Is reality getting in the way of performance....

....which in turn makes reality possible, etc, etc, etc!

My specific question is this - -do these over-the-top cabin interiors that some aircraft are sporting these days come at a performance price? Do they affect frame rates even when you are comfortably ensconced in the cockpit minding the business of flight? And if they do, is it possible to disable that feature in the interest of better performance up front?

I am as much in favor of an immersion experience as the next guy but I certainly hope I'm not paying for it in X-Plane and FSX because of the dubious ability to stretch out in First Class and emulate taking a break like I did on the long hauls.

Tony Vallillo

Every single thing you see or compute in FS will cost performance. How much performance depends on many factors.

DJ

Reminds me of that lame joke. Doctor asks, "Does it hurt when you do this?" "Yes" "Then don't do it"

Like NMLW said, don't look at it and it won't hurt you.

If you don't look behind you, the monsters can never catch you!

:D :p

Pat☺

Ahhh! Another Mythbusters fan :D

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"

:D :D

Pat☺

I don't look at it! What I am asking is if all those extra polygons are hitting the performance even if I don't look at them, considering that FS or XP always has to be "ready for them" instantly if they are called up. I see an effect like this around super detailed airports where the frame rate hit extends outward for miles even when pointed in the other direction!

And yes, I know that the prescription for all graphics complaints is: "1 super expensive new computer, take one every 12 months and call me in the morning", but just wondering if this sort of thing is actually problematic. Way back in the day, when I actually understood a little bit about the computer side of FS, there was talk of additional polygons being the problem in performance......

TV

In X-Plane at least, it is not so much the polygon count that would be problematic but rather the quality or "resolution" of the textures.

In principle, the textures loaded should always be lower than the video RAM or VRAM.

You can always lower texture quality by using Rendering Options in the Settings menu (problem: this affects everything).

Or you can buy more VRAM.

Or, if you feel up to it, and this is what you were probably asking in the first place, you can use this new feature introduced in XP10.25 called "Object Kill", i.e. the ability to completely disable (via a dataref) attached objects from being drawn.

More here http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/11/kill-your-objects/ and here http://developer.x-plane.com/?article=using-object-kill-datarefs-to-improve-framerate.

Now, this is very much developer stuff, so ... good luck ! :)

That is the answer to the question I was asking! Everything, visible or not, has a demand on the computer.

Unfortunately, I am a pilot, and not a computer guy; all I know about these things is how to turn them on and off (and I don't always have success with that!). So I will leave action to those who are adept at this sort of thing.

It would be nice for the developers to have a version, or perhaps a selectable mode, that would only involve the in-cockpit experience, if by doing so they could improve the performance on the less-than-Cray machines that some of us have. After all, walkaround inspections, important as they are, are always relegated to the newbie; and outside the cockpit views are completely alien to the real world! Except when on breaks, of course. But then we were either sleeping or in the case of the younger pilots watching videos, which could be handled in ways that have no effect on performance!!

TV

....which in turn makes reality possible, etc, etc, etc!

 

My specific question is this - -do these over-the-top cabin interiors that some aircraft are sporting these days come at a performance price? Do they affect frame rates even when you are comfortably ensconced in the cockpit minding the business of flight? And if they do, is it possible to disable that feature in the interest of better performance up front?

 

I am as much in favor of an immersion experience as the next guy but I certainly hope I'm not paying for it in X-Plane and FSX because of the dubious ability to stretch out in First Class and emulate taking a break like I did on the long hauls.

 

Tony Vallillo

Your post sent me surfing on Google. I'm not a computer guy or pilot, but as time goes by I am learning more and more all the time. Its an interesting subject that you brought up. If I am not mistaken a lot of the performance problems have to do with the development of the planes and scenery that we install into our flight sims. If it is not set up correctly by the developer it can really cause performance problems. Which will lead us to trying to find and correct problems with our simulator and or computers. When these are usually not the problem. I have both boxed and steam editions with only one change to configuration file (WideViewAspect=True). I have also X-plane which a different animal and a subject for another day. If you want to get the most out of flight simulation it is advantageous to learn about flight and computers. Not only to better ourselves at flight, but also to make the enjoyment level better.

there was talk of additional polygons being the problem in performance......

