FSDreamTeam forum
Products Support => JFK for FSX/P3D => Topic started by: bnjypov on May 06, 2013, 12:28:38 am
-
Hello!
So, I upgraded to V2 expecting a 30% increase in performance, like many have said. However, I actually noticed a drop in my frame rates. I have a low end computer (2.2Ghz quad core i7, 1GB ATI card, 6GB RAM) and frames went down from ~18 in V1 to ~12, and even as low as 6 in some areas (near T8, for example) Does anybody know why I'm not getting the promised increase?
Thanks for any help,
bnjypov
-
You must be sure you test the scenery under the same, identical conditions. For example, if you tested with the scenery at different times of the day, a difference in AI density due to different schedules, will mislead you thinking the difference in frame rate is caused by the scenery, when in fact it's the AIs. One should always test with 0% AI first, otherwise you are testing you AI performances, not the scenery's.
Also, if you use AI models made for FS9 (such as WoAI), or the airplane you fly with has a model originally made for FS9, you are losing all the advantages of the fully native FSX code in JFK V2, because what slows down FSX is mixing FS9 and FSX graphic commands together, because it forces FSX to switch between two different rendering paths, and since JFK V2 IS more polygonally complex than V1 (due to 3d taxiways and new the kind of ground layer), FSX can't compensate for the higher number of polygons in JFK V2 with the faster FSX-only code, because of the other FS9 code you are running together with it.
-
Tried it with no AI, on both the Level D 767 and Aerosoft Airbus X- same results. Got a drop, rather than a boost. Could it be because I have such a low-end system?
-
Tried it with no AI, on both the Level D 767 and Aerosoft Airbus X- same results. Got a drop, rather than a boost. Could it be because I have such a low-end system?
You don't say which ATI card you own, so it's difficult to say. Also, could be you run on a 32 bit Windows ?
And, I'd test again JFK V1 vs V2 with a DEFAULT airplane. The reason is, if your airplanes are already taking most of your available VRAM, there's not much available for the scenery, so the driver will start swapping RAM with VRAM, and that's a very slow process. JFK V2 IS 30% faster than V1, but it needs more VRAM so, it's only faster as long as there spare VRAM available.
You might test this theory by lowering the textures size to 1024 in the Addon Manager. If you get an immediate fps boots, it's sure you have a VRAM problem.
-
Tried it with no AI, on both the Level D 767 and Aerosoft Airbus X- same results. Got a drop, rather than a boost. Could it be because I have such a low-end system?
You don't say which ATI card you own, so it's difficult to say. Also, could be you run on a 32 bit Windows ?
And, I'd test again JFK V1 vs V2 with a DEFAULT airplane. The reason is, if your airplanes are already taking most of your available VRAM, there's not much available for the scenery, so the driver will start swapping RAM with VRAM, and that's a very slow process. JFK V2 IS 30% faster than V1, but it needs more VRAM so, it's only faster as long as there spare VRAM available.
You might test this theory by lowering the textures size to 1024 in the Addon Manager. If you get an immediate fps boots, it's sure you have a VRAM problem.
I have 64-bit, as for video card I'm not sure, definitely a low end card. Could you please explain what VRAM is and how it differs from RAM?
-
I have 64-bit, as for video card I'm not sure, definitely a low end card
That's probably why you don't get any fps increase from JFK V2. It requires at least a mid to high end card.
Could you please explain what VRAM is and how it differs from RAM?
VRAM = video ram = the ram on your video card, used for graphics and textures
RAM = the main ram used by the CPU to run programs, etc.
Have you tried with a default airplane and/or with textures at 1024 ? If you get a noticeable fps increase, it means you are short of VRAM.
If you don't get any fps increase, even with a default airplane and with textures at 1024, you need a faster card.
-
Hi Umberto,
Also, I'm having issues with the bad frames on KJFK and other FSdreamteam scenery's. I'm attributing this not to you products, but rather what I am running and my system specs. I'd appreciate your advice on hardware, what you feel would be adequate for running complex payware aircraft ( PMDG 737 ngx, Coolsky DC-9 etc....) with a weather engine( I use FSrealWXlite) in conjunction with your scenery's. Also your advice for a suitable traffic program for your scenery's. Right now I'm using WOAI with 50 airlines. It's really dragging my system down. That would be the first thing I would need to fix.
I'm not opposed to spending money to get results.
So let me lay it out. Here's what I have.
1) i7-870 cpu ( 2.9 GHz)
2) 8 GB RAM
3) AMD Radeon 6800 series graphics card ( 1 GB RAM)
4) My hard drive is only 20% full, 80% available. No defrag issues.
With this setup, I'm getting around 10 fps with WOAI turned all the way up, running the most resource hungry payware plane( Cool sky DC-9) at KJFK.
