Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
767lover

to those who complain about stutters at this stage

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Krakin said:

FSX was about 15GB but AAA games are pushing 50GB these days with less landmass to explore compared to sim.

15GB - where did that come from? 

ORBX GB South is 72GB alone, I've flown P3D hitting 25GB RAM and 22GB VRAM ... just recently posted a video showing the usage? 

50GB AAA 3D shooter is childs play compare to over 1TB of global data that one can hit with P3D and/or XP11 Ortho.

I don't need to guess, you increase textures resolution you increase storage usage ... ORBX increased terrain texture resolution and added more buildings and viola 72GB.

What AAA 3D shooter loads more than about max of 10 mile radius?  Most are 1-2 miles with a big invisible wall and blurred static backdrop ... nothing wrong with that but that wouldn't fly (literally) with a flight simulator.

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Superdelphinus said:

Instinctively it feels like more flight sims are special therefore we accept shocking relative performance, but delighted to be corrected.   

There's no reason that a flight simulator shouldn't achieve the performance that we see in AAA FPS titles. In many cases a flight simulator scene will be less polygon and texture heavy than a complex FPS scene. A character model in an FPS might be 50k polys, and you might have 4 or 5 on screen, all with their own physics an AI, then all the highly detailed scenery. For comparison a polygon budget of an entire aircraft (inside and out) might be 200-300k polys.

Your GPU only cares about polygon count. You might have a 10 mile draw distance, but you're drawing at a low LOD past a few miles. Photogrammetry actually helps with this as they have various LOD mesh tiles.

Volumetric clouds and dynamic lights are the two most GPU intensive features of a flight sim, but in a modern sim they will be almost completely handled by the GPU.

The point being, in a modern sim, so much is being handled by the GPU that you get to decide what FPS you want, based on the amount of "prettiness" you want.
On P3D / XP, I can't decide that I want 90fps, it's not even realistic.

Obviously there's a lot of physics to be calculated per frame but:

a) Increasingly some of this can be done on the GPU
b) Implemented well, it can be done across many CPU cores.
c) If you remove the ability to completely replace the physics engine (and I predict MSFS will), you can heavily optimise it per (a&b)

I would assume and hope that MSFS has been written to achieve 90fps (for smooth VR) in heavy load scenarios.

This is totally achievable with the hardware we have today. A lot of people are still in the "hey 17fps isn't that bad" mindset with older sims.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

There's no reason that a flight simulator shouldn't achieve the performance that we see in AAA FPS titles. In many cases a flight simulator scene will be less polygon and texture heavy than a complex FPS scene. A character model in an FPS might be 50k polys, and you might have 4 or 5 on screen, all with their own physics an AI, then all the highly detailed scenery. For comparison a polygon budget of an entire aircraft (inside and out) might be 200-300k polys.

Your GPU only cares about polygon count. You might have a 10 mile draw distance, but you're drawing at a low LOD past a few miles. Photogrammetry actually helps with this as they have various LOD mesh tiles.

Volumetric clouds and dynamic lights are the two most GPU intensive features of a flight sim, but in a modern sim they will be almost completely handled by the GPU.

The point being, in a modern sim, so much is being handled by the GPU that you get to decide what FPS you want, based on the amount of "prettiness" you want.
On P3D / XP, I can't decide that I want 90fps, it's not even realistic.

Obviously there's a lot of physics to be calculated per frame but:

a) Increasingly some of this can be done on the GPU
b) Implemented well, it can be done across many CPU cores.
c) If you remove the ability to completely replace the physics engine (and I predict MSFS will), you can heavily optimise it per (a&b)

I would assume and hope that MSFS has been written to achieve 90fps (for smooth VR) in heavy load scenarios.

This is totally achievable with the hardware we have today. A lot of people are still in the "hey 17fps isn't that bad" mindset with older sims.

I think the same, but some people here are so closed minded that they don’t see the big changes the game industry has achieved. FSims aren’t the only games that suffered from cpu bound problems and the gaming studios found ways to optimize things and use more the GPU on tasks that used to be handled by the CPU. The APIs also evolved a lot since the dx9/dx10/OpenGL era.

