FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Los Angeles support FS9 => Topic started by: JonnyT on March 13, 2012, 03:19:21 pm
-
Hello,
I recently purchased KLAX and KJFK for FS2004.
I notice (well mainly because I was in iFly 737 with 55% AI with WOAI installed) I get about 11 or so FPS. I do have a lot of other addons installed, but I was wondering if the following changes to my system would improve performance:
I have Dell Inspiron with AMD athlon x4 3.2 GHz
6GB DDR3/5 RAM
ATI radeon 6450. (1GB)
Would upgrading the GPU to an XFX HD 6770 (1GB) make a big difference?
And any other tweaks???
-
Upgrading the video card might help, but the best upgrade would be upgrading to FSX instead, airports under FS9 don't get much benefit from an upgraded video card, especially KLAX, which is faster in FSX than FS9:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4899.msg45498#msg45498
-
Yeh well that isn't really an option considering the amount of money I've spent on it. I wouldn't go to FSX for one or two addons.
I've heard maybe anti aliasing on the video card instead of in game...
But just so I know, is the update for JFK going to be for FS9 as well? And will it add YA crossing 22R and the new holds around 31L??
-
And having spoken to a man I know who's spent 5-6 years building computers and he says FS9 is much more GPU than CPU dependant, and given my current one, with 1GB but very low clock speeds, versus one with 4.3 GHz clock I think I won't ever upgrade to FSX.
(Sorry if this isn't your reason - you'll stop making FS9 stuff and then lose me as a customer :P)
-
And having spoken to a man I know who's spent 5-6 years building computers and he says FS9 is much more GPU than CPU dependant, and given my current one, with 1GB but very low clock speeds, versus one with 4.3 GHz clock I think I won't ever upgrade to FSX.
Saying that FS9 is "more GPU than CPU dependant" doesn't automatically mean it will always get a benefit when upgrading the GPU.
It only means FS9 use the CPU even worse than GPU, which is not the same thing. FS9 doesn't use more than 1 core, so you will not see huge benefits upgrading the CPU, considering that any CPU you buy today it's multicore.
But this doesn't mean it will *USE* a better GPU, because it will not, not after a certain point, where you will see benefits only if you were trying to drive a very high res monitor, or several of them. Only in that case a better GPU will help, just because of the raw fill rate.
However, the problem it's a bit more complex than that, and of course someone that builds computers can't possibly know how the *software* you are trying to run works, which in this case happened to be made by US so please, just accept the explanation:
In order to achieve a decent image quality in KLAX for FS9, since the FS9 graphic engine doesn't support a lot of the shaders we used in the FSX version, we had to simulate them using more polygons and, due how FS9 works, they affect both the CPU and the GPU, while if we were in FSX, it would be a purely GPU issue (so you WOULD get a benefit from updating the GPU, in FSX ).
On top of that, since the FS9 graphic engine doesn't support more than 32K polygons per drawcall, we had to get rid of LOD levels in FS9, otherwise the object would simply disappear, because the polygon count with LODs exceeded what FS9 supports. FSX has this limitation much higher so the FSX version, on top of being more GPU dependant, it also enjoys LOD, which help with the frame rate too.
That's why is wrong keep using FS9:
sceneries that have exceeded its capabilities are already out, and this trend is not going to reverse. On top of that, you can't even purchase better hardware to substitute the missing capabilities of the FS9 engine, because everything you will buy today will be heavily multi-threaded, and FS9 doesn't support any of this, and having a powerful GPU that will help running shaders code more fast, wouldn't help much in FS9, because its scenery format doesn't use shaders much.
(Sorry if this isn't your reason - you'll stop making FS9 stuff and then lose me as a customer )
Even if we wouldn't stop, we'll keep pushing the ahead the usage of the FSX capabilities, which means the FS9 version will not just look worse, but it might be even slower, but there's no way we'll do anything to fix this, because it would mean undermining the FSX version, which is the only version we care.
The only reason we offer an FS9 version in the first place, is to allow users to upgrade to FSX without having to say "I have too much money on addons", because it doesn't apply with *our* addons, were the cost to upgrade to FSX is exactly ZERO.
-
Sorry but you also have to consider other developers who may not be so kind - if I upgraded to FSX I would lose SSTSIM and countless sceneries.
And speaking to computer genious at the moment - you can make FS9 use multi cores. It's not very difficult actually.
