Poor FPS

[Fubar512 1,350]

Exactly, Dave.

[kct 5]

At least he's not beating the dead eel.

[Fubar512 1,350]

At least he's not beating the dead eel.

 

What do you think he's beating that horse with?

[serverandenforcer 33]

What do you think he's beating that horse with?

 

 

Oh dear god.

[+Gunrunner 313]

StarBucker> After expurging my initial irate answer of some nasty epithets and questionning of your intelligence (sorry, I can't abide people blaming others (here ThirdWire) for their own shortcomings (in that case you ignorance when it comes to certain areas of computing and flight simulators)), I'll let you read what might open your eyes, just a little...

 

As the Great Old Ones already informed you, such FPS are perfectly normal for a flight simulator (and even though until now we were used to better FPS in TW sims, the patch brings a more robust AI (meaning eating more CPU cycles), enhanced physics (once again eating CPU cycles) and a few other goodies lowering FPS but keeping the sim up to date and taking advantage of the better hardware some of us have).

Just try to play LOMAC, FSX, or even IL2, and tell us whether or not you manage to reach 100 FPS with any of them patched and at max settings...

Or maybe is it than none of the studios having developped flight simulator engines for decades have a clue how to code one properly.

 

Let me try to put things simply so maybe you start to understand the depth of... the problem.

 

Not all games are about putting up as much pretty graphics as fast as possible, some even have physics which are simulation of real physical rules not just about getting a swarm of small objects elegantly floating and bouncing around.

Some games also attempt to implement simulation of electronic system, IA which are not just about pathfinding in a 2D environment and managing line of sight...

 

Such games are CPU bound, not because the coder is a moron as you seem to suggest, but because even now with CUDA, OpenCL etc... most of these calculations still can't be done GPU-side.

 

If you were to find a fault in the TW flight sims engine coding it would be in its lack of support for multiple cores, meaning its performances won't scale with the number of cores.

We could imagine an engine using core 0 for all graphic calculations, core 1 for for all physics, core 2 for IA and core 3 for systems.

But, things are not that easy...

Such a multithreaded/multiprocess engine has numerous limitations in a flight simulation (namely, all processes are dependant on each other, meaning the whole thing is as slow as the slowest of the processes), as you seem more knowledgeable when it comes to graphics, lets use this paradigm (which sucks in this case as nothing with this kind of engine would work as sequentially as I'm about to describe, in fact, what I'll describe won't work at all), whenever the engine would draw a frame, it needs 1) Data from where things were in the previous frame to pass, in paralell to 2a) the physics engine, so it determines where things should be now (uh oh, bogey #13 is climbing, but out of energy, it should start decelerating, or stalling), 2b) the IA engine (oh oh, bogey #7 decided to put its nose down to regain energy, and bank right to try to intercept friendly #10, and friendly #5 just got in range of SAM #9 etc...) and 2c) the systems engine (ah ah ! bogey #5 is out of range of the player's radar, I'll signal not to draw it anymore, and SAM #4 is tracking player, I'll tell the graphics to draw it, and when each finishes its task, it send the whole thing to 3) the graphics, which calculate what to draw, where etc... and send the whole deal to the GPU...

 

The problem with this approach is that coding such an engine (properly) is extremely difficult, time-consuming and requires extensive testing, it also means that while it scales up pretty well (meaning it easily takes advantage of faster and better hardware) it scales down pretty poorly (meaning that if the engine's designed for 4 threads, you will take quite a hit on a dual or single core).

Also, some type of computing just don't parallelize well (on classical desktop architectures, while keeping compatibility and realistic hardware requirements in mind) and flight simulators are among those tasks that won't benefit much from multiple cores.

FSX was upgraded to better use multiple cores, but still remains a single thread beast, delegating only simple and mostly independant tasks to other cores, resulting in marginal FPS gains... and that's from a company with massive resources which actually wrote the OS (and thus the scheduler) on which the game's running.

 

It is easy to parallelize graphics, having each unit only computing one part of the larger picture, but to get to that point the GPU must receive from the CPU what to draw... some games have very little to compute before sending data to the GPU (mostly because while visually impressive, they actually perform simple tasks, with scripted IAs, in a simple environment) and are largely GPU-dependent, other games, like flight simulators, have a lot of computing to do before sending anything to the GPU (mostly because, even if some are visually not that impressive, they perform numerous complex tasks, with complex, non-scripted IAs, in a complex and always evolving environment) and end up being largely CPU-dependent...

