Poor performance

[Rafal]

Are You kidding me?

Do you think I have nothing better to do in my life than to 'be kidding you'?

showing pictures with such a very small cutout?

A strange problem that you have. But, OK, I can show you the whole ones if you wish (they will take much more than the screen size allows).
Shall it change ANYTHING? The FPS counter will be the same as the cutouts show the FPS results which (at least in my sim) are always in the left upper corner of the screen.

Mark claimed he's getting 10 FPS with a default aircraft when starting in the stand 47 B.
So I devoted my time (Instead of flying) to make screens at the same gate with different aircraft for a performance comparison.
What exactly is your problem about it?

I do not represent FSDT. I have no interest in defending their products.
I am just a simmer who takes time to participate in a discussion to show that I am glad with the performance and NOT everyone has problems with it.
I always wonder why people get aggressive so quickly...

[virtuali]

Rafal, I think you should clarify that you cut the pictures AFTER taking them, I think Dogstar believes you ran Fs9 in a tiny window, just to pump up the fps!

Well, in any case, I had already posted a screenshot on Avsim, showing the whole screen, with KLAX ruuning at 28 fps at 47B, on my LAPTOP...

[Rafal]

I think you should clarify that you cut the pictures AFTER taking them, I think Dogstar believes you ran Fs9 in a tiny window, just to pump up the fps!

Yes, you may be right, Umberto. I may not have been clear enough on that. 

So: I did cut the screenshots AFTER taking them to show only the important parts of them (FPS counter) for comparison purposes.
I have no time or interest to play kid games of cheating. I am 40 years old, have been simming for more than 20 and simply wanted to help.

[Silverbird]

Thank's for the shots Rafal and thanks Mats  for posting the specs, Rafal, doing things like that takes allot of time and I know many people will appreciate it and it gives simmers a good idea to compare, I think the thing with Dogstar was a misunderstanding and maybe the frustration over the low fps hes getting. I'm installing klax for fs9 on my sons p.c right in a few to post fps that system has a dual core celeron E3300. and a 7800GS so its on the lower end.

[Swoop]

Here's a comment...I'm not trying to attack anyone...I've been nothing but nice...I have an issue with the price of it but that neither here not there right now. This is really simple...

FS9 is working great, all of my scenery is working great, I buy FSDT KLAX and install it, load the airport and get 7-10fps. No attacks, no bad attitude...just simply that's what is happening.

I have been a professional software engineer for 30 years and am pretty well versed with systems, and architectures, and development. Been learning overclocking lately, no big deal, easy stuff. OK, that being said, here's my take on this...

Someone is saying it's my system, I'm saying that KLAX is not optimized for FS9 and Win32. So what...who cares...at this point, all I'm staring down at is a bunch of overly defensive people who are so busy trying to say there's nothing wrong with their software they roll over people who are actually having issues with it...as if I don't know anything about computers...

The issues argument is key in this comment because weather you like it or not, I am having issues with this software. So what is the solution...

Mark

[virtuali]

FS9 is working great, all of my scenery is working great, I buy FSDT KLAX and install it, load the airport and get 7-10fps. No attacks, no bad attitude...just simply that's what is happening.

And of course I believe you, but what is wrong, it's your conclusion, that is a "problem" with KLAX.

Someone is saying it's my system, I'm saying that KLAX is not optimized for FS9 and Win32.

Yes, it's your system. You keep twisting up your explanation in different ways, other than accept that your system is not put together very well. There's no such thing of a "scenery optimized for 32 bit or 64 bit", or a scenery that "doesn't work with 1GB video card", it's just that, by setting up a system with a 1GB card AND use Windows 32, and XP to begin with (how much developing care do you think XP video drivers get today ?), you are asking for trouble and, since this scenery IS demanding, but it RUNS WELL on a system correctly setup, its only fault is that it *exposed* a problem you were already likely to encounter, sooner or later when you started adding addons.

if I don't know anything about computers...The issues argument is key in this comment because weather you like it or not, I am having issues with this software. So what is the solution...

Then accept this humble suggestion, from someone does *games* programming for a living since the early '80s (in Assembly, on the C64): you have a system which should be perfectly capable of running FSX, if you insist using FS9, AT LEAST switch to Windows 7 x64, because with XP32 and your 1GB card, you are crippling it.

[Swoop]

I accept your advice about the 64bit system. I am about to launch one in the next couple of days...and sorry about the multiple threads...sucks on my part. 

