Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest steve43

Yes I know another FPS & autogen post

Recommended Posts

Guest steve43

Guys, I have had FSX since Xmas and on the whole I am quite happy with the purchase (well, present as I was given it). I did have an Nvidia FX5600 with 256Mb RAM of which I changed for a 7600GS with 512Mb. Now I thought there would be a big difference in FPS, well there was until I added autogen. For me autogen seems to be the big framerate sucker. I can tweak away and use highres textures etc but as soon as I add autogen my FPS drops around 10FPS. That is even with default.xml changes and reduced number of objects via the fsx.cfg tweak. Now what I don't understand is why in FS9 with max autogen settings I get far superior framerates? What is it about the FSX autogen that makes framerates so sluggish? I am wondering if it is the vertex count? My card can handle highres textures, but is it the amount of vertices the card is having to render? I would love just to have sparse autogen, just a few trees and a few buildings just to make it a little more in-depth but not suffer from major framerate drop.. comments welcome..Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest iwantmydc3

1. Stop worrying about "frame rates" as a number. If you get the "senstation" of smooth flight, that is, if your taxi, take off roll, and moving through the air look as though they would if you looked out the window of a real life a/c your frame rate is OK! If not you are having "stuttering" and then may have to adjust sliders etc. Many people think they must have 35fps all the time, and dial things down that they could have up higher. Mainly it takes patience and experimenting. For example, I fly mostly general aviation aircraft in my local (southern california) area. Autogen makes things look better because I'm closer to the ground. If you like airliners better it's not that critical because you will be higher up, where the scenery looks better. It's all a matter of preferences and trade offs. A lot of users get frustrated because they want everything perfect, which is understandable, but there are so many variations in hardware out there, and the program is so complex, that will never happen.2. Since FSX thrashes the main CPU more than the GPU, make sure you have as much memory available as possible. Many people I talk with miss this, but you have to turn off most everything in your system tray, because every thing you've got running there-your packet writing software, quicktime, Hello, Yahoo Messenger, media manager, norton utilites, disk keeper, adobe quick start, real player, and so on and so forth, eat up system resources. This makes a big difference even if you have 1 or 2GB of memory! You will get most of your performance from a fast CPU and at least 2GB of memory, although a 512MB video card will help, but from what I understand, it uses it differently than FS9 did because it's written in a different way. 3. Relax, and enjoy simming. If you make it too much work, well, it's like being at work and that's no fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the amount of work the CPU need to do to generate the autogen (it was far less in FS9). Everyone has the same problem. I doubt that it will ever be the same as FS9 but, hopefully, there will be some relief with the non-DX10 patch.Doug


Intel 10700K @ 5.1Ghz, Asus Hero Maximus motherboard, Noctua NH-U12A cooler, Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB 3200 MHz RAM, RTX 2060 Super GPU, Cooler Master HAF 932 Tower, Thermaltake 1000W Toughpower PSU, Windows 10 Professional 64-Bit, 100TB of disk storage. Klaatu barada nickto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is exactly what DX10 is going to allow, ie. alot more stuff in the scene without the same CPU cost. Cranking up the autogen will have a much smaller hit on fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This is exactly what DX10 is going to allow, ie. alot more>stuff in the scene without the same CPU cost. Cranking up the>autogen will have a much smaller hit on fps.Wingnut, I do not know where you got this information from. Re-read Phil Taylor's blog : "DX10 by itself isn


KInd regards

Jean-Paul

I7 8700K / Fractal Design Celsius S24 watercooling / ASRock Z370 Extreme4 motherboard / Corsair 32GB 3200mhz DDR4 / INNO3D iChiLL GeForce GTX 1080 Ti X3 / Samsung SSD 960 EVO M.2 PCIe NVMe 500GB / Seasonic-SSR-850FX power supply / Fractal Design Define R5 Black case / AOC Q3279VWF 32″ 2560x1440 monitor / Benq GL2450 24″ 1920x1080 monitor / Track-IR 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest camtech

Yeah i turned my framerate counter off , i cant enjoy the the sim watching that thing all the time, and beside you do not need 25 to 30 FPS to enjoy anyway.i get smooth frames at 9 to 10 fps, but im also running eight monitors to and that is a resource killer.and i have also turned just about everything off when simming, even when im fling the big jets , i will bring up important windows only, anything that will save frames.what i like about FSX now is that i know what i need in the future to get it even better, i did not like it before because of what it did to my system.i was not going to let it beat me, my system is a modest 3800+, 7800gs vid card, giga-byte MB, 80 gig raptor hd.i went in and worked it untill i got it to work just find for me...................Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This is exactly what DX10 is going to allow, ie. alot more>stuff in the scene without the same CPU cost. Cranking up the>autogen will have a much smaller hit on fps.Oh man I hope so. That would be very nice wingnut.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case


Rhett

7800X3D ♣ 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ  Gigabyte 4090  Crucial P5 Plus 2TB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>i get smooth frames at 9 to 10 fps, but im also running eight>monitors to and that is a resource killer. I am really tired of seeing this. Not one person in here would say 9-10 fps is smooth. I dont care what game or sim you play or fly, 10 is not smooth. 15 isnt either. If you mean ACCEPTABLE than say that. I can understand that. Saying 9-10 fps is smooth is just false, incorrect, and bad information to be handing out. No program does low frame rates smoother than another. There is no such thing. Frame rate is frame rate, period. Saying anything else is misleading. I dont find any fault in folks enjoying FSX, just with this constant sponsoring of the idea FSX somehow smooths out crappy frame rates.Hornit....needs at least 20 and likes over 30 fps in any game :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

> Wingnut, I do not know where you got this information from...Yes I'm not making this stuff up. There are a number of sites with info on a presentation given by ATI last year about DX10 - obviously you didn't read. Basically there is alot less overhead for objects in DX10. Try this one:http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articleprint.html?art=MTA0NQ=="Object overhead is greatly reduced so that more unique objects can be shown in a scene at one time. In the real world no two objects are identical even if they are the same. Currently in a game we might find all the chairs in a room to be drawn so they would look exactly the same. We see the same thing with grass, trees, and many other objects. This carbon copy impression peels away layers of immersion that the game developer is striving for. Currently most grass you might see on a battlefield are just copies of each other and most other vegetation is not unique either; simply changes to fullness and color for the most part are used to make the objects different. In tomorrows games there can be hundreds if not thousands of unique objects. With DirectX 10 the capability will be there to show more unique objects so that the environment is more realistic and immersive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest robains

Ok, I can see there is more bad info floating around.I've done some low level diagnostics of FSX through some dev tools I've acquired over the years and also with some of my own tools I've written for other projects.What I've found:1. The polygon/vertex count is far lower than I thought it would be, in fact, there are many other games on the market that exceed FSX polygon count by a significant margin.2. Many more graphics functions are being performed by the CPU than I expected -- it appears that the GPU is not being optimized as some available hardware functions are never being utilized by code -- somewhat baffled here since these routines are commonly used in other products -- perhaps code base compatibility restriction??3. Texture swapping/mapping -- this is where I found all kinds of issues -- huge CPU hit with what appears to be many many multiple round trips in rendering the frame. Not exactly sure what is happening here since all I have is a limited set to work with, but without crossing legal boundaries -- I've compared what other games/sims do with textures vs. FSX and it's pretty clear FSX is not using a "normal" approach to texture mapping/swapping. Maybe this is the real issue to FSX problems? Might explain the relationship to high detailed airports and drastic drops in frame rates.What I do know, no polygon/vertex limit is being hit (at least on a 8800GTX) and there is amble video/texture memory not being used. It's as if they're rendering the frames twice as many times as they need to and seem to have a very heavy reliance on CPU for activity that could be done with GPU. I haven't spent much time looking at disk I/O activity as that is easier to monitor but harder to associate relevance out of it due to a host of other unknowns.If it does indeed turn out to be a texture problem with the code base, then there might actually be hope they can fix this with the DX10 version as there are some very nice DX10 functions that can provide huge benefits to texture swapping. We're talking in the order of 2X improvement in rendering speed -- so we can go from 5 fps to 10 fps at detailed airports ;)Based on Ace's PM responses, it doesn't appear there will be much work put into multi-CPU support which is unfortunate. But after working thru this I've become more optimistic for a faster DX10 version of FSX. Some cautious optimism.Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sound like you know what you are talking about and I think you are right - direct x 10 GPU's should be able to take some load of the cpu. Hopefully the earlier patch will help as well - at least people on the fs team do - "As far as FSX is concerned, work on Service Pack 1 continues apace, and the early performance benchmarks have me feeling cautiously optimistic". http://halbryan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C...2CCEF!243.entry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Service pack 1 is for DX9.Asus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo E6600@3Ghz - Leadtek 7950 GT TDH 512 - 4 x 1GB Kingmax DDR2 667 CL5 RAM - 2 x 250GB Hitachi T7K250 SATA2 AHCI - Creative Audigy 2 Value - Antec Sonata 2 Case - 450W Antec SmartPower 2.0 PSU - Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20" - Windows XP Pro SP2 - TrackIR 4 Pro