 

Finally, you also have to consider that TW is a mostly one-man operation, and has neither the time, staff or resources to rebuild an engine aimed at using multiple cores when 1) The original engine was written when dual-cores where still on paper 2) Adapting the original engine would cost as much (and maybe more) than writing a new engine 3) There is more interest and urgency to be "natively" compatible with Vista and DX10, as well as revising the engine for easier moddability (which gave us the SF2 engine) 4) The gains would not necessarily be worth the resources spent 5) The actual engine is still quite satisfactory for people who know and understand its principles and limitations (those who solve FPS issues on single-threaded CPU-dependent games by throwing a faster CPU (or CPU with faster cores) at it, not by adding a GPU or many slow cores) and 6) The "budget" orientation of the game would suffer if it can't be played properly on a low-end single-core system (you don't sell as much $20 games if they only play well on $1000 computers instead of $500 ones).

Edited January 25, 2009 by Gunrunner

[+Brain32 265]

OK here's me always b1chin' about something. However I find the turbo fanboy approach a bit lacking. There are some shortcommings in this game, now they are perfectly justifiable with the fact that TW is like we know pretty much a one man operation, but that does not mean shortcomings dissapear it just means that comparing the resources of TW and larger game studios WoX it's still an amazing job done by TK. Maybe even more than amazing however claiming shortcommings do not exist I do not understand

 

Just try to play LOMAC, FSX, or even IL2, and tell us whether or not you manage to reach 100 FPS with any of them patched and at max settings...

FSX I did not try but il2 1946 patched to v409 at apsolute max settings runs uncomparably better than latest WoX for me, LOMAC (v1.02 though) also runs better. And while indeed it would be sad that one man can do a better or even equal as much larger dedicated game studios this:

Or maybe is it than none of the studios having developped flight simulator engines for decades have a clue how to code one properly.

...is simply NOT true.

 

Second you talk about AI/physics and stuff being a reason for TW series being CPU bond while recently Fubar 512 explained pretty straitforward which graphics related setting are eating the performance and this is exactly where in my case performance goes out of the window, I toned those down or turned them off and voila I average over 60fps.

The only conclusion I can make is that my GFX card is having a vacation while my CPU painfully screams "Kill me pleaseeee!!!" This would make sense for older games as in those times GFX cards were not so powerfull but when my 1Teraflops capable card is on vacation while my poor CPU on top of all has to calculate shadows and reflections...

 

I find comments related to Vista and SF2 users especially encouraging, it seems that TK inspite of lack of resources recognized the issue and worked on it.

 

Also I do not agree less than 24fps is normal for any game that features any kind of motion. Playable? Yes. Enjoyable? No. Or at the very least the issue is subjective...

[scouserlad13 0]

I have vista too, but i get an alright frame rate, this does the trick for me, close down any other programmes you are running, then go into the grapics settings and change the things you dont really take any notice of down to low, and insted of having things set on unlimited, just put them on high, it did wonders for me, and even if you still have a low frame rate issue, then you can turn off your mirrors, i mean, i hardly use them anyway. Put things like the terrain and water effects on low. As i said before this helped alot with my Frame rate issue that i had. Hope this works for you mate.

 

Scouserlad13

[Nixou 25]

Yes this is right that IL2 can run at full settings with no lag on an average PC (when i say no lag i mean 50 fps or higher), but this has nothing to see. WoX games are more beautiful at high settings, it's quite normal they eat a little more.

 

Then there is a part of the work that needs to be done by you. Enhancing your PC(i mean cleaning and configuring it, not boosting it with new Grc card..), even more if you play on vista, is the biggest part. There is no compareason between after and before.

 

The second part is to see what settings eat lots of memory while not being absolutely necessary, and what others make the game much more beautiful while not consuming a lot.

 

I have done all this and i have a game running at 60 fps all the time, with sun and shadow settings, unless there are at least 20-25 aircraft in the visible skys, what would make it lower to 35-40 fps, and im pessimistic.