Yeah, C64...my old CPM compiler...I miss it. Used to do some work on the old Microvax systems too. Except that was dot prompt C with inline assembly. The good old days. Well thanks for the suggestions and will post the results of the 64bit endeavour here. (In one thread only

Mark

[kevchris]

Hello All -

I own all of the FSDT sceneries for the US.  They all run fine with FS9.   However, I too, notice some performance issues with KLAX - namely stuttering on approach and what I can "loading delays" when I switch views.   Not sure why this is happening. 

I run an excellent FS9 machine at the present time.

Planning a new machine and an upgrade to FSX within the next several weeks.

In the meantime, any performance improvement ideas would be appreciated.

Kevin

[arntfs]

I also suffer performance issue with KLAX, and only KLAX. I own most of FSDT sceneries, and none offer poor performance like KLAX. While I get always frames above 20 with the PMDG 747 freighter on major hubs with tons of AI, it goes down to the teens while approaching KLAX. Also get loading slowdown, a bit like with Aerosoft's Schipol. Extremely nice scenery otherwise.

[virtuali]

While I get always frames above 20 with the PMDG 747 freighter on major hubs with tons of AI, it goes down to the teens while approaching KLAX.

So you don't really get 10 fps at KLAX, you get 10 fps using the PMDG 747 on it. Have you tried with a default airplane ? Is there any difference ?

Try to understand that PC performances are NOT linear thing: it's more like you can go up to a certain point loading your system with heavy addons, and it might run well UP to a tipping point, and after that performances start to go down very quickly, and this is very noticeable with FS9. Adding hardware to FS9 helps only to a certain point because it doesn't take advantage of multicore and it relies much less on the video card so, a super fast card in FS9 it's a waste of money, it can only be useful to drive very large screens, but it will not really help with frame rates, not much.

FSX might seem slower initially, but if you can throw at it lots of stuff done in the right way using FSX features (no FS9 ports) and if you *have* good hardware, the performances goes down WAY more gently, because the hardware IS better used in FSX. The graphics use lots of shaders (our sceneries use lots of them too) so, a good graphic card will help FSX way more than it can help FS9.

KLAX is quite demanding on the video card, not really because of textures (it doesn't take more textures than KDFW), but because of the high number of polygons, which is how we model it, since FSX is able to withstand more of them before starting to slow down, and there was no way in the world we would have *remodeled* KLAX with less polygons, just for FS9, there would have been no FS9 version under those circumstances.

We HAVE a lower polygon version for FS9, which is the Cloud9 one so, what's the point of dumbing down KLAX, considering we already had a perfectly reasonable version already on sale ?

The scenery has a Trial version, like all our sceneries. You are kindly asked to take advantage that feature, and decide to purchase it only if you are satisfied how it runs on YOUR system.

We'll surely fix bugs or errors in the scenery, but we won't do anything on the performances: this is how the scenery is, install the Trial, see how it works on your system and then purchase it only if you are satisfied. As explained many times, the Trial doesn't expire, you can launch it an unlimited number of times, which is exactly what is needed to test it with many configurations, 3rd party addons or tweaks so, you have been given all means to verify the scenery is suitable to your system.

[arntfs]

Good evening,

[So you don't really get 10 fps at KLAX, you get 10 fps using the PMDG 747 on it. Have you tried with a default airplane ? Is there any difference ?

I sure get more fps with a default airplane. I always test a new scenry with the default C152, then with the heaviest fps wise, the pmdg744F.

We HAVE a lower polygon version for FS9, which is the Cloud9 one so, what's the point of dumbing down KLAX, considering we already had a perfectly reasonable version already on sale ?

What is the point of making and selling a new FS9 LAX version then if it offers poor performance for high end PC compared to the cloud9's version? Of course, v2 is graphically superior, and I assume that's why all fs9ers bought it.

you have been given all means to verify the scenery is suitable to your system.

You certainly missed my point, I wasnt complaining at all, you must have mixed me up with someone else. On the contrary I am glad I bought KLAX it's very nice. Moreover, you bring me a clear answer on the performance issue: it's due to the fact the new KLAX scenery uses a lot more polys than previous FSDT releases,  I am ok with that. 
What I am not Ok with on the other hand is this: I know FSX handles LOD in a different way than FS9. Are you telling us that KLAXv2 dont use any LOD in its fs9 version? If that's the case, then I am not ok at all, it's not a difficult nor dramatic task to ad LOD for fs9 scenery, you know.

On a more graphic note I only regret that the tawiways, street and buildings signs/scriptures had been thrown on a common bitmap. In previous version you used to have these signs on a separate texture and that gave very sharp signs, as opposed to the blurred ones in the new LAX.

