[Video] Micro stutters in my FSDreamTeam/Cloud9 Sceneries FSX

[bojote]

Hi All,

The video is about 'micro stutters' I get in ALL the sceneries I have that use the
'Add on Manager'.

My understanding is that you are the developers of Add On Manager, so you might have an
idea of what is causing this.

As you can see in the video, performance is not an issue, I get 25 fps under all situations
(I have an i7 Overclocked to 4.2Ghz and Nvidia 285 card) my performance in FSX is outstanding
I don't have any complains at all.

However, your sceneries seem to have this micro stutter problem
that becomes evident when using very high performance computers.

Steps I have taken:

1) Created a 1GB RAM disk and moved the scenery there..
   results: same

2) Defragged sorting by name and moving to the outer edges of the disk (performance area)
   results: same

3) Moved/played with every single slider (including setting texture size to Very Low)
   results: If setting scenery complexity to scarse (terminal buildings dissapear) the
   problem is gone

4) tried to identify the single BGL causing this in KJFK, Its called JFK_Apr01.bgl but apparently
   this BGL loads the main bulding structures. So, without it is like having scenery complexity
   to scarse.

5) My previous computer, was not high end, but it was very well optimized I got 16-17 fps in
    KJFK, it had an ATI card, and I had the EXACT same problem. It was not THAT annoying
    because my FPS was low and I had ocasional stutters. (my new computer does not stutters
    NEVER, EVER except for your sceneries)

6) tried using the DX10 Preview and Windows 7
   results: same


I have Imaginesim KIAD and KATL (big airports) and they dont have this problem, nor does ANY
default airport in FSX. Again, for most people, this is not an issue. But if you are
running constantly 25 fps and the simulator pauses for a milisencond you'll definitely notice!

Could be the copy protection system the problem? or too many draw calls? it's not Disk IO. maybe a
design technique to load when in close proximity of terminal buildings?
there are exactly 4-5 micro stutters in the airport perimeter... once you get this micro stutters
they wont happen again, as if the objects that were loaded get cached.

I have two completely different computers, different GPU brands, CPU speeds. Windows XP and Windows 7 and tried this
under a DEFAULT and a (fully loaded) FSX instalation and the problem is still existent! so, this is not like I'm
the only one seeing this.

Don't take me wrong, quality wise, your sceneries are the best of the best, even better than Fly Tampa, but there is
definitely something not right. In FS9 I had the exact same problem, so its not even an FSX related problem!

http://www.venetubo.com/emb/5044/1111/1/0/flash.swf

[JamesChams]

Mr. bojote,

Here is one solution to this very problem: http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=9908.msg83214#msg83214

Good Luck! 

[virtuali]

The Addon Manager doesn't have anything to do with the stuttering. And not the scenery, apart the fact that our sceneries are WAY more detailed (especially textures) that the one you mentioned. Scenery area it's not the only parameter to compare two sceneries, you should obviously compare graphic quality.

For example, sceneries that don't use any of the advanced FSX materials, so they look like a FS2000, use the fastest possible shader and, there's much less load on the bus, because the quantity of data moved is a lot less, without specular+bump mapping, for example. Just compare the texture folders sizes, this is a better indication of the size than just the scenery area.

Since very few developers fully use FSX materials, because they usually start developing in FS9 and then move to FSX, there aren't many sceneries around with those demands. Those that are, are much slower than ours.

However, THANKS to the Addon Manager, that allows several optimizations that FSX BGL-only sceneries can't use anymore (like LOD, selective loading with realtime checks for distance, viewpoint and altituide), our sceneries have similar fps comparing to other sceneries that, of course, looks much worse. If we did an FS2000-like scenery in FSX, with all our Addon Manager optimizations, we might double the fps...

So, it's exactly the opposite. The Addon Manager, as clearly explaiained in the FAQ, DOES NOT handle "just" the protection. That one is simply ONE of its features. But, unfortunately, since is the only one that end users gets in touch with when they buy the product, they mistakenly assume it does only that. That's why we wrote a FAQ for this...

