Jump to content

Hardware Mode (full screen) FPS capped at 30. Why?


Ottersphere

Recommended Posts

Okay All,

 

So apparently I’m having trouble understanding the relationship between CPU/GPU/Monitor in FS9 as it relates to fps.

 

To start with, here are the system specs for the retro XP SP3 build:

 

Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo

Pentium 4 3.8 GHz (SL8PY)

4GB DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 (3.1GB showing usable to XP)

XFX Radeon HD7750 1GB

Sound Blaster X-Fi (SB0880)

 

So my issue is that in full screen (hardware) mode, on both a 21” Samsung 213T, at multiple resolutions up to 1600x1200, and my 55” Samsung modern TV at up to 2560x1440, my fps seems locked around 30 fps. This is taking off at Meigs in the default Cessna and pointing it at downtown Chicago. Overclocking the CPU provides no increase, which I don’t understand if FS9 is a CPU-bound program. In

windowed (software) mode, the fps are higher in that same scenario 40+ but obviously I lose the goodies of hardware acceleration.

 

So what do I need to do to get higher fps in full screen? Would a slightly faster HD7770 with a 1000MHz bus (vs 800) and 2GB actually do it? I’m going to be adding everything and the kitchen sink to this FS9 installation so I need as much speed as possible. Sure seems like there’s a bottleneck with the graphics card in full screen mode, but I don’t understand why?

 

Thanks for any insight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In full screen mode FS uses the settings provided in the Display section of the Options, make sure your minimum frame rate is set higher than 30.

 

If so, then you probably have something in your Radeon video card settings that is locking the frame rate (VSync?). Full screen will use those settings, while windowed mode uses the Windows Desktop settings.

Tom Gibson

 

CalClassic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So upon further testing it seems that the fps is not locked at 30. Maybe the limitations of my system are just greater than I expected. If I pitch up so that nothing but sky is being rendered, I jump to 60+ fps. I guess I was expecting to see at least a few extra frames from a 4.3 GHz overclock beyond the stock 3.8 but maybe not? Disabling hyperthreading also doesn’t seem to change anything. Any thoughts commentary on those aspects?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a LOT going on in your computer when the sim is running, and more detailed/complex aircraft are one of the things that can limit your achievable frame rate, as well as complex sceneries (pretty much around all cities, and many other areas), detailed add-on sceneries also affect your frame rate. Add multiple ones of those above and you're inhibited even further.

 

Get away from detailed airports and away from cities, go fly in the Rockies (not near Denver), the Arizona desert and other such places and see if perhaps things change. The fact that nothing but sky increased your rate a lot, means that other things may, too.

 

And FS2004 is pretty much CPU bottle-necked, meaning that the graphics card, no matter how good, won't help a great deal, unlike in later versions of P3D, for example, where the GPU is heavily used to improve graphics AND performance.

 

Larry N.

As Skylab would say:

Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I understand that a lot is going on and that the fs9.cfg needs to be tweaked etc. I haven’t loaded any of the complex scenery, traffic, aircraft yet so those aren’t issues with frames yet for this round of testing. Right now I’m just trying to understand why overclocking the CPU and RAM don’t really seem to make any difference with fps in a game that we all know is CPU bound? Would I need some theoretical 10Ghz processor to get 60 fps in say an FSDT Airport, in a PMDG Aircraft, running a Traffic Add On, with this setup? Also, I’ve read accounts of people running FS9 in Windows 10 that seem to be hitting 60. BTW that will be my next project but right now I am trying to get what I can out of this current retro XP setup. Regardless of the OS though, if FS9 is a single core program, how is that kind of frame rate in complicated scenarios happening when even modern CPUs are not that fast on a single thread? Edited by Ottersphere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So upon further testing it seems that the fps is not locked at 30... ... If I pitch up so that nothing but sky is being rendered, I jump to 60+ fps.

 

Hi.

 

It sounds like your framerate is locked to multiples (or fractions) of your monitor refresh rate like a forced Vsync so if fs9 hardly ever exceeds 60 native then it will always be 60, 30, 20 or 15 in fullscreen.

 

Try right clicking fs9.exe or the shortcut and in the compatibility tab put a tick in the Disable Fullscreen Optimisations box. I've seen it suggested as a solution but it hasn't worked in Win 10 for me. Maybe it will in XP. If the option is there...

 

I don't remember the lock happening when I used XP but Win 10 does it seemingly unavoidably, which is fine on a modern machine but not great if your framerate is regularly just below 60 & being locked to half that.

 

If nothing works, there are applets that give a pseudo-fullscreen while actually retaining windowed mode so full fps and anti-aliasing. The only downside is that popup panels all still pop up windowed & need a right click to dock.

 

D

 

edit: quick experiment to see what lock is actually being imposed: In fullscreen, fly where you have 30 fps and then swap to maximised window (same amount of stuff to process & render, same size of image but now in a window). What is your fps now?

