Smoother and better fps with more detail

[zemez 184]

4 minutes ago, Todd2 said:

I definitely get better performance at 70 render scaling than 120 I just checked it.

I would be worried if you dont get better FPS with lowering scaling setting.

Edited August 27, 2020 by zemez

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Some are running it in 4k and people are flying in different areas with different configs with different drivers with different background software. Though many people in this thread are of the very competent types, so some of this does not apply to them. For the "computer competent" people having issues, I do not know what the differences are other than what I stated above (flying in different areas).

I have mixed results, most smaller cities up to about 2-3 mil are pretty good, after that it's a bit slower. However, I'm using mostly Ultra settings with an Nvidia 2060, but 1080p only, so even though not in 4k, I think my performance is as expected given my config. For those using higher-end setups, no idea.

[CarlosF 1,268]

3 hours ago, robert young said:

I'm actually getting better performance with higher detail

I can concur, exactly my case, my pc is not high-end by any means and my settings are on ultra for the most part, Im getting upper 30's consistently. So I believe something is going on because it just doesn't make sense.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by CarlosF

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

5 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I can concur, exactly my case, my pc is not high-end by any means and my settings are on ultra for the most part, Im getting upper 30's consistently. So I believe something is definitely something going on, just does not make sense.

Upper 30's where, every area has a different FPS. Your probably not getting upper 30's fps in New York, downtown Seattle, or over Tokyo.

I feel the only way we can really compare is with a clear sky flying far over ocean, and compare that to flying over an island, and then compare that to flying in circles over some airport in a city. So three tests for each person using the same scenery. Then report back if you really want to know your FPS. I'll submit something in another thread once I do it.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by SceneryFX

[Nyxx 6,996]

15 hours ago, robert young said:

I've been tweaking the graphics settings and I've discovered something that is rather surprising.......

Robert I am running 51 FPS but now run 45 FPS. It's pointless discussing how you got to 50 FPS and how I get the same, but Ive been tweaking setting and at a cost of 5 FPS I think these are my final settings. 

I am posting them because our PC are close spec wise and you final FPS are the same as mine was but am happy to lose 5 FPS to get the results I now see, try these.

 

[robert young 2,900]

8 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Robert I am running 51 FPS but now run 45 FPS. It's pointless discussing how you got to 50 FPS and how I get the same, but Ive been tweaking setting and at a cost of 5 FPS I think these are my final settings. 

I am posting them because our PC are close spec wise and you final FPS are the same as mine was but am happy to lose 5 FPS to get the results I now see, try these.

Hi Nyxx, Thanks for that image and your post. I'm very impressed at the level of detail you are achieving at those frame rates. I can't get close to that. I'm finding that 45-50 fps is ideal for smooth motion. The aircraft movements tend to stutter a bit when fps gets into the low 30s. I'm tweaking with some of your settings to see if I can get anywhere near your detail levels. You must be seeing a visual feast with those settings!

The other odd thing is that I can sometimes get perfectly smooth motion even in very building/scenery heavy areas like Miami, but oddly sometimes get poor fps in some deserts with barely any buildings or roads around.

[hangar 661]

On 8/27/2020 at 10:46 AM, robert young said:

As soon as I upped the render scaling to 120-130 the frame rates slightly improved and the cpu monitor turned green. I noticed that the GPU was now working slightly harder but the CPU was working less hard

Yep, this has been a thing for quite awhile now. typically it occurs  with games that are more GPU than CPU driven. If you turn your settings too low it can actually effect the performance in a negative way!

[Paraffin 2,197]

22 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

This is all a bit frustrating for me. My experience of the sim is at consistently good FPS with almost no discernible stuttering, yet all around me, people are pretty much screaming in pain, while I have no clue what is causing such wildly varying individual results.....

At the moment, I'm on the high end preset, with essentially seamlessly smooth flight, on a system not noticeably more powerful than that rocked by many people here.... So....... what the heck is happening?

One issue about "screaming" is that we all have different tolerances for things like frame rate interruption or visual artifacts like pop-in.

For example, your mention of "almost no discernible stuttering" is a big red flag in my world. Any stuttering at all, no matter how small or infrequent, drives me nuts. 🙂

Pop-in drives me nuts too. I have a medium-grade rig (specs below) and I'm not running 4k. I also have a very fast and hardwired Internet connection. With just in-game settings and nothing external, I can get a smooth and completely stutter-free frame rate in the mid 30's to mid 40's. That's fine in terms of flyability, but there are no settings I can find that kill the ground texture and occasional object pop-ins when flying at low altitude. This isn't distant LOD stuff, it's right below and in front of the plane, mostly when flying in areas outside the ones with photogrammetry.

This pop-in issue has been there since the Alpha, and doesn't seem to be correlated with the load on my CPU, GPU, or RAM when changing graphics settings. It's either a scenery generating bug, or a "feature" that Asobo has decided isn't bothering enough people. I really hope it's not the latter.

[Nyxx 6,996]

2 hours ago, robert young said:

Hi Nyxx, Thanks for that image and your post. I'm very impressed at the level of detail you are achieving at those frame rates. I can't get close to that. I'm finding that 45-50 fps is ideal for smooth motion. The aircraft movements tend to stutter a bit when fps gets into the low 30s. I'm tweaking with some of your settings to see if I can get anywhere near your detail levels. You must be seeing a visual feast with those settings!