You probably assumed that the Addon Manager have something to do with this, because you thought it is a common element between Cloud9 and FSDT sceneries. But the common element, instead, it's a way more important one: the designer and how the sceneries are done, since even the older FSX sceneries we made for Cloud9, were already fully using FSX methods.

So, the Addon Manager, instead, HELPS with performances. Without the Addon Manager, the scenery would have been much slower. In fact, we might not even started working on a JFK scenery, which many others thought it wasn't even possible in FSX. We know this very well because, in the initial stages of developement, we don't configure the scenery to run under the Addon Manager and, as soon as all the objects are in, we have very bad fps. So, we know that's the time to create the "Addon Manager" version of it, and we immediately gain our desidered fps back.

And, the fact you have seeing this in FS9, clearly proves the Addon Manager doesn't have anything to do with it. Well, of course you might thing it does, because you can see there's an FS9 version of it and, without knowing how it works, you might think this is the case. However, the FS9 version is so vastly different, and based on an entirely different principles, that the only thing in common it has with the FSX version, it's the name.

About micro-stuttering, it's a problem that it's inherent with very high performance systems, and it's related mostly to bus and bandwidth traffic. There are a lot of explanations for this, so I'm not going to repeat them. Have a look at this thread on Avsim:

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=245251

Which discusses a DX frame limiter, which seems to make a very good job optimizing the bandwidth traffic. Please, read all the thread, because it contains very useful information about the issue, which IS more apparent, the faster your system is. I suggest you to try that one.

Also, together with the frame limiter, you might want to play with the BufferPool setting as well, and with the Addon Manager it's possible to set this without even editing the FSX.CFG file.

Also, I see from your video that you are using the FSX fps limiter, which (if you follow the above Avsim thread), it's not something that works very well in very dense areas or big airports. Usually, the best solution would be running with the FSX limiter off in the airports/cities, and with the limiter on in the countryside. However, if you use this new fps limiter, it's best to always turn off the FSX limiter.

[bojote]

The Addon Manager doesn't have anything to do with the stuttering. And not the scenery, apart the fact that our sceneries are WAY more detailed (especially textures) that the one you mentioned. Scenery area it's not the only parameter to compare two sceneries, you should obviously compare graphic quality.

True, thats why I praised your product in my first post. There is no comparison, so, I need to use the best reference I know

Just compare the texture folders sizes, this is a better indication of the size than just the scenery area.

Correct, and, for testing purposes (and to see if texture sizes played a role in the stuttering) I created 'dummy'
textures of 1k to replace the ones in the KJFK folder, the result was a DARK airport however, the stuttering was still present.

Since very few developers fully use FSX materials, because they usually start developing in FS9 and then move to FSX, there aren't many sceneries around with those demands. Those that are, are much slower than ours.

Another very good point.. I never said I had an FPS problem.. in fact, your sceneries offer extraordinary FPS, even in my old PC

several optimizations that FSX BGL-only sceneries can't use anymore (like LOD, selective loading with realtime checks for distance, viewpoint and altituide)

Have you considered the possibility that these 'optimizations' can 'hurt' the smoothness on *very* high end machines? emphasis in *Very* means: 4.2 Ghz Water Cooled CPU, CAS 7 Memory and GTX 285 card?

in the initial stages of developement, we don't configure the scenery to run under the Addon Manager and, as soon as all the objects are in, we have very bad fps. So, we know that's the time to create the "Addon Manager" version of it, and we immediately gain our desidered fps back.

'as soon as all the objects are in we have very bad fps' so, what add-on manager does is 'selective loading' based on realtime checks for distance, viewpoint and altitude.. 'realtime checks'? there were 5 realtime checks along the landing in the video I showed you. Can I ask you a very very special favor.. Is there a way to disable this realtime checks? yes, I know, FPS will go down, but, thats not a problem. I rather have 19 FPS fluid, than 24-25 with realtime checks.