Well, I think MS is capable to do the same on the new MSFS2020. We will see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all see one or two examples of slightly annoying behavior, while I just see entire threads of grumpy old men complaining about anything and everything.

Just hold on tight and wait patiently for the game to come out. If it's bad then it's bad and y'all can just go back to P3D or XP which still work just fine and are still seeing updates. If it's good then we have a new sim which looks, performs and flies great (that I'm personally excited to just look at stuff in).

Y'all have absolutely nothing to lose with FS2020, calm the word not allowed down.

Edited by stevphfeniey
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

15GB - where did that come from? 

ORBX GB South is 72GB alone, I've flown P3D hitting 25GB RAM and 22GB VRAM ... just recently posted a video showing the usage?

You're bringing ORBX up but we have issues with FSX running stock and stock FSX was about 15GB.

Share this post


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

Y'all see one or two examples of slightly annoying behavior, while I just see entire threads of grumpy old men complaining about anything and everything.

As long as they don't get toxic, the arguments are healthy. I've learned a lot looking at the back and forth going on.

Share this post


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

Y'all see one or two examples of slightly annoying behavior, while I just see entire threads of grumpy old men complaining about anything and everything.

Y'all have absolutely nothing to lose with FS2020, calm the word not allowed down.

So edgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 7:53 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

Flight Simulators can:

1.  Load the entire planet into memory (yes the entire planet, if you don't believe me zoom out to orbit in your FS platform of choice) ... 3D shooters do NOT, at most a 1-10 mile map until it "loads the next level/mission" so 3D shooters do NOT have to be continuously loading terrain for 250+ miles in any view direction (a huge benefit to performance).

2.  Have a flexible an extremely powerful SDK ... I'm not aware of any 3D shooter where you can actually replace the flight physics model with your own

3.  Completely open architecture, nothing scripted or everything can be scripted and one is free to do whatever they want, no magical out of boundary invisible walls

4.  Real time weather based on actual real world weather ... no 3D shooter has this 

5.  A real time world clock that impacts everything in the simulation from AI flights 8000 miles away to your local GA 20 miles away ... not even a concept in 3D shooters

6.  Ability to integrate 1000's of different controller devices ... 3D shooters can't

7.  250-500 dynamic lights, this would bring any 3D shooter to it's knees (at best I've seen 2-4 DLs in a 3D shooter)

8.  Dynamic Reflections (again something 3D shooters avoid on a global scale and DR is used localized and sparingly with the exception of RayTrace supported games)

9.  Multi-view and Multi-monitor support .

How is performance shocking?  I don't find performance shocking at all considering what has to be accomplished.  Do a quick google search on gaming performance and you'll see more articles on how to improve "gaming" FPS and their suggestions are always the same, "reduce graphics settings" ... this is for all main stream 3D shooter titles ... no different that what needs to be done for flight simulators.

The more I see these types of comments the more I'm convinced Microsoft needs to provide NO graphic settings options and just run their own benchmark and configure graphics quality based on how well the end user's hardware scores (encrypt and hide all configuration files).  You get what your hardware can deliver nothing more and nothing less.

As far as stutters, they don't bother me so long as there aren't too many and it becomes distracting, but for some just one stutter drives them nuts ... to each his or her own.  The stutters I saw in the MFS videos is NOT a deal breaker for me.

Cheers, Rob.

I agree flight simulators have to do a lot. However the most popular flight simulators also are the longest running with a long history of supported accessories and addon's. That limits the scope somewhat for the true levels of optimisations required to bring a product truely into the current space where something like and first person shooter gets turned around in a couple of years which makes a massive difference in optimisation.

Honestly making a flight simulator from the ground up today would be scary but probably the only way to see a true reflection of performance on todays hardware. So it is interesting we'll have Deskstick coming out soon, but the new Microsoft Flight Simulator probably would have unloaded more legacy performance baggage than any of the core aviation simulators to date in my opinion and will also have the best results of that in visual quality.