 

 

IL2 is an old game that is not graphically the latest , that's normal to play it smoother. Lomac eats a little more nonetheless.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Sorry I gave the impression that I advocated an absence of shortcomings in the WoX series, the whole idea was to demonstrate that those shortcomings were not "coding faults" but design, resource, focus, historical and context constraints.

 

The bit that really set me off and to which I reacted so violently (and with apparently so unclear arguments and motivation) is "And to that end, the coding apparently is an issue."

 

Ok, first quote, LOMAC for me is even slower that updated WoI (faster to load, better max FPS, but lower min FPS and lower average and median FPS), but that is because in LOMAC's case I'm probably GPU-limited rather than CPU-limited.

Il2 I admit I went out on a limb and assumed the situation was not any better than at 1946's release...

FSX... well, I don't find FSX playable on the setup I used...

Also, it depends on what you call incomparably better... I was not saying that these sims are not faster or smoother than WoX, just that none of them reaches the kind of FPS you expect from well, a FPS (if you exclude those last-gen which are more tech demo than games), which, in my ire, seemed to be the point of StarBucker, I may have been wrong, making my whole demonstration utterly useless.

 

Uh... Brain, the second quote was sarcastic... -_-

Most if not all coders who actually release a flight simulator know what they are doing, they just sometimes don't have the resources to make things as good as they could and/or they also might put more efforts and optimizations into certain parts of the engine rather than others, making the final result more or less CPU-limited.

From what I gathered in TK's case, I think he is not that interested in absolute performances in max settings (and optimising the code (CPU or GPU-side) for such corner cases is a long and costly process with usually diminishing returns), but has a strong interest in aerodynamics (a CPU cycle eater), a growing interest in AI (another CPU cycle eater), loves to cheat as little as possible unless for gameplay purpose and that those design decisions affect performances...

These are also the reason why TW sims don't "cheat" the same way (or to the same extent) than Il-2 or LOMAC.

 

The CPU-bound comment concerned flight simulators in general, in contrast to other types of games, not WoX in particular, and why, unlike RTS, FPS and other more popular genres, they can't easily benefit from multiple cores and thus are more easily CPU-bound than GPU-bound.

 

Now, on the number of FPS making a game enjoyable, it also depends on the smoothness of operation and your gaming background.

A solid 20 FPS is still playable and enjoyable, but when the 20 FPS is an average of succeding lapses of 5 FPS and 30 FPS, it becomes hardly playable and enjoyable.

And 20 FPS seems great when you started simming with DOS programs written in BASIC.

 

Also, take into account that it was an epidermic reaction at the implication that code was the problem, rather than design constraints.

Being a coder myself and having my fair share of such crap arguments from non-coders who can't begin to understand the various factors at work, it struck a nerve, making me comment on a domain (coding flight simulators) of which I have ZERO experience.

My purpose was mostly to explain that reality is often more complex than what appears to us simple users, and that we are not qualified to judge the quality of the code, only of the design decisions if/once we know enough about the constraints under which the code was produced, or of the end result (I would have no problem with someone saying that the WoX is crap (with proper argumentation that is, even though I might not agree with the arguments or the conclusion, at least it would be based on a well thought context)).

 

Bleh, I don't know if that makes sense for anyone but myself...

Hope I didn't offend StarBucker while venting my frustration...

Edited January 25, 2009 by Gunrunner

[+Brain32 265]

@Gunrunner actually it was my fault not checking the post you replied to, I am usually too hasty on the keyboard lol I would probably react in a very similar manner you did...

 

Also although my system is very powerfull it's ATI/AMD based and as stated by "Elder Council" WoX always had trouble with that, so one can look at my comments from that corner too and this is probably why I can manage LOMAC and especially IL2 easily while WoX gives me trouble

 

Anyway my system is:

AMD X2 @3GHz

ATI HD4850

4GB DDR2

Dual boot with clean XP only for games!!!

 

On top of that due to my monitor I play at 1024x768 so I kinda expect smooth performance, I don't think I ask too much considering the hardware and all other games I tried kinda agree lol

 

 

Side note:

Yes this is right that IL2 can run at full settings with no lag on an average PC (when i say no lag i mean 50 fps or higher), but this has nothing to see. WoX games are more beautiful at high settings, it's quite normal they eat a little more.

