Roman Design

Sorry, I don't know why it posted 3 times... I don't see the "delete post" option anywhere...

accidental multipost

Likewise! Correct, MR (SSW or ASW) is unavoidable to get 72Hz or 80Hz. I aim for 80Hz. I couldn't make link work well, maybe it's my cable. But VD works amazingly well for me. AV1 codec (Quest 3) with 130mbps bitrate gives me no noticeable latency (reported latency is in the 60s but I don't feel it). I see no compression artifacts whatsoever, the image is perfect. SSW was not impressive when the PC struggled, but now I don'e see the artifacts, none at all, though I hadn'e tried blue skyes for any length of time. I run RTSS locked at 41. Turbo = ON in OXRTK seems to be important for reducing stutters. Despite the warning of breaking MR, SSW still works fine. When I had Reverb G2 it did break MR. Can you share your AutoFPS settings, maybe a screenshot? I wonder what works for you and how it compares with mine (shared earlier)...

I literally have the top-of-the-line CPU: 7950X3D. However stuttering was always the largest problem for me, even with Reverb G2, and now Quest 3. Though Quest 3 is much smoother and the only problem I see is cockpit judder when looking side to side, but AutoFPS seems to help a lot here. It seems it needs some headrom to be smooth, even with solid FPS. I could always see great smooth FPS in between the stutters, and TLOD is clearly exacerbating stutters. And taxiing in busy airports was always iffy. So I though I'd set very low TLOD ont he ground (where it doesn't really matter) and put a reasonably good looking but as low as possible top limit, to create some breathing room for smooth flights. Stutterless flights are the top priority for me, and I'm very sensivie to stutters and judders. In VR the images is not as crisp as on a 4K monitor, so visuals still look very nice. Ultra clouds add much more to the visuals - but they do have a large CPU impact. Compared to Ultra, High clouds seem like detailless cotton balls. Anyway, the results are already great, thank you again for the app, it really makes it possible to have a steady and smooth flight. It's a shame we can't have it out of the box, and this would have been so easy to implement in MSFS natively, it's such a simple and effective concept! But I'm sure even if it's implemented natively, there won't be so many options to tune it, they would have to dumb it down.

I tried latest test version of AutoFPS with the following settings. Seems to be working, the flight was mostly smooth, but I had some slight stuttering @15,000 entering secont cloud layer, and it looked like the cloud level wasn't dropping from Ultra to High like it should. The visual difference betweek Ultra and High clouds is very noticeable. I couldn't easily check the app status, because I was in my motion rig in VR, and the app is on the screen to far to read without pausing everything, taking off VR and climbing out of the rig. Do these settings make sense for MR @40FPS, RTSS locked to 41?

I must have missed something... So does it mean AutoFPS should now be working properly in VR with MR on? I.e. if I set target FPS to 39 and lock at 40 will the logic work?

What exactly are your setting so the motion repro works with this software? I got the sister app working, but I'm curious if this one has any advantages, though the exact settings should be pretty important for it to operate well around the fixed FPS of MR without letting it go down to break MR.

Hold on, 80Hz with SSW ON means you're running on 40FPS. 120Hz would be 60HZ with SSW ON. I just asked in Discord and confirmed that VD can only do 1/2 divider, meaining there are no 1/3 or 1/4 locked motion reprojection. So both RTSS @80 and AutoFPS target of 76 are meaningless, it never gets there, not should it. Also, I never could run MSFS even at 60 stable in any airliner and vusy area anyway. VD displays 80 because that's it's streaming 40FPS and SSW is creating another 40 frames. It's confusing but it always shows the same FPS with SSW on or off, despite it halving the framerate. Try limiting RTSS to 40 or 41 FPS - in the AutoFPS app it should show 40, but VD would still show 80. If I understand correctly how things work, because of your target is not remotely achievable, AutoFPS would just nail down all settings to minimums, never raising LOD etc. above minimums. It would give you good performance, but it should be the same if you manually fix LOD to your min value etc. Maybe I'm not getting something, let me know if I'm wrong.

Ah, OK, thanks for the clear answer. The next question is, should the sister app work with MR? It would involve more quesswork, but should still help with FPS, right? If the LOD is at the minimum on the ground and gradually goes up, and cloud level changes if FPS dip below MR level, it sounds plausible, right? Or I shouldn't switch on anything related to FPS there are all, just the altitude-dependent changes?

