Blurries out of nowhere

[duckbilled 310]

9 minutes ago, simbol said:

Duck,

Just for my own interest, do you have Hyper Threading (HT) enabled or disabled?

Regards

S.

enabled, no AM

Edited September 13, 2018 by duckbilled

[Lorby_SI 2,042]

Hello @ll,

The simulator is in (performance) trouble if too many and/or too complex SimObjects are created via SimConnect. I know from experience that it is necessary that every SimConnect client implements its own LOD logic, and removes/recreates objects that are no longer required or visible. The total number until your sim will degrade depends on the complexity of the objects, you may be able to squeeze in a couple of thousand or maybe only 100. 

I don't know if SODE has a LOD logic and/or if you can turn down the radius in which it creates and removes objects, but that might help - limiting the total number of objects in the sim. If SODE would create all simobjects for the default airport jetways at the same time, the sim would come to a screeching halt. It would be interesting to know if the blurries are more pronounced if more airports (with SODE gates or other objects) are in your reality bubble.

I am not saying that this is the case here - just that this is an observation that I made with my own products. Two of my addons are creating SimObjects on a massive scale, and I hit the limitations of the sim regarding that on a regular basis.

Btw, if a large number of SimObjects are created or removed at the same time you will notice that the sim stops briefly, then continues. Or you may experience a prolonged massive stutter.

Best regards

Edited September 13, 2018 by Lorby_SI

[duckbilled 310]

12 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

Hello @ll,

The simulator is in (performance) trouble if too many and/or too complex SimObjects are created via SimConnect. I know from experience that it is necessary that every SimConnect client implements its own LOD logic, and removes/recreates objects that are no longer required or visible. The total number until your sim will degrade depends on the complexity of the objects, you may be able to squeeze in a couple of thousand or maybe only 100. 

I don't know if SODE has a LOD logic and/or if you can turn down the radius in which it creates and removes objects, but that might help - limiting the total number of objects in the sim. If SODE would create all simobjects for the default airport jetways at the same time, the sim would come to a screeching halt. It would be interesting to know if the blurries are more pronounced if more airports (with SODE gates or other objects) are in your reality bubble.

I am not saying that this is the case here - just that this is an observation that I made with my own products. My addons are creating SimObjects on a massive scale, and I hit the limitations of the sim regarding to that on a regular basis.

Btw, if a large number of SimObjects are created or removed at the same time you will notice that the sim stops briefly, then continues. Or you may experience a prolonged massive stutter.

Best regards

The studders I mentioned were with RTT off and in locations like Louisville (no UPS AI yet) and at FL350 over western Kansas. With GSX disabled, I can fly out of LGA with little trouble (no studders) - add on scenery, ASP4 weather and all the AI that would normally be sin in the area. I could also do this under GSXL1.

[Jim Young 2,356]

1 hour ago, simbol said:

Just for my own interest, do you have Hyper Threading (HT) enabled or disabled? 

I was suffering from some blurries before installing GSX II Expansion.  Thought it was odd.  When I saw this, it reminded me to check my settings and I found HT enabled.  So I disabled it.  Now no blurries.  Of course I doubt turning HT off is not going to work for everyone but personally, I seriously doubt this issue is related to GSX II.  At least I have not seen it.  Instead of looking for blurries now, I'm going to try to get GSX II setup and working properly.

[SteveW 1,792]

1 hour ago, duckbilled said:

enabled, no AM

That's a mistake that could be part of the problem.

No AM and P3D/FSX means you get both LPs of core zero occupied by the two main P3D tasks - which in effect puts your (almost entire) sim on one core.

In order to free up the main core to just one task of P3D remember to include an AM with HT enabled. That AM should include in the very least an '10' or '01' on the right end of the binary like so:

11,11,11,01

That ensures the second P3D task is started on the second core rather than forced to share the first core with the main job.

 

[SteveW 1,792]

5 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

I was suffering from some blurries before installing GSX II Expansion.  Thought it was odd.  When I saw this, it reminded me to check my settings and I found HT enabled.  So I disabled it.  Now no blurries.  Of course I doubt turning HT off is not going to work for everyone but personally, I seriously doubt this issue is related to GSX II.  At least I have not seen it.  Instead of looking for blurries now, I'm going to try to get GSX II setup and working properly.

Please see my comment above. If you use no AM with HT enabled it is a mistake - plain and simple.

[Wise87 1,281]

18 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Please see my comment above. If you use no AM with HT enabled it is a mistake - plain and simple.

Trying to understand here. I thought P3Dv4 was better at managing itself when it comes to the CPU. For me I run a 7700k@5.1 with HT enable, no AM and get no blurries, smooth performance, 4K at 30hz. I’ve tried several AM settings for my CPU and my performance has always been worse unless I remove the AM. Again, just wondering if I’m set up incorrectly. 

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

5 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

Trying to understand here. I thought P3Dv4 was better at managing itself when it comes to the CPU. For me I run a 7700k@5.1 with HT enable, no AM and get no blurries, smooth performance, 4K at 30hz. I’ve tried several AM settings for my CPU and my performance has always been worse unless I remove the AM. Again, just wondering if I’m set up incorrectly. 

I would suggest leaving this alone.  P3DV4 is indeed pretty good at managing the CPU out of the box.  Personally, I like an AM of 253, just to give the main P3D thread some room to run undisturbed, but not sure it really makes a difference. 

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

37 minutes ago, SteveW said:

That's a mistake that could be part of the problem.

No AM and P3D/FSX means you get both LPs of core zero occupied by the two main P3D tasks - which in effect puts your (almost entire) sim on one core.

In order to free up the main core to just one task of P3D remember to include an AM with HT enabled. That AM should include in the very least an '10' or '01' on the right end of the binary like so:

11,11,11,01

That ensures the second P3D task is started on the second core rather than forced to share the first core with the main job.