 

At one time it was limited to 65,000. Now its been raised. I believe 400,000.

So much time is wasted on crap that isn't important. Like interiors of aircraft and even terminals. Why the hell do we need to have detailed terminals ON THE INSIDE? Seriously??

Please.

Cockpit and FDE first for an aircraft. The rest, even external models to me are a complete waste of time. I don't care about whether the engine pylons are detailed or not. I don't care if the wings flex or not.

Somebody said once that the Level-D 767 has correct wing flex. I've owned it since the PIC 767 days then used it extensively in the Level-D fs2004 format and to this day I have never ever EVER looked at the wings to see it flexing.

WHO CARES???!!!!!!!

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS!! Perhaps you can understand what I'm saying better if you go to the Screen Shot Forums! Those people, who also buy software, often don't care about how a plane flies or truth be known even if it flies. As long as they can pose it to look great in a screen shot, they're thrilled. Ask Aahron! They feel the same way concerning interiors, repaints, and scenery. As long as it looks good in their screenie, they're all over it. I've had more than one person ask "How does it look, I don't care how it flies?"

While others want a hugely accurate flight simulation. They want a PMDG system they can program, cross their arms, and let the plane fly for thousands of miles over various waypoints & then land itself.

Still others really value "walking" around their aircraft in pre-flight fashion. And others want to "hear" the crew giving life saving info, asking passengers to raise their seat backs, etc.

Bottom line is most designers try to come up with a product that appeals to the most people. Some like flying accuracy and frame rates, others live and die by screen shot appearance. So we usually end up with a little of each.

Sadly the flight sim market is small enough its' not cost effective to concentrate on just one aspect. So I just live with what I can't change. If you're going to continue to sim, that's you'll probably end up doing too.

Well, both JSMR and Rupert make valid points. The FS9 developers did a decent job of balancing physics vs graphics, the end result being a sim that is great in neither aspect but adequate in both. Dissent arises when you add something that turns out to be biased the opposite of your preferences.

And each of us has their own level of realism; for example, I have a beautiful payware Citation X which I rarely fly simply because the arduous ordeal of just getting the engines started and the instruments operating seems to take longer than the flight itself; for some this is wonderful engineering, and I can certainly appreciate that but wish there were a "one click" option to be ready for taxi. I recall a nice freeware Hindenburg with a fairly complete interior ...where you appeared, and had to find your way through the lounge, halls, stairs, and ladders to the control cabin. Every time. I appreciate the work that went into all this but would have preferred to start in the control cabin, and stroll the rest of this giant structure after the flight was underway.

My major complaint with FS9 has long been that at any altitude below airliner flights the ground scenery is, at best, mediocre. Highways are jagged grey lines against a washed out watercolor background, cities are a few skyscrapers standing in a barren plain, rivers are disconnected strings of generic water; even something as well known as Niagara Falls is shoddily represented. For those preferring low level VFR flights it is a poor world indeed. But ...indications are that those high altitude airliners are the most popular aspect of FS9, so that's what MS designed for.

This same debate rages in virtually every other game community. Some people don't care that a racing "sim" is little more than an arcade game at heart as long as they can spread high res graphics across three screens and show off to their friends that it looks like a movie of the real thing ...while deriding those "ugly" sims with "ten year old graphics" that feature realistic car handling and decent AI. An rpg will be touted for graphics that would tax a liquid cooled Cray, even though gameplay is such that within two weeks it's "been there, done that"; another will be castigated for "dated graphics" and "too slow", though its depth and breadth mean you could play for months and not see everything.

As the late Rick Nelson sang, "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself."

Well, both JSMR and Rupert make valid points. The FS9 developers did a decent job of balancing physics vs graphics, the end result being a sim that is great in neither aspect but adequate in both. Dissent arises when you add something that turns out to be biased the opposite of your preferences.