With the default C172, WOAI turned all the way up at KJFK V2 I'm in the 20's (fps).
At KJFK V2, using C172 aircraft and no AI traffic, I reach my max fps, in this case set at 30. I'm getting these numbers by using FS Booster. I'm sure it would be much less without it.
I'd like to see consistent 20's fps running complex payware planes at your airports, using a compatible AI program, with FSrealWXlite weather. As it is now, sometimes my frames are in the 20's but I'm still getting much stuttering, especially when in the presence of complex weather. Then on final, I'm down to 10 or less FPS.
My first question:
1) By getting a suitable traffic program, based on my spec's, how much of an increase in FPS could I expect your airports? Not looking for exact numbers , but rather an estimate.
a) what do traffic program do you find works best with your scenery's ( I fly mostly in and out of FSDREAMTEAM airports) ?
2) Based on the previous post, do you feel 1 GB of RAM in a video card is sufficient to run complex payware planes on your scenery's with AI traffic and a weather engine, or would you like to see more RAM in the video card ?
3) Do you feel 8 GB or RAM is sufficient to accomplish my goals with an updated Graphic card?
4) Do you feel a more powerful CPU would help or is the I7-870 sufficient.
So with all this said, in trying to reach my goals, where would be the first place you would start? I'm asking you because I really enjoy using your scenery's when flying and I want to get the most out of them. As it is right now its not suitable. Again, I'm willing to spend dollars for results.
Thanks for your help and advice.
Cheers,
Brian
-
Also your advice for a suitable traffic program for your scenery's. Right now I'm using WOAI with 50 airlines. It's really dragging my system down. That would be the first thing I would need to fix.
Yes, that would be the first thing to change. There's no really a traffic program more suitable with our airports: by using a traffic product made for FSX, you would see benefits everywhere.
But if you have other add-on sceneries that use slow FS8/FS9 code, you might not notice the impact of the AI traffic so much, because they are already slowed down by their own FS8/FS9 code, before you start to not the impact of the FS9 code in the AIs, as when you used fully native FSX sceneries like our own. The fist big performance hit is when you force FSX to start running FS8/FS9 code, but it doesn't go up that much if you add more and more FS8/FS9 code. So the key is not to mix them up.
AND having a reasonably fast video card, because FS8/FS9 code is more CPU-bound, while FSX native code, especially when there are lots of shaders used (for example at KLAX or CYVR), is more reliant of the GPU.
We tend to have good results with Ultimate Traffic 2, which almost entirely use FSX models, and they all make good usage of LOD levels, so it's a well optimized product, but I believe than even My Traffic is using native FSX models, the thing I don't like about it, is that it comes with AFCADs made for the default sceneries that create conflicts with our sceneries, so they must be removed (at least the one for the airports you have enhanced with a 3rd party scenery)
Your video card is not bad, but it's a bit outdated and 1GB might not be enough with the latest sceneries and complex planes, you might want to have a look at this article on Tom's Hardware, that lists the best card for the money in many price ranges, so you only need to decide how much you want to spend:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html
-
Thanks Umberto,
This has been very helpful and has given me some good, basic insight. I'll probably go with the Radeon HD 7950 Boost Edition (3 GB RAM). As well, I'll purchased Utimate traffic 2. So by doing those two things, do you feel 8GB RAM along with my current I7-870 CPU is sufficient to obtain favorable results? Or if it were you, would you want to add more RAM and perhaps a more current CPU?
I'll be careful not to add FS9 add-on as well.
Thanks again for all your help.
Cheers,
Brian
-
So by doing those two things, do you feel 8GB RAM along with my current I7-870 CPU is sufficient to obtain favorable results? Or if it were you, would you want to add more RAM and perhaps a more current CPU?
More than 6GB or RAM is really overkill for FSX, because FSX is a 32-bit program, meaning it can only use up to 4GB of RAM. And DDR3 ram works best in multiples of 3, so 6GB is plenty enough.
-
More than 6GB or RAM is really overkill for FSX, because FSX is a 32-bit program, meaning it can only use up to 4GB of RAM. And DDR3 ram works best in multiples of 3, so 6GB is plenty enough.
Brittany/Boone I had a feelling you were Summer1 aka Marcielli that was over at Avsim up until recently. The Microsoft Support tag/logo had already seemed too familiar when you changed from Brittany to Boone and added the MS logo, just like Marcielli did at Avsim. Of course, your posts are all too similar especially considering some of them are almost verbatum.
More than 6GB its overkill for FSX, there's the issue of DDR3 memory working best in multiples of 3 (triple-channel), which means 6GB it's usually faster then 8GB.
