Author Topic: KLAX/KJFK performance  (Read 18539 times)

JonnyT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2012, 02:17:56 pm »
@flapsup
rude is where you are wrong. (argumentative is the better word) Technically I spent £30 GBP on the scenery for FS2004, as advertised so I think it's my right as a customer to get such support.
And the reason I have a dell is because it's the only maker my parents would buy me at the time... Still... Even if I made it myself would it be much better? No probably not. Anyway, the differences in the 2 GPUs are that my current one (tested on Crysis, maybe irrelevant) got 9 FPS.
The one I will be getting got 15 FPS on the same system with settings maxed. With one setting off ot got 39, so hopefully the same effect will happen at LAX, which was my original question. Regardless of how FS9 uses GPU it will make a difference as I can edit the fs9.cfg settings that inhibit it.


virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50700
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2012, 02:50:29 pm »
Technically I spent £30 GBP on the scenery for FS2004, as advertised so I think it's my right as a customer to get such support.

More exactly:

You have been given the chance the TRY the scenery on your system for free, using the freely available installer without requiring any registration (and this is *also* clearly advertised all over our website), and the whole point of offering a Trial, is to let you judge how the scenery works on YOUR system BEFORE purchasing it.

So yes, you have the right to get support if the scenery doesn't work, but you can't complain if it doesn't run as fast as you would like to, because you are being given any chance to verify how it performs, before purchasing it.

The Trial version never expires, you just can't run for more than 5 minutes at once, which is just perfect to test fps, change your config, launch Flight sim again, try another tweak, you can do every test you like BEFORE purchasing.

So, quite simple, the scenery is made as it is.

Could you get better performances by upgrading the GPU ? Maybe. But wouldn't be worth it, using a GPU that will shine on FSX, just to get a *modest* benefit in FS9 ? I don't personally think it will, but you are of course free to spend your money on hardware as you please, just keep in mind that keep throwing hardware on FS9 works only up to a certain point, after that you won't get anymore benefits, because the software is simply not designed to take advantage from it.

JonnyT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2012, 03:13:25 pm »
Well...
GPU it is. I have frames locked at 25 anyway but LA is the most fps hungry airport I have, apart from one by 'frameratefriendly' studios, who does the exact opposite, so I uninstalled it.

But honestly people with FS9 have claimed amazing performance with your scenery so I don't think FS9 is as limiting as you make out!

However, I think if this GPU makes a 5fps difference to my one, then that would be perfect. It would be locked at 25 when not looking at big areas, then when looking at them.. It should maybe drop down to minimum 20 which is perfectly fine for me...

Anyone know any way to convert ALL AI textures to a small size without doing each aircraft separate?

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50700
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2012, 04:00:43 pm »
GPU it is.

No, it's more CPU limited. Which doesn't mean you won't get any benefit using a better GPU, just it might not be worth the cost, your video card is already fairly good.

Quote
But honestly people with FS9 have claimed amazing performance with your scenery so I don't think FS9 is as limiting as you make out!

Yes it is, and those users have faster CPU instead and, guess what, those with good fps usually have high mhz systems, even if they aren't so new, like the Intel E8400, which is quite fast, but not really strong in multithreading like the i7, which even more proves my point that FS9 doesn't work very well with the more recent hardware, which is geared more towards parallelism than mhz.

JonnyT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2012, 05:32:04 pm »
Stop contradicting me!
My video card is not good. It has crappy load times.
The new one is like 200mHz faster on the GPU processor and like 1GHz faster on the memory clock and having spoken to a guy who spent last decade of his life customizing PCs for FS, I think he'd know if a better GPU will boost my *overall* performance - and my CPU cannot be upgraded at this time due to cost (as next one up is very expensive)!

And my processor cores are each 3.2GHz which is pretty fast even on a single core... And the 6GHz they planned before never happened due to multicore...
So how fast is this E8000 considering I have a current *AMD* system? Not that I'm planning on downgrading my proceessor!

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50700
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2012, 09:59:27 pm »
Stop contradicting me!

As long as you say incorrect things, you can expect being counterdicted. If you can't accept being counterdicted, just stop posting.

Quote
My video card is not good. It has crappy load times.

Your card it's more than enough for FS9, and the video card doesn't affect load times at all. If you want to cut your load times, buy an SSD drive.

Quote
The new one is like 200mHz faster on the GPU processor

This would help running more complex shaders in the last generation games like Crysis 2, but FS9 will not benefit that much.

Quote
and like 1GHz faster on the memory clock

This will also help with the above, and a bit for the fill rate IF you are trying to drive very large monitors, or possibly multiple monitors.

Quote
and having spoken to a guy who spent last decade of his life customizing PCs for FS, I think he'd know if a better GPU will boost my *overall* performance

We do professional Flight sim developement for far longer than your friend build PCs, and of course I've built PCs even before that so, try again next time, because someone that build PCs can't possibly have the same level of expertise of someone that write the software you are going to run on them AND build PCs for years too.

Quote
and my CPU cannot be upgraded at this time due to cost (as next one up is very expensive)!

This is an entirely different issue, which obviously doesn't have anything to do the fact that FS9 would be better server by a faster (clock speed) CPU, rather than upgrading to a better video card, which FS9 won't use much.

But yes, with a newer video card, you'll get probably better fps in Crysis 2...

Quote
So how fast is this E8000 considering I have a current *AMD* system? Not that I'm planning on downgrading my proceessor!

I haven't said the E8400 is automatically better than YOUR processor. I simply said that, seeing another user getting very good results using a fairly old cpu like the E8400, but with a good clock speed, just PROVES my point that FS9 doesn't really need a new processor optimized for multicore, but it can work with any cpu that has a fast clock. So yes, even if your cpu is more modern, you are not getting any benefit in FS9, which is what I've was saying all along.

You are trying everything kind of explanation, because you don't want to accept the sad reality which is:

- You will not see great benefits using a better video card, which might be the easiest upgrade, because FS9 doesn't have a graphic engine advanced enough that it would require more GPU power (shaders, materials, etc.)

- You can't update your CPU because it would be too expensive, and FS9 wouldn't use a modern multi-core optimized system.

The problem, as I've said from the start, it's FS9, that's plain simple.

This because FS9 doesn't SCALE well with any hardware you throw at it. Feel free to waste your money on a new video card, unless you are interested in other games, you will only see *marginal* benefits in FS9. I anticipate you'll see a good fps increase in SPARSE areas, were you don't need it, and very few gains on the most complex sceneries, which are usually the reason why one would want to update the hardware.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:01:00 pm by virtuali »

NJFlyer606

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2012, 05:15:07 pm »
I must say that I have decent performance with KLAX on FS9 so far.

The only issue I have is that on approach about 1-2 mile before landing, something in the scenery causes my system to lag for several seconds at a time. This lasts for about 15 sec then returns to normal.  Approaching the airport from a distance is fine. Taxiing around is ok. Just that one point before landing.  Could there be a workaround for this or is this just a limitation of my system?  As I said my system can run the airport fine at all other times.

Dimon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2012, 03:12:31 am »
I must say that I have decent performance with KLAX on FS9 so far.

The only issue I have is that on approach about 1-2 mile before landing, something in the scenery causes my system to lag for several seconds at a time. This lasts for about 15 sec then returns to normal.  Approaching the airport from a distance is fine. Taxiing around is ok. Just that one point before landing.  Could there be a workaround for this or is this just a limitation of my system?  As I said my system can run the airport fine at all other times.

Having exactly the same problem with stuttering on the approach for 10-15 sec in FS2004. The overall FPS are just fine,

Any idea how fix stuttering? I'm heavily suspect that grass LODs is the primary factor to blame, but I don't know how to prove it.
i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50700
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2012, 10:59:30 am »
Any idea how fix stuttering? I'm heavily suspect that grass LODs is the primary factor to blame, but I don't know how to prove it.

It's not, and there's an easy way to check it, just slew a bit higher than 400 meters (about 1400 ft) from ground, so grass and ground detail will disappear, then go a bit lower than that and see them reappearing again. The difference in fps is barely noticeable. There's another switch at about 800 ft, with all ground lines disappearing, here I can see a bit of fps hit when then reappear, but it's not more than 10%, since I lose 3 fps when the lines reappear.

This has been beaten to death, and it seems you don't *want* to accept the hard reality: the FS9 engine is not suited for a scenery such complex, that's why it's a dead end for us (we always knew it), since once you surpass its tipping point, performances start to go down rapidly, also because we had to *add* more polygons in the FS9 version, to make up for the lack of shaders the scenery was based on in FSX so, things that could be simply made with a different parameter in FSX, requires hundreds of extra polygons in FS9, and if we didn't add them, it would look even more blurred than already it is, since it was also designed for the 4096x4096 texture resolution that FS9 doesn't support.

Don't waste your time trying to find way to "fix" the scenery, because there's nothing to fix, save for redoing it from scratch using way less polygons (KLAX it's about 5-6 times more polygonally complex than Zurich, but this is NOT a problem in FSX...), but redoing from scratch using way less polygons, wouldn't be that different than the Cloud9 version, which is still one sale so, what would be the point ? Even without considering that FS9 sales are so low right now that it would never justify a FS9-specific product made from scratch for FS9.

Dimon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: KLAX/KJFK performance
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2012, 04:27:07 pm »
Any idea how fix stuttering? I'm heavily suspect that grass LODs is the primary factor to blame, but I don't know how to prove it.


This has been beaten to death, and it seems you don't *want* to accept the hard reality:

I'm accepting the hard reality pretty well. IB will be out by the end of this week, then I'll wait and see whether it's better than SB-I2770K or not and then make a decision. And yes, after 6 years after release of FSX I'm finally concerned that now it's time.  ;)
i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.