[virtuali]

I sure get more fps with a default airplane. I always test a new scenry with the default C152, then with the heaviest fps wise, the pmdg744F.

And the result is ? How much more ?

What is the point of making and selling a new FS9 LAX version then if it offers poor performance for high end PC compared to the cloud9's version?

It DOES NOT offer "poor performances for high end PC", it's now performing badly on YOUR PC, for reason we might discuss maybe, but it's working FINE for a lot of people.

So, obviously, the reply is, since the scenery works fine for most of the people, even without having really high end system, what's the point dumbing it down "just" because it doesn't do the same for *everyone* ?

You certainly missed my point, I wasnt complaining at all, you must have mixed me up with someone else.

It was a more general comment aimed to anyone that contributed to this thread rather than you in particular.

Moreover, you bring me a clear answer on the performance issue: it's due to the fact the new KLAX scenery uses a lot more polys than previous FSDT releases,  I am ok with that.

Yes, partially, but that's not the end of the issue: it's not happening the same on every system: many users seems to be quite happy with performances so yes, it IS clearly more demanding compared to the Cloud9 version, but it doesn't seem a general problem, some are even reported it being *faster* than Cloud9!

[DogStar]

Throughout all german forums You will find, that KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries. With or without ai-traffic. That is absolutely ok, as the sceney uses more polygons than all previous ones. But anyway it should be allowed to communicate this fact to the customers to prevent them from being disappointed.

[virtuali]

Throughout all german forums You will find, that KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries. With or without ai-traffic

Since you can clearly see, from these reports:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4893.msg45477#msg45477

The scenery works fine on a diverse range of system and users, I find it difficult to believe that "Throughout all german forums" ( do you already read "ALL" german forums ? ) everybody is saying the same. It's more likely there will be some percentage of users having problems with the frame rate, and some that will not, just like here, just like Avsim.

But anyway it should be allowed to communicate this fact to the customers to prevent them from being disappointed.

Nobody "disallows" you to communicate whatever ideas you have from a scenery, you just have to expect that some OTHER user (which is what is happening here) that is NOT having performance issue, might just counterdict your experience.

However, there seems to be another misunderstanding, ONE THING is to say "KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries", that might well be, but HOW low is the performance ?

Because, if it's 30 fps, like what all the users that has shown their screenshots here seems to have (give it or take), it's really pointless saying that Zurich, for example, it's running at 40 fps, both because KLAX is clearly WAY more detailed (and it's larger), but even more because 30 fps is still a very satisfactory figure.

An entirely different thing, instead, is saying that every FSDT scenery runs fine at, let's say, 30 fps, while KLAX is running at 10. Then sorry, in THIS case, it's clear something is wrong with that system, either is badly configured (like the 1GB video card put into a 32 bit OS) or it has been tested with another very demanding addon, like the PMDG747, and the combination of the two is just too much for that specific system to handle.

[virtuali]

Some interesting comparisons here, KLAX against Zurich, FSX vs FS9, zero AI and default airplane, which is the only sane way to compare sceneries.

First is KLAX, an high polygon scenery with no FS9 code in FSX, and it runs faster in FSX than FS9!, polygonal complexity is obviously the same (the models are the same) the texture folder in the FS9 version is 170MB, the FSX version is 270MB, and the FS9 version doesn't have animated ground vehicles, bump mapping, elevated taxiways, and jetways are static, but FSX is faster.

Then we have Zurich, way less polygons than KLAX, which under FSX is slower than KLAX (it still has lots of FS9 code that FSX doesn't like much), but is really fast under FS9.

This simply confirms what I was saying all along, when you cross a certain threshold of polygonal complexity, FS9 just can't keep it up with it anymore, and of course it doesn't get better if, on *top* of having a polygonally complex scenery, you have a polygonally complex airplane and add many AI models, the overall density becomes too much for the FS9 graphic engine to handle.

It's not that KLAX is not "made for FS9", it's code IS 100% native for FS9, it's simply an exceptionally detailed FS9 scenery...

By *removing* all the FS9 code from FSX, we finally got free to use it as it was intended, and added a lot of detail to the models, which doesn't seem to be a problem for FSX to handle. Before, when we still used FS9 code inside FSX, we had to *restrain* ourselves a lot with polygonal detail, to the effect the FSX version didn't run *that* better in any case, but the FS9 version was really fast.

I'm sorry, but other than giving you the possible reason (which of course doesn't explain the 7 or 10 fps figure someone cited, with systems way faster than mine...) why KLAX could be very demanding on FS9, there's not much else we can say, other than TRY THE TRIAL FIRST.