Sign in to follow this  
billandjillmeier

Frame Rate Help, this can't be right

Recommended Posts

x plane 11, world objects, texture quality, visual effects all set to HIGH, reflections off, antialiasing lowest setting, number of models 2 or 3, visibility 40 miles, no clouds, Seattle, cessna 172, I7 2700 overclocked to 5ghz, Nvidia GTX 1070 with 8G VRAM overclocked, 8G RAM, Nvidia parameters set to use the 3d application, power management mode prefer maximum performance, threaded optimization OFF, 3 monitors all set to full screen simulator and default monitor resolution, Windows 10 64 bit, I'm getting a paltry 16 to 18 FPS. I can get good frame rates with only one monitor enabled. I must be missing something. I have spent about 2 hours searching posts. No magic bullets. Surely frame rates should be at least above the minimum 19 with my hardware. What is it??? Or does xplane 11 really only work with one monitor? 

Share this post


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

42 minutes ago, billandjillmeier said:

x plane 11, world objects, texture quality, visual effects all set to HIGH, reflections off, antialiasing lowest setting, number of models 2 or 3, visibility 40 miles, no clouds, Seattle, cessna 172, I7 2700 overclocked to 5ghz, Nvidia GTX 1070 with 8G VRAM overclocked, 8G RAM, Nvidia parameters set to use the 3d application, power management mode prefer maximum performance, threaded optimization OFF, 3 monitors all set to full screen simulator and default monitor resolution, Windows 10 64 bit, I'm getting a paltry 16 to 18 FPS. I can get good frame rates with only one monitor enabled. I must be missing something. I have spent about 2 hours searching posts. No magic bullets. Surely frame rates should be at least above the minimum 19 with my hardware. What is it??? Or does xplane 11 really only work with one monitor? 

Xplane loads all in at the start.  I'd just sit at the airport, and watch your busy lights on your drive(s).  I run high end ortho..and so, it actually takes 3-5 minutes with XP11 showing only about 8 FPS, before it finishes loading, and pops (the FPS reading) up to 28-to infinity.  Give your XP 11 time to load fully into memory. Do a coffee/bathroom run...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply. I have flown for about an hour in the Seattle area and the frame rates do not improve much until I leave the heavily populated area. It increases, but not much. I stay below the 19 FPS threshold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe with 3 monitors your GPU becomes the bottleneck in X-Plane. Have you tried decreasing anti aliasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have turned off antialiasing. It helps. But still I can't get up above 19 fps in high density city areas. I know the three monitors are a huge resource hog, but I was hoping that a  64 bit application with 8G of Vram and 8G of RAM would be good enough to stay above 24. That's my goal, 24fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try running the displays in a lower (custom) resolution. It's def. the fillrate that's holding you back. Depending on your monitors scaling quality, you may still get a very good image. Use AA to counter jaggies. If these are 1080p displays, try running them in 1280x720 or 1600 x 900 each instead. 

There's just no way a 1070 will drive three displays with full resolution in X-Plane with HDR, you'll have to face that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, strider1 said:

Xplane autogen will eat cpu frames !

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 monitors and when I tried to setup the second one in XP, my frames droped. I suggest use one monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am running one monitor at 1920x1200 and two monitors at 1600x1200. I will try to run at a lower resolution and see what happens. I can't run with just one monitor, there is no realism to that. I did state that I am using the C172 as a baseline. Shadows and reflections are off. If the 1070 can't run three monitors, then what will? Will going to a haswell processor and motherboard help versus the sandybridge. My bus speed is 100, maybe I should increase the motherboard bus speed and lower the cpu multiplier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, billandjillmeier said:

I am running one monitor at 1920x1200 and two monitors at 1600x1200. I will try to run at a lower resolution and see what happens. I can't run with just one monitor, there is no realism to that. I did state that I am using the C172 as a baseline. Shadows and reflections are off. If the 1070 can't run three monitors, then what will? Will going to a haswell processor and motherboard help versus the sandybridge. My bus speed is 100, maybe I should increase the motherboard bus speed and lower the cpu multiplier. 

The GPU is responsible for the resolution. Upgrading the CPU (while it will def. help in other areas, rendering more objects ect.) won't help you here. Decreasing resolution and/or visual effects (medium will be really fast) is the way to achieve good performance on your 1070. Test with low world detail to really focus on GPU performance, then raise world details later to load the CPU.

No card on the market can run your three displays at full res. with HDR and weather enabled at 30FPS - not even a 1080ti (which would be much closer to it nevertheless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

It's probably my 4K monitor !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

I'm not so sure.  I run single monitor and though it really depends where you fly, max autogen in LA (socal) where I fly, crushes fps.  I'm at 1080P only.  Max autogen in my hometown of Duluth isn't so bad... I can do about 30 fps with payware.  LAX is about 15 with payware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your frame times for CPU and GPU? Just watch those (you can also make XP visualize it in a graph via the data output settings) and you'll know whether your CPU or your GPU holds back the sim. If your CPU timing is higher than your GPU timing, it's the CPU - turn down the CPU relevant settings (world objects, reflections, shadows) then. If your GPU timing is higher, it's the GPU, therefore in that case turn down the graphics settings (AA, Effects, Textures) until you're satisfied.

