FSHud Performance Latest Beta Build

[FSHud 216]

14 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

I'm having an issue since the separation update where I'm experiencing severe stutters. I haven't used the balancer before because I'm using traffic settings that keep FPS within an accepted margin, so there was just no need to use this feature before. I understand that using the balancer now that I experience severe stutters can alleviate the issue.

I don't know how the technical log works. So I was wondering if this file records any information as to whether there are performance issues, and why. If the balance feature however were to halt CPU calculations and, as a result, the stutters didn't occur, I was asking if there would still be information on the stutter issue in that file, or if it were better not to use the balancer to ensure the stutters occur so they can be recorded in the technical log to be able to better analyze the issue. Essentially, if I took away the problem, there would be no problem to record, right?

The reasons why I think there is a deeper problem that I'm running into and this is not just me using unreasonable settings are:

A) I use traffic settings 20/20, which depict only little traffic to account for FPS.
B) These settings worked fine from when I first used FSHud until the separation update, with no performance issues and no stutters.
C) I haven't changed anything in FSHud, MSFS, or my system that might explain a sudden performance loss.
D) The stutters occur only at a specific stage of flight. In other words, before arrival I use the same traffic settings but there are no stutters whatsoever.
E) The stutters are more than your usual stutters. They are so severe that the picture in VR keeps lagging and freezing every few seconds.
F) My CPU is generally powerful enough to handle any decent load. It is normally able to handle traffic at 20/20 without any stutters, as it did before.

I don't generally oppose using the balancer, but I don't think it should be a solution to the problem in this case because I see no reason why my system wouldn't be able to handle traffic at 20/20 without the balancer all of a sudden - as it always did before.

This is a summary of what I said in the thread. I hope this makes it clearer. I don't know how else to explain what I'm trying to convey.

I think it is important to separate several things:

From our (developers) perspective - it is always recommended to use Performance Balancer, even in previous version.
Furthermore - in the future it is possible that this feature will be completely invisible to the user and not possible to configurate (once we can handle what is user's reliable FPS).

It is important that Performance Balancer is not kind of side workaround patch that supposed to fix bugs (done by lazy developers) 🙂
It is a fundamental core part of application and it's more about how application manages it's resources.
The reason we call it as something "on the side" is just to give more focus on proper configuration of it.

I will try to give analogy from the aviation world - fuel pumps:
If aircraft manufacturer recommends you to start fuel pumps before engine start - you can't just ignore this recommendation only because you were been to start engine without fuel pumps with some conditions.
And then complain that now you can't start, the engine is bad and fuel doesn't leads properly to the cylinders.
Even if the reason was some manufacturer update on aircraft.  Because such recommendation came much more earlier.
(let's not dig down to aircraft type, it was only abstract example on how things are working).

In terms of FSHud - there can be thousands of reasons why stutters can appear. 
Yes, more calculations are needed to provide more proper aircraft handling for separation and need to calculate thousands of things even before the aircraft was injected.

But Performance Balancer configuration - at least with basic settings of (30 freeze, 15 remove) is definitely our recommendation to safeguard from application stutters.

Thank you 

[RALF9636 1,999]

20 minutes ago, FSHud said:

I think it is important to separate several things:

From our (developers) perspective - it is always recommended to use Performance Balancer, even in previous version.
Furthermore - in the future it is possible that this feature will be completely invisible to the user and not possible to configurate (once we can handle what is user's reliable FPS).

It is important that Performance Balancer is not kind of side workaround patch that supposed to fix bugs (done by lazy developers) 🙂
It is a fundamental core part of application and it's more about how application manages it's resources.
The reason we call it as something "on the side" is just to give more focus on proper configuration of it.
 ...
But Performance Balancer configuration - at least with basic settings of (30 freeze, 15 remove) is definitely our recommendation to safeguard from application stutters.

 

Another idea to improve performance during the most crucial parts of the flight (takeoff and landing) without having to wait for the FPS to drop below the "freeze-limit" (which is problematic for those who are using an FPS cap for smoothness):

(Optionally) automatically freeze calculations for aircraft pending to be injected between

- takeoff clearance and handoff to departure (for the user)

- landing clearance and "runway vacated" (for the user).

