Tim K Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 This isn't so much a support issue as it is a question about a difference in performance between OpenLC North America and OpenLC Europe, so if you want to move this somewhere else, feel free to do so. I have noticed that the autogen performance, specifically, loading times in OpenLC NA is much better than that of OpenLC Europe. Autogen loading and performance in P3dV4 is lacking anyway, as I have found out over the last year, but for me, there is a marked difference between these two continents. As an example... Imagine descending in the PMDG 737 and flying an approach into a default airport in a fairly large city... So, no scenery active except the OpenLC product (plus Global, Vector and REX textures)... I like to run P3dV4 with unlimited frames and vsync on. This gives me the best frame rate and the best smoothness. Flying into parts of North America where there is no other 3rd party scenery except OpenLC NA, autogen loads fine at these settings and in the above scenario. However, in the same situation as above, except in Europe, the autogen lags behind. In fact, it even lags behind when cruising at 36,000 ft or so. So, whenever I am flying in Europe, I lock the frames at 30 fps and it solves the autogen loading problem. But, depending on the situation, I get worse overall performance when I lock my frames at 30 (but that is a p3d issue and my system issue... not ORBX's). So, I am curious. Why the difference in autogen loading performance between the two products? Is it something in the code? Or is something else going on? As I said, it isn't a huge issue because it's easy to solve by switching back and forth between unlimited frames and 30 fps locked but I was just curious. Another scenery I noticed doesn't perform (loading ground textures) well for me with unlimited frames is KEGE. Again, when I lock it at 30 fps, it works beautifully. Everything else I own of Orbx loads very well at unlimited frames... Any thoughts? Again, just curious... FYI, I am running an i7 4790K @ 4.00 with Turbo on to 4.4 and a GTX 960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Hello, I would guess that the problem in both cases is that while your system is chasing frame rates, it does not have the resources remaining to load the other parts of the simulator in a timely manner. Locking the frame rate to a figure that the computer can achieve without working at full capacity has long been a fix for blurry scenery and there is no reason why it should not be a fix for a delay in loading autogen as well. For what it's worth, a far more informative figure for those who prefer to watch the frame rate counter is the V: number. Ideally it should be as close to zero as possible, the higher it is, the harder your system is working and the less success it is having achieving the target that it has been set. Here is a simple demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Hobson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 A similar discussion to this has been going on over at the Avsim forums for quite awhile now. The upshot, forcefully stated and demonstrated by a few posters, is that running P3D at unlimited frame rate with VSync On is a sure way to achieve blurries and stutters, especially with the usual complex aircraft. And pushing a GTX960 gpu at these settings is an even greater guarantee of poor graphics rendering, imo. There are folks with GTX 1080s that have trouble with setting unlimited frame rate and Vsync on in certain situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Thanks Stewart, it does seem that even faced with incontrovertible proof of a fact, there are those who know differently. It will always be so. It is one of the reasons why my visits to that discussion forum are rare. Probably with V sync off, the result would be even worse, as an even higher frame rate would be being chased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Hobson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Nick, When it became clear what the general consensus was viz-a-viz these two particular settings, unlimited frame rate and Vsync on, I quit reading the discussion. It became too nerdy for my tastes, but it put the lie to some really exaggerated claims as to what the "best" settings are for P3D. It seems everyone's setup is so different, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. But these two settings in particular are the two most misunderstood settings out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Hello Stewart, I think that there are two main proponents of the arguments, those who do not have a state of the art machine and who need the actual best settings to wring the best performance from what they do have. The second are those who do have state of the art machines that in many cases can maintain an acceptable level of performance regardless of the settings. There is a third, the user of an lower performance machine who cannot accept that the settings and performance proposed by the other two are not achievable on the device owned. It is almost impossible, when the combined motives of proving one's self correct, proving that everyone else is incorrect and all the while with the implied "my solution is the best and the only one", to have a reasoned discussion. Fot this reason, I tend to stay away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Hobson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Hello, Nick. I read enough to satisfy my curiosity and determine which settings were best for my setup, but did not enter into the discussion. Those settings have worked fine so far. They are relatively demanding, but the GTX1080 handles them pretty well, no complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted September 7, 2018 Author Share Posted September 7, 2018 Hi Nick and Stewart, Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Even with a GTX 960, I am very pleased with the performance of the sim. WAY better than FSX! 1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said: For what it's worth, a far more informative figure for those who prefer to watch the frame rate counter is the V: number. Ideally it should be as close to zero as possible, the higher it is, the harder your system is working and the less success it is having achieving the target that it has been set. I never heard of this Nick. I'll check it out just for curiosity. I am not so concerned with the discussion of unlimited vs. locked or any of that because, as both of you have pointed out, those conversations are ongoing everywhere and every system is different. Currently, my system is tuned in very well for the performance vs. eye candy ratio. So I am very happy with that! My main question though goes back to the difference I am experiencing between OpenLC NA and OpenLC Europe because it is the exact same system, with the exact same settings, but the two products are performing differently. Why would that be? In North America, with the sim set to unlimited, I don't get blurries or autogen lagging behind. Everything loads very well. In Europe, with the sim set to unlimited, the autogen loading can't keep up. Again, the exact same system, the exact same settings, and the same products, just different continents. That is what I am curious about... Thoughts on that? Has anyone else experienced that difference between OpenLC NA and OpenLC Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Hobson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Hello, Tim. I think it might have a lot to do with the complexity of the scenery. KEGE, it seems to me, might be above average in complexity, so setting frame rate at unlimited forces the gpu/cpu combination to chase frames, rather than load scenery. I'm not sure of the relative complexity of Open LC NA and Open LC Europe, but I would theorize that many areas of North America are not all that complex compared to those areas of Europe which might arguably be more complex than the sparser areas of North America, the Midwest for example. An Orbx developer would be best able to make the comparison--I'm just guessing. I don't experience the problem myself, and I fly *a lot* in Southern Europe, Spain, Italy, the Balkans, etc. Of course, Northern Europe, where we have the full fat regions--the UK, Norway, North and South Germany--are very different environments compared to the Open LC Europe areas. Just my $.02. Stew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted September 8, 2018 Author Share Posted September 8, 2018 Hi Stewart. Thanks for your thoughts and observations from your own sim. I think the potential reasons you give are plausible and make a lot of sense. Again, I was more curious than anything else. And as you said, the full regions themselves are very different! Great products in their own right. For now, my system is tuned in pretty well. I'll just keep adjusting a few settings based on where I am flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.