There's really no magic with XP11 in that regard. Just monitor the frame times, play with the sliders accordingly, monitor frame times again, repeat until you've found your personal best balance between visuals and performance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm not so sure.  I run single monitor and though it really depends where you fly, max autogen in LA (socal) where I fly, crushes fps.  I'm at 1080P only.  Max autogen in my hometown of Duluth isn't so bad... I can do about 30 fps with payware.  LAX is about 15 with payware.

I'm getting much better performance on a system with the same video card as you, at roughly the same resolution on a single monitor. The difference is my CPU and tons more RAM (32 GB). Also I'm not using any orthoscenery, which puts an additional load on the system.

So I suspect one big bottleneck in your system is that 8 GB of system RAM, which is the minimum spec listed for XP11. The recommended spec by Laminar is 16-24 GB or more. The "more" part really helps if you have anything else running in the background like a flight planner, web browser, etc. I'd look to boost your RAM as a first step. RAM is cheap these days.

You and I both need better video cards though. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually ram is pricey this year

I had been waiting for it to drop since last year when I purchased the wrong ram .  16 GB for 90 USD.  Since I'm stuck in ddr3 it's about 120 usd this time around ick.  Instead of wasting my money on ram I do plan on a system upgrade sometime this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, domae001 said:

What are your frame times for CPU and GPU? Just watch those (you can also make XP visualize it in a graph via the data output settings) and you'll know whether your CPU or your GPU holds back the sim. If your CPU timing is higher than your GPU timing, it's the CPU - turn down the CPU relevant settings (world objects, reflections, shadows) then. If your GPU timing is higher, it's the GPU, therefore in that case turn down the graphics settings (AA, Effects, Textures) until you're satisfied.

There's really no magic with XP11 in that regard. Just monitor the frame times, play with the sliders accordingly, monitor frame times again, repeat until you've found your personal best balance between visuals and performance!

How do I get the on screen graph?  I checked that box but nothing shows up.  For now I dumped it into a txt file.

Maybe you can dechiper these numbers.

Avg frame time:    .024

Avg CPU time:      .019

Avg GPU time:     .027

Edit ok I found that ctrl+g was my default open graph command.

So here it is for a short while.  This is default Baron flying about a 250 heading from KRAL.  I marked the spot in red when my Ortho ZL16 tile loaded.  There is apparently no legend for the colored boxes, so I'm not sure what is what.

This is autogen one notch from the top.  I typically run two notches from the top in socal because I prefer payware planes.

xp11socalrunFT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

How do I get the on screen graph?  I checked that box but nothing shows up.  For now I dumped it into a txt file.

Maybe you can dechiper these numbers.

Avg frame time:    .024

Avg CPU time:      .019

Avg GPU time:     .027

Edit ok I found that ctrl+g was my default open graph command.

So here it is for a short while.  This is default Baron flying about a 250 heading from KRAL.  I marked the spot in red when my Ortho ZL16 tile loaded.  There is apparently no legend for the colored boxes, so I'm not sure what is what.

This is autogen one notch from the top.  I typically run two notches from the top in socal because I prefer payware planes.

 

Well, the missing legend surely doesn't help, lol. The top graphs (orange and pinkish) seem to be f-act and f-sim, the other three are frame time, CPU and GPU time. You should display those three seperately to check whether they remain somewhat stable (just uncheck the orange and pinkish one). From what I can tell, you're actually doing fine with your system apart from the large fps drops of course. The CPU takes 0.19 seconds to do its job, the GPU 0.27 seconds, the entire frame takes 0.24 seconds (which doesn't make sense for an individual image since that number should be higher than any of the former two, but since it's an average, it makes sense). So your CPU is faster than your GPU, but once you get into an area with more autogen, that'll change as you've mentioned, so your sliders are actually fine.

It might be a fair assumption that the dips in fps are either due to low RAM or low VRAM. I'd monitor those two factors and correlate with your framerate. XP gives a rough estimate of VRAM usage in the settings menu (don't know if it can be graphed as well...). I have a GTX 1070 and found that XP11 can easily eat into the 6GB range when using max texture size, the GTX 970 has 3,5GB I believe. Low VRAM usually results in fps dropping to 1-2 fps, I do not know what effect low RAM would have though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I'm getting much better performance on a system with the same video card as you, at roughly the same resolution on a single monitor. The difference is my CPU and tons more RAM (32 GB). Also I'm not using any orthoscenery, which puts an additional load on the system.

So I suspect one big bottleneck in your system is that 8 GB of system RAM, which is the minimum spec listed for XP11. The recommended spec by Laminar is 16-24 GB or more. The "more" part really helps if you have anything else running in the background like a flight planner, web browser, etc. I'd look to boost your RAM as a first step. RAM is cheap these days.