And, the fact you have seeing this in FS9, clearly proves the Addon Manager doesn't have anything to do with it.

in FS9 the problem is much less severe, specially if you lower the global texture size to medium.

Have a look at this thread on Avsim:
http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=245251

Yes, I'm familiar with the thread... and as I said Umberto, I don't have *ANY* performance problems of any kind.. the only sceneries I see a problem (as is NOT FPS related) are yours. I would love to check (and show you a video) of the 3 sceneries above WITHOUT the realtime checks, and I can assure you that it will be more fluid.. yes, FPS will suffer, but that is just an assumption, because we'll have to test to see.

Also, I see from your video that you are using the FSX fps limiter, which (if you follow the above Avsim thread), it's not something that works very well in very dense areas or big airports. Usually, the best solution would be running with the FSX limiter off in the airports/cities, and with the limiter on in the countryside. However, if you use this new fps limiter, it's best to always turn off the FSX limiter.

The FSX limiter set at 28, and the FPS Limiter set at 25 will:

 1) provide a 'consistent' CPU usage linear pattern on CPU0 of less than 95% regarless of scenery conditions
 2) the FPS limiter is NOT 100% accurate, someimes, the FPS will jump, however, the FSX limiter is very strict, and a second line of defense for the original FPS limiter
 3) Provide a smooth flying experience using high CPU usage complex aircraft. As you can see, in the video I showed you, I use the Level D, VC only, TrackIR.

Umberto, one more last Yes or No question:

If you 'fly' the same airports and land into the same runways I show in the video.. you don't get any of the micro stutters?

Thanks,

[virtuali]

Correct, and, for testing purposes (and to see if texture sizes played a role in the stuttering) I created 'dummy' textures of 1k to replace the ones in the KJFK folder, the result was a DARK airport however, the stuttering was still present.

That is not probably a good test, it might have been better to create a texture equal to the original one, but at a smaller size, like 256x256 instead of 1024x1024. Because, when the objects displays in black, it means FSX had several file opening errors.

Another very good point.. I never said I had an FPS problem.. in fact, your sceneries offer extraordinary FPS, even in my old PC

Yes, but it was related to the need to have bigger texture size. Because, lots of textures do not simply have the flat diffuse version, but also the specular and in some cases the bump-map version of it. So, the total texture size can be 2x or more, even at the same resolution.

Have you considered the possibility that these 'optimizations' can 'hurt' the smoothness on *very* high end machines? emphasis in *Very* means: 4.2 Ghz Water Cooled CPU, CAS 7 Memory and GTX 285 card?

It could be. For example. with a 1GB video card, we might allow to load more stuff in a single time. BUT, this should be tunable with the BufferPools parameter as well.

'realtime checks'? there were 5 realtime checks along the landing in the video I showed you. Can I ask you a very very special favor.. Is there a way to disable this realtime checks?

What you are seeing are NOT the realtime check. That is a very small operation that is just machine language code, and your CPU is perfectly capable of making millions per seconds, without slowing it down. What you are seeing is traffic on the bus, because stuff (textures and polygons) is moved in and out.

What can be done, as a test, is to just increase a lot the object's ranges, basically having all objects to be loaded at a greater range. The effect of this, however, might be a BIG stuttering about 8-9 nm out when the airport enters in range, and (hopefully) nothing more, because everything would be loaded at once.

I might send you a config file to enable this mode.

in FS9 the problem is much less severe, specially if you lower the global texture size to medium.

That only proves my point that the Addon Manager doesn't have anything to do with it because, as you said yourself, in FSX the texture size didn't had *any* effect improving it, but in FS9 it does. And this is very much logically explained, because FS9 is not able to load textures in multi-threading using a separate core, like FSX. So, you are observing two entirely different things.

I can assure you that it will be more fluid.. yes, FPS will suffer, but that is just an assumption, because we'll have to test to see.

The issue is, most people with average systems, would probably not even be able to load the scenery without crashing (it might not fit in video ram) so, without a system like yours, they don't have the luxury to choose between fluid and low (but still usable) fps, and high with stutters, because their "low" might be just too low.

