Framerates

[M-Sauce]

Glad that helped. 

I noticed because I was running KORD and EGLL smooth as silk, then I decided to try Nick's smoke stuff for AI. I looked at it in some Russsian airport I got, and I thought it looked awsome. I didn't notice any FPS drop because the airport just didn't have tons of AI like London or Chicago.

Then, when I was tooling arround EGLL and in my EC-135 I noticed the slide show effect. Sure enough, FPS was in the gutter, so I tried disabling the FX files and saw a slight improvement. What I ended up doing in the end, I didn't delete the entries on all my aircraft.cfg files (that took two hours to do, and the shockwave lights work just fine). What I did is find a small effect file in the Effects folder of FS9. I believe I chose "fx_heat_haze.fx", which is 2kb. I then used this FX and multiplied it, renaming it each time with one of the Nick smoke effects names until they where all basically replaced by this heat haze effect.

That solved it on my system and brought my FPS back to normal.

Mariano

[Axel H]

Hi,

I experienced the same problems with the framerates at KORD, compared to LSZH it should work fine in the same way. But thinking about heavy traffic in the KORD area and the large number of MD-80's (American Airlines e.g.) with smoke effect this can be really a point. I will try to have some trials with that effects.

Furthermore I found a decrease while flying KBOS -> KORD in the B747-400F by PMDG after a couple of minutes after take off from KORD, I saved the flight, restarted my system and resumed with the flight. Approaching the Chicago area the rates went down to 8 again. Before I found them around 18-21 airborn (pretty good in my opnion). A landing at KORD was awful. With LSZH and flying over Europe I never got that problems. Anybody else with dropping of frame rates after some minutes of flight? My PMDG usually runs fine.

Thanks,

Axel.

[virtuali]

Anybody else with dropping of frame rates after some minutes of flight? My PMDG usually runs fine.

Before making any judgement for fps, with any scenery, one should first try it with a default airplane, and then with a 3rd party addon, perhaps even different ones. Otherwise, you are risking evaluating the fps impact of the airplane, not the scenery.

KORD should have a frame rate comparable or better than LSZH. BUT, since it has a lot more parking stands, is able to attract a much higher number of AI, and those can really put the fps down, especially if using packages not really optimized for fps, like UT for example.

I found that in FS9, the better results are obtained with packages like SkAI or Adobe Traffic Pack. However, even the best fps-friendly AI packages can't do miracles, if you have 150 airplanes in view...

[Dimon]

My Traffic Exploere shows app. 310 planes (KORD+KMDW+vicinity, since KORD area is a transit for many transcon flights)

[virtuali]

My Traffic Exploere shows app. 310 planes

Auch, that hurts...

with such numbers, texture memory becomes a big issue: the video card should be ideally be able to store textures for the base scenery/landclass, sky/clouds, airport background and buildings, gauge graphics, user airplane textures AND all those different AI liveries!

If there isn't enough VRAM for all needed textures, there would be an huge bus bandwidth problem, because textures will keep crossing the boundary between RAM and VRAM, and that will slow down frame rate a lot.

[Axel H]

Hi,

of course, with default Learjet or a Cessna from the virtual cockpit I get higher frames than with the PMDG. Even with CS707 or DF727 my framerates are better. It is almost smooth. I did some low flights over KORD with the Learjet and after some circuits still got the same high frames (apprx. 20).

I switched the virtual memory management of XP to "Management by the system" (sorry, don't know the real translation to the English version) instead of chosing values for the virtual RAM. That helped a little. But I think this differs from system to system.
Also the cloud size and amount influences the speed.

cheers,

Axel.

[Dimon]

My Traffic Exploere shows app. 310 planes

Auch, that hurts...

with such numbers, texture memory becomes a big issue: the video card should be ideally be able to store textures for the base scenery/landclass, sky/clouds, airport background and buildings, gauge graphics, user airplane textures AND all those different AI liveries!

