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

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

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

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

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.

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

Wingnut,Wow, Aces should hire you as you seem to better informed than those who actually designed the game. My point is that nobody knows which DX10 features Aces are going to use for FSX :- Increase of visual quality (true 3D clouds, better looking water, new effects,..., etc.) ?- Improved use of the GPU, thereby leaving more cycles to the CPU ?- A mix of both ?There are no DX10 games available yet. The only thing we are sure of is that most DX9 games run slower on Vista than on XP. This might (or should) change with DX10 games but until independant benchmarks are published, we have no clue whatsoever.Do not get me wrong, we both wish that the upcoming patches on FSX will improve the gameplay. But until Aces tell us what they can actually do with DX10, no one can affirm that it will have a major impact on framerates.Jean-Paul Asus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo E6600@3.2Ghz - 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burrowed further into your blog site Hal and just loved all your photos. Any chance of having a "Bamboo Bomber" as an add-on to FSX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest robains

That is good to know, I haven't spent much time looking into the Disk I/O aspects of FSX, but the reason they access other files that would appear unrelated is that they share the same texture map -- shhhh, don't tell anyone they are the same ;) Or it could just be a mistake, but I'd suspect just a shared region. But that's why a didn't do much disk I/O analysis too difficult to spot any real issues.I'm not sure what the DX9 patch can do for FSX, I'd be cautiously optimistic also. I know there are DX10 functions that would provided a huge benefit if they can use them within their self imposed constraints.What I think they can do:1. Pre-cache textures in video memory using 2nd or 3rd or 4th CPU2. DX10 object texture arrays3. Make better use of available RAM (there is no change in RAM usage going from 2GB to 3.6GB)But as far as polygon/vertex counts, FSX is not even close to the limits of a 8800GTX even with autogen maxed out.Yeah, it is a little disturbing that ACE's are doing this "after the fact" -- but I too have will cautious hope for them to get it right (at least for DX10).FS9 is still what I fly the most, but the new Arizona scenery for FSX has peaked my interest -- just to see if there is a hit in FPS.Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with flyhalfRhettAMD 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest robains

frames per second -- the motion picture industry deems "smooth" to the human brain as a minimum of 24 frames per second (typical DV quality video is captured at 29/30 fps, while better quality is 50-60 fps (interlaced), and the there is 24p (progressive). But not matter how you slice it, every industry involved in video/film considers 24 frames per second as the minium for "Smooth" perseption by the human brain.Microsoft have redifined "smooth" as 20 frames per seconds (for obvious reasons).Smooth is being defined as uninterrupted motion -- stutters interrupt the motion and hence not smooth. Stutters stall your fps and if you notice the fps counter in FSX stops.Now take into consideration the speed of you FSX aircraft, for Jets landing at about 160 your frame rate will directly impact the smoothness of your landing. If you don't have smooth motion (24 fps) during landing you will over compensate -- so worrying about frame is VERY valid.My landings at SFO in FSX at 8 fps (minimal details) are terrible. The same landing in FS9 at SFO at 40 fps (max details everywhere) is considerably better (dare I say even perfect).If you are running at 40 fps, your input will be that much more accurate vs. running at 8 fps -- you won't suddenly go from a 500 ft decsent to 1000 ft decsent because your PC wasn't able to render the fames between the inputs.But if smooth and fps are not related, why do you think Microsoft provided the feature in the first place? The feature is there to help folks "smooth" out their flying experience, they can use it to help them optimize their system and remove stutters and other distractions.To ignore fps is not in anyone's best interest for a happy flying experience.Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Now take into consideration the speed of you FSX aircraft, for>Jets landing at about 160 your frame rate will directly impact>the smoothness of your landing. If you don't have smooth>motion (24 fps) during landing you will over compensate -- so>worrying about frame is VERY valid.>>My landings at SFO in FSX at 8 fps (minimal details) are>terrible. The same landing in FS9 at SFO at 40 fps (max>details everywhere) is considerably better (dare I say even>perfect).I completely agree with you and Hornit.Also, I'd add that, although 30 FPS are acceptable to 99% of people, you still feel the difference in smoothness between 30 FPS and 50 FPS. Especially, as you said, if you're flying a fast and maneuverable aircraft.But many people still settle at 15 FPS for more eye candy, and this is beyond my comprehension.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest robains

Jean-Paul,True we can't confirm what Ace's will do and it sounds like they haven't even started on DX10 release of FSX.However, we can make pretty close educated guesses based on what we know about the direction the Project Manager has provided.We can assume no core re-write, so multi-CPU optimization will be very limited. I would be VERY surprised if object texture arrays were not used in the DX10 update especially since FSX is so heavily dependant on the concept -- and I doubt it would cause a major re-write to implement.Also, what Aces tell the public will be carefully controlled -- there are many things that Aces Phil Taylor has mentioned that are partial truths but it is clear the real "issue" has been softened. I would NOT put too much faith in the information Aces provide, they will trickle out what they want to trickle out. Actually using the DX10 update will be the real test, how it performs on your DX10 video card and under Vista. Let your eyes be the judge.Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...