However, there's hope and here, of course, comes the advantadge of the Addon Manager. If we didn't had that one, we wouldn't have any chance to tune this, because it would have required a different set of BGLs for different machines.

Instead, THANKS to the Addon Manager, since we don't draw most of the objects with BGL, but directly in C++, it MIGHT be possible to just add a tweaking slider to it that can act on the object ranges so, people with more powerful systems might be able to crank it up to reduce stuttering.

The FSX limiter set at 28, and the FPS Limiter set at 25 will:

Please, try to use the DirectX FPS limiter at 30 fps with the FSX limiter set to Unlimited! It really makes a big difference in complex sceneries. The FSX limiter is not as effective as the DirectX one, sometimes it just creates a very irregular fps which is just lower even on average.

If you 'fly' the same airports and land into the same runways I show in the video.. you don't get any of the micro stutters?

I made a test with Geneva, and I get no stutters at all with FSX, some stutters on short final on FS9, which is normal considering how FS9 loads textures. Geneva is probably the more difficult one, because is as big in texture size as KJFK, but it's even smaller in area, so it has an higher object density. I will try to test it with the Level-D, but of course, any tests to assess the scenery performance should be done with a default airplane, otherwise you are not really testing the scenery impact, but the combination of the two.

[bojote]

What can be done, as a test, is to just increase a lot the object's ranges, basically having all objects to be loaded at a greater range. The effect of this, however, might be a BIG stuttering about 8-9 nm out when the airport enters in range, and (hopefully) nothing more, because everything would be loaded at once.
I might send you a config file to enable this mode.

Correct, and I thought so. Because, *most scenery designers* do this 'loading at once' which, as you correctly state, causes a BIG stutter, 10nm out. However, having this stutter while on descent (usually, on autopilot) is not a big deal. But hand flying on final and rudder correcting applying reversers focuses your attention on the fluidity, and is that very moment where you don;t want to spoil the inmersion factor. So, please, if you can, send me a config that loads all at once, 10nm out, and I'll report back with the results (and a video if you like)

Thanks Umberto for your extraordinary support and wish to help/test options.

[bojote]

I might send you a config file to enable this mode.

My email address is:

jaltuve@gmail.com

[virtuali]

Here's an updated version of the Addon Manager to test:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/download/setup_addonmanagerX.exe

There's a new slider that acts as a multiplier of the global loading distance for 3d obiects. It goes from 1.0 to 10.0, and at 1.0 is exactly the same as it was before. 10.0 it's ten times larger, but no object it will never exceed the global range of the airport, which is usually about 8 nm.

This setting can be saved, but you don't need to restart FSX, it's immediately applied when you press the OK button. It's valid for all sceneries handled by the Addon Manager.

Let me know how it works, also in combination with the other tweaks discussed above.

[bojote]

Here's an updated version of the Addon Manager to test:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/download/setup_addonmanagerX.exe

Let me know how it works, also in combination with the other tweaks discussed above.

Thanks, will give it a try tonight

[bojote]

Here's an updated version of the Addon Manager to test:

Umberto, I did some extensive testing this is what I found out:

Applying the AntiPop (setting it to 10) effectively solves the micro stuttering issue in both, KJFK and KORD, however, in KMCO now instead of getting 5 microstutters along the runway I only get one, as if there is still something that 'pops up' regardless of the setting.

The other thing I found out, is that:

[FSDREAMTEAM]
AntiPopUp=10

is ignored I mean, if I restart the sim, and re-test, I get the stutters again, if I exit the sim, and re-test applying again the changes, the micro stutters are gone, so, Add On Manager is ignoring the setting in fsx.cfg and only applies it
if doing it via the menu. I don't know if you did it on purpose so if there was any problems settings were not 'saved'

Performance wise, there is absolutely no impact whatsoever, same FPS.. and visually, you can tell objects in the distance are already there (like taxi signs)... however, in the case of Orlando I did notice, that even though I got only ONE stutter it happened at the same time taxi signs were 'poping up' so, this FIX, for some reason, is not 100% solving the problem in KMCO, any idea why?