If there isn't enough VRAM for all needed textures, there would be an huge bus bandwidth problem, because textures will keep crossing the boundary between RAM and VRAM, and that will slow down frame rate a lot.

this is true. but the lowest FPS I have noticed yet with my E6700, 8800GT/512 and 2GB RAM was 13FPS.

[AAL417]

All I can say is I'm glad I could try this first. I was definitely not happy with the frame rate drop 7-8 FPS (no AI traffic). I tried several different planes PMDG 738, Maddog 2006 and LVD 763 and experienced the same issue each time. Night time was even worse. Again I fly online so I never turn on AI planes.

The add on manager being added in the FS9 menu bar was also unusual for a scenery and seems more for the promotion of other products than anything else. Does it really need to be there?

I think you could learn a lot from Fly Tampa folks because my frames rates are not affected as negatively with the same planes. TNCM is small but KSFO and KBOS's size is comparable and my frame rates are not affected near as much. Heck even old KMIA with the patch works better.

I will say the scenery does look awesome and I really do appreciate the try before you buy concept. Other companies should be so honest and considerate. So thanks for allowing me that opportunity, but I rate smooth video on landing higher than I rank eye candy with slide show at touchdown.

Regards
AAL417

[B777ER]

FWIW, for those that fly online with say SB3 on Vatsim, SB eats up about 2 frames.

[virtuali]

All I can say is I'm glad I could try this first. I was definitely not happy with the frame rate drop 7-8 FPS (no AI traffic). I tried several different planes PMDG 738, Maddog 2006 and LVD 763 and experienced the same issue each time. Night time was even worse. Again I fly online so I never turn on AI planes.

First, 7-8 fps drop it's an entirely different issue depending if you start from 60 fps or you start from 20. And, what's the meaning of "fps drop", in your case ? What you are comparing to ? The default scenery, with exactly the same airplane ?

The add on manager being added in the FS9 menu bar was also unusual for a scenery and seems more for the promotion of other products than anything else. Does it really need to be there?

Of course it does. If you liked the chance to try the product, you then can't complain against the thing that makes trials possible. Also, the Addon Manager does a lot a other things in the background that allow the scenery to do things otherwise not possible, apart from allowing the Trial and the purchase.

This was also clearly explained in the FAQ here: (see the last paragraph)

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/faq.html

TNCM is small but KSFO and KBOS's size is comparable and my frame rates are not affected near as much. Heck even old KMIA with the patch works better.

Well, the comparison is not correct, for several reasons.

First, it's not true the size is comparable because, according to Google Earth (I've used a plugin that measures the exact area of a polygon layered on the airport surface), KBOS area is 3.07 square miles,KSFO it's 3.44 sqm and KORD is 7.97 sqm! So, KORD is more than 2 times bigger in size.

Also, you are comparing with sceneries (KSFO, for example) which were released in 2004 so, it's obvious that they were optimized for machines that were in use at that time. This is 2008, so we are targeting the kind of systems that are in use today. If we released KORD in 2004, be sure it would have been designed quite differently, and fps would have been comparable with any of the FT offering, even if it's double in size...

One thing for sure, we use much higher resolution for textures, because nowadays 256 MB of VRAM is the minimum (but it was very hi-end in 2004) and 512 MB is still quite affordable.

I rate smooth video on landing higher than I rank eye candy with slide show at touchdown.

We too and, in fact, our sceneries are very well know to be of a very high quality and easy on the fps at the same time. Certainly, not a slideshow and not with AI at 0!

The below screenshot shows the fps I'm getting in FS9 without AI, at the worse possible point: with the whole airport in view. Of course, except for AI, everything else is all sliders to the right, original resolution was 1600x1200 with FSAA and Anisotropic filters on (the screenshot has been resized and it's jpg compressed, so it looks much worse the the original). System is a C2D E6700, 4GB,  8800 GTX so it's an high-end machine of the end of 2006, today is more or less entry level.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[AAL417]

First, 7-8 fps drop it's an entirely different issue depending if you start from 60 fps or you start from 20. And, what's the meaning of "fps drop", in your case ? What you are comparing to ? The default scenery, with exactly the same airplane ?