I'm not criticizing the readme, or you, please don't take it personally. You are doing an amazing job and helping the community a great deal. I'm just trying to figure out if this program can help me and what the correct settings would be for my setup. Yes, I'm acknowledging that "warned that MR can break", it's not like you promised it must work 🙂But it doesn't say that it can't work with MR, so I'm trying to make it work if that is possible. The problem is two-fold: 1. It's a fact that letting FPS go lower than half of the refrash rate brakes MR. The goal is to try and manage the LOD/clouds so it doesn't happen, or catch it the moment it does. Some people seem to be more sensitive to judder than others and while many are fine without MR, many others (like me) can't live without it as it's just not smooth. 5% is something that was mentioned here. I'm aiming for minimal workable reduction. It looks to me that setting a target FPS of 10% less, i.e. 36 wouldn't work, because my system in KJFK in PMDG737 (oribably worst case scenario) is doing 37FPS, so it would be "fine" according to the Auto FPS software, while it's a horrible experience in VR. If it would just keep it at 36 it's not a solution. Ideally I'd set 40FPS, but the readme says that it needs some overhead, and it makes sense. But I want as small an overhead as possible, as even 39FPS is not desireable and should be avoided as soon as it occures. 2. How would it know what level to keep the LOD at, because it won't ever go above 40FPS with MR? MSFS is so fidgety and unreliable that it's very difficult to do a clean test - if MR brakes with Auto FPS it would certainly brake without it. That's why I'm asking questions on what settings would make sense with MR. Is it not supposed to work with MR at all and I shouldn't even try?

I'm trying to understand the app logic. Readme didn't do it for me 🙂 So, suppose I'm in VR with SSW (VD motion reprojection) with Quest 3 running at 80Hz. So the FPS is capped at 40. I set 38 in Auto FPS, which is 5% lower. So, let's say the performance dips momentarily below 38 (which is already bad as it's braking MR), and Auto FPS drops TLOD to my min of 30 from normal setting of 100. FPS recovers to 40, but it's going to stay there as it is a hard cap. So how AutoFPS will know when to bump up the TLOD back? There's no overhead to "shave off" by gradually reducing TLOD. And as soon as it dips - it breaks MR. So will it just constantly try to lower and raise TLOD all the time? I don't think this is what happened when I tried it yesterday. Can it actually stay ahead of it and keep TLOD lower until it's not limiting anymore. But then how does it know when to bump it up again, without doing it too often to cause stutters?

I don't have Varjo, but AFAIK what you're doing is setting a target FPS to 90, but then hard-limiting it to 30. That way AutoFPS can't ever reach the target and should just bump everything to minimums and keep it there. Also, MSFS reprojection is not the same as VR HMD reprojection and to my knowledge doesn't do anything with the framerate on any HMD. So that setup doesn't sound logical. If you hard-limiting FPS to 30 in the Verjo, then the target sould be set to slighly below 30, as far as I understand the concept. Things may be different with Varjo, but should not be that different.

I actually read both readme files for both apps before posting. It's generalized for all FPS caps (FPS about 10% less than cap) and basically says "if it breaks motion reprojection for you - this app is not for you". But I was wondering about people's actual experience with it. In theory, going anywhere below 45 FPS (with 90Hz) will break motion reprojection (I had G2 prior to Quest 3) and create some judder or tearing. But people seem happy with VR and this app, including you I assume. I suspect that the actual setting for the FPS, and chosing the right app from the two can be very important, and a couple of FPS can make or brake the whole thing. So I was wondering what people are using with Quest 3 and VDXR, how close they get (someone mentioned 5% and not 10%) to the cap etc. If would be nice to know what works for VR users, because most seem to use pancake mode.

What should be the settings for VR with Motion Reprojection on? - Is AutoFPS or DynamicLOD_Reset more appropriate for VR with MR on? - What should be the FPS target? In VR, maintaining the target FPS is key, and MR is a must for most users (me included) for smooth experience. But the problem is that it essentially caps framerate at 45 (in case of 90Hz refresh) or 40 (80 Hz) or 36 (72Hz). So how would AutoFPS know that it's time to increase FPS if they would never go above that value? Also, would it be too late correcting the problem when FPS fall below 45 - because when it happens there would already be stutters in VR. This makes it far from clear what target FPS to set. So what are the recommended settings for this? If it matters, I have Quest 3 + Virtual Desktop (god mode, VDXR), RTX 4090, 7950X3D, 64Gb DDR5 RAM.

