harun

747/777 p3d v4 Dynamic Light FPS Dropp

Recommended Posts

With this new Version for 747/777 the Dynamic Light kills my GTX 1080 in 4k Resolution. 

With the latest Version before this one( 3.00.8377) the FPS drops only at Flightbeam´s KSFO HD to the half (from 40/35 to 20/15). Now the FPS drops at any Airport (like FT EHAM, FB´s IAD or DEN etc.) when Dynamic Light is on, of course the fps drops not so massivly like at KSFO, but it is slightly more than before. 

I notes by monitoring GPU-Z, that the base usage of GPU load is about 65/70 %. With every additional Light i switched on, the GPU load rise about 10% per Light, see below.

Landing Light´s =10%
Taxi= 5-10%
RWY Turn= 10%
Strobs, Becon, Logo etc. together =10%

This let my GPU load goes to 100%, an the FPS drops. The GPU is so the Bottleneck and the FPS is scaling down. So i need to disable the Dynamic Light, but this caused no visible Lights on Ground. 

i7 6700k @ 4,4GHz

GTX 1080 Golden Sample (slightly overclocked by Manufaktur)

NV Driver is 382.53

16GB RAM 

4k Resolution, with no activated AA during the test. 

747 Version 3.00.8377

777 Version 1.10.8378

 

Share this post


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

Mir has a good in-depth explanation of the GPU workload issues associated with P3Dv4 dynamic lighting and complex arrays of ground polygons in his support forum at flightbeam.net

Regards

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work with your AA settings, 2xSSAA or 4xMSAA should work ok with Dyn. Light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as you can see in my starting post AA is switch to off, to get max. Performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, harun said:

as you can see in my starting post AA is switch to off, to get max. Performance. 

Sorry, my bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Mir has a good in-depth explanation of the GPU workload issues associated with P3Dv4 dynamic lighting and complex arrays of ground polygons in his support forum at flightbeam.net

Regards

 

Yes, i know this Statement, but it´s not helpful to increase FPS, it´s only a declaration why the FPS dropp´s. 

I Think for me, the Version before this works better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another reason I am holding off going from 3.4 to 4. Hopefully LM can fix this problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B777ER said:

Yet another reason I am holding off going from 3.4 to 4. Hopefully LM can fix this problem. 

I'm not sure I understand that.... you'd rather stick with significant memory constraints than adjust your frame rate to accommodate dynamic lighting? There are remedies, and it is a clear indication that things are better because we are back to bemoaning performance because our systems are not powerful enough instead of OOM errors because of a 32b application.  I think in this case the move to v4 is an easy decision.  There isn't a problem for LM to fix.  There are now new challenges for our systems and scenery developers.  I guess you could wait a couple of years for that to start catching up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, downscc said:

I'm not sure I understand that.... you'd rather stick with significant memory constraints than adjust your frame rate to accommodate dynamic lighting? There are remedies, and it is a clear indication that things are better because we are back to bemoaning performance because our systems are not powerful enough instead of OOM errors because of a 32b application.  I think in this case the move to v4 is an easy decision.  There isn't a problem for LM to fix.  There are now new challenges for our systems and scenery developers.  I guess you could wait a couple of years for that to start catching up.

I'm sorry, but a bottlenecking GTX 1080 because you turn lights on is not progress nor evolution. I agree with you if someone sets his sliders of his SIM (as a whole) at a position that limits his system. But this is ONE tiny aspect of the SIM dictating your whole setup. Good frame rates all around, except when your light illuminates the ground at night? 50 fps all day and light long, and 15-20 because you switch on some lights? Sure we can adjust the sliders. It seems for me at least to be;

- No more 4K (even though I get 35 fps easily.

- Drop all sliders down to midpoint (and risk problems with aftermarket scenery.

- Reduce FXAA and AA.

All this just so I can switch on lights at night. The load difference is way too large compared to the demanded load 98% of other times.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also experienced better performance with the previous version of the 747, there's a big drop in fps when lights on in latest version.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I understand that.... you'd rather stick with significant memory constraints than adjust your frame rate to accommodate dynamic lighting? There are remedies, and it is a clear indication that things are better because we are back to bemoaning performance because our systems are not powerful enough instead of OOM errors because of a 32b application.  I think in this case the move to v4 is an easy decision.  There isn't a problem for LM to fix.  There are now new challenges for our systems and scenery developers.  I guess you could wait a couple of years for that to start catching up.