I lock my frame rates at 24 FPS as stated in my previous post I only use payware planes PMDG 738, LVLD 763, Flight1 ATR and the Maddog 2006 accompanied by AV6, SB3, sometimes FS Passengers. Dual monitors set at 1280 by 1024. You are correct my computer is three years old WinXP, FS9, PD 3.4, 3GB, 8800GT/512, 

Results:
Default KORD 22-24 FPS
fsdreamteam KORD 13-16 FPS with some stuttering (No AI planes or vehicles)

Fly Tampa TNCM 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KBOS 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KSFO 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KMIA 22-24 FPS

Of course it does. If you liked the chance to try the product, you then can't complain against the thing that makes trials possible. Also, the Addon Manager does a lot a other things in the background that allow the scenery to do things otherwise not possible, apart from allowing the Trial and the purchase.

This was also clearly explained in the FAQ here: (see the last paragraph)

I did read this but thought it would be a separate program or setup.exe not something added to the menu bar in FS. No biggie I just didn't like it.

Well, the comparison is not correct, for several reasons.

First, it's not true the size is comparable because, according to Google Earth (I've used a plugin that measures the exact area of a polygon layered on the airport surface), KBOS area is 3.07 square miles,KSFO it's 3.44 sqm and KORD is 7.97 sqm! So, KORD is more than 2 times bigger in size.

Also, you are comparing with sceneries (KSFO, for example) which were released in 2004 so, it's obvious that they were optimized for machines that were in use at that time. This is 2008, so we are targeting the kind of systems that are in use today. If we released KORD in 2004, be sure it would have been designed quite differently, and fps would have been comparable with any of the FT offering, even if it's double in size...

One thing for sure, we use much higher resolution for textures, because nowadays 256 MB of VRAM is the minimum (but it was very hi-end in 2004) and 512 MB is still quite affordable.

As you stated it must be due to the size of KORD in comparision, because without the AI planes or vehicles your KORD does not appear to have that much more detail than any of the Fly Tampa stuff.

So again I thank you for the opportunity to try your scenery. Maybe someday when I can afford to upgrade my computer I will try it again. However, most of my money this summer will be spent doing the real thing so it will be a while.

Regards,
Scott
AAL417

[virtuali]

I lock my frame rates at 24 FPS as stated in my previous post I only use payware planes PMDG 738, LVLD 763, Flight1 ATR and the Maddog 2006 accompanied by AV6, SB3, sometimes FS Passengers.

You are really not evaluating KORD but, instead, a rather complex combination of addons, each one with a significant impact on its own.

Dual monitors set at 1280 by 1024. You are correct my computer is three years old WinXP, FS9, PD 3.4, 3GB, 8800GT/512,

I think that, with the addons you are using, your system is unbalanced: your video card is *very* fast, but the Pentium D can't fully push it.

Most of the addons you are using (expecially Active Sky, SB3 and FSPassengers) are not really graphically intensive, but are more CPU bound, because they most of their work in the background. In this scenario, a Dual Core CPU, even with a lower mhz count, would get you much better results.

fsdreamteam KORD 13-16 FPS with some stuttering (No AI planes or vehicles)

Fly Tampa TNCM 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KBOS 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KSFO 22-24 FPS
Fly Tampa KMIA 22-24 FPS

You make it sounds much simpler that it is. It's not like that: performance results are not so linear as they seems. With this  test you get the wrong impression that, testing under the same configuration a scenery and another, and seeing different final results, the net verdict is "this scenery is slower".

Is more complex than that: with a given system, and a given combination of addons used, and how they impact on *your* machine, there is a point up to performances are satisfactory. You go further, and performances drastically go down, because you exceed a certain level of "total system bandwidth" and after that, your system with your addons combination, can no longer cope, and fps will go down very fast from there on.

You should wonder why, with a card similar to mine (GTX is not much faster than GT, and certainly not in FS9), you get only 1/3rd of the fps I'm having.

That's probably because you are using a single-core CPU in the worse possible conditions: several addons which are more CPU than GPU bound.

FS9 itself might not fully use a Dual Core (which is far more efficent even in sigle threaded programs anyway), but addons that do background operations like Active Sky, SB and FSPassengers WILL benefit from it. This means, with a Dual Core, you might be able to afford more additional programs running in the background, before their combination AND the scenery, will start impacting on fps.

I'm using a Dual Core without any addons, which is probably wasted in FS9. I guess that, if we exchanged hardware, you'll probably be able to get your 24 fps back, even at KORD and even with all your addons.

I did read this but thought it would be a separate program or setup.exe not something added to the menu bar in FS. No biggie I just didn't like it.

Many addons adds to the menu bar, how you were supposed to operate the program without access to its interface ?

Since the whole point of the Trial is to let you Install, then Try the product, then Buy it, it wouldn't do much sense doing all of this at setup time, because it would have required to run Setup again (why?) to purchase it, after having already installed to Try it.

Not to mention the fact there are other options in the Addon Manager (like turning on/off animated jetways, ground traffic, etc.) which are needed at runtime inside FS9, so a menu is needed, and it doesn't have any side effect like, for example, having an hot-key to activate its interface, because that would risk conflicting with something else.

So again I thank you for the opportunity to try your scenery. Maybe someday when I can afford to upgrade my computer I will try it again.

That's the whole point of having a Trial. And, since the Trial doens't have any expiration date, and doesn't have any limitation on the number of times it can be launched, you can always going back to it, when updating hardware, and the unlimited number of times it can be launched (giving another 5-6 minutes of testing time), is specifically designed for the Flight Sim user, that likes to tweak, launch FS, exit, tweak again, re-launch FS9, and so on...

[AAL417]

Thanks for your quick reply.

I think that, with the addons you are using, your system is unbalanced: your video card is *very* fast, but the Pentium D can't fully push it.Most of the addons you are using (expecially Active Sky, SB3 and FSPassengers) are not really graphically intensive, but are more CPU bound, because they most of their work in the background. In this scenario, a Dual Core CPU, even with a lower mhz count, would get you much better results.

I am aware I am not getting as much as I could out of the 8800. I knew that when I bought it, but it doesnt hurt the system or slow it down. It certainly was a big improvement from what I had and it was very economical, Plus if I do upgrade I can move it over. So I hope you are not trying to infer with the unbalanced comment that this card does more harm than good.

You make it sounds much simpler that it is. It's not like that: performance results are not so linear as they seems. With this  test you get the wrong impression that, testing under the same configuration a scenery and another, and seeing different final results, the net verdict is "this scenery is slower".
Is more complex than that: with a given system, and a given combination of addons used, and how they impact on *your* machine, there is a point up to performances are satisfactory. You go further, and performances drastically go down, because you exceed a certain level of "total system bandwidth" and after that, your system with your addons combination, can no longer cope, and fps will go down very fast from there on.
You should wonder why, with a card similar to mine (GTX is not much faster than GT, and certainly not in FS9), you get only 1/3rd of the fps I'm having.
That's probably because you are using a single-core CPU in the worse possible conditions: several addons which are more CPU than GPU bound.
FS9 itself might not fully use a Dual Core (which is far more efficent even in sigle threaded programs anyway), but addons that do background operations like Active Sky, SB and FSPassengers WILL benefit from it. This means, with a Dual Core, you might be able to afford more additional programs running in the background, before their combination AND the scenery, will start impacting on fps.
I'm using a Dual Core without any addons, which is probably wasted in FS9. I guess that, if we exchanged hardware, you'll probably be able to get your 24 fps back, even at KORD and even with all your addons.