Now that my CYYJ Victoria is released, I'm once again looking for feedback on what airport to do next. Please let me know if you are aware of other developers working on Canadian airports, what is expected to release soon, what is missing, and cast your vote for what you would like to see next. I Would like to identify airport targets that would be in demand, that are either not done or being worked on by anyone else, or exists in much inferior quality - and definitely not anything that's already available on MSFS Marketplace. I prefer International/Regional airports that have jetways and can accept at least smaller airliners like 737 or ATR42 etc. Let me know what you think...

CYYJ Victoria International Airport is now available on MSFS Marketplace. Please be aware though that this is the first released version and not the latest update. MSFS QA/Release cycle takes weeks, during which time I can’t submit an update without restarting the cycle, so any updates will appear in the marketplace up to 6 weeks later than on my website, which is why I recommend my website if you want to get updates right away. Of course, nothing beats the convenience of the MSFS Marketplace, and the QA/Release cycle is there for a reason, so use the platform of your choice. Eventually, the Marketplace version will be the same. Just be aware that updates take time to get there.

Such test won't show much: of course any custom airport would be much more complicated than a default one - it always has a higher polygon count and more textures, because it provides more details, so it takes more computational resources. So in pure FPS it will always be somewhat lower than defailt. So, not much of a test. The question is if it still within a headroom that provide smooth flying experience, and here is where the level of optimization of the Asobo photogrammetry comes to play. So if the default area mesh brings your PC to the border of it's abilities, a custom airport can easily bring it over the threshold. But if the area is well-optimized, a custom airport may not bring a noticeable difference in performance. By comparison, photogrammetry area has a much higher polygon count than a custom airport, so the area and photogrammetry optimization level can affect performance a lot. I can suggest a simpler test: disable photogrammetry, then test default airport vs. my airport. You would probably still see a couple of FPS drop of course, just because there's more detail. But likely the performance will still be very smooth because there's a lot of headroom without photogrammetry, which you will see impacts performance by a huge margin when you enable it. I don't see any performance issues in 4K and in VR, everything is very smooth. However I do have 7950X3D CPU and 4090GPU, which is basically the best you can get now, running on DDR5 6000 RAM. So it's not surprising it runs great. However things are far from perfect in VR in KJFK and over Manhattan.

I don't know for certain, but it does make sense, because they updated photogrammetry, and it's the photogrammetry optimization that was the source of many performance problems before, according to Asobo interviews. They optimized large cities many times to increase performance. So I suspect when Canada photogrammetry got expanded and denser in the update, it was not optimized enough. In fact I'm certain it's not well-optimized because when I was working on CYYJ I found there are very large amount of "polygonized trees" - faceted green blobs thet did come with photogrammetry. But they are supposed to be virtually eliminated by Asobo AI, so that only buildings remain. They look ugly in photogrammetry, and AI is supposed to replace them with nice autogenerated trees. However it wasn't the case in many places in that area. There are plenty of photogrammetry tree areas everywhere that just waste polygons. I can't provide options to cut back on objects, as there's no way to do it in the MSFS Marketplace anyway. But it won't help. Compared with photogrammetry that's everywhere around, it's a miniscule number of polygons. It won't make any preceivable difference.

I don't really see any significant FPS hit from the airport. I suspect that the most of the FPS hit you are seeing is actually coming from the photogrammetry surrounding the area. The polygon count is what's loading your CPU and creates stutters. I will be releasing another update, however there's nothing I can really further optimize for performance. All objects are done with 3 LODs (level of details) and it's all really very efficient. I believe it's as efficient as can be, considering there is interior modelling etc. As low polygon count as possible without sacrificing quality too much. I think overall there's a lower polygon density in my scenery than the phorogrammetry mesh surrounding the airport. Texture use is also very efficient. I'm not just slapping 4K PBR textures on everything - there are only a few of 4K textures where they are needed, the rest are sized according to what they cover. Objects share textures a lot, so it's very memory-efficient. For example I don't create a a 4K texture for every building, even if the building uses similar materials as other buildings. Objects share materials. You can see by the package size that it's very modest. Most users say my airports compare well in terms of FPS impact. I suggest you compare to a simiarly-sized airport located in heavy photogrammetry area. You will probably see the same or worse performance. That's why I always tweak my MSFS to perform well taking off in my target plane from JFK and flying over Manhattan in dense clouds, for example. If it can handle that, it will hande everything. Otherwise you could be fine in rural areas, then hit stutters on landing at any decent airport in a photogrammetry area, because that's the most demanding scenario.

