Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

McCrash

FSX (ESP) graphics engine being rewritten for TS2

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Matthew,If we get an SP3 update that gives me 4x present framerate, then I would be very interested ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people find it interesting, Matthew. Your getting plenty of views here. I for one am really looking forward to seeing TS2. I don't care how well it will run on my machine. I just think that with FSX looking so good for me its going to be a really good glimpse of what FS11 could be like. As for ESP, well who knows where the world of simulation might end?Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:"I also did work to take advantage of some of the new instancing technology, and continue to tune that. It gave nearly a x4 increase in framerate, so we are definitely making great improvements."I think people are just a bit skeptical. I remember the same sort of things were said about DirectX 10 in the beginning.So I'll believe it when I see it.Cheers,Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "I'll believe it when I see it."Exactly. We all want to read positive things about the future of Flight Sim so there's a danger of getting carried.Obviously the headline point about the linked thread is the implication of a 4x improvement in framerates. I'm not sure that this equates to a promise of an overall 4x improvement even for the Train Simulator. But even if that's what it implies for the Train Simulator, I feel still less sure that it implies anything comparable for Flight Sim. We all know that Flight Sim still depends heavily on the CPU for its graphics. But MS have done quite a lot already to farm stuff out to the GPU in a way which might not have happened (yet) for the Train Simulator. In other words, the Train Sim may have yet more catching up to do on this front than Flight Sim.On the other hand, it is encouraging to read further confirmation that MS are trying to introduce more threads into the new "core" of this line of products. I have previously voiced my own doubts about how completely they'll be able to do this within a single iteration of Flight Sim, given the technical difficulty of the task. My suspicion is that they'll only give the "separate thread" treatment to a few of the easier tasks, not necessarily the ones that would give the biggest FPS gain. Being a naturally miserable old so and so - and knowing that MS always need to keep something in reserve for future releases - I remain of this view. Basically, I think we'll have to wait for FS12 or FS13 to see new programming techniques bringing really big jumps in performance per clock cycle - and by that time, I imagine, new features will have crept into the programme, placing system resources under new levels of pressure. In other words, I think that an application as complex and organic as Flight Sim will always be hungry for raw CPU speed in the end.But we live in hope: perhaps, after all, FS11 will hit the sweet spot with a good balance between features and system resources. Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they are gutting most if not all of the legacy code in the engine, then I can buy it. Even with all of the current optimizations (SP1, SP2) for FSX there is still a large amount of legacy code in there. Honestly, I really like the DX10 preview code- save for the warts- texturing and lack of progressive taxi. On my current system (Q6600, 3870 video), it runs very well- better than I expected. I tend to run DX9 most of the time though due to my add-in AI.I'm willing to bet that the engine for TS2 is as near a 'plug in' item as possible considering that release is still over a year out, and that further, the ESX engine will evolve further still by the time FS11 hits in 2010 or 11. By then, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it could be worse - they are working it. Rather than dying off, the franchise (ACES stuff - trains, ESP, MSFS) seems to be healthy and moving forward.Everyone learned quite a bit from the ramp up, introduction, evolution and maturity of FSX. I sincerely hope that the SDK and SDK tools are becoming more rationalized - I think improvements in this area (especially facilitating organically what developers normally go outside of the boundaries of the SDK to achieve) will also improve the MSFS experience. Let's face it, FSX is pretty awesome out of the box with a mid-range machine if that is all you are going to do with the sim - #### around with the Cessna for a few minutes and then go back to your console game. However, the serious enthusiasts, those that bother to sign up and places like AVSIM, download some freeware and buy add-ons, use the sim with 3rd party add-ons.Giving the add-on development community, FREEWARE and payware guys alike, a more rationalized and streamlined set of tools will really improve the consistency in quality of product. To start with, it would be nice to have a wider variety of modeling tools supported. I realize gMax was free (and is a great tool), but gMax is dead. I am an adult so I won't be stealing the $3500 modeling tool which the SDK supports, so that leaves me with few choices. Perhaps gMax will be given life support through the next version, but gMax is long in the tooth. What we need is a utility to take a garden-variety .x file and add the SDK stuff to it, regardless of how/where the .x file was made. Or, perhaps even better, would be to support a modeling tool which is organic to the sim in the way that Plane-maker is organic to X-plane.In any case, I am excited about TS and what it holds for the future of MSFS. I liked the original TS and have high hopes for TS2.Thank you for the head's up on this info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rational and polite skepticism is fair.instancing did give quite a boost to that specific feature, which if you read up on instancing makes sense.while it is fair to say without a lot more work that won't translate to a 4x overall FPS boost, it is also fair to say we are doing a lot of work on the engine and right now performance is in the top 2 features so it is not an afterthought.so when Trains2 ships in 2009, that will represent 1 increment of that work. and then when FS11 ships in 2010 or so, it will contain a 2nd increment of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info and the link.I am always interested in hearing any new info concerning the next FS. Waiting a few more years is going to be hard for me. BTW, I wouldn't equate a lack of posts to indicate a lack of interest. I think the above info was very concise and clear that a lot of "questions" or "comments" aren't really needed.I am enjoying fsx with the "newer" PC I have. And to no one but me, although I don't like being "disappointed", I would rather be overly excited about the next fsx, then to be too "realistic" or "show me when it's out", and thus, missing out on feeling like a kid on the day before Christmas" feeling, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One of the main reasons that FSX had so many issues is that the graphics engine was originally made for software rendering."That is very good news! I actually had to chuckle at that comment, because software-based rendering is technology from, what, 1999? I assume that most modern games take full advantage of GPU/HW-based rendering, which is finally a good indicator why the GPU in the past FS releases didn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of performance and why FS9/X performs relatively poorly on modern hardware.I think everyone kinda knew that already, but it's good to hear a confirmation from the source - for the first time.Very good news for FS11 (and TS2) indeed. Thanks for sharing.