Blurries with high autogen

[TheBoom 31]

Might be on to something.

 

Removed AM, changed Autogen_Batch_Lod=2 (by default) to 1 and fixed fps to 33. Blurries seem to be gone. Also added Autogen_Tree_Lod=1 and the trees popping seem to be gone. Not sure if the tree LOD entry still has any effect but worth a try.

 

Ultimately it may have been a case of 116 simply not providing enough processing power for the scenery.

[Novation 534]

Might be on to something.

 

Removed AM, changed Autogen_Batch_Lod=2 (by default) to 1

 

 

This however will increase the Autogen and therefore the load on your system, making the likelyhood of blurries greater. Setting it to zero gives maximum Autogen LOD, whereas higher numbers, up to a max of eight, will thin it out and ease the load.

 

More likely the AM was not optimal for terrain loading.

[TheBoom 31]

This however will increase the Autogen and therefore the load on your system, making the likelyhood of blurries greater. Setting it to zero gives maximum Autogen LOD, whereas higher numbers, up to a max of eight, will thin it out and ease the load.

 

More likely the AM was not optimal for terrain loading.

You're right. But I think changing the batch LOD reduced the popping since it loads more in the preload or something along those lines.

[Novation 534]

I guess that might help after an initial load, but it may affect loading later in the flight as the terrain and Autogen try to keep up. In general if you are getting slow loading Autogen (pop in) or terrain (blurries) then it indicates settings are too high for the system, so tweaking them higher can only lead to more problems. I can't say I noticed any change in terrain or Autogen performance in 3.2 over other versions and its certainly no worse.

[TheBoom 31]

I guess that might help after an initial load, but it may affect loading later in the flight as the terrain and Autogen try to keep up. In general if you are getting slow loading Autogen (pop in) or terrain (blurries) then it indicates settings are too high for the system, so tweaking them higher can only lead to more problems. I can't say I noticed any change in terrain or Autogen performance in 3.2 over other versions and its certainly no worse.

I guess it varies from system to system. I had the same exact settings in 3.1 and no issues. 6700k at 4.7 no problem with max autogen. 3.2 is another story. I am trying to figure out a solution instead of turning down settings. If I had to turn down settings to compromise I might as well roll back to 3.1.

 

That being said a new AM and that tweak has almost completely resolved the issue.

 

Regards

[Novation 534]

That being said a new AM and that tweak has almost completely resolved the issue.

 

Its certainly is the case that iterations from V2 onward have varied in their need, or sensitivity to AM settings.

 

You should not have to compromise much with your setup that's for sure.

[TheBoom 31]

Yes. It's just that an AM of 116 has recently been advocated so much (myself included) that I have probably been blindsided by it. The fact that it probably isn't going to work for all situations and settings is quite real and more apparent in 3.2

 

Undeniably 116 still produces less stutters and more smoothness prolly cause it's less processing overhead after all.

 

It's back to finding the balance between smoothness and immersiveness.

[JLSeagull 191]

An AM setting of 85 in the Config seems to be the optimum de facto for any modern quad core system running P3D. Process Lasso also appears to enhance the capabilities of P3D further if it is nominated as a 'Game' in the options list. 

[TheBoom 31]

An AM setting of 85 in the Config seems to be the optimum de facto for any modern quad core system running P3D. Process Lasso also appears to enhance the capabilities of P3D further if it is nominated as a 'Game' in the options list. 

 

85 will give P3D 4 LPs to use, same as 116, but it will offer one thread per core. Better smoothness but overall same processing power as 116. Blurries are likely to remain.

 

Yes I have P3D classified as a game in Process Lasso.

[jimcarrel 688]

In 3.1 I found AM 85 better than AM of 116 (i7 3770 nonK) but with 3.2 I find 116 outperforming 85.

 

One thing I have found with my GTX 960 4 gig, I can usually (when searching for a way of lessening a nagging stutter)  add a bit more load through a scenery adjustment and it will smooth it out. It makes me think that on my card there is a sweet spot located between too much load and too little a load.

 

Just my personal experience.

[TheBoom 31]

In 3.1 I found AM 85 better than AM of 116 (i7 3770 nonK) but with 3.2 I find 116 outperforming 85.

 

One thing I have found with my GTX 960 4 gig, I can usually (when searching for a way of lessening a nagging stutter)  add a bit more load through a scenery adjustment and it will smooth it out. It makes me think that on my card there is a sweet spot located between too much load and too little a load.

 

Just my personal experience.

When you mean scenery adjustment which settings are you specifically referring to? Because autogen settings have nothing to do with GPU processing.