I'm very pleased with the results so far, its day and night, not a SINGLE stutter on final or on the runway applying the AntiPopup fix, unfortunately its not been saved

Thanks Umberto for your commitment to your clients and your business. Impressive!

[virtuali]

Add On Manager is ignoring the setting in fsx.cfg and only applies it if doing it via the menu.

It was a bug, if you download it again, it has been fixed.

Performance wise, there is absolutely no impact whatsoever, same FPS.. and visually, you can tell objects in the distance are already there (like taxi signs)...

Well, you are lucky to have such system because, on my Core Duo 2 2.66, at O'Hare I go from about 27 fps to 20 fps, by changing the setting from 1 to 10. That was to be expected, the lesser the system, the more important is to cut ranges to optimize.

however, in the case of Orlando I did notice, that even though I got only ONE stutter it happened at the same time taxi signs were 'poping up' so, this FIX, for some reason, is not 100% solving the problem in KMCO, any idea why?

Don't know, I might have to check KMCO ranges, it might just the taxi signs were grouped differently comparing to later sceneries.

I'm very pleased with the results so far, its day and night, not a SINGLE stutter on final or on the runway applying the AntiPopup fix, unfortunately its not been saved

Well, good. I would be useful to know at which setting, from 1 to 10, you start to see an improvement.

[bojote]

Well, you are lucky to have such system because, on my Core Duo 2 2.66, at O'Hare I go from about 27 fps to 20 fps, by changing the setting from 1 to 10. That was to be expected, the lesser the system, the more important is to cut ranges to optimize.

I tried in windowed mode, with and without the AntiPopUp (values 1 and 10) to see CPU usage. CPU 0 shows aproximately 5% more load

Well, good. I would be useful to know at which setting, from 1 to 10, you start to see an improvement.

It seems, that ranges are more shorter than I tought. because a value of 10, effectively eliminates micro stutter during an approach from the east (over the sea) however, doing the 13L visual I get the micro stutters up to the last turn, after the last turn into final, everything is perfect

is there a way to 'increase' the AntiPopUp to a super high value? or better yet, to have ALL objects appear at once (yes, I know I will get the super daddy of all stutters, but it will be just once)

[bojote]

It seems, that ranges are more shorter than I tought. because a value of 10, effectively eliminates micro stutter during an approach from the east (over the sea) however, doing the 13L visual I get the micro stutters up to the last turn, after the last turn into final, everything is perfect

Correction, even approaching from the east will give me stutters 2-3 miles out, but not on final or along the runway as before.

So, what is the minimun range? is it 0.1nm? you said something about ranges not longer than 8nm, so, 'assuming' 0.1 is the minimun range, allowing an AntiPopUp value of '80' will make ALL ranges equal, because 0.1 will be 8nm, and all the others over the limit will be limited to 8nm anyway.

By the way, starting ON the airport, slewing away and coming back in, is perfect so it definitely means is a range related thing. And the initial 'loading' of all objects doesn't seem to cause any impact whatsoever (when starting on the airport)

[virtuali]

So, what is the minimun range? is it 0.1nm? you said something about ranges not longer than 8nm, so, 'assuming' 0.1 is the minimun range, allowing an AntiPopUp value of '80' will make ALL ranges equal, because 0.1 will be 8nm, and all the others over the limit will be limited to 8nm anyway.

The objects with the shortest ranges are about 0.4 nm so, anything higher than 20 will not make any difference.  You can set any value you want by editing directly the FSX.CFG, it's just the GUI that doesn't allow to go higher than 10 but, if you don't change it via the menu, a value higher than 10 in the FSX.CFG will be read and accepted.

[bojote]

Coming back to flightsiming after an 8 month break. Just wanted to let you know that this AntiPopUp thing does indeed work wonders I was pulling my hair trying to make stutters go on KJFK and found my own post haha!

Thanks,