In summary all I can say is my rig runs all the add-ons I mentioned in my preivous posts with all sliders to the right flawlessly.

Its not the same when I add your KORD scenery. The excuses you pointed out are, I am sure correct. However, like I said before what I saw graphically was not that much better if at all than any of the Fly Tampa scenery which looks good and runs great on my machine. Yes I know its older but it looks just as good without impacting my frame rates. So as I said before and you touched on earlier it must be due to the size of KORD no problem?

Regards,
Scott
AAL417

[virtuali]

I am aware I am not getting as much as I could out of the 8800. I knew that when I bought it, but it doesnt hurt the system or slow it down

It surely not "wasted". Since you are using 2 monitors, having a fast card will help you use 2 monitors without any problems, perhaps even at higher res. than 1280x1024.

So I hope you are not trying to infer with the unbalanced comment that this card does more harm than good.

Absolutely not. The card certainly doens't do any harm and it helps because you are running a dual monitor setup, and it's a good choice because is really fast for the price. It's just that the addons your are using would benefit from a better CPU as well.

In summary all I can say is my rig runs all the add-ons I mentioned in my preivous posts with all sliders to the right flawlessly. Its not the same when I add your KORD scenery.

As I've said, you were probably just on the borderline. Adding KORD put you just on the other side of  your system limit. But is the combination the issue. If you bought KORD first, then PMDG, maybe a similar discussion might have taken place on their forum instead...

However, like I said before what I saw graphically was not that much better if at all than any of the Fly Tampa scenery which looks good and runs great on my machine.

Again, is not that simple. When the system is overstressed and the fps goes down, the graphic quality start to decrease, textures start to blur because there's not enough cpu time to handle their refresh and the sceneries suffering more from this are exacly those like KORD, which use much higher resolution textures than any scenery from FT. Just compare the texture folder size, and compare the resolutions used. Unfortunately, if your system can't handle the total load (remember that you already have a lot of texture memory "taken" by airplanes like PMDG), scenery textures will start to blur, so you might not have seen KORD in its full quality.

Yes I know its older but it looks just as good without impacting my frame rates. So as I said before and you touched on earlier it must be due to the size of KORD no problem?

No just size, although size is a big factor because the hi-res photo real background, that covers all the airport property, is much bigger and takes way more memory.

It's also a matter of size+detail: KORD has even reached the AFCAD maximum limit of 255 parking spots, and we have boxes, lamps, vehicles and other details almost at each one of those parkings. FT KSFO has about 120 parking places. That airport IS smaller... Or, compare the size of FT texture folder, less than 60MB, with KORD, about 150MB. The BGL folder for FT's KSFO is less than 3 MB, while KORD is about 30 MB. This gives a rough idea of the amount of details (only rough, because many objects are libraries which only takes file space once).

Please note, I'm not trying to point out scenery size difference as if quantity would means quality as well. But the fact remains that KORD *is* much bigger than KSFO and requires much more stuff to be added, regardless who's going to design it.

As I've said, if we were in 2004, we might have chosen a smaller airport (maybe KSFO...<g>) because that would have been so much easier. And that's why we are doing KJFK now, because, hopefully everyone should have the hardware needed to use it, at least in FS9...

[AAL417]

Umberto,
I wanted to take a moment to apologize for giving up to early in trying to get the KORD scenery to perform better on my machine.

I have experimented with nHancer and changed some settings sacrificing a very small amount of quality for performance and have come up with a good balance that seems to have done the trick. My system is now delivering acceptable frame rates 16-23 fps (locked at 24) with AV6, SB3, FSNav, complicated pay ware aircraft and FS Passengers all running.

Also, by utilizing the affinity settings I instructed AV6 to use cpu (1) only. This seemed to help as well. In fact, I am getting better performance throughout FS9.

So again please accept my apologies, I have since paid for and registered your program and am quite happy with it. Thanks so much for your time, patience and understanding.

Scott
AAL417