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the kinds of comments that I really like hearing. Of courese it seems like these sort of comments were made before the release of FSX, so I will keep a level base here, but also hope that this really translates into the new sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>it is also fair to say we>are doing a lot of work on the engine and right now>performance is in the top 2 features so it is not an>afterthought.>Thanks Phil!Can you give us a clue what the other top feature is? :)Better lighting maybe even ray tracing support (ie Larrabee)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ,and why no update for current FSX.Can`t belive it is impossible..........cheersMario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's logical and realistic. I think those of us who are not programmers are prone to underestimating the complexity of getting these enormous applications to "run faster". Evidently this is not the sort of terrain that can be leapt in ten league boots; one step at a time is the order of the day; so it is probably best to remain hopeful while keeping one's own expectations properly measured - and, I suggest, trying to keep other people's feet on the ground too. Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone above pointed out that non-programmers have a hard time understanding how difficult it is to make big changes to a large code base. The other thing I think they have a hard time understanding is how difficult it is to maintain two separate branches of the same code base, i.e. an old and a new, particularly if relatively complex changes are happening on each one.It increases the work load by perhaps not quite a factor of two, but not far off, especially when you take testing into account.So I'm quite happy that they're leaving FSX alone. Patching it further would just delay FS11.Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing folks should keep in mind:Trains are not airplanes! What I mean is that TrainSim has some different requirements from FlightSim.For instance, your train should never reach 30,000 feet altitude, unless maybe your conductor lights a smoke the instant he crashes your consist loaded with pure methane into another train loaded with cheesy bean burritos. On the other hand, in aircraft, you spend much less time looking into poor peoples' back yards than you would in a train (thank you Sarah Silverman, for that quote).Close-up model and texture effects and ground-based graphics would be the norm for TrainSim. Hundreds of permutatable and repeatable objects and textures are the norm for FlightSim. While there is some overlap in terms of their implementation, there are also some unique hurdles that the new FlightSim will have to overcome. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi ,>>and why no update for current FSX.>>Can`t belive it is impossible..........Why? That should be obvious... there's no more money in the budget, and they have everyone busy working on the core platform, TS2, ESP2, and FSvNext! :)Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't enjoy chewing the same bit of cabbage forever! :-scatter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>One thing folks should keep in mind:>>Trains are not airplanes! >>What I mean is that TrainSim has some different requirements>from FlightSim.>>For instance, your train should never reach 30,000 feet>altitude, unless maybe your conductor lights a smoke the>instant he crashes your consist loaded with pure methane into>another train loaded with cheesy bean burritos. >Or if you expose the crownsheet on the boiler. Not so much an issue with Diesels though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Besides, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't enjoy>chewing the same bit of cabbage forever! >:-scatter Hey Bill! What do you have against cabbage!!! Easy up now, we don't want to start a flame war over cabbage.:-outtaVicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.65Evga 680i A1 with P31 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx XG 174.74 702/1620/792Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>One of the main>reasons that FSX had so many issues is that the graphics>engine was originally made for software rendering, which has>far different requirements and expectations. The change to>hardware and multi-threading did not suit it well. We hope to>improve that this time around.">>"FSX was never intended to be a software rasterizer, but its>engine is based on a bunch of the previous Flight Simulators>before it, so it gets to inherit some of the nastiness of them>as well as the good."That's really funny. In the past, when people in this forum complained about the inadequacy of MSFS engine exactly for those same reasons, they were usually quickly dismissed and labeled as whiners from the I-Know-It-All kind of guys. :)Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>That's really funny. In the past, when people in this forum>complained about the inadequacy of MSFS engine exactly for>those same reasons, they were usually quickly dismissed and>labeled as whiners from the I-Know-It-All kind of guys. :)>>Marco>Even funnier... some of the "know-it-all" types actually recognized that the reason was due to backwards compatibility. Something I see people screaming about all the time."I bought "product x" for MSFS [ver#], what do you mean it doesn't work with MSFS [ver#]? That's absurd!!!"So... enjoy your chuckle... while the "know-it-all" types enjoy theirs. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Even funnier... some of the "know-it-all" types actually>recognized that the reason was due to backwards compatibility.And do you know what's even funnier? Some of those people were saying that a rewriting of the graphics engine for MSFS was not desirable nor to be expected. Well, seems like ACES finally proved the "whiners" right. He who laughs last... :)Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites