Bugdani Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hello, I experience some very bad FPS at KSQL bath FSX and P3D2.5 with a good computer! (12 FPS on the Ground) Any advises ? Bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Correia Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Only advice I can give is to reduce the sliders and AI traffic. Have you disabled anything in the Control panel? Any other addons installed in the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 You need to disable the NCA options in the airport control panel, they take a lot of FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimhenn Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I also get around 12 FPS +/- , but worth it as the scenery in the area is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimhenn Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Confirming disabling the NCA options in the airport control panel gives me a boost up to 18 to 22 FPS from the 12 prior. Some headings get more FPS than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertPilot Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I haven't yet had a chance to tweak my KSQL performance, but I noticed the KSQL control panel NCA options do not include disabling the windfarm turbines in the nearby Rio Vista and Altamont Pass areas. The NCA SP1 PDF file does talk about manually disabling the windfarm placement files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugdani Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 OK, thanks ! It's done! I have a better result in P3D2.5 (22FPS) than FSX DX10 (17fps with heading north and 28FPS heading south) and it's better than the previous 12 FPS! Thanks! But it's not, by far, the smoother scenery I have! May be somme improvements are needed here.... Bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfield ace Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi guys, I can't believe the smoothness I'm getting around this area, after reading some of the other posts, with FSX SE Im getting 30-33 fps (set at 33) and in P3D v 2.5 I'm getting 18-22, (set at 22)...the fps only reduce lower to 10ish flying towards SFO...well pleased considering my specs! Cheers Ed, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Newman Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 OK, thanks ! It's done! I have a better result in P3D2.5 (22FPS) than FSX DX10 (17fps with heading north and 28FPS heading south) and it's better than the previous 12 FPS! Thanks! But it's not, by far, the smoother scenery I have! May be somme improvements are needed here.... Bug. It's one of those areas in the flight sim world that just doesn't allow for much performance... It's very close to KSFO, KSJC, KOAK and other smaller fields, so lots of hilly terrain, lots of urban areas and buildings, high traffic and high load airports... One of the biggest focuses during all of the testing phases was performance and for the detail included, it's pretty astounding what Ed managed to squeeze out. It's the sole reason that the NCA options are included within the control panel. Frankly, Ed must have been a little more than mad to even consider doing this airport considering it's location, but kudos to him that he pulled it off rather nicely That all being said, one or two things that help me in P3D at least in this area is to use unlimited FPS... With a locked FPS (I've tried 20 and 30), I get around 14fps on average on my system. Set to unlimited, I get 19fps. That's the same in FSX too. Finally, this one only seems to affect P3D, but if you're using REX or any other cloud texture package, make sure to install 32-Bit cloud textures and not the compressed DXT format textures... It sounds completely counter-intuitive, but again, I get at least 3fps improvement using the higher quality 32-Bit clouds than using the DXT clouds... My theory is that the uncompressed clouds can be displayed "as is" so is less work for the system... DXT clouds need to be uncompressed before displaying them so it takes more work to display them. Of course I'm no expert, so this is just my theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertPilot Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I haven't yet had a chance to tweak my KSQL performance, but I noticed the KSQL control panel NCA options do not include disabling the windfarm turbines in the nearby Rio Vista and Altamont Pass areas. The NCA SP1 PDF file does talk about manually disabling the windfarm placement files. I finally did some testing this evening on P3D 2.5, and I found that disabling the windfarm turbines didn't really have an effect on FPS when flying over the inner SF Bay Area. With all the KSQL NCA options off and using the Alabeo Extra 300s aircraft (one of P3D2's default aircraft, that I found to have one of the lightest FPS impacts among my aircraft), I was able to achieve FPS fluctuating between 23 and 45 FPS while flying in the KSQL-KOAK-KSFO triangle, with the average FPS in the 30s. Relatively smooth. This with i7-4770K CPU and GTX 770. Note this was with Flightbeam's KSFO airport there, and with clear skies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Correia Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 The thing that needs to be considered is when I designed this was looking at minimising fps loss with a default NCA setup. I managed to keep this to respectable level getting a steady 29fps on my two systems in both FSX and P3D. Once you start adding Rex/ASN, third party airports and aircraft you will see performance losses. Please don't see this as an excuse, but the design methodology was set to measure against a baseline. I felt that by keeping that to a minimum I would hope that any losses incurred with other addons would be kept to a reasonable level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipdriver Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The thing that needs to be considered is when I designed this was looking at minimising fps loss with a default NCA setup. I managed to keep this to respectable level getting a steady 29fps on my two systems in both FSX and P3D. Once you start adding Rex/ASN, third party airports and aircraft you will see performance losses. Please don't see this as an excuse, but the design methodology was set to measure against a baseline. I felt that by keeping that to a minimum I would hope that any losses incurred with other addons would be kept to a reasonable level. First off, I think for where this airport is located, performance is quite good. In fact, I had less than 2fps improvement with the airport deactivated. But I do think it is a safe assumption for developers that if someone has one add-on, they have several. In fact, having this airport means that one has a minimum of two addons installed (NCA and SQL). I personally know of very few people (the actual number is an integer less than one) who get high-end airports but fly only default aircraft and with no weather. With an A2A aircraft, REX4. ASN, all applicable ORBX stuff for the area and modest sim settings (relative to other areas at least), I got around 20fps with acceptable smoothness (see my video) on approach to Rwy 30. With simpler aircraft like Carenado's, I can either get higher fps and smoothness or up the eye candy and get similar performance, so I am not criticizing the product at all, only the issue of using such a low baseline for development, unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, no other addons marks the only real common denominator, but most likely doesn't represent end-user reality. Then again, decisions on where to develop an airport come into play here as well, I guess, and I was actually surprised that you decided to make one at all for this location. Truth be told, if I can't get good enough performance, I won't making a video for it at all, so that should say something. As I re-read your post, I see that you may have meant that you were just trying to minimize the impact of the airport in and of itself, which I think you succeeded at fairly well considering my aforementioned fps difference between active and inactive in the scenery library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Correia Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 As I re-read your post, I see that you may have meant that you were just trying to minimize the impact of the airport in and of itself, which I think you succeeded at fairly well considering my aforementioned fps difference between active and inactive in the scenery library. Hi Rob, yes that is what I was meaning. Considering that other addons are used, I figured that by having the minimum impact with just KSQL & NCA installed, it would help once the other addons get tacked on. And thanks for the video, I enjoyed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.