 

I just experimented with the performance balancer settings and simulated such an option by manually setting the "freeze-limit" 1 FPS above my FPS-cap during these phases. It significantly improved the smoothness.

 

Apart from that I'd suggest to keep the performance balancer settings customizable. Systems and personal preferences are so diverse.

 

[threexgreen 3,156]

18 minutes ago, FSHud said:

It is important that Performance Balancer is not kind of side workaround patch that supposed to fix bugs (done by lazy developers) 🙂
It is a fundamental core part of application and it's more about how application manages it's resources.
The reason we call it as something "on the side" is just to give more focus on proper configuration of it.

I will try to give analogy from the aviation world - fuel pumps:
If aircraft manufacturer recommends you to start fuel pumps before engine start - you can't just ignore this recommendation only because you were been to start engine without fuel pumps with some conditions.
And then complain that now you can't start, the engine is bad and fuel doesn't leads properly to the cylinders.
Even if the reason was some manufacturer update on aircraft.  Because such recommendation came much more earlier.

Please don't get me wrong - I didn't say you were lazy or that the balancer is a bug fix. I even said earlier I'm going to enable it. I'm not ignoring the recommendation. I'm just not sure if I'm supposed to enable it for a log file if it completely halts CPU calculation and therefore eradicates the stutter issue I'm facing or if it's better to leave it off for that log file so it can record data on the issue.

It seems this still isn't fully clear, so I'll try again. I'm not talking about normal, sporadic stutters or a small FPS loss as a result of more calculations - which would be expected. I'm talking about severe, out of the ordinary stutters that almost lock up my CPU. So I think that regardless of the balancer feature, there is something amiss. We're also still talking about a beta version, so I'm not sure why the idea I'm having an issue is seems to be so elusive.

And for the record, I'm not complaining, I'm trying to get help. I think we're having a communication issue is here.

 

[FSHud 216]

23 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

Please don't get me wrong - I didn't say you were lazy or that the balancer is a bug fix. I even said earlier I'm going to enable it. I'm not ignoring the recommendation. I'm just not sure if I'm supposed to enable it for a log file if it completely halts CPU calculation and therefore eradicates the stutter issue I'm facing or if it's better to leave it off for that log file so it can record data on the issue.

It seems this still isn't fully clear, so I'll try again. I'm not talking about normal, sporadic stutters or a small FPS loss as a result of more calculations - which would be expected. I'm talking about severe, out of the ordinary stutters that almost lock up my CPU. So I think that regardless of the balancer feature, there is something amiss. We're also still talking about a beta version, so I'm not sure why the idea I'm having an issue is seems to be so elusive.

And for the record, I'm not complaining, I'm trying to get help. I think we're having a communication issue is here.

 

I think the help were been already given by me and other users:
"Use Performance Balancer"

Edited April 15 by FSHud

[Cpt_Piett 4,827]

New video, this time using latest beta build. Goal: tuning settings to get decent performance at iniBuilds Heathrow + Fenix A320. Conclusion: It’s possible to get great performance using reasonable settings, either by manually changing amount of injected AI, using performance balancer, or both.

Sorry about the voice quality, still using Bluetooth headset…

Apologies in advance if I wasn’t able to get my point across, as I recorded this quite late in the evening after a busy day at work. 

3 hours ago, threexgreen said:

I don't generally oppose using the balancer, but I don't think it should be a solution to the problem in this case because I see no reason why my system wouldn't be able to handle traffic at 20/20 without the balancer all of a sudden - as it always did before.

If I have time tomorrow, I’ll do a gate to gate flight in the Fenix to test how the latest FSHud beta performs. With my hardware I think 30/20 is a reasonable setting at major hubs if I want excellent performance. 

2 hours ago, threexgreen said:

I "only" have a 3090 card though, so I can't utilize frame generation and even if I could, it doesn't work in VR. I'm sure that running at double the "normal" FPS is a fine experience, but I also think that 40 cards are still not mainstream even if it seems many flight simmers have upgraded to one. FG and no FG are very different use cases.

I didn’t show it in the video, but I did the same tests with FG on and off. The difference if of course double FPS with FG, but it’s not more smooth if everything’s CPU-limited. I.e. with reasonable settings I get smooth 30 FPS without FG. Probably higher with less traffic.

