hardware 2022

[Ysop]

With HDD failures and an expanding battery, which lifts the keyboard and poses a safety risk, the notebook needs to go.

New one will be also a notebook due to occasional trips and energy considerations.

Recommendations taken from other threads:
16GB Ram
Nvidia
Emphasis on CPU rather than GPU

Anything else worth considering with FGFS developments in mind?
Linux of course.

Sometimes mathematically demanding software is being used , but if you let this determine hardware requirements you have to expand the budget to infinity. So something good for FGFS will do it.

As a sidenote the sheer number of CPU and GPU designations make it very hard to target something good midrange. They do that on purpose, don't they?

Looking forward to read your thoughts. Thanks!

[TheEagle]

Hmm, I'm not that much of a hardware specialist, but I wouldn't say that the CPU is more important, and should be better, than the GPU - the CPU delivers the vertices to the GPU, which then in turn draws them (to say it in a very simple way). If you have a strong CPU, but the GPU isn't fast enough to keep up with the CPU, you get low FPS. But the other way around its the same - if you have a powerful GPU, but the CPU isn't feeding it the data it needs in time, your GPU will basically sit around unused half of the time. So, you need both. nVidia GPU is definitely a good idea - I've never had any problems (graphics bugs) with it so far ! (except for the low FPS, but … that's because my nVidia GeForce 520 is too weak).

as for the CPU, for FG, two cores is the right number - but if you're gonna use it for math too (and CFD/OpenVSP ! ) you'd better be off with 4, I think.

[MariuszXC]

Recommendations taken from other threads:
16GB Ram
Nvidia
Emphasis on CPU rather than GPU

SSD drive is a notable omission in this list.
Try to get 16GB in a single slot or built-in, and have one memory slot free for future upgrades. You might decide later, that 32GB is even more comfortable for development work..
Dedicated GPU in a laptop is a double-edged sword. Power consumption and heat dissipation definitely are a concern.
I find https://www.cpubenchmark.net/ helpful in wading through the maze. Plenty of interesting statistics.
If you go with an Intel CPU, consider going one generation back, where all cores were still unified. Current gen. introduced a mix of performance and efficiency cores, which is an interesting development, but poses some issues on OS side.

[Ysop]

Oh yes, SSD! This was a bit of decision driver here towards a new system.

Good hint on the free slot and past-generation CPU. For the GPU the old one was running on the integrated chipset instead on the Nvidia...
For power and heat it would be clever to be able to switch between the two.

After some hours of comparing benchmarks it comes clearer, that most systems will be better than the current one.

Fun fact: It is official guideline of the German ministry of environment to buy used and use opensource: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltti ... sere-tipps

At least a lot of FGFS stuff is being transferred to external harddrive right now, so damage control done. (you see the problem for this Wednesday).

[wkitty42]

FWIW: you should be able to replace that battery in that notebook and maybe repurpose it for other tasks... replacing the HD should be pretty easy, too...

[MariuszXC]

Fun fact: It is official guideline of the German ministry of environment to buy used and use opensource: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltti ... sere-tipps

I really like the way your ministry communicates. Simple and logical terms, competent info.
(another fun fact) I don't know if it is still the case, but I seem to remember that at one time German government recommended removal of commercial OS's and replacement with OpenSource alternatives in all its offices, not so much for cost but for security reasons. I might be wrong here, though, as it was quite long ago. IIRC it gave the Libre/Open Office quite a boost, back when it was known as StarOffice..
Oh well, I'll stop the OT now

[Ysop]

I really like the way your ministry communicates. Simple and logical terms, competent info.
(another fun fact) I don't know if it is still the case, but I seem to remember that at one time German government recommended removal of commercial OS's and replacement with OpenSource alternatives in all its offices, not so much for cost but for security reasons. I might be wrong here, though, as it was quite long ago. IIRC it gave the Libre/Open Office quite a boost, back when it was known as StarOffice..
Oh well, I'll stop the OT now

Absolutely agreeing this. They should set the website in stone.
There were attempts in Munich and Schleswig -Holstein, maybe more.
Let's say: it could have been successful...

Wkitty, you are right. Old one might end up as media station. Or rebuilt if nothing suitable is on the market. Still recovery and research phase here. With main data saved, I am at least not any more in panic phase.

Entry post will sooner or later get updates, so it is more of general use.

[Ysop]

Quick summary of the research of the last days:

requirements
Yes, more processing power is good.... but is it important? FGFS is so resource friendly, that you can have fun on almost any platform.
Current computer is a 10 year old notebook (i5-4200U, glmark2 Score: 1591 ), perfectly usable for FGFS. Of course knowing and respecting the limitations.
There are a lot of great sim pilots and developers on similar lower end platforms. So if you are reading this thread to search for minimum recommended hardware? Just try it on your machine. There are sometimes problems on real low end office computers. Older FGFS-versions might be an option in such a case.
If looking for an upgrade: The market for used stuff is really huge!

repair options
If your notebook fails due to battery failure, just de-install it. Your computer will run without, even if it has a built in one. Just tried for an Acer, others will be similar.
Make sure, nobody pulls the plug while working on something.

So my notebook now has a second life. Good backup strategy recommended.
Downside of the story: I have to find another excuse to buy something new!