I have been going months without an OOM. No problemo to wait a little longer. From reading what Amir said from Flightbeam, I definitely think there is something for LM to fix with the DL in v4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, I would hope a reasonable compromise can be found and implemented by LM where you can disable DL yet still have your lights illuminating the ground.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what I know about how DL works in P3Dv4, I found that, predictably, turning on ONLY the inboard landing lights on the 747 (no outboards, no rwy turnoff lights, and no taxi lights) gave me a significant performance boost over lighting up the whole Christmas Tree (two lighting sources to resolve over those thousands of ground polys instead of 7).  And, for those that think SLI makes no difference--well, with both of my 980Ti GPUs enabled in SLI my frame rate as much as doubles over that with a single 980Ti (e.g. FSDT KLAX + ORBX SCA I go from 10 to 20 fps) when getting clobbered by dynamic lighting.

Bottom line...it's manageable, but yes, I hope that we'll come up with something a little less heavy on the performance.

Regards

 

Share this post


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

If anything, I would hope a reasonable compromise can be found and implemented by LM where you can disable DL yet still have your lights illuminating the ground.  

You have a P3D option to disable dynamic lights.  You don't have an option with the PMDG P3Dv4 products, if you disable lighting in P3D you don't have lights with 747/777 but you'll have lights with products that don't use dynamic lighting.  Don't blame LM, first try to understand what you're talking about.

Don't blame anybody, I don't have a super high performance system and I see a 6 fps drop with dynamic lights. That's not too bad. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downscc said:

You have a P3D option to disable dynamic lights.  You don't have an option with the PMDG P3Dv4 products, if you disable lighting in P3D you don't have lights with 747/777 but you'll have lights with products that don't use dynamic lighting.  Don't blame LM, first try to understand what you're talking about.

Don't blame anybody, I don't have a super high performance system and I see a 6 fps drop with dynamic lights. That's not too bad. 

DL is a Prepar3D feature, it's something that PMDG chose to use.  Correct me if I'm wrong and point out the post where PMDG stated otherwise, but they chose to use the DL feature in Prepar3D and haven't stated that there is any other workaround.  So it's either LM did not provide an alternative in this situation (either use DL or your lights don't illuminate the ground) or PMDG chose to not allow their aircraft to fallback to any other lighting method.  If a fix is going to come it has to come from one or the other.  I'm not trying to blame anyone, but one of them has to change.  It sure does seem that the fix should come from PMDG but I haven't seen any indication that they are going to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dgeddesjr said:

PMDG chose to not allow their aircraft to fallback to any other lighting method.  If a fix is going to come it has to come from one or the other.

This was discussed to death in the last dynamic lights thread. It is not that simple to have a fallback lighting method on the 777 and 747. That's not how the code works, and as far as I'm aware, it's not possible to code a switch between one or the other. The limitation comes from P3D, not PMDG.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

This was discussed to death in the last dynamic lights thread. It is not that simple to have a fallback lighting method on the 777 and 747. That's not how the code works, and as far as I'm aware, it's not possible to code a switch between one or the other. The limitation comes from P3D, not PMDG.

But it is possible...the default F-22 for example.  The landing light will illuminate the ground with DL either on or off.  With DL off, it clearly looks like what we would see in P3D v3 and earlier, even back to FSX.  There is a difference between "it's not possible for us to implement when operating within the constraints of our current development staff and without having to add a bunch more code" and "it's not possible because the platform doesn't allow it".  I can understand PMDG's position though if the real reason is the former.                                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgeddesjr said:

But it is possible...the default F-22 for example.  The landing light will illuminate the ground with DL either on or off.  With DL off, it clearly looks like what we would see in P3D v3 and earlier, even back to FSX.  There is a difference between "it's not possible for us to implement when operating within the constraints of our current development staff and without having to add a bunch more code" and "it's not possible because the platform doesn't allow it".  I can understand PMDG's position though if the real reason is the former.                                  

The default F-22 doesn't have dynamic lights so is unaffected by that option being on or off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

The default F-22 doesn't have dynamic lights so is unaffected by that option being on or off.

Yes it does, I just tested it.  Feel free to try it out for yourself.  They are not extremely bright but the DL does work on the default F-22.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dgeddesjr said:

Yes it does, I just tested it.  Feel free to try it out for yourself.  They are not extremely bright but the DL does work on the default F-22.  