Finally, as far as I can tell, performance is roughly the same with the beta version as with the release version at my limited testing scenario. But I think @threexgreen mentioned stutters in specific phases of flight. Also @threexgreen, I didn’t record these videos to “prove” that stutters don’t happen with FSHud. I just wanted to see how performance can be improved, fully knowing that all systems are different and that troubleshooting stutters can be a challenge. 

Edited April 15 by Cpt_Piett

[Luis Hernandez 589]

2 hours ago, FSHud said:

But Performance Balancer configuration - at least with basic settings of (30 freeze, 15 remove) is definitely our recommendation to safeguard from application stutters.

Thanks for reminding me the default settings. I've messed so much with them that I no longer remembered how to go back to the start. 

Edited April 15 by Luis Hernandez

[threexgreen 3,156]

15 minutes ago, FSHud said:

I think the help were been already given by me and other users:
"Use Performance Balancer"

I've said repeatedly I'm going to do that. Other than that I've tried several times to explain what my issue is and why I suspect it may go deeper than the balancer, regardless of using it or not, in case I wasn't explaining it well enough. But it doesn't seem to garner a lot of interest in the first place and is instead dismissed as me complaining about how it works and refusing to heed advice.

The point of this thread was to find out if others have the same issue. I think we have an answer on that, so I'm going to file a ticket as soon as I have the time.

[Luis Hernandez 589]

26 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Conclusion: It’s possible to get great performance using reasonable settings, either by manually changing amount of injected AI, using performance balancer, or both.

Thanks, Cpt_Piett. Seeing that you use DX12 and FG, I'm tempted to try again setting a 40 FPS limit in RTSS (yes, just 20 raw FPS). Only one question: how did you manage  to get no ground texture bleeding at all?

[threexgreen 3,156]

29 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

If I have time tomorrow, I’ll do a gate to gate flight in the Fenix to test how the latest FSHud beta performs. With my hardware I think 30/20 is a reasonable setting at major hubs if I want excellent performance. 

Thanks, that would be very appreciated. Although I think it's clear it's an issue on my end. I'd still be interested to see if you see any sort of unusual performance drop from descent to the end of the flight though.

[Cpt_Piett 4,827]

9 minutes ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Thanks, Cpt_Piett. Seeing that you use DX12 and FG, I'm tempted to try again setting a 40 FPS limit in RTSS (yes, just 20 raw FPS). Only one question: how did you manage  to get no ground texture bleeding at all?

That’s a very good question. To be honest, I have no idea. I’ve seen those artifacts before, but not recently. I’m in the SU15 beta and using AutoFPS, could have something to do with that.

Edited April 15 by Cpt_Piett

[Luis Hernandez 589]

I also use AutoFPS, so I guess it's SU15.

[Cpt_Piett 4,827]

I had the opportunity to test FSHud performance more extensively yesterday, in a flight from EGLL to EHAM. My impression is that the performance balancer works really well - in fact, I wouldn't say that performance was a problem, even though I was using quite a bit more AI traffic than I usually do. There was a lot of activity at both airports, and also quite busy on the frequency en route - especially during arrival into Schiphol. I also did a CapFrameX performance test for the ILS approach with very good results. 

There were some issues with ATC going a bit back and forth on speed restrictions during the arrival - perhaps due to the separation feature? 

In the first part of the video I talk about the new Nvidia driver update and new Fenix version, so for those only interested in FSHud, I suggest to start at 11:50. 

 

[RALF9636 1,999]

20 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

There were some issues with ATC going a bit back and forth on speed restrictions during the arrival - perhaps due to the separation feature? 

Yes, that's a known issue they are currently working at alongside with some finetuning on vectoring. They plan to have that fixed in the next beta version.

[iborg1979 101]

I picked up FSHud again after months not using it because it always ended up tanking FPS after a while.

In conjunction with the FSTL injector, on 3 hours+ flights things were pretty good. I guess the performance improvements did indeed bring performance improvements.

Had the speed restriction issue on approach. Not too handicapping, but a fix will be welcome.

[threexgreen 3,156]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

My impression is that the performance balancer works really well

Did you notice any loss/lack of traffic due to traffic injection being paused?