The other odd thing is that I can sometimes get perfectly smooth motion even in very building/scenery heavy areas like Miami, but oddly sometimes get poor fps in some deserts with barely any buildings or roads around.

Its not a tweak I found but I did just now, in the "in-game" UI (top of screen) under setting (far right option) turn OFF the map, got 2 FPS and after a restart got an extra 5 FPS, people are all reporting +5 and I can confirm also from 44 FPS to 49/50 FPS.

[robert young 2,900]

Just now, Nyxx said:

Its not a tweak I found but I did just now, in the "in-game" UI (top of screen) under setting (far right option) turn OFF the map, got 2 FPS and after a restart got an extra 5 FPS, people are all reporting +5 and I can confirm also from 44 FPS to 49/50 FPS.

Thanks. I'll try it.

[HiFlyer 9,485]

59 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

For example, your mention of "almost no discernible stuttering" is a big red flag in my world. Any stuttering at all, no matter how small or infrequent, drives me nuts. 🙂

But,,, all sims stutter, and they have for just about forever.

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

It's either a scenery generating bug, or a "feature" that Asobo has decided isn't bothering enough people. I really hope it's not the latter.

Pop-in is also a longstanding issue on any sim you can name. In Xplane, for instance, they tried hiding it with fog, and now they do things like make buildings transparent and slowly fade them in as you get closer.

P3D still just pops them in, and Aerofly simply pops them in as well, albeit and almost ridiculously large distances......

I'm not expecting that to change anytime soon.

[Paraffin 2,197]

9 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

But,,, all sims stutter, and they have for just about forever.

No, they don't.

Look at the specs on my rig below. When flying the current Vulkan version of X-Plane, I see no stutters under any conditions.

The frame rate will drop if I'm in heavy clouds, but there are no stutters. And I'm using medium graphics settings, not a stripped-down configuration in the sim. 

I don't recall hearing about stutters in Areofly FS2 either, which would be even worse in VR, but that's anecdotal since I haven't flown it. I can only report that I see zero stutters in XP11.

 

14 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

P3D still just pops them in, and Aerofly simply pops them in as well, albeit and almost ridiculously large distances....

If XP is "fading in" scenery at large distances then I don't find that a problem. It's sudden pop-in that I object to, especially when it happens on textures right in front of the plane, and not at a distance like I'm seeing in MSFS.

Slow appearance of objects in the distance is more-or-less correlated to what we see in the real world. Sudden pop-in close to your location is not. That's a problem. 

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

9 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

But,,, all sims stutter, and they have for just about forever.

No, they don't.

Look at the specs on my rig below. When flying the current Vulkan version of X-Plane, I see no stutters under any conditions.

The frame rate will drop if I'm in heavy clouds, but there are no stutters. And I'm using medium graphics settings, not a stripped-down configuration in the sim. 

I don't recall hearing about stutters in Areofly FS2 either, which would be even worse in VR, but that's anecdotal since I haven't flown it. I can only report that I see zero stutters in XP11.

19 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Pop-in is also a longstanding issue on any sim you can name. In Xplane, for instance, they tried hiding it with fog, and now they do things like make buildings transparent and slowly fade them in as you get closer.

If XP is "fading in" scenery at large distances then I don't find that a problem. It's sudden pop-in that I object to, especially when it happens on textures right in front of the plane, and not at a distance like I'm seeing in MSFS.

Slow appearance of objects in the distance is more-or-less correlated to what we see in the real world. Sudden pop-in close to your location is not. That's a problem. 

 

[HiFlyer 9,485]

46 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

If XP is "fading in" scenery at large distances then I don't find that a problem. It's sudden pop-in that I object to, especially when it happens on textures right in front of the plane, and not at a distance like I'm seeing in MSFS.

Slow appearance of objects in the distance is more-or-less correlated to what we see in the real world. Sudden pop-in close to your location is not. That's a problem. 

I fly Xplane with all settings maxed, and here is an experiment I encourage anyone interested to try. At non-hdr settings, XP buildings in the distance are indeed transparent and slowly fade into view. At HDR settings they simply pop into view as you get closer, much like any sim, and indeed as in MSFS.

Launch from KJFK towards NYC. Watch as you get closer to the city, as swaths of buildings pop up. 

Of note is that in non-photogrammetry circumstances, building pop-in is approximately the same across both sims, and I would even grant extended viewing distance to MSFS.

The caveat is that there is indeed scenery pop-in due to the ortho loading in msfs, but again, I give the sims rough parity, due to the fact that MSFS is simply doing so much more as far as enhanced cloud view distances, reflections, shadows, grass and a host of other effects.

One can easily get 80fps and above with equivalent smoothness by simply turning off Ortho loading and other MSFS effects that X_plane is simply not emulating, like long distance tree and building shadows, etc.

Edited August 28, 2020 by HiFlyer

[Ricardo41 6,005]

On 8/27/2020 at 4:46 PM, robert young said:

I've been tweaking the graphics settings and I've discovered something that is rather surprising. Please note this might have the opposite effect on your system.