KInd regards

Jean-Paul

I7 8700K / Fractal Design Celsius S24 watercooling / ASRock Z370 Extreme4 motherboard / Corsair 32GB 3200mhz DDR4 / INNO3D iChiLL GeForce GTX 1080 Ti X3 / Samsung SSD 960 EVO M.2 PCIe NVMe 500GB / Seasonic-SSR-850FX power supply / Fractal Design Define R5 Black case / AOC Q3279VWF 32″ 2560x1440 monitor / Benq GL2450 24″ 1920x1080 monitor / Track-IR 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know - Service pack 1 is what i meant by the "early patch." - Sorry for the confusion.I sure hope there is some true performance boost with SP1 because im getting a little frustrated with frame rates right now.NOTE to ACES: I still have great faith in you - just feel free to take your time and get these patches right! I can't wait till the SP1 patch and the DX10 patch come - then we will be able to play FSX the way it's suppose to be played!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I am really tired of seeing this. Not one person in here>would say 9-10 fps is smooth. I dont care what game or sim you>play or fly, 10 is not smooth. 15 isnt either. If you mean>ACCEPTABLE than say that. I can understand that. Saying 9-10>fps is smooth is just false, incorrect, and bad information to>be handing out. No program does low frame rates smoother than>another. There is no such thing. Frame rate is frame rate,>period.Afraid not, buddy.SmoothHaving an even consistency: a smooth pudding.Having an even or gentle motion or movement: a smooth ride.Having no obstructions or difficulties: a smooth operation.I see NO reference here to speed. 9 fps can be smooth, so can 15. So can 2! OK? If there's no stutter, it's SMOOTH! Smooth visual interpretation of "rate of change" not a measurement of speed.


Regards,

Max    

(YSSY)

i7-12700K | Corsair PC4-28700 DDR4 32Gb | Gigabyte RTX4090 24Gb | Gigabyte Z690 AORUS ELITE DDR4 | Corsair HX1200 PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cwright

That's very interesting. It does imply there is lots of potential for frame rate improvements.> I haven't spent much time looking at disk I/O activity as that>is easier to monitor but harder to associate relevance out of>it due to a host of other unknowns.FileMon strongly suggests that FSX is making large numbers of pointless file accesses. I have installed a large photo-realistic scenery (Horizon England & Wales) that uses many large bgl files (the textures are incorporated into the files, hence the large size). I have found that, when flying in Japan, FSX repeatedly accesses the England & Wales files. When these intense accesses occur the frame rate drops sharply and there is some stuttering. Adam Szofran, who was involved in a discussion on this in another thread, was not able to explain this.Most likely FSX was released too early, though I'm not complaining as I think it's a superb flight simulator. The good news is that a future patch may bring a surprisingly good performance increase. Well, let's hope so, anyway!Best regards, Chris

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.
×
×
  • Create New...