FPS on XPLANE

[Olivier73 1]

Hi there,

I am new here on AVSIM. Right now I am going crazy for something I cannot seem to solve in mij XPLANE 11.50 (running Vulkan).

Have CPU 9900K and GPU 2800TI

FF A320 cockpit view with ALL sliders set to minimum in the settings and only getting 50 FPS. 

My CPU frame time = 0,02 and my GPU frame time = 0,004.

I guess the CPU is bottlenecking the FPS but how can it be?

It's running on 5GHz no throttling, no C state, usage on average is about 25% ... 

What am I missing here?

Tx,

Olivier

[GoranM 3,762]

The usual suspect for that kind of fps on that kind of hardware is excessive plugins.  How many plugins do you have running?

Edited October 26, 2020 by GoranM

[Olivier73 1]

Hi Goran,

I will list them tomorrow but it should be something else since my FPS were fine a few days ago and I did not install any plugins.

But I will try to remember what I have done in the past few days.

And I will let you know.

Gr.

Olivier

 

[mjrhealth 820]

9 hours ago, Olivier73 said:

Hi Goran,

I will list them tomorrow but it should be something else since my FPS were fine a few days ago and I did not install any plugins.

But I will try to remember what I have done in the past few days.

And I will let you know.

Gr.

Olivier

 

Plugin Admin will show you any plugin fps hits, and I dont know what wrong with 50, if you have refelctions up turn them off they make a big hit on FPS. Maybe one day they will be fixed.

[Bjoern 1,153]

Isn't the FF A320 notorious for being very hard on FPS performance?

[Jude Bradley 659]

Yes, it is. Count yourself lucky if you get 30 fps. The A320 plugin takes about 25% resources. 

[Glenn_C 135]

Cannot speak for the A320 as I do not use it anymore too much hassle with bugs etc.

I have the same sort of system and get 45 FPS with A300 and 60 FPS with Tolis A321 with all my sliders on max except for reflections, they are on the first notch.

2560X1440 display

[Olivier73 1]

Hi fellow simmers,

My plugins from the admin page: Navigraph simlink, Betterpushback, Flightfactor Cefloader, Flywithlua; XATC chatter, Xsquawkbox, FF Pluginmanager, TGDS, X-RAAS FF A320, X-TCAS, A320U, FF A320 Ultimate.

Only the last two indicate FPS COST: 3,4 FPS for A320U and 23 FPS for FF A320 Ultimate.

I have only 50 FPS with ALL SLIDERS WAY DOWN to ZERO (Visual effects Minimal, Text Qual Minimal, Antialisaing 1x, Ainsotropic 1x, World Obj Minimal, Reflection Minimal, parked AC NO, Shadows NO,

And what is most funny is that the GPU is like IDLING, it has a frame time of 0,004 (that would be 250 FPS) but the CPU frame time is 0,02 -> which is indeed 50 FPS. 

I don't get it. This is far from the limit of the CPU (9900K) -> it runs at 5Ghz and is loaded for 18% !? What I do see is that CPU n° 8's virtual thread is running near 100% ... so could it be XPLANE is bottlenecked by the fact it pumps everything through ONE Virtual Core? 

And yes forgot to mention resolution is 2560 x 1440.

Cheers,

Olivier

[iowahawkeyedave 19]

I've noticed that AA is a big FPS killer, along with reflections.  Do you get better FPS running in other planes other than the A320?  That seems to be a plane that's very heavy on the FPS.  I can't speak about some of the plugins you are running since I'm not currently running them, so just check the plugin admin.

Edited October 27, 2020 by iowahawkeyedave

[GoranM 3,762]

Just had a thought.  Check if vsync is on.

Also, it's true, that it is acceptable fps, but for hardware that high, I'd expect more.

[mSparks 2,086]

3 hours ago, Olivier73 said:

I don't get it. This is far from the limit of the CPU (9900K) -> it runs at 5Ghz and is loaded for 18% !? What I do see is that CPU n° 8's virtual thread is running near 100%

If you want to stretch its legs try the 744.

https://github.com/mSparks43/747-400

graphics are not the problem here, simulating the aircraft systems are.

also xplane reports fps a little differently than other games.

from the numbers you have given above most games would be claiming you have 250fps and never tell you the rate the physics is running at, for xplane graphics framerate is less important than an accurate physics simulation.

Gamers dont care if they have 10 identical frames 10 times a second, they just want to brag to their friends they have 100fps.

[Bjoern 1,153]

18 hours ago, Olivier73 said:

I don't get it. This is far from the limit of the CPU (9900K) -> it runs at 5Ghz and is loaded for 18% !? What I do see is that CPU n° 8's virtual thread is running near 100% ... so could it be XPLANE is bottlenecked by the fact it pumps everything through ONE Virtual Core? 

X-Plane has one main thread with auxiliary threads for asynchronous scenery loading (on demand) and handling AI aircraft (if in use). So yes, basically only one core is continuously used at peak capacity.

[Olivier73 1]

@iowahawkeyedave

Good idea. I changed my FF A320 aircraft for a Censa and the FPS went from 47 to 119 !!! It could really indicate something is faulty with my A320 plane. Sure the A320 would cut away some FPS. I'd expect 20 FPS or so but not 72 FPS !

CUP frame time now 0,008 and GPU frame time still 0,003.

I will dig deeper into it -> reinstalling the A320 perhaps.

You state AA is a frame killer but it is set to 1x only (the minimum). 

@GoranM

Yes Vsync is off. Gsync also. 

@mSparks

I'll try the 744 later. Got to solve my issues here 🙂

@Bjoern

Tried with Hyperthreading off and Xplane now sits on core n°8 instead of the virtual core n°15. It moved 🙂 I will turn HT back on again as it does no good or harm on XPlane.

Cheers all.

 

[iowahawkeyedave 19]

The FF A320 is notoriously hard on performance, so getting 47fps with that is probably not too bad, especially when you get 119 fps with the Cessna.  The FF A320 just had an update to version 1.1.3 so maybe that will help.

[Greazer 1,320]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:25 PM, Olivier73 said:

I guess the CPU is bottlenecking the FPS but how can it be?

XP is an very old engine by now and developers are still trying to support too many operating systems and drivers and hardware setups. If Windows do this, if Linux do that, if AMD driver xxx.yyy.zzz do this hack etc. It's a dog's breakfast of code hacking.  So that is why when they try to fix something like jagged shadows it may half work for one guy but for these other 5 guys it totally breaks other stuff.  One step forward, 5 steps back.  The solution is they must re-engineer the engine, ditch Mac, ditch Linux, and keep it simpler. The more pieces, the more complexity and chance things will break.  And they do.