The biggest loser here which I know you love is P3D, I feel that platform will suffer to bring in new users who do not have a direct purpose to be trained on that sim so I can see 'general' interest falling from consumers and 3PDs once they get to know how to make Microsoft Flight Simulator tick, and they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dtrjones said:

The biggest loser here which I know you love is P3D, I feel that platform will suffer to bring in new users who do not have a direct purpose to be trained on that sim so I can see 'general' interest falling from consumers and 3PDs once they get to know how to make Microsoft Flight Simulator tick, and they will.

I don't know who is going to lose out the most (if anyone), but I do know it's NOT going to be P3D since their world of operations and customer base is far different than that Microsoft are aiming at, which is the XBOX user ... and that's ignoring the fact P3D is ESP contract with ... drum roll ... Microsoft! 😉   Do you know what's in P3D V5?   Do you know what's in XP12?

Personally I view MSF new product as a potential gold mine if they can attract and keep the XBOX users.  The PC release first is a great idea to bring around proof of concept, get feedback, and then tune the product for XBOX user base where there is a huge potential of revenue ... and heck, PC simmers benefit from it also.  The Windows Store supports PC and XBOX deployments, copy protection, sales, updates, etc. etc. ... it's a huge benefit for Indie devs like me and mainstream devs.

IMHO, IF MFS released today, the platform at most risk of losing users is XP followed by DCS (if Microsoft include "combat" or provide an SDK that supports combat).  P3D will not lose government contracts because of MFS.  But it's not going to happen overnight, never has in the past and never will today ... it will take time and that's making considerable "assumptions" of what MFS will turn out to be.

I have and will remain cautiously optimistic ... it's Microsoft's job to draw in that XBOX market.

Cheers, Rob.

EDIT: XBOX Scarlett projected at $1000 retail, 8K @ 120 FPS support ... the numbers are in favor of XBOX not the PC in terms of market share and cost of entry.

Edited by Rob_Ainscough
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I don't know who is going to lose out the most (if anyone), but I do know it's NOT going to be P3D since their world of operations and customer base is far different than that Microsoft are aiming at, which is the XBOX user ... and that's ignoring the fact P3D is ESP contract with ... drum roll ... Microsoft! 😉   Do you know what's in P3D V5?   Do you know what's in XP12?

Personally I view MSF new product as a potential gold mine if they can attract and keep the XBOX users.  The PC release first is a great idea to bring around proof of concept, get feedback, and then tune the product for XBOX user base where there is a huge potential of revenue ... and heck, PC simmers benefit from it also.  The Windows Store supports PC and XBOX deployments, copy protection, sales, updates, etc. etc. ... it's a huge benefit for Indie devs like me and mainstream devs.

IMHO, IF MFS released today, the platform at most risk of losing users is XP followed by DCS (if Microsoft include "combat" or provide an SDK that supports combat).  P3D will not lose government contracts because of MFS.  But it's not going to happen overnight, never has in the past and never will today ... it will take time and that's making considerable "assumptions" of what MFS will turn out to be.

I have and will remain cautiously optimistic ... it's Microsoft's job to draw in that XBOX market.

Cheers, Rob.

Yeah I was trying deliberately to exclude the word of operations and core customer base from P3D, that will live on and the work Lockhead are doing is fantastic to support and make such a system available. But for the likes of the casual simmer it looks like the younger sexier MSFS will steal wannabe pilots and many who have been in this industry a while, I think that's inevitable especially once the DLC market grows.

I've seen a trailer for X-Plane 12 - it didn't do much for me. X-Plane is an outstanding sim, it's my go to platform right now. But Laminar Research are a small team, they are lacking severely in X-Plane where FS2020 will be particularly strong (I don't really need to see FS2020 for that - FSX still does a lot of things better than X-Plane) however it is sufficently different enough to sustain interest with its flight dynamics, lighting model, ease of use (yes really) and growing array of quality aircraft and scenery.

I just don't see the same 'advantage' for P3D that X-Plane has, it's just to similar. Maybe version P3D v5 will change all that...

Share this post


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

But Laminar Research are a small team, they are lacking severely in X-Plane where FS2020 will be particularly strong (I don't really need to see FS2020 for that - FSX still does a lot of things better than X-Plane) however it is sufficently different enough to sustain interest with its flight dynamics, lighting model, ease of use (yes really) and growing array of quality aircraft and scenery.