[V12]

glmark2 score 1592 is enough for all shaders to maximum and realistic visibility limit at minimum 25 fps ? Because FGFS on my old HP8570W with Quadro K1000M is unusable slow with all features on max settings and has 2750 glmark2 score. But yes, FGFS is flyable, when all eyecandy stuff is switched off. Cost is high, sim looks very poor.

FGFS is resource friendly ? Hardly ever. Sorry.

This sim can't fully utilize multicore CPUs. It is simply fact.
Scenery is assembled from billions of small files, what is not good for storage file system - it is again slow and space hungry.
Interpreted scripting environment is another handbrake and many essential simulator or aircraft parts are powered by NASAL - weather engine, autopilots, avionics, etc. Again, it is very ineffective.

FGFS needs CPU with highest possible frequency, core count is almost irrelevant. There is not significant difference between RTX3060 and GTX1060 on same CPU on content rich areas like LOWI, EDDF or LFPG.

[TheEagle]

Where can I get that glmark2 ? I'd like to know my score, too ! It's in the official Ubuntu repos, actually. But still didn't get my score - it just crashed after a while:

Code: Select all

    glmark2 2021.02
=======================================================
    OpenGL Information
    GL_VENDOR:     NVIDIA Corporation
    GL_RENDERER:   GeForce GT 520M/PCIe/SSE2
    GL_VERSION:    4.6.0 NVIDIA 390.151
=======================================================
[build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 490 FrameTime: 2.041 ms
[build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 536 FrameTime: 1.866 ms
[texture] texture-filter=nearest: FPS: 539 FrameTime: 1.855 ms
[texture] texture-filter=linear: FPS: 530 FrameTime: 1.887 ms
[texture] texture-filter=mipmap: FPS: 534 FrameTime: 1.873 ms
[shading] shading=gouraud: FPS: 448 FrameTime: 2.232 ms
[shading] shading=blinn-phong-inf: FPS: 444 FrameTime: 2.252 ms
[shading] shading=phong: FPS: 429 FrameTime: 2.331 ms
[shading] shading=cel: FPS: 433 FrameTime: 2.309 ms
[bump] bump-render=high-poly: FPS: 367 FrameTime: 2.725 ms
[bump] bump-render=normals: FPS: 520 FrameTime: 1.923 ms
Error: Failed to add fragment shader from file None:
Error:   0(15) : error C0000: syntax error, unexpected identifier, expecting "::" at token "highp"
Error:
[bump] bump-render=height: Set up failed
[effect2d] kernel=0,1,0;1,-4,1;0,1,0;: FPS: 357 FrameTime: 2.801 ms
[effect2d] kernel=1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;: FPS: 248 FrameTime: 4.032 ms
[pulsar] light=false:quads=5:texture=false: FPS: 428 FrameTime: 2.336 ms
[desktop] blur-radius=5:effect=blur:passes=1:separable=true:windows=4: FPS: 272 FrameTime: 3.676 ms
[desktop] effect=shadow:windows=4: FPS: 420 FrameTime: 2.381 ms
[buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 267 FrameTime: 3.745 ms
[buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=subdata: FPS: 309 FrameTime: 3.236 ms
[buffer] columns=200:interleave=true:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 292 FrameTime: 3.425 ms
[ideas] speed=duration: FPS: 431 FrameTime: 2.320 ms
[jellyfish] <default>: FPS: 345 FrameTime: 2.899 ms
Error: Failed to add fragment shader from file None:
Error:   0(26) : warning C7022: unrecognized profile specifier "highp"
Error: 0(26) : error C0502: syntax error at token "highp"
Error:
Error: Failed to add fragment shader from file None:
Error:   0(75) : warning C7022: unrecognized profile specifier "highp"
Error: 0(75) : error C0502: syntax error at token "highp"
Error:
[terrain] <default>:Speicherzugriffsfehler


Never mind …

[MariuszXC]

https://wiki.flightgear.org/OpenGL_performance

[erik]

The first benchmarks show that the Intel Arc Graphics A380 is probably in a reasonable shape for use with FlightGear:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu. ... 80&id=4568
Average G3D Mark: 4449

vs. GeForce GTX 750 which does already do a decent job:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu. ... 50&id=2825
Average G3D Mark: 3383

For more tests:
https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-a ... e_vignette

Erik

[V12]

G3D is DirectX test, not OpenGL, if I remember correctly. Good support for D3D != good support for OpenGL, so performance of A380 in FG may be lower than ancient (but powerful) GTX 750. You need run OpenGL benchmark for final conclusion. All Intel's GPUs are optimized for office / multimedia use, not for gaming or CAD usage.

[erik]

I wasn't aware that the G3D is a DirectX test. But the Phoronix tests shows strong Vulkan support for the ARC A380 and OpenGL support is still being worked on by Intel. So I still think it's a decent card for FlightGear albeit for the low end of the market.

Erik

[V12]

FG is not Vulcan compatible. OpenGL is ancient, but nVidia has much better support than Intel. I think GTX1060 is much better solution. For FG is usable GTX1030 too, this GPU has similar performance as old GTX750, but is significantly cheaper than GTX1060.