That's the way it goes I guess. Two steps forward in the rendering, one step back.

 

 

Yeah you really need to get rid of frame locks when benchmarking anything.

 

Why? I just need to see if it hits the my frame rate goal or not. Without frame locks, I get tremendous microstuttering. I show that in the previous frame time threads. My goal isn't a maximum frame rate. It's a smooth, 30 FPS.


Daniel Moser

 

92logo4.png

Share this post


Link to post

Definitely must be GPU related... I don't see a drop in FPS regardless of cloud settings (tried up to 5 ASN layers with max coverage) in either P3Dv2.5, v3.0, v3.1 or FSXSE.... I am running a NVIDIA 970m.

 

Only things that make much difference in FPS that I can tell is heavy AI traffic,  PMDG stuff and full fat Orbx regions. Weather luckily makes no difference, even on my mobile CPU.

 

By comparison, XPlane 10 brings things to a stuttering stand still when cranking up weather on every machine I have tried, so I'm happy with P3D/FSXSE approach ha


Allen, flight sim lover and AA-5 Traveler owner

Share this post


Link to post

I know this thread is old, but clouds still perform awful in v3.2. I did a test with only 3 cloud layers in ASN and instrument conditions. Despite using REX soft clouds, flying through them or even by only looking at them in the air dropped my fps from stable 30 down to 10. It doesn't even matter if I'm using soft clouds or 2048 textures, the performance hit is the same. My GPU is a GTX770 4GB, although an old card it is still a decent performer and those fps hits can't be normal. Clearly a rendering issue that LM still has to fix...

 

EDIT: And this is without SGSS, only 4x MSAA!


Max Stephany

Boeing777_Banner_Pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I have no such problems with clouds...

ASN has 4 cloud layers and I use 32 bit clouds..

 

With an ovc I loose around 20% performance ...that's it.


Gerard

7940x ( 14 cores ) : 8 cores @ 4.8 - 6 cores @ 4.0 Ghz - Gigabyte X299 Gaming 7 - 32 Gb G.Skill Trident Z 3200Mhz Cl 14 - Gigabyte GTX 2080 TI Windforce OC @1920 Mhz - 1x SSD M2 1800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 43” Sony 4K tv's in NVSurround

8700K : all 6 cores @ 5.0 GHz - Asus ROG 370 - 16 Gb 4000 MHz @ 3600 Mhz - Gigabyte GTX 2080 Windforce OC @ 1900 Mhz - 1x SSD M2 1800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - 1x 55” Sony 4K tv

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post

A known issue. Though I've to agree it's worse in 3.2. They improved the aa so I guess that will cost more overhead at the same settings.


Shanan

ASUS Z170 PRO, I7 6700K @ 4.85ghz (HT ON), ZOTAC AMP EXTREME 1080TI GTX (OC), 16 GB DDR4 G.SKILL TRIDENTZ RGB @ 3230MHZ CL 16-17-17-33 (OC)

4X SSDS : WIN 10 (NVME 960 EVO) + P3D + OTHER GAMES, 2X WD BLACKS RAID 0 + 1 SEAGATE BARRACUDA, CORSAIR AX860i PSU, CORSAIR 760T CASE (BLACK),

27 INCH IPS PREDATOR GSYNC 165HZ 1440p + 24 INCH IPS DELL 1080p, THRUSTMASTER HOTAS FCS THROTTLE + FCS16000M

CORSAIR K95 RGB + CORSAIR M65 RGB + CORSAIR MM800 POLARIS RGB, CORSAIR H115i v2, CREATIVE GIGAWORKS 7.1 + ASUS D2X XONAR

Share this post


Link to post

If you fly during sunset or sunrise and have your cloud shadows activated, it can drag down your FPS drastically.

 

Check this video, in which I have documented the impact of dense clouds on FPS in Prepar3D v3.2 during dawn/dusk:

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the biggest difference between performance of FSX with Clouds and P3D with clouds, are that P3D clouds are volumetric which will perform worse since they are 3D objects versus the 2D sprites in FSX. So any comparison to FSX would be comparing apples to oranges.in this case.


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post

Has P3D fixed their overcast layers in 3.x?  In 2.5 I've tried to create a 4000' deep overcast to do some IMC training but I never could get it solid enough to do the work no matter how much I tried.  When I flew into the layer there were very large gaps all over the place.  Tried it with P3D weather as well as Active Sky.  Anybody willing to do an experiment for me?

 

Gregg


Gregg Seipp

"A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane.  A great landing is when you can reuse it."
i7-8700 32GB Ram, GTX-1070 8 Gig RAM

Share this post


Link to post

I think the biggest difference between performance of FSX with Clouds and P3D with clouds, are that P3D clouds are volumetric which will perform worse since they are 3D objects versus the 2D sprites in FSX. So any comparison to FSX would be comparing apples to oranges.in this case.

No I don't think that's the case yet. There's volumetric fog, but the clouds are still rotating sprites.


Nick Botica

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  
  • 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.


    17%
    $4,475.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...