I don't how big the Microsoft's FS team is ... they will however be able to leverage existing assets (textures, objects, etc.) from other games they have in their arsenal.  I guess I don't see the "current" advantage in XP over P3D that would indicate P3D would lose out more than XP?  Are you suggesting P3D is too similar to FSX?  If so, I'll disagree too many significantly new features in P3D both visually and internally which has been listed rather extensively in other threads ... it would be like saying XP10 is to similar to XP11, just not a valid statement even though both have evolved from the same core.

Flight dynamics in XP has been pulled apart by several XP aircraft vendors whom have expressed their concern and worked around some of XP's flight dynamics issues with some adding invisible skids and/or other surface to combat the XP flight physics and others doing their own.  Anyway, this discussion is best left to those that produce aircraft, but no matter how you slice it, it's still a 2D space projection (including VR) ... IMHO debating the flight physics between the two platforms is like debating is it "pink" or is it "rose salmon" color and given my real world experience with aircraft is limited to small GA aircraft I couldn't be "the judge" for the type of aircraft I like to fly.

MFS has been able to show better graphics than what DTG FSW could, and visuals sells.  The casual gamer wouldn't be able to tell you if flight physics are accurate or not and they might not even care and I doubt very few of them have flown any real world aircraft to have a valid judgement of flight physics ... does anyone have a force feedback flap lever for those aircraft with mechanical deployment (not hydraulic) of flaps so we can feel the wind pressure? 😉 ... I'm gonna say no. 

FSW didn't succeed because it didn't bring enough to the table visually, it was nothing to do with forum chatter, developer support, etc..  MFS has brought about a lot of positive forum chatter because of it's visuals ... the key ingredient to making money and longevity, visuals, eye candy, tastes good, more filling, wow factor ... it sells. 

Old grumpy men (which I think is one of many of the labels I've been given) going on about hitting specific stall speeds at X throttle/prop over Y altitude with Z air density on a V degrees day at D knots wind speed from 210 with AFT loads at 500 Kilos and wing slosh at 50 kilos right and 65.4 kilos left results in a 67.456 MPH stall speed ... so why did MFS show aircraft stall at 68.2 MPH ... the "casual" gamer is going to go get that straight jacket for us old grumpy men ... it'll give us more time to check our calculations and either decide immersion ruined or not so we can check-in with the local therapist. 🙂

Cheers, Rob.

 

Edited by Rob_Ainscough
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nickhod said:

There's no reason that a flight simulator shouldn't achieve the performance that we see in AAA FPS titles. In many cases a flight simulator scene will be less polygon and texture heavy than a complex FPS scene. A character model in an FPS might be 50k polys, and you might have 4 or 5 on screen, all with their own physics an AI, then all the highly detailed scenery. For comparison a polygon budget of an entire aircraft (inside and out) might be 200-300k polys.

Thanks for clearing up so much of the misinformation in this thread. Many flight simmers don't understand how graphics engines work at a core level, and would be surprised by how much more actually happens under the hood in AAA open world titles and "3D shooters" (as people keep calling them) compared to flight sims. Some scenes in GTA V have nearly double the poly count of your average scene in P3D, for example.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Brandon Filer

Share this post


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

I just don't see the same 'advantage' for P3D that X-Plane has, it's just to similar. Maybe version P3D v5 will change all that...

What 'advantage' would that be?


Rhett

i7-8700k @ 5.0 ghz, 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ, 1080Ti, 32" BenQ, 4K res

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 8:54 PM, 767lover said:

If you cannot resist talking about, maybe write a letter to the team or start a separate topic on it, but please do not bring it up every time.....thanks a lot!

Last time I checked the forums on this website were democratic rather than dictatorial. If people want to complain, they should. I'm honestly heartily sick in this day and age of people telling other people what they are not allowed to say.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth do we know they are targeting Xbox users with the new sim? From what I’ve read it pretty clearly suggests the target is PC and then make it work somehow with Xbox at later date. It seems to me that people referring to Xbox and/ or Xbox users is used as some sort of sleight on this forum, which is odd to me given how large the install base (I.e there are likely to be many Xbox and PS4 users registered to this forum). 

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    5%
    $1,450.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...