 

Steve, that is indeed the way I run also,  AM=253,  11 11 11 01.

However, by observation, I have seen that P3DV4 will not put a lot of load on the second LP without an AM.  The real heavy texture loading happens on the third LP and above.  Which leads me to believe that LM is well aware of this situation and is taking steps to address it in their own way.

To take this one step further, with AM=253 set, the second LP is empty, and the third LP is not heavily loaded... Texture loading starts on the fourth LP..

So, saying it is a mistake to run HT without an AM may be overstating the problem... 

[duckbilled 310]

20 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Please see my comment above. If you use no AM with HT enabled it is a mistake - plain and simple.

I hear what you are saying, but I tried many different configurations. This one provides the smoothest experience I have had in 20 years. It was great with GSXL2.

I can add AM back in - 84, right?

[SteveW 1,792]

Indeed as I have said since v4 came out look for an increase in main task performance with no AM.

 

So between '11' and '01', I'm looking at an INCREASE of 15% with the '01' on the end.

Why ?

Because it is a mathematic certainty that the 15% load of task two shared with the 95% task on one core two LPs is exactly what it sounds like - giving 15% of a core that we need not SHARE - we have many cores.

 

Guys are only fooling themselves to ignore a 15% increase in performance.

Edited September 13, 2018 by SteveW

[Bob Scott 7,721]

15 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Steve, that is indeed the way I run also,  AM=253,  11 11 11 01.

However, by observation, I have seen that P3DV4 will not put a lot of load on the second LP without an AM.  The real heavy texture loading happens on the third LP and above.  Which leads me to believe that LM is well aware of this situation and is taking steps to address it in their own way.

To take this one step further, with AM=253 set, the second LP is empty, and the third LP is not heavily loaded... Texture loading starts on the fourth LP..

So, saying it is a mistake to run HT without an AM may be overstating the problem... 

I've been doing some tinkering with AM, and I saw the same...with no AM. LP 0 and 1 are never loaded up together...it's one or the other, and on occasion shared, but not more than 100% between the two, which suggests to me that P3D is only spawning threads from the main process on core 0 and the OS is doing its thing managing the threads on the two LPs associated with that core.  For Steve...is it possible P3D v4.3 is doing something new w/r/t affinity?

Regards

 

[SteveW 1,792]

16 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Steve, that is indeed the way I run also,  AM=253,  11 11 11 01.

However, by observation, I have seen that P3DV4 will not put a lot of load on the second LP without an AM.  The real heavy texture loading happens on the third LP and above.  Which leads me to believe that LM is well aware of this situation and is taking steps to address it in their own way.

To take this one step further, with AM=253 set, the second LP is empty, and the third LP is not heavily loaded... Texture loading starts on the fourth LP..

So, saying it is a mistake to run HT without an AM may be overstating the problem... 

If there is another task that requires max throughput - why not also regard that also for the '01' treatment? Could it be the one mentioned on my site when v4 came out?

 

3 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I've been doing some tinkering with AM, and I saw the same...with no AM. LP 0 and 1 are never loaded up together...it's one or the other, and on occasion shared, but not more than 100% between the two, which suggests to me that P3D is only spawning threads from the main process on core 0 and the OS is doing its thing managing the threads on the two LPs associated with that core.  For Steve...is it possible P3D v4.3 is doing something new w/r/t affinity?

Regards

 

I just double checked they've not crept in something without me knowing - 15% is a lot to consider as 'none'. I see 'none' with the 01 on the end yes certainly, and 15% with 11 this is stock P3Dv4 no addons or dlls or exe apps. Just the graphs.

 

[SteveW 1,792]

21 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

I hear what you are saying, but I tried many different configurations. This one provides the smoothest experience I have had in 20 years. It was great with GSXL2.

I can add AM back in - 84, right?

Since you point out the use of an add-on:

 

Let me also add that making up AMs alone and testing them with add-ons is a fools errand.

Why? Because the add-on exe makes tasks that just nips in to take over that 'spare' LP and maybe that main task is now sharing a core with a worse task than the P3D one? It has been around since I was involved back in the FS9/FSX days and can be found on my site. That's why a truly well set-up system has an AM and sticks to it, then it has all the dodgy stuff added and assembled around that.

OK. That perhaps gives the insight required by those that are unsure but willing to learn. Those that want to cling to the idea that the P3D AM setting is not worth mentioning are going to lose that argument and cause the experts a lot of extra work. Until the app changes to do it for us, at the moment P3D leaves it all up to us how many cores we give it and indeed how many we allow to have occupy two per core. When we have 16 cores why enable any 11's in the mask at all? We only need restrict cores use with 01,01,01,01 etc for many-cored systems.

[duckbilled 310]

2 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Since you point out the use of an add-on:

 

Let me also add that making up AMs alone and testing them with add-ons is a fools errand.

Why? Because the add-on exe makes tasks that just nips in to take over that 'spare' LP and maybe that main task is now sharing a core with a worse task than the P3D one? It has been around since I was involved back in the FS9/FSX days and can be found on my site. That's why a truly well set-up system has an AM and sticks to it, then it has all the dodgy stuff added and assembled around that.

OK. That perhaps gives the insight required by those that are unsure but willing to learn. Those that want to cling to the idea that the P3D AM setting is not worth mentioning are going to lose that argument and cause the experts a lot of extra work. Until the app changes to do it for us, at the moment P3D leaves it all up to us how many cores we give it and indeed how many we allow to have occupy two per core. When we have 16 cores why enable any 11's in the mask at all? We only need restrict cores use with 01,01,01,01 etc for many-cored systems.

Thanks. I'm open to adding AM back in. 84 then?