FS2004 Default Terminal 2/3 .bgl

[gmcg]

Hi there,

I'm a new member and have a question about adding the default terminal's 2 and 3 back to KORD 

I've tired everything to get the FPS up to where I have them locked and restored to finally removing the .bgls for Terminal 2/3 since I never use those gates and they seemed to be where I experience the greatest FPS hit. It seemed to work for the most part (now I get 25 FPS while having it locked at 29 compared to 20ish before) but now I have a vacant area and wonder if I could get the default FS2004 scenery back for that to make it look a little better. 

Also, was wondering if there is a list available of all the .bgls in the scenery folder so I know what they are and such? I only figured out the terminal .bgls since they had T2 and T3 in their name. Finally, is there anything else I can do to make the FPS go up to 29 like I have them locked at? I've tried everything. Settings in my graphics card, changing the textures to DXT3 and then DXT1, and removing .bgls as well.

Thanks!

[virtuali]

Sorry, but we can't support such modifications. Your fps are abnormally slow, so they surely aren't caused by KORD scenery but, most likely, too many AI. KORD is very well known to be fairly light on fps, and nobody really complained about it.

Instead of destroying the airport, try to lower your AI first.

[gmcg]

Don't use AI and all my FS2004 settings are on minimum. My system can peak out at 60-100+ FPS but I like to keep it locked at 29 so it doesn't work as hard. So don't give me that "KORD isn't the issue blah blah" stuff. KORD FSDT is the only scenery I use that gets poor FPS close to the terminals. It gets up to 29 when I'm away from buildings. All other FSDT products I have work very well too (expect for KLAX and I returned it).

I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh but I've been tweaking/messing with KORD for months before I even decided to join the forums and the general tone I get from FSDT is that it isn't their fault 

Do you have any other suggestions? I've literally probably tired it all before though.

[virtuali]

Don't use AI and all my FS2004 settings are on minimum. My system can peak out at 60-100+ FPS but I like to keep it locked at 29 so it doesn't work as hard. So don't give me that "KORD isn't the issue blah blah" stuff. KORD FSDT is the only scenery I use that gets poor FPS close to the terminals. It gets up to 29 when I'm away from buildings. All other FSDT products I have work very well too (expect for KLAX and I returned it)

Since KORD is very well known for not being fps heavy, it's fairly obvious you either have a system problem or something else is interfering.

I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh but I've been tweaking/messing with KORD for months before I even decided to join the forums and the general tone I get from FSDT is that it isn't their fault  

Because it obviously isn't, and if you made a bit of research around the various flight sim forums on the good reputation for fps ALL our sceneries have (with the exclusion of KLAX for FS9, that wasn't really made for FS9 in mind, and is not as fast as our other sceneries), and especially KORD, you would have had poof of this.

But of course, you don't have to take my word for it, just have a look at the attached screenshots on my system. As you can see, with the framerate locked at 30 fps, the scenery can keep with it easily, and it goes at 40 unlocked, without removing anything.

This, compared to your reported 20ish figure with all the scenery in.

So, if my system, which is not really the most adequate for FS9 ( it's a MacPro 8 core @ 2.66, but since FS9 doesn't really use more than one, it's similar to a 2.66 Core Duo, and the graphic card is an ATI 4870 with 512 MB, so it's almost obsolete by now ), runs DOUBLE the fps you are reporting, it's clear the problem is NOT the scenery, but something else you installed.

Do you have any other suggestions? I've literally probably tired it all before though.

Have you tried searching for other sceneries around ? Do you have FlyTampa Midway, for example ?

[gmcg]

FSDT KORD is the only only scenery where I get the less than what I have locked when near terminals. All other payware scenery (including Hawaii Vol 1/2, PHNL, and yes Fly Tampa KMDW ) could max out at 60+ FPS near the terminal if I allowed my computer to do it. Same add-on aircraft is used as the constant.

It seemed I even got better FPS with KORD version 1. My biggest hit with terminal's 2/3 bgls installed is at gate B1 and around the Hilton and then into Terminal 2/3. I've even noticed a hit when a animated vehicle cuts me off.