Nice videos, I didn't find those when working ont he scenery, but got others, from the cockpit - though with less detail. Looks like I was pretty close.

That seems to be a good solution. I can do a slighly better job, looking at their video, so if I decide to make the pack, I may just do that... As "romandesign-" comes before "samscene-" the exclusion file would be necessary, as their scenery would override my exclusions.

Now that poses a dilemma: if I model the Victoria harbour seaplane terminal, it will conflict with SamScene, but if I don't - people will be missing it in an otherwise nice package. Not sure what to do... MSFS Marketplace doesn't support any optional packages - it has to be a single package.

I'll look into that one...

Well, if he can get me a 3D-model file that can be legally converted and used in my scenery - I will be happy to add it 🙂

Hi everyone, I came here to write a post about yesterday's CYYJ release but it looks like this topic is already here and is very active, so why create another one? Anyway, thanks everyone for your kind words. This project took an immense amount of work, much more than expected, over the last 11 months. So I hope enough people enjoy it, so I can keep doing Canadian airports. I love doing that. To address a few points mentioned in this thread: - The download issue is resolved, everyone gets their download. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any problems, but things are working great now. I missed a glitch yesterday - that's what you get when you work until 2am for the last 5 days straight including the long weekend, to try and finish the release... - I had local sources that provided me photos of the area, the airport, the new terminal building, the aprons and buildings etc. to add to the info I sourced. I'm not naming them because not sure they'd want me to, but you know who you are and thank you so much for your help! As a result, I got as much detail as I could as precise as I could, within the limits of MSFS and common sense (well, sometimes beyond the common sense...). I won't directly compare with the competitor's airport, it's not my place to do that. But there are many details that are not immediately noticeable, here are just a few examples showing the level of detail I was aiming for: The police sruisers have authentic livery of "Victoria Police" with correct decals etc. The taxis are the most common model at the airport (Prius) and have authentic company livery including their phone etc. No school buses at the ariport 🙂 On the other hand, there are BC Transit buses at the airpost and close to water terminal that have authentic livery including all the signage. ATC tower has interior with the actual CYYJ diagrams showing on the monitors There are detailed RVs at the RV rental business' parking lot, and there are a few BC Transit buses there - not sure why, but that's what real photos show, so there they are. There are deicing vehicles with CYYJ livery at the airport and inside a MegaDome hangar Animated Canadian flags actually respond to the wind direction, like a windsock, they are always face the wind correctly There are models for seats and structures for baseball park on approach and it's night-lighted - just because it would look nice when landing... Water Aerodrome has a start position at the dock (as pictured in this topic earlier) and Aerosoft Twin Otter in Harbour Air livery looks almost identical in front of my two static HA Twin Otters, so it would feel right at home. I placed 2 buoys hopefully at correct locations on the water - by analysing several landing videos. The dock start is also connected to an invisible "water runway" and via a taxiway road to the main airport network. So MSFS could spawn planes landing and taxiing. You can also ask ATC after landing to provide taxi instructions to the park and it should get you there, including the blue ribbon if desired, though I haven't tested that. I created many of the roof textures from flying my drone at some local commercial buildings after doing the research on Google Maps finding promising roods. I found most available textures inadequate or too bland, so made a couple of local trips and did some photos, and made seamless textures in Photoshop, then created normal, roughness and ambient occlusion maps and combined them for PBR materials. The list can go on, but you get the idea... - I am thinking about doing a pack of Vancouver Island helipads as there are a few and it would be a lovely area for realistic helicopter flying. There is a set of 4 helipads in Victoria harbour, there's another one next to a lighthouse on a rocky island, about 4 hospital helipads etc. Thre's also a small airport with 3 runways, and a couple of seaplane locations. Not sure there's enough demand to cover development time though. But I'm thinking about it.