-
More than 6GB or RAM is really overkill for FSX, because FSX is a 32-bit program, meaning it can only use up to 4GB of RAM. And DDR3 ram works best in multiples of 3, so 6GB is plenty enough.
Brittany/Boone I had a feelling you were Summer1 aka Marcielli that was over at Avsim up until recently. The Microsoft Support tag/logo had already seemed too familiar when you changed from Brittany to Boone and added the MS logo, just like Marcielli did at Avsim. Of course, your posts are all too similar especially considering some of them are almost verbatum.
More than 6GB its overkill for FSX, there's the issue of DDR3 memory working best in multiples of 3 (triple-channel), which means 6GB it's usually faster then 8GB.
Ha! Indeed I was Marcielli, but not Summer1. ;)
But a-lot of my posts over there were quoted from Virtuali, which I deem is probably the most smart and intelligent person when it comes to Flight Simming, and a-lot of my knowledge comes from his posts.
-
Ha! Indeed I was Marcielli, but not Summer1. ;)
Not according to the screen shot below and this link http://forum.avsim.net/topic/405926-the-real-summer1/?hl=summer1
-
Ha! Indeed I was Marcielli, but not Summer1. ;)
Not according to the screen shot below and this link http://forum.avsim.net/topic/405926-the-real-summer1/?hl=summer1
Small world
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UiSILw_6Q5g/UJscJg1nmUI/AAAAAAAAg08/Qz-iFH7E7xo/s320/obama-laugh-r_1047082t.jpg)
-
Nice topic ;)
That would explain why i have good fps in TML=1024 (25-40fps in the NGX) and 10-12 fps in TML=4096. Did not think it was related to VRAM. I have a 4,2@i7-950 with a default ATI HD5870 1GB ram card which still can produce som amazing results despite the aging.
Seems like we will see scenerys more demanding on GPU´s around which is nice when we have DX10 up an running. This also turns focus away from CPU and OOM if i am understanding this development correctly.
Forza FSDREAMTEAM :) think i will look into a HD7970 3GB
Michael Moe
-
Seems like we will see scenerys more demanding on GPU´s around which is nice when we have DX10 up an running. This also turns focus away from CPU and OOM if i am understanding this development correctly.
Yes, you got it exactly right. We are pushing into more demand on the GPU and on DX10, because it's the roadmap that has the most room for future growth.
Upgrading a GPU is reasonably easy and you have plenty of options for your desired level of spending, while updating the CPU is hard and might be very expensive, because most of the time you'll have to upgrade the mainboard and RAM too. And, GPUs increase their power and especially value for money much faster than CPUs.
With P3D 2.0 with DX11 coming, this strategy will pay off even more.
-
I have the same problem. My fps is pretty bad with the add-on airports. When I did the demo flights, I made the big mistake of using FSX aircraft and everything was fine with fps. After reading this post, I did your test. With my add-on aircraft, the fps is very jerky, but when I tried an FSX default aircraft, it was fine. I never use default aircraft but my purchased add-ons. I did not know it would have made a difference in fps. Does this mean I need to replace my video card? I do have 64 bit windows HP computer that is almost 3 years old. Unfortunately, I am no expert with some computer terminology, deep troubleshooting and replacing any internal parts on my computer. An expensive lesson on my part.
-
My fps is pretty bad with the add-on airports. When I did the demo flights, I made the big mistake of using FSX aircraft and everything was fine with fps. After reading this post, I did your test. With my add-on aircraft, the fps is very jerky, but when I tried an FSX default aircraft, it was fine.
You haven't done any mistake. In fact, if with "demo flights", you mean you were testing JFK in Trial mode, that was the ONLY correct way of testing the SCENERY, which is with a default airplane. If you test a SCENERY with lots of AI and an fps-heave airplane, you lose the ability to judge the scenery itself, because if the fps is slow, you don't have any means to understand what is causing it.
Now that you made that test, and got proof your low fps wasn't caused by JFK, you might try to better understand how to improve your situation.
My last message said that you surely must upgrade the video card, if you see an immediate fps improvement, if you go down from 4096 to 1024 textures, without changing anything else.
But if your fps stays low (with your add-on airplane and everything else) even with the 1024 textures size, chances are that changing the video card (unless yours is really outdated or, even worse, it's integrated in the mainboard, like the Intel HD graphics), won't change much, and you might have to rethink your entire system.
But the cheapest upgrade of all, it's just not using products not well optimized. The worse offenders are those still using FS8/FS9 code which is slow in FSX, such as World of AI traffic, for example.
-
Thank you for your reply. I have always had my fps set at 1024x768x32. How do I know if I am using FS9 code? I purchased FSX in 2011 and had add-on aircraft installed not long after, such as Quality Wings 757 PMDG 747-400 and 737-800, and Level-D 767. No other aircraft add-ons.