So if you turn DL off, the F22 lights don't light up the ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

So if you turn DL off, the F22 lights don't light up the ground?

No, with DL off the F-22 nose landing light does light up the ground in front of the aircraft, but of course illuminates nothing else.  It just looks like what we would see in P3D and FSX versions before DL ever existed in the platform.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgeddesjr said:

No, with DL off the F-22 nose landing light does light up the ground in front of the aircraft, but of course illuminates nothing else.  It just looks like what we would see in P3D and FSX versions before DL ever existed in the platform.  

Well I distinctly remember in the last dynamic lights thread PMDG saying that it either wasn't possible or wasn't worth the time and code required. I can't find it anymore which is a pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dgeddesjr said:

DL is a Prepar3D feature, it's something that PMDG chose to use.  Correct me if I'm wrong and point out the post where PMDG stated otherwise, but they chose to use the DL feature in Prepar3D and haven't stated that there is any other workaround.  So it's either LM did not provide an alternative in this situation (either use DL or your lights don't illuminate the ground) or PMDG chose to not allow their aircraft to fallback to any other lighting method.  If a fix is going to come it has to come from one or the other.  I'm not trying to blame anyone, but one of them has to change.  It sure does seem that the fix should come from PMDG but I haven't seen any indication that they are going to do that.

I agree, if something is broken. I don't agree that it is.  Only a few are having problems and a few of those want to blame anybody but themselves.  PMDG chose dynamic lighting and for whatever reason, probably good ones, only dynamic lighting.  What is supposed to get fixed, if most do not have a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, downscc said:

if most do not have a problem

Define "most," Dan.

DL performance complaints likely come from people like me, that, through their AA, shadow, reflections, etc. settings are already straining their GPUs (I have a GTX1080Ti) and the increased strain from DL is the last straw.

That you and others don't see the constraint doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it simply means you have enough GPU headroom to accommodate DL. But the undeniable fact remains that DL requires a lot (subjective term, I know) of GPU usage. Whether that increased usage results in a loss of frames, vis-a-vis the GPU(s) binding, is completely dependent on plenty of other settings like I've said.

And if you tell me to turn my AA settings down, I'll tell you to go back to FS98, because that's what P3D will look like.

6 hours ago, xkoote said:

I'm sorry, but a bottlenecking GTX 1080 because you turn lights on is not progress nor evolution

Well put. I can appreciate DL but I can't believe the GPU resources required to render it. I know the comparison to other game engines is not only clumsy but also moot, but if we could chuck fancy aircraft and scenery packages into The Witcher 3 or GTA 5, we'd all be much better off.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, garrett_frank said:

Define "most," Dan.

DL performance complaints likely come from people like me, that, through their AA, shadow, reflections, etc. settings are already straining their GPUs (I have a GTX1080Ti) and the increased strain from DL is the last straw.

That you and others don't see the constraint doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it simply means you have enough GPU headroom to accommodate DL. But the undeniable fact remains that DL requires a lot (subjective term, I know) of GPU usage. Whether that increased usage results in a loss of frames, vis-a-vis the GPU(s) binding, is completely dependent on plenty of other settings like I've said.

And if you tell me to turn my AA settings down, I'll tell you to go back to FS98, because that's what P3D will look like.

If you're having problems with a 1080Ti, then the graphics card is not the problem, but rather your unrealistic expectations of what settings you can push or you've crammed too many addons into your install or both. I run P3Dv4 on a 3 year old iMac with a GTX 775M graphics card and 2GB VRAM, I'm not having problems, why? Because I'm sacrificing things like AA and how far I can see a building in the distance so that it performs better. I care about the systems, if I want to look at the ground and out to the distance then I'll fly a C172.

Quote

Well put. I can appreciate DL but I can't believe the GPU resources required to render it. I know the comparison to other game engines is not only clumsy but also moot, but if we could chuck fancy aircraft and scenery packages into The Witcher 3 or GTA 5, we'd all be much better off.

Sure it could be in another engine, but the flight model and the ridiculous amount of calculations wouldn't exist. You're forgetting that this is a simulator, not a game. Games are designed to look good, simulators are designed to provide accurate and realistic physics and models. If this was in the GTA V engine or similar, it would look great, but instead you'd be here complaining about how the flight model isn't realistic enough. You can have backend flight model and systems realism, or it can look pretty, but as it stands you can't have both, you need to sacrifice one for the other.

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