You and I both need better video cards though. :happy:

Please not the ram myth again. X-Plane in its current state never uses more than 16GB, having 24 or 32 won't do anything for you, not a single FPS. This has been thoroughly discussed here. The only scenario where you might scratch 16GB is using Alpilotx's UHD mesh. Usually, even with  LOT of scenery plus orthos, 12GB is the maximum X-Plane uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

Please not the ram myth again. X-Plane in its current state never uses more than 16GB, having 24 or 32 won't do anything for you, not a single FPS. This has been thoroughly discussed here.

But without a consensus, apparently. :happy:

Look, I'm not making a simple statement that "more RAM increases your frame rate." Obviously that only happens if RAM is the actual bottleneck, and that can happen if you're throwing a lot of scenery objects on top of HD or UHD mesh, and/or high res orthophoto scenery as well. 

If you don't think it's a good idea to have "16-24 GB of RAM or more," then you'll have to explain why that's the recommended spec on the Laminar web site.

Remember that it's not just what X-Plane itself wants to use, it's how much other stuff you're running along with it, like flight planners, web browsers, and anything else running in the background. A system with 24 or 32 GB of RAM simply has more than enough overhead available for anything you want to do with a flight sim and associated software running along with it, so you're never getting close to a RAM crunch. 
 

Quote

The only scenario where you might scratch 16GB is using Alpilotx's UHD mesh. Usually, even with  LOT of scenery plus orthos, 12GB is the maximum X-Plane uses.

I've seen it run over 16 GB plenty of times with UHD mesh, probably because extended .dsf loading is now on by default. Complex aircraft models will load a bunch of plugins in memory, and more planes are now using 4k textures. And again, the rest is available for system overhead.

I just have a hard time relating to the idea that it isn't a good idea to have plenty of RAM overhead in a computer system. This has never been a bad idea in my book, and we still don't know what's coming along in the future with seasons, weather, or anything else that might require more RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course having overhead is good. I also agree that if you want to future proof your system now, 32 is the number to choose. That said, and taking into account that you shut down everything else while the sim is running (a browser doesn't hurt much of course), this argument has been the same in 2012.... now 5 years later, I still haven't seen X-Plane exceed 16GB and I throw a lot at it, even if it's just to test. It should be clear that as long as you stay away from the UHD mesh, there's no point to having more than 16GB - at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, domae001 said:

 So your CPU is faster than your GPU, but once you get into an area with more autogen, that'll change as you've mentioned, so your sliders are actually fine.

 

Right, so am I to assume that a cpu and gpu frame time that is identical or very similar makes for less stutters and overall is the most efficient?  Tonite just now I actually spent about 30 min playing with settings to get those values as close as possible to each other.  In middle range autogen areas (like when I typically fly socal), I can really only run 4xSSAA+FXAA.  I adjust the AA slider to get a GPU response.  But if I leave the more urban areas of socal to the east I can run high autogen and sometimes I can do the max 8xSSAA+FXAA and the gpu/cpu frame times are still very similar.  I adjust the number of World Objects to get a CPU response.  This stuff is really interesting - I didn't know my way around XP frames until now.

In this image I'm still near Ortho, Socal, and I just left my payware KSNA airport northbound, with some fluffy clouds aloft.  This Carenado king air always seems to hurt my fps so I flew with it.  I had around 20 near SNA and then it climbed as I flew away (no surprise there).  But as long as I'm aware of my settings I think I can achieve a nice performance with my aging machine.

35457401706_28a6b4e313_o.jpgcpugpusame by ryan b, on Flickr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Colonel X said:

Of course having overhead is good. I also agree that if you want to future proof your system now, 32 is the number to choose. That said, and taking into account that you shut down everything else while the sim is running (a browser doesn't hurt much of course), this argument has been the same in 2012.... now 5 years later, I still haven't seen X-Plane exceed 16GB and I throw a lot at it, even if it's just to test. It should be clear that as long as you stay away from the UHD mesh, there's no point to having more than 16GB - at the moment.

I have 24 GB, and have seen them used them all up and then some (swapping to the HDD really kills the immersion).  This was with photoscenery at ZL 18, simheavens w2xp sceneries + some detailed airports on top and a 3rd party aircraft.  Don't tell it can not be done :-) .

Since I dropped a notch to ZL16 or ZL17, I use standard scenery overlays instead of w2xp for my photoscenery and indeed, I rarely reach 16GB anymore. But it still feels like 24GB is the sweet spot for X-Plane 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove the AI traffic, especially if you have addon planes, (AI uses them too). No more slow FPS on startup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Right, so am I to assume that a cpu and gpu frame time that is identical or very similar makes for less stutters and overall is the most efficient?

Yes. I think it's not so much stutters, as the optimal balance of CPU vs GPU. In other words, the one with the higher frame time is the bottleneck at current settings and scene.

So, if your CPU frame time is less than your GPU frame time, you can increase the settings at right (objects, reflections, shadows, etc.) until the two numbers becomes close again and not lose FPS.

If your GPU frame time is less than your CPU frame time, you can increase the settings at left (visual effects, resolution, AA, etc.) until the two numbers becomes close again and not lose FPS.

In any case, Ben is working on further improving stutters and FPS for the upcoming releases.

 

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