[JNS 106]

You know, this is interesting.  The other day all of a sudden I noticed blurries, enough to obviously catch my attention.  I never remembered seeing any before.  I use no ASN or other addons except My Traffic 6 and ORBX. I was using a default aircraft.   I'm on Windows 7, P3Dv3.2.3 (Client only), 980Ti.

 

Jeff

[McDaniel 44]

Just to add to the confusion....I was using client 3.2 with content 3.1, Scenery 3.0....perfect experience with AM 87 (cfg) and all other progs set to 3,5,7 (lasso).

 

Yesterday I installed content 3.2 due to GSX and other menu's  not working.....guess what....a f....ing blurry mess.

 

Sometime's after more then 25 year's of simming I just hate this hobby ........JK :-)

 

6700K 4.6, HT On, 970GTX SLI

[jimcarrel 688]

When you mean scenery adjustment which settings are you specifically referring to? Because autogen settings have nothing to do with GPU processing.

For example.. this morning, after switching back to AM of 116 and checking different settings of AM within the GTN750 configuration, I found a good response with setting the GTN back to core 1

 

(yesterday I had set it back to AUTO just for experimentation, this was while taking out an AM for P3d)

 

One caveat appeared, after going AM 116 and changing GTN to core 1, running A2A Comanche with GTN with few ASN clouds, 140 knots, 1800 feet off ground, I had a niggley micro stutter while looking at ground below from cockpit.

 

I added in Dynamic Shine at medium setting (I don't run this normally) and found the micro stutter was gone.

But, then If I tried a real high G bank I could induce a hard stutter. I don't do that unrealistically either as a rule. So I was satisfied with the new Dynamic Shine setting.

 

I mention all this because you mentioned auto gen not stressing GPU output much (more of CPU stress), that may be the case but it still is a process asking for time on the motherboard.

 

It's the "trying to balance the whole ball of wax" on our individual computers that makes this all crazy. All one can do is try. (it could give one a problematic complex)

 

This brings to mind that I think LM has done a pretty remarkable job with this, trying to make a program run well on everyone's  different machine.

 

This, if you remember, is the difference between a PC and a Console. All PC's are different and Consoles are same, but I don't like them, I like having a problematic complex, lol. 

[TheBoom 31]

For example.. this morning, after switching back to AM of 116 and checking different settings of AM within the GTN750 configuration, I found a good response with setting the GTN back to core 1

 

(yesterday I had set it back to AUTO just for experimentation, this was while taking out an AM for P3d)

 

One caveat appeared, after going AM 116 and changing GTN to core 1, running A2A Comanche with GTN with few ASN clouds, 140 knots, 1800 feet off ground, I had a niggley micro stutter while looking at ground below from cockpit.

 

I added in Dynamic Shine at medium setting (I don't run this normally) and found the micro stutter was gone.

But, then If I tried a real high G bank I could induce a hard stutter. I don't do that unrealistically either as a rule. So I was satisfied with the new Dynamic Shine setting.

 

I mention all this because you mentioned auto gen not stressing GPU output much (more of CPU stress), that may be the case but it still is a process asking for time on the motherboard.

 

It's the "trying to balance the whole ball of wax" on our individual computers that makes this all crazy. All one can do is try. (it could give one a problematic complex)

 

This brings to mind that I think LM has done a pretty remarkable job with this, trying to make a program run well on everyone's  different machine.

 

This, if you remember, is the difference between a PC and a Console. All PC's are different and Consoles are same, but I don't like them, I like having a problematic complex, lol. 

 

You mean you have better performance using dynamic resolution at medium as opposed to none? That's interesting. I might give it a try. 

 

 

Just to add to the confusion....I was using client 3.2 with content 3.1, Scenery 3.0....perfect experience with AM 87 (cfg) and all other progs set to 3,5,7 (lasso).

 

Yesterday I installed content 3.2 due to GSX and other menu's  not working.....guess what....a f....ing blurry mess.

 

Sometime's after more then 25 year's of simming I just hate this hobby ........JK :-)

 

6700K 4.6, HT On, 970GTX SLI

 

Yes I noticed the blurries came after the content update. Initially I only updated the client but my GSX and ASN menus stopped showing so I had to update content as well.

 

 

So anyway after some testing and tweaking, using an AM of 248 the blurries are gone. I still have to keep my eye out for popping though I haven't noticed any yet.

 

I however had to reset the Autogen_Batch_Lod to the default of 2 or I would inevitably oom at denser areas such as KJFK (default airport with Orbx).

 

I'm going to mark this as solved for now and hope you guys get the same luck while playing around with the AM.

 

Regards,

Shanan