-
Sorry but you also have to consider other developers who may not be so kind - if I upgraded to FSX I would lose SSTSIM and countless sceneries.
And speaking to computer genious at the moment - you can make FS9 use multi cores. It's not very difficult actually.
how do you acomplish that (could be a reason to reactivate FS9 that is still slumbering on my harddrive)
Happy Landings
Juergen
-
Well...
You have to do it each time you start FS.
Taskmanager
Processes
FS9.exe
Right click > Set Affinity
Then you see all your cores, untick all except 0
Then press ok, open set affinity again, and retick them all. This makes FS9 know it can use all however many cores.
It's a bit of bother to do this each time but it's worth it.
I guess another thing to do is to use convimx (texture resizer)
And convert all the textures like buildings and cars (less noticable) but not ground!
To DXT1 with MipMaps... also helps reduce stuttering in cases...
-
I'll give that a try!
Thanks!
Happy Landings
Juergen
-
Shouldn't really have to do that myself and to be honest I think it's rather lazy of a pay ware developer who's only solution is 'switch to FSX'.
-
Processes
FS9.exe
Right click > Set Affinity
Then you see all your cores, untick all except 0
Then press ok, open set affinity again, and retick them all. This makes FS9 know it can use all however many cores.
With that setting, is just said to Windows that you what to force the WHOLE FS9 to run ONLY on Core 0, which is exactly the *opposite* of what you were trying to achieve, so now FS9 would run just on Core 0, which means the few multithreading it has, will not be used anymore. Not that will really change much, because 95% of the workload is the graphic engine, and that will always run on a single core in FS9, playing with the affinity mask will just tweak its relationship with the REST of the operating system, so depending what other programs are running in the background, you might get small benefits (or not)
FSX multithreading it's really different, the graphic engine *knows* about multi-cores, and it's capable of running in parallel.
On top of that, since we use separate interpreter that runs *outside* FSX (the Couatl.exe program), we get OS multithreading for free, since Windows will assign free cores to different .EXE files, this means we can run even complex logic (like in GSX) without slowing down FSX itself.
Nothing you do with the affinity mask can compare to this, sorry.
-
and to be honest I think it's rather lazy of a pay ware developer who's only solution is 'switch to FSX'.
You got it entirely backwards: if we were "lazy", we could simply do a scenery that works (and looks) just the same in FS9 and FSX.
It's because we *aren't*, and used FSX the way is supposed to be used, that it ended up showing the limits of the old FS9 graphic engine.
-
So explain why, when I deselect all except 0 then reselect them all, the tskmgr shows core one working at 100%, and then afterwards, core 1 at 20, core 2 at 30, core 3 at 20 core 4 at 30. It's obviously not true what you just said because I can see it happening.
And this is mainly what happens - taxi down toward 06r, frames are about 23-25 (locked)
turn on to runway so we face the terminal - frames down to 09-12.
Maybe you could tell us your 'big group BGL' for cars and needless static objects like baggage boxes... Sure they look nice but it's not worth the performance sacrafice.
-
Shouldn't really have to do that myself and to be honest I think it's rather lazy of a pay ware developer who's only solution is 'switch to FSX'.
You must be the rudest person I have ever seen here. You own a Dell for pity sake, and the contents are low end to the extreme. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sours ear, so pull your head in.
-
So explain why, when I deselect all except 0 then reselect them all, the tskmgr shows core one working at 100%, and then afterwards, core 1 at 20, core 2 at 30, core 3 at 20 core 4 at 30. It's obviously not true what you just said because I can see it happening.
I've read that explanation on a web site, and obviously tried it, but it doesn't do that on my system, at all. What the affinity mask does is clearly explained, and what you did set exactly the opposite of what you tried to achieve, it simply forces FS9 to run on 1 CORE only.
What might happen on *your* sistem, is NOT that FS9 has magically became "multithreaded" the distributed load might just be the *rest* the running programs across the cores, not FS9 itself, this might just simply prove my point: since FS9 it's NOT multithreaded, it doesn't make any sense to tell Windows to run it on all cores so, by telling Windows (as you did) to force run it on core 0, the rest of the OS is working better.
Maybe you could tell us your 'big group BGL' for cars and needless static objects like baggage boxes... Sure they look nice but it's not worth the performance sacrafice.
That's entirely irrelevant, fact is, they are faster in FSX, regardless if they are needed or not, which is of course your opinion.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)