No other KORD scenery is installed (unless version 1 is conflicting with version 2 somehow), all drives are up to date, and all my textures for ORD have been downgraded to DXT3.

[gmcg]

Plus again.... I get good FPS away from the buildings. It is when I get up close parked at the gate or taxing in to the southport that it starts to drop.

[virtuali]

FSDT KORD is the only only scenery where I get the less than what I have locked when near terminals

Fact is, you are the only one reporting this, we had many reports of low fps with KLAX (due to how its being made) or maybe JFK (because it lies in a very fps heavy area already), but not really KORD.

my textures for ORD have been downgraded to DXT3.

That wouldn't be a "downgrade" or a good idea anyway. First, because DXT3 is NOT a downgrade, it might be in case a scenery or airplane was wrongly made with 32 bit textures so, by compressing to DXT3, you are reducing size and gain speed COMPARED to the original 32 bit format.

But KORD, since is very well know to be fps friendly, it's ALREADY optimized, since there are no 32 bit textures to reduce, and some textures are in DXT1 and others are in DXT3 which means, if you think to have downgraded them, you instead simply recompressed at the same size (losing visual quality, because it's wrong to recompress something which was already compressed) those that were already in DXT3, and *increased* their size in case they were in DXT1

The rule is: if a texture has an Alpha channel, it must be DXT3, if it doesn't or the Alpha channel can be expressed with 1 bit (just black and white), it must be DXT1.

Remove everything, including your modified textures, and try the scenery as it is.

And, try to reduce the "Max textures size" parameter one notch to the left. This will let you know if the problem with your system is related to texture memory.

[gmcg]

I only changed the non-DXT3 textures to DXT3. Also I forgot to mention that I get a decrease at JFK as well but not as bad for some reason. In addition to everything else.... I'm running on a relatively fresh install of FS2004 too. I had KORD V2 on my old install and had maybe only slightly better FPS. Then again I was using AS6.5 compared to ASE now (and yes I've tested without ASE turned on to rule that program out).

Why do you mean by "try to reduce the 'Max textures size' parameter one notch to the left." All my FS2004 settings are on minimal now and I've not seen that option in the display settings.

 

[virtuali]

I get a decrease at JFK as well but not as bad for some reason

KORD is *definitely* faster than JFK

I only changed the non-DXT3 textures to DXT3

That's exactly what I've said: since the only non-DXT3 textures are in DXT1, you have actually *increased* their size for nothing, and lowered the quality, because recompressing an already compressed image, will lower its quality.

Why do you mean by "try to reduce the 'Max textures size' parameter one notch to the left." All my FS2004 settings are on minimal now and I've not seen that option in the display settings.

It's on the "Hardware" tab. Sorry, but can't believe you are getting so low performances, with "all settings on minimal".

[gmcg]

KORD is *definitely* faster than JFK

That may very well but the worst I saw at JFK was 26 locked at 29 and that was near the terminal at night after a 6 hour flight.

That's exactly what I've said: since the only non-DXT3 textures are in DXT1, you have actually *increased* their size for nothing, and lowered the quality, because recompressing an already compressed image, will lower its quality.

I know for a fact that there was some 16 bit textures in the folder. I wouldn't have changed anything if it was all DXT3 or DXT1

It's on the "Hardware" tab. Sorry, but can't believe you are getting so low performances, with "all settings on minimal".

Why would I make this up    

I'll post a picture of my settings later tonight or tomorrow to prove it.

[virtuali]

That may very well but the worst I saw at JFK was 26 locked at 29 and that was near the terminal at night after a 6 hour flight.

Which clearly proves you (modified) KORD installation have problems that are relevant to your system only, because that KORD is faster than JFK is widely known.

I know for a fact that there was some 16 bit textures in the folder. I wouldn't have changed anything if it was all DXT3 or DXT1

You are now confusing bit depth with compression format. DXT1 IS 16 bit, because colors are encoded with 5:6:5, 5 bits for Red, 6 for Green, 5 for Blue and 1 bit of Alpha, which totals exactly 16 bit.

What you were trying to say, probably, is that you believe some textures came in 16 bit uncompressed format. But this is not the case, from the original installer as we distribute, there are NO NON-DXT textures in the KORD texture folder, not a single one. Some of them are in DXT1, some are in DXT3.

So, exactly as I've said (twice) by "reducing" everything to DXT3, you haven't reduced anything but, instead, have increased the size (for nothing) of all the former DXT1 textures into DXT3.

As I've said before, if a texture has an Alpha channel that is just black and white, so it can be expressed with 1 bit, it will be a waste of both space and speed using DXT3.

AND, if a texture doesn't even have an Alpha channel to begin with, using DXT3 will cause slowdowns and stuttering, you HAVE to use DXT1 for it, and since you "reduced" everything to DXT3, without taking into account how the source texture was, this might explain some performance problems.

I'll repeat it again: there are no 16-bit uncompressed textures in KORD as we distribute it. And this can be easily proven by clean installing the current installer, taking care to *remove* the texture folder before installing, otherwise your new modified textures will not be overwritten, and you might be misled thinking they are in 16 bit mode, when they were probably a result of some tweaks you tried, which you might have forgotten. OR, if you used some kind of batch utility to do this, they might have been temporary files created by that utility to convert back and forth, but they are NOT coming from our installer, this is for sure.

I'll post a picture of my settings later tonight or tomorrow to prove it.

It's not that I don't *believe* you have these settings, it's that you SHOULD'T get these performance with "all settings to minimal" as you said. But this is not even relevant to KORD: you said your system can run at 50-60 fps ? Well, if that figure is with "all settings to minimal", then something is VERY wrong with your system, or it's very old, because FS9 with "all settings to minimal", should run WAY faster than that.

[gmcg]

I know it should with FS2004 and I was getting these FPS values before I started messing with everything..... hence why I started messing around in the first place.

What do you suggest? Do a complete scrub of KORD and re-install in? I'll do it again but I'm 99% positive the same result is going to occur. Will report back.

Thank you for at least being prompt with the responses. So many forums lack that 

[virtuali]

What do you suggest? Do a complete scrub of KORD and re-install in? I'll do it again but I'm 99% positive the same result is going to occur. Will report back.

That should be the first thing to try, at least we would discuss about the same set of files.

Thank you for at least being prompt with the responses. So many forums lack that 

We have a reputation for fast support (see my message count), which goes well with our reputation to do fps-friendly sceneries, like KORD...

[gmcg]

Downloaded a new version of FSDT KORD V2 like you asked. The FPS went downhill really fast compared to my previous install and even KORD V1.

Here is a boat load of screen shots. I will agree that somehow the EHSI on the LDS767 in the 2-D panel might be playing some role since I'm using a fresh install. My old version of FS2004 and LDS 757/767 never had this issue. Yet then it has to be FSDT KORD mostly since I've shown that I can get the FPS to improve using different textures and/or removing a .BGL.

Any ideas? I'm kinda getting desperate now  

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/78261179.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 1(4)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/73719453.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 2(4)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/60352064.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 3(4)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/75319279.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 4(4)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/capture1zn.jpg
GeForce 210 Settings 1(2)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/capture2sz.jpg
GeForce 210 Settings 2(2)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/50984296.jpg
Task Manager with FS2004 running at KORD

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/capture4bn.jpg
2-D Panel sitting on 28

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/capture5qg.jpg
VFR View sitting on 28

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/capture6g.jpg
2-D Panel sitting near the AA Gates

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/capture7ww.jpg
VFR View sitting near the AA Gates

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/capture8r.jpg
Worst FPS area.... 2-D Panel at the Southport looking at B1/Hilton/Terminal 2

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/capture9a.jpg
Worst FPS area.... VFR View at the Southport looking at B1/Hilton/Terminal 2

[gmcg]

Would a new Graphics Card help? More RAM?

I'm lost at this point.....