Edited by defaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So continuing the troubleshooting…………

 

I don’t have any antivirus software running so no issue there.

 

I couldn’t find any V Sync type options in the Catalyst Version 13.9 Drivers.

 

The windowed mode made as big as I can on the screen bounces around more as far as fps goes, but is on average more like 42.

 

Upon right clicking the fs9.exe there was no option to disable full screen optimizations.

Edited by Ottersphere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is that kind of frame rate in complicated scenarios happening when even modern CPUs are not that fast on a single thread?

 

I'd venture that every modern CPU is faster in single-threaded performance than a P4, no matter what the clockspeed.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that question about modern cpu single thread performance was made in the the context before I figured out the vsync setting and saw the true performance of what my overclocked P4 is. I’m actually pretty happy with the fps in my retro xp build.

 

That being said I know the modern chips still perform better, and am actually curious what kind of single thread overclock they can sustain? The fastest base clock I know of is 4.1 on the i5-10600k. Anything faster than that? Lastly, what are the other factors besides cache size that make them faster? Again, just talking about single core.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My i7-9700K can happily run at 4.9Ghz (or 5.1 without AVX) without issues, only a minor dab of voltage.

 

Generally speaking, the performance improvements have come from increased instructions per clock, or less blocking on certain situations (like a cache miss or branch misprediction). The P4s were pretty notorious for their very long pipelines meaning long stalls when a branch was not taken as predicted.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Anybody know how a P4 670 overclocked to 4.3 GHz would compare to a Core 2 Duo E8600 overclocked to 4.3 GHz with regard to FPS in FS9? I'm getting low 20s pointed at the terminals in FSDT's KDFW on the P4. Just wondering what a newer LGA 775 CPU would do in the same scenario.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
So I actually did the CPU swap I inquired about above. Interestingly enough, I can’t tell any difference in FPS at all. There is also no difference in FPS number (Shift Z) between the E8600 at stock speed and overclocked to 4.0 GHz. None. Surprised by this……..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attempts to gain FPS are futile, because you have reached the limits of the Software. Nine was written at a time when there no such thing as multi core Processors and 3.0 GHz clock speed. I don't think Nine knows what to do with the other Cores, and the other Cores don't know what to do with Nine, so the Software keeps plugging along with what it knows to do. It's the same thing users ran into years ago when FSX came out, and while people were building 700 horsepower, water cooled rigs with i1000 50GHz processors, 64 Gb Ram and 5.0+ clock speeds, they still suffered from both lag and stutters at certain Payware airports with loads of eye candy and ancillary features.

 

Set the guts back to their Standard configurations, get into the Cockpit, and go fly somewhere! If you get stutters, live with them or delete the stuttering airport and find a more frame rate friendly alternative.

 

I live in a Sim World at 20fps max, all the time. It works for me. YMMV. :)

"I created the Little Black Book to keep myself from getting killed..." -- Captain Elrey Borge Jeppesen

AMD 1.9GB/8GB RAM/AMD VISION 1GB GPU/500 GB HDD/WIN 7 PRO 64/FS9 CFS CFS2

COSIM banner_AVSIM3.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay All,

 

So apparently I’m having trouble understanding the relationship between CPU/GPU/Monitor in FS9 as it relates to fps.

 

To start with, here are the system specs for the retro XP SP3 build:

 

Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo

Pentium 4 3.8 GHz (SL8PY)

4GB DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 (3.1GB showing usable to XP)

XFX Radeon HD7750 1GB

Sound Blaster X-Fi (SB0880)

 

So my issue is that in full screen (hardware) mode, on both a 21” Samsung 213T, at multiple resolutions up to 1600x1200, and my 55” Samsung modern TV at up to 2560x1440, my fps seems locked around 30 fps. This is taking off at Meigs in the default Cessna and pointing it at downtown Chicago. Overclocking the CPU provides no increase, which I don’t understand if FS9 is a CPU-bound program. In

windowed (software) mode, the fps are higher in that same scenario 40+ but obviously I lose the goodies of hardware acceleration.

 

So what do I need to do to get higher fps in full screen? Would a slightly faster HD7770 with a 1000MHz bus (vs 800) and 2GB actually do it? I’m going to be adding everything and the kitchen sink to this FS9 installation so I need as much speed as possible. Sure seems like there’s a bottleneck with the graphics card in full screen mode, but I don’t understand why?

 

Thanks for any insight!

 

Don't underestimate what FS needs. A better card will absolutely help.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

As you found, out over the ocean and staring at a cloudless sky is the best way to find your maximum FPS. Comparing it then with a busy & detailed airport with weather will give a good look at the limitation of FS9, probably more so than at the limit of your hardware.

 

I'm not sure of the details of your mobo but, given that it's running a P4 and that it was released in 2005 (?), I guess that north/south chipset or bus speed is the limit rather than processor, memory or graphics card.

 

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...