Full shadows, volumetric clouds, higher terrain density and variety uncomparable, forrests, trees and numerous completely realistic rivers with moving waves and even water reflections, realistic cities and city/town layouts, every single house and even every field toilet destroyable... all out of the box for IL2 1946!!! I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder lol, for me il2 looks better than any flight sim I played and runs smoothest of all...but I always preached about OpenGL lol

[StarBucker 0]

My response to you is very simple based on what you have replied to my accusation.  The game is not ready to be released and there's that I am afraid!!

 

In retrospect, IL2 was nearly flawless upon its first release and that's professional coding I say.  You can put into the a mission 25-30 planes and the frame rate still holds at around 60 ~70 to this date with my current rig. Those AI planes need indeed as you said huge computations by the CPU before data are passed to the GPU.  If IL2 can make it, why can't WoX?

 

In fact, WoX is not alone, Jane's F/A 18 is notorious about its performance.  Today's high end computers still cant break the 28FPS barrier clearly illustrates that the game has been badly coded.  Look at Falcon 4.0, My current rig now runs the game with at least 60FPS in the various Campaign in which trilions of compuataions and messages were processed and passed between processes.  And I still believe that Falcon 4 this legendary simulation is made for future CPU and GPU when these multi-cores  technologies  were not even named in Jan 1999 when the game came out!!

 

To me, still the same, the game needs to be revised about its coding that's it!  Sorry that sounds rude but there it is, I am not whining, just stating out the facts.

Edited January 25, 2009 by StarBucker

[kct 5]

If you think there's a problem, then deal with the man behind the games yourself, personally. Talking about it here would not solve anything. I know there are probably lots of shortcomings of the games, but talking about it from the perspective of a one-man operation throws it out of the window.

Edited January 25, 2009 by kct

[+Stary 2,426]

Yes, the most important factor is that TK's sims are coded by one man himself. Not only graphics engine, but also physics, AI, terrain, campaigns generator, everything. Big teams like MS Aces, Oleg's or ED usually consist of many coders responsible for their narrow part of sim development only.

 

Also please take note that with every patch new features are being added, some of them are very resources hungry when introduced (clouds, true self-casting shadows, etc.), but then in following patches performance increases, sometimes noticeable (vide stock WOI vs recent updates)

 

I'm running almost unmodded FE+EP1 right now, gameplay averages around 30-50 fps with more planes in the air than in most other sims (except BOB2 of course). Is this sufficient for enjoying it? For me, yes. Sufficient framerate is very subjective matter.

[+Tailspin 3]

I must admit I have to laugh when reading this thread.

 

System specs:

 

P4 1.8

GeForce 3 Ti 200...AA set to quincrux or whatever its called.

512 MB DDR

Win 98SE

 

Game settings all Med. with mirrors off, shadows low, water low, normal horizon distance. In a fully patched version of SFP1 I get 20-35 fps in the air during dogfights. Drops to the teens on or near the ground depending on the number of objects in view. Does get choppy sometimes in big furballs over high object areas (ie. cities) with a lot of SAM activity. I call choppy below 10-12 fps. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is I consider this "playable". The sim looks fine at these settings. Too may people have a problem with expectations and perceptions about frame rates and what that means to them with regards to gameplay. Much of it is indeed subjective. I suppose if I just built or bought a high dollar gaming machine and I viewed FPS numbers as the "be all and end all" I would be miffed at the "numbers" too. Coding problems? I don't see any coding problems. But then "numbers" aren't that important to me.

[kct 5]

To be frank, I seldom cared about FPS at all these days.

[+Dave 2,318]

Looks like we covered this as well as it can get covered. Nothing we can do about it. So lets press on to something else.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Yayyyyyyyy!!!! According to starbucker, I have a super-approaching-monster level computer!!!!!

 

[Fubar512 1,350]

I stand corrected, by the aforementioned standards put forth by the great oracles, I have a DOUBLE MONSTER PC. I kneel in awe before its immense FPS power!!!!!!

 

[Fubar512 1,350]

A filthy non-believer by the name of DAVE called into question the ability of my AWESOME pron-surfing machine to maintain triple-digit frame rates down low, with trees and hi-poly models in the image. Take that, you heathen!

 

[column5 62]

In after the lock!

[+Dave 2,318]

In after the lock!

 

Ed,

 

Don is losing it, he said the thread was locked.