 

And each of us has their own level of realism; for example, I have a beautiful payware Citation X which I rarely fly simply because the arduous ordeal of just getting the engines started and the instruments operating seems to take longer than the flight itself; for some this is wonderful engineering, and I can certainly appreciate that but wish there were a "one click" option to be ready for taxi.

 

As the late Rick Nelson sang, "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself."

JGF,

I think I can help with your wish of just being ready to taxi. Just one time, pick out the airport of your choice. Then go through the startup procedure and get ready for taxi.

When you have everything set up and are ready to taxi, STOP & SAVE THAT FLIGHT Call it whatever makes sense to you and then click on "MAKE THIS THE DEFAULT FLIGHT." If you do that correctly every time you start it will start with engines running, lights on, whatever you did to get ready to taxi.

If you don't want to fly out of the same place all the time, just fire up your default flight & before you do anything else change the airport location. Again, if you saved your flight right your plane will be ready to go at whichever other airport you choose for that flight. Next time when you start your sim, you'll be back at home and ready to taxi as well.:cool:

As to the VFR scenery issue, there are tons of freeware and payware software out there you can download, many many of which are free, to make your flight look better. It won't look like a movie but you might be shocked how good it can look without hurting your flight capabilities. If you find your computer can't keep up and has out of memory or other similar errors, just back off the complexity of your scenery.;)

So much time is wasted on crap that isn't important. Like interiors of aircraft and even terminals. Why the hell do we need to have detailed terminals ON THE INSIDE? Seriously??

 

Please.

 

Cockpit and FDE first for an aircraft. The rest, even external models to me are a complete waste of time. I don't care about whether the engine pylons are detailed or not. I don't care if the wings flex or not.

 

Somebody said once that the Level-D 767 has correct wing flex. I've owned it since the PIC 767 days then used it extensively in the Level-D fs2004 format and to this day I have never ever EVER looked at the wings to see it flexing.

 

 

WHO CARES???!!!!!!!

Best post I've read in years.....I thought I was the only one who felt that way.....

Doug

JGF,

 

I think I can help with your wish of just being ready to taxi. Just one time, pick out the airport of your choice. Then go through the startup procedure and get ready for taxi. ....

I've done that, but it's irritating to have to load a flight then move the aircraft rather than just select an aircraft and airport (I don't know why, it just is). But my point was they could have given us "normal" and "advanced" options so you could go through the entire startup procedure if you wish or just use the default key combination to start the engines (one of my favorite FS9 aircraft, the Digital Aviation Do-27, does this; in the simple mode it flies like the default aircraft but in realistic mode you must be very careful lest you damage the engine, flaps, etc.; even a bumpy landing can damage systems).

As for scenery, I use UT, GEPro, AS, etc., etc., but there is only so much you can do with the basic FS9 engine. Aerosoft Manhattan shows what can be done with urban areas without unacceptable frame rate hits, so why haven't we seen more cities done this way. But even with the best terrain textures flight below 5000ft is ... disappointing.

Also the fps aspect gets me. If the app is running smoothly with no halts/hesitation , why do we worry about fps???

+1

Also the fps aspect gets me. If the app is running smoothly with no halts/hesitation , why do we worry about fps???

Right, I've had FSX for 8 years and have never bothered to look at framerates because the sim runs smoothly and that's good enough for me!

Likewise when I go down the grocers and spy on the gorgeous lady assistant from between the tins of baked beans my pulse rate goes up but I'm still on my feet and therefore don't need to check my pulse with a stopwatch..:)

...I'm still on my feet and therefore don't need to check my pulse with a stopwatch..

Heck, I could check mine with the chimes of Big Ben, at 99% of the time. I think a stopwatch would just run down waiting for me to actually get a heartbeat. Lotsa bad drugs (prescription!), and yes, maybe a bit of herbal medicine. I love that Oregon legalized it!

:D

Pat☺