►FPS◄ PLEASE help?!

[Terblanche 28]

Is there anyone that could help with my question ...?

Lately the Carenado aircraft, on my rig at least, have terrible FPS. I have a very decent setup with a 1070GTX and with FPS locked at 30, it pretty much holds steady at 30 even with the PMDG aircraft. 

But if I go to same airport ... let's take KIDA airport from Turbulent Designs ... and park the PMDG B738 on the tarmac the FPS hover between 29 and 30 while locked at 30. Now you startup with the 690B TURBO COMMANDER {LITE} and the FPS is 20-22 FPS. Throw in real weather with clouds and rain and the PMDG drop to 27-29 (still locked at 30) whil the 690TC drops below 20 and hardly breaks the 20 barrier. While taking off with the B738 the FPS jumps back to 29-30 FPS and the 690TC hardly touches 20 and remains below 20. And that's with Dynamic (don't let me swear) Lights OFF during the day.

• My settings during the day is 4xSSAA enabled with cloud shadows on
• My settings during the night is 4xMSAA enabled with cloud shadows off

It's the same with the Cheyenne II {LITE} and most of the latest Carenado and Alabeo aircraft - bad FPS during the day and horrible FPS at night.

The 500S COMMANDER and Navajo performs effortless in P3D4 and no drop in FPS.

My question is - if my P3D4 is tuned to give me very good to excellent FPS with PMDG aircraft, then why are (above mentioned) Carenado aircraft so heavy on the FPS? Or am I the only one having this issue?

[whamil77 183]

I don't have any PMDG airplanes, but I do have many Carenado aircraft.  The Navajo and 500S models run about 60M total each.  The Cheyenne and Turbo Commander models run about 80+M each in the LITE versions.  Pretty big difference. 

Two questions:

1. What CPU do you have?

2. What is the total size of the PMDG interior and exterior models?

Maybe the answers to those two questions could give us a clue about your FPS problem.  While P3D has taken the CPU intensive FSX and spread some of the workload to the GPU, I think it's still pretty CPU intensive.  If the PMDG models are similar in size to the Navajo and 500S, that may be the answer.  If the PMDG model is about the same size as the Turbo Commander and Cheyenne, then it remains a mystery for a little longer.

I have a great CPU (i7-4790, Devils Canyon @ 4.0 gHz) but a dated GPU (Geoforce 680 GTX) and a Windows Experience Index = 7.8.  If I put the Cheyenne or Turbo Commander at a large add-on airport with lots of weather, I get performance similar to yours.   

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Terblanche said:

My settings during the day is 4xSSAA enabled with cloud shadows on

Try 2XSSAA, I had similar issues in the VC relative the number of "panels" (MFD/PFD) being displayed (this was in the PMDG 737NGX).  Another thought turn OFF MipMap VC panels and see if that helps.

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: if you want to know if it's your CPU or GPU (or both), load up EVGA Precision OC and turn on the OSD, the will show you GPU usage/load.  If the GPU is at 99% then turn down the AA.  If the GPU is not at 99%, then check your CPU load using task manager.

[Slayer 190]

Something is goofy between the methods of different devs.
At KMBS in PMDG 737 NGX getting between 65-75 FPS with ASN running. Same situation With TFDi 717....30 FPS. Defaults running 90 FPS but other payware ( Carenado)running at 30's with weak amount of gauges. I know apples and oranges blah blah blah but a 40 FPS drop!!??? DIsabled Dynamic lighting too but I suspect it's a programming methods.

 

[HighBypass 2,339]

Give certain devs 48K ZX Spectrums, that way they should learn to code efficiently! 

[Terblanche 28]

Apparently it has something to do with 'polycount' ... whatever that means. But if it is, then Carenado should seriously look into it.

I take note of the above mentioned, and can go into the detail of my GPU and CPU count, as well as my specs but IMHO it has no relevance if everything else is running smoothly in both FSX and P3D4 - and that includes all PMDG, Aerosoft, and FSLabs aircraft. Why will only (some) Carenado aircraft have this huge hit on FPS?

But for the record, my CPU is an i7 4GHz with a 1070GTX and 32GB RAM on Windows 7 x64.

[HighBypass 2,339]

polygon count:-

From the internet:

Quote

Usually (but not always) triangular, polygons arise when an object's surface is modelled, vertices are selected, and the object is rendered in a wire frame model. ... The polygon count refers to the number of polygons being rendered per frame.

 

[Guest]

It's a bit more involved than just polygon count ... draw calls and light calcs are the primary consumers.  Increase polygon count increases the draw calls and light calcs ... "batches" (aka instancing) are used as a means to reduce draw calls (that's why you see groups of AutoGen draws rather than one building/tree at a time).  It's important to understand the "render pipeline" and how it can be organized to benefit performance of specific types of mathematical calcs ... terms like "passes" are used to indicate how many times and entire matrix or partial matrix needs to be calculated on to produce the appropriate RGB color value (for a pixel).  

For example, to render a dynamic reflection in "real time" you must first have the matrix already populated via a prior render pass so you have pixels that can be used as a source to render on the reflective surface ... this MUST happen in a specific order.  A polygon is a "primitive" from which textures are then "applied" ... in most cases you want to draw all the primitives first.  There is also all kinds of culling and optimizations being done to work on ONLY the "viewable" aspect of any rendered scene, but that's a different topic.  

Try to think of it like working in Photoshop ... where you have layer after layer after layer of data (images/pixels) that blends with or simply overrides ... just as with photoshop, layers have a hierarchy from bottom to top (sorta like a render pipeline), application of AA is a "layer" requiring a render pass (or two or three or four) ... this is a little simplified but hopefully gets the point across.  

How you one organizes the render pipeline can greatly determine performance for "specific" types of calculations (like PBR for example) ... but there are plus/minus to render sequence and what you have to give up or compromise on.

Why flight simulators have to work so much harder than your average 3D shooter is due to simulated view distances (as far as the eye can see in a Flight Sim vs. maybe 1-5mi in a 3D shooter) and having the entire globe, atmosphere, stars, sun, to render light appropriate.  Many 3D shooters does render dynamic light positions (that just operate on a fixed time of day static light source).

Cheers, Rob.