Board index FlightGear Support Graphics

Intel Core i5 performance

Graphics issues like: bad framerates, weird colors, OpenGL errors etc. Bad graphics ar usually the result of bad graphics cards or drivers.
Forum rules
In order to help you, we need to know a lot of information. Make sure to include answers to at least the following questions in your initial post.

- what OS (Windows Xp/Vista, Mac etc.) are you running?
- what FlightGear version do you use?
- what graphics card do you have?
- does the problem occur with any aircraft, at any airport?
- is there any output printed to the console (black window)?
- copy&paste your commandline (tick the "Show commandline box on the last page of FGRun or the "Others" section on the Mac launcher).
- please upload a screenshot of the problem.

If you experience FlightGear crashes, please report a bug using the issue tracker (can be also used for feature requests).
To run FlightGear on old computers with bad OpenGL support, please take a look at this wiki article. If you are seeing corrupted/broken textures, please see this article.

Note: If you did not get a reponse, even after 7 days, you may want to check out the FlightGear mailing lists to ask your question there.

Intel Core i5 performance

Postby jan-r » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:07 am

Hello,

I'm currently trying to run FlightGear on my Ubuntu Linux box. My new PC has an Intel Core i5 2500 CPU, and I decided not to install a separate graphics card until I really need to. As far as I can tell, 3d acceleration is set up correctly. Nexuiz runs smoothly with normal details at about 30 fps. But FlightGear is performing poorly at less than one frame per second. This puzzles me a bit, because even on a low-end Atom n450 netbook I can run FlightGear in the default scenery with 4-7 fps. Does anyone else use this kind of setup (plain sandybridge gfx) and can tell me what framerates I could expect without additional hardware?

There are many potential sources for the problem (fg is still version 2.4.0,Ubuntu Precise is still beta).. But I'd like to know if this setup makes sense at all, or if a dedicated gfx card is a must.

Jan
jan-r
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:55 pm
Version: 2.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 12.04

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby Bjoern » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:15 pm

Seems I was wrong with my assumption that i5s can run FG...

Apparently, the sim generally dislikes integrated graphics solutions (e.g. i5, Intel GMA945, etc...), so it's really hit-and-miss getting it to work properly.

Does your netbook have a separate graphics chip?
Bjoern
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:00 pm
Location: TXL (RIP)
Version: Next
OS: ArchLinux

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby jan-r » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:09 pm

The netbook uses the cpu's integrated GMA3150 graphics solution. Should be worse than the i5.

I guess there's still something wrong with the version of fg I'm running. The current performance is just too bad to be true.

Jan
jan-r
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:55 pm
Version: 2.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 12.04

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby radi » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:57 pm

I'm running FG git from January 2012 on an i5-2500 and Ubuntu Oneiric, and get pretty decent frame rates 20..30.

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 42
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 1600.000
cache size : 6144 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 0
cpu cores : 4
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes

$ lspci -v
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 09) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Device 844d
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 53
Memory at fe000000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4M]
Memory at d0000000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=256M]
I/O ports at f000 [size=64]
Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled]
Capabilities: <access denied>
Kernel driver in use: i915
Kernel modules: i915
OSM buildings for LOWI, EDDC
Custom scenery for VHXX YMML
Edit .stg via the FG Object Placement Tool
radi
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: YMML, EDDC

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby jan-r » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:48 am

Thanks for your reply, Tom. That's pretty much what I would have expected from my setup. So I guess there's really something wrong with my installation.

I can recall that I briefly tested fg right after I installed it, and got higher framerates. Some days later, when I had some spare time for doing a longer flight, the frame rate had dropped to the current value. But there were some hundred updates in between, so I'm not able to tell what broke it.

Maybe I should try a fresh install of Oneiric on an empty partition. Installing fg 2.6.0 on Precise did not change anything.

Jan
jan-r
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:55 pm
Version: 2.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 12.04

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby jan-r » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:31 pm

Ok, tonight I installed Oneiric 64-bit on an empty partition and ran FlightGear 2.6.0 from GetDeb. Performance is now more like what I expected. Depending on the aircraft and location, I get 10-30 fps with all shader settings maxed out towards quality, 3D clouds, random objects and AI models. So that's really some kind of bug/driver problem in Precise.

However, there are still some 3D cockpit glitches (partly blocky/fuzzy instruments, jagged/flickering edges).
jan-r
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:55 pm
Version: 2.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 12.04

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby radi » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:13 pm

However, there are still some 3D cockpit glitches (partly blocky/fuzzy instruments, jagged/flickering edges).

For the record: I get these, too.
OSM buildings for LOWI, EDDC
Custom scenery for VHXX YMML
Edit .stg via the FG Object Placement Tool
radi
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: YMML, EDDC

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby radi » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:18 pm

...and enabling the "Generic shader" in Rendering options->Shader options fixes these, but also brings frame rate down to 15. Still usable, though.
OSM buildings for LOWI, EDDC
Custom scenery for VHXX YMML
Edit .stg via the FG Object Placement Tool
radi
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: YMML, EDDC

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby Sweetgrapes » Mon May 07, 2012 4:31 pm

Have you tried looking for any type of driver for the graphics?(it`s Intel HD3000 right?) Because my dad has a laptop with an i5(an Arrandale one) and we tried to install a game on it. It had problems starting up so we googled for a driver, installed it and the game worked.
"A bird can`t damage an engine, but an engine can damage a bird."
User avatar
Sweetgrapes
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Callsign: Wingtip or MIA0049
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby spinifex » Fri May 11, 2012 1:06 am

Another data point for this thread:

I recently installed 2.4.0 on Ubuntu 12.04 / Precise Pangolin, from the default repos. After getting major stuttering and very low frame rates (more on which below), I tried installing 2.6.0 from playdeb. Same issues.

Initial stuttering delays were ~800ms, with frame rates of ~1fps. Opening the View -> Rendering Options dialog and setting the Shading slider hard over to the 'Performance' end improved this to delays of ~150ms and frame rates of ~7-8fps.

Enabling OSG shows there is no activity in the 'GPU' category.

glxgears runs at ~60fps. Other applications requiring hardware 3d acceleration, such as Celestia and Chromium BSU, are running perfectly.

My machine has an i5-2410M CPU, with (as reported by driconf) integrated Intel i965 graphics.

Code: Select all
lshw -class display
reports:

*-display
description: VGA compatible controller
product: 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller
vendor: Intel Corporation
physical id: 2
bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0
version: 09
width: 64 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom
configuration: driver=i915 latency=0
resources: irq:42 memory:ddc00000-ddffffff memory:c0000000-cfffffff ioport:e000(size=64)


Code: Select all
xdpyinfo | head -n50
reports:

name of display: :0
version number: 11.0
vendor string: The X.Org Foundation
vendor release number: 11103000
X.Org version: 1.11.3
maximum request size: 16777212 bytes
motion buffer size: 256
bitmap unit, bit order, padding: 32, LSBFirst, 32
image byte order: LSBFirst
number of supported pixmap formats: 7
supported pixmap formats:
depth 1, bits_per_pixel 1, scanline_pad 32
depth 4, bits_per_pixel 8, scanline_pad 32
depth 8, bits_per_pixel 8, scanline_pad 32
depth 15, bits_per_pixel 16, scanline_pad 32
depth 16, bits_per_pixel 16, scanline_pad 32
depth 24, bits_per_pixel 32, scanline_pad 32
depth 32, bits_per_pixel 32, scanline_pad 32
keycode range: minimum 8, maximum 255
focus: window 0x1800009, revert to PointerRoot
number of extensions: 28
BIG-REQUESTS
Composite
DAMAGE
DOUBLE-BUFFER
DPMS
DRI2
GLX
Generic Event Extension
MIT-SCREEN-SAVER
MIT-SHM
RANDR
RECORD
RENDER
SECURITY
SGI-GLX
SHAPE
SYNC
X-Resource
XC-MISC
XFIXES
XFree86-DGA
XFree86-VidModeExtension
XINERAMA
XInputExtension
XKEYBOARD
XTEST
XVideo
XVideo-MotionCompensation
default screen number: 0


Code: Select all
driconf
reports:

Mesa DRI Intel(R) Sandybridge Mobile x86/MMX/SSE2 (Tungsten Graphics, Inc)
Synchronization with vertical refresh (swap intervals): Always synchronize with vertical refresh, application chooses the minimum swap interval
Buffer object reuse: Enable reuse of all sizes of buffer objects
Enable texture tiling: Yes
Enable early Z in classic mode (unstable, 945-only): No
Enabled limited ARB_fragment_shader_support on 915/945: No
Enable S3TC texture compression even if software support is not available: No
Support larger textures not guaranteed to fit into graphics memory: Announce hardware limits
Disable 3D acceleration: No
Enable flushing batchbuffer after each draw call: No
Enable flushing GPU caches with each draw call: No
Force GLSL extension default behavior to 'warn': No
Enable stub ARB_occlusion_query support on 915/945: No
Perform code generation at shader link time: No


Please let me know if any other information is required!
spinifex
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:27 am

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby islandmonkey » Fri May 11, 2012 7:47 am

Ah, the lovely Intel HD integrated graphics...

That simply won't run FlightGear (well). Dedicated graphics are much better.
User avatar
islandmonkey
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:51 pm
Location: EGCN (uni), EGHI (home)
Callsign: G-MNKY
OS: Ubuntu 20.04

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby spinifex » Fri May 11, 2012 10:39 am

@islandmonkey:

*sad nod* No FlightGear for me then! But thank you for the heads-up. :-)
spinifex
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 12:27 am

Re: Intel Core i5 performance

Postby jan-r » Sat May 12, 2012 7:52 am

@spinifex: There seems to be an issue with the Intel driver integrated in 12.04 Precise. I had exactly the same behaviour, as described above. With 11.10 Oneiric, FlightGear runs much better and is quite useable if you stay away from too detailed airports like KSFO. I already thought about filing a bug report at Launchpad, but I don't really know against which package. Might be the kernel, might be X.org, might be xorg-driver-intel.

I think the HD2000 is not a bad gfx solution for casual gamers and is even suitable for FG on lower resolutions and with reduced details and shader settings, but of course it won't deliver maximum gfx quality on maxed-out quality slider settings.

For me, I solved the problem by adding an NVIDIA GTS450 to my setup. Works like a charm and really makes Flight Gear shine on a 42" TV in full HD resolution. 8) Frame rates vary from 15 to the upper limit of 60 depending on the scenery and airplane.
jan-r
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:55 pm
Version: 2.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 12.04


Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests