Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

FlightGear performance ( from: How can I retire from the forum?)

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

FlightGear performance ( from: How can I retire from the forum?)

Postby Thorsten » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:37 am

Sorry, but I no longer feel like contributing to this project is a joy as it's going to a direction which makes it impossible for people like me to play.


Sorry, but if the intended meaning here is about alleged hardware requirements, that's just not true. All it takes to run the recent FG version on old hardware is to not use optional features and dial down the configuration. The project is most definitely not going into any direction making it impossible for some people to use FG - there's huge concern over backward compatibility on the devel list.

Oh, and it's a simulation - we don't 'play'... :-)

You may of course wish to retire for whatever reasons.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11378
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby junior-s » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:27 am

Thorsten wrote in Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:37 am:
Sorry, but I no longer feel like contributing to this project is a joy as it's going to a direction which makes it impossible for people like me to play.


Sorry, but if the intended meaning here is about alleged hardware requirements, that's just not true. All it takes to run the recent FG version on old hardware is to not use optional features and dial down the configuration. The project is most definitely not going into any direction making it impossible for some people to use FG - there's huge concern over backward compatibility on the devel list.

Oh, and it's a simulation - we don't 'play'... :-)

You may of course wish to retire for whatever reasons.

The problem isn't completely on my hardware, but mostly on the consumption of most features in FG.
One day the game runs fine, then a 777-S is added and there goes my 4 GiB of RAM. It's a very nice aircraft but it consumes too much ram, not even the 777 PMDG consumes that amount.
But mostly I didn't bother too much with this, so I compiled again from git and then my fps goes to 3 even while flying the 737. I would assume it's something related to the scenery, but I don't know much about anything. It stays at 3 for dozens of seconds then goes to 40-50, but then after a few seconds it drops again to 3-5 and stays there.

The "solutions" to FG's developers seem:

1) downgrade the game graphics quality, which are already low by default. So go ahead and fly with not-so-pretty settings and a scenery square that is smaller than you own city's quarter, because the scenery is way too much detailed;
2) buy more memory and/or a better pc.

I'd love to have the money to buy a new pc and use it for many things and Flightgear, but I don't. I also don't think most people flying a free Simulator have the required computer power to run the game as it's requesting since about 2 years ago, but since I have a choice of either spending lots of money to buy a new PC just for Flightgear (because all of my other 54 games run fine at High settings) or buy a payware simulator, I chose to buy a simulator that runs fine with my current hardware.
junior-s
Retired
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 2:27 am
Location: Wonderland
Callsign: junior-s
Version: GIT
OS: Arch Linux

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Hooray » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:07 pm

you are not the first one to leave for these reasons. Then again, this doesn't necessarily have to do much with graphics - what you are describing are fluctuations in frame rate and frame spacing (latency, the time required to create a single frame). And here, it's frequently a bunch of other subsystems that are the culprit, or that at least contribute to the whole issue in a combined fashion. While it is true that many things can be disabled or customized, this doesn't apply to all features - and there are many non-optional features/subsystems that cannot be easily customized or disabled yet, but it's something that will happen over time. However, while it's "graphics" that many people tend to consider the cause, it's more likely to be a sympton, because that's what people perceive to be slow, and the problem. Utlimately, frame rate and frame spacing are really just symptoms though - there are many other subsystems that contribute to performance issues.

And it isn't helping that we don't provide any good tools to tell how certain features, subsystems and settings perform in terms of CPU/RAM and GPU/VRAM utilization.

I'd agree that we do have a real problem, but I'd say it's not necessarily in the graphics department - but ultimately, we really need to add better diagnostics, i.e. some kind of task monitor that tells us where time/horse power and RAM are spent.
Last edited by Hooray on Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11493
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Thorsten » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:26 pm

One day the game runs fine, then a 777-S is added and there goes my 4 GiB of RAM. It's a very nice aircraft but it consumes too much ram, not even the 777 PMDG consumes that amount.


Yes, that's what I mean by optional.

I mean, in that context FG is just a platform which runs the data you throw at it. Someone decided to develop that 777-S at high detail, and then it consumes more memory. Should the devel team veto detailed aircraft based on the notion that they might not run on all systems? Or could we perhaps trust users to select aircraft based on what runs on their system and what they want to have?

Maxing out all options together (most detailed aircraft, most detailed scenery, high graphic detail,...) is intended for people with gaming hardware. Asking to be able to run that on every bit of hardware is unreasonable.


But mostly I didn't bother too much with this, so I compiled again from git and then my fps goes to 3 even while flying the 737. I would assume it's something related to the scenery, but I don't know much about anything. It stays at 3 for dozens of seconds then goes to 40-50, but then after a few seconds it drops again to 3-5 and stays there.


Well, some might think GIT is a devel version which does potentially weird things, so if it really does something weird, it'd be worthwhile to find out why (needless to say, I'm not seeing this here).

1) downgrade the game graphics quality, which are already low by default. So go ahead and fly with not-so-pretty settings and a scenery square that is smaller than you own city's quarter, because the scenery is way too much detailed;
2) buy more memory and/or a better pc.


Can you tell me who of the developers actually said that? Or did you really make it up?

Because you're missing the very obvious #1 recommendation - revert to the 1.0 scenery. On a by now 6 year old 32bit computer with 4 GB memory, I could run that with shader settings at what is now medium quality and visibility ranges of 120 km with 20+ fps.

Using the 2.0 scenery (or in fact any scenery) is optional. And you should in fact not do it if you think you're low on memory. I think that recommendation is now all over the place in the forum, on the FG site and on the mailing list. We still provide the 1.0 lowres scenery for download and probably will continue to do so for a while. And if memory is the bottleneck (an extended period of low framerate jumping back to 50 sure looks like the system starting to use swap...) you can use high graphics settings and create lots of details procedurally.

I also don't think most people flying a free Simulator have the required computer power to run the game as it's requesting since about 2 years ago, but since I have a choice of either spending lots of money to buy a new PC just for Flightgear (because all of my other 54 games run fine at High settings) or buy a payware simulator, I chose to buy a simulator that runs fine with my current hardware.


See above - the 2.0 scenery is heavy - FG 3.2 really isn't. You're confusing the framework with the data - FG is just the framework, its resource dependence crucially depends on what data you feed it with, i.e. what scenery you use or what aircraft. FG 2.0 would be just as memory-consuming with the new scenery and the most recent top-notch aircraft (if it would run that is, there was a format change for the scenery).

The 'simulator that runs fine with your current hardware' has probably just the same feature - if you would feed it hires data for terrain and aircraft, it'd consume more resources than you have.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11378
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Hooray » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:34 pm

This isn't the first person/contributor to state pretty clearly that they're kinda disappointed with the way FG has evolved over the years, some others stated pretty clearly that even a recent version of X-Plane looks and works better than FG 3.x using the same hardware - so I guess we should take this for what it is, i.e. feedback demonstrating that people no longer know how to scale down FlightGear's features. Admittedly, I also find myself having to do quite a bit of tweaking these days, despite having fairly powerful hardware. Stating that all these are optional features and that people "merely" need to disable those, is as short-sighted as the whole multi-threading debate that we've been having since ~2006 ... Obviously, the "minimal startup profile" should still work for people, and it should easily provide ~60 fps, but that's not what people want FG to look like, and there are other products that simply provide a better experience. If I wasn't into coding and tinkering, I'd also probably favor X-Plane over FlightGear, simply because it "just works".
So, I'd say we do have a problem, but what people consider the problem is usually just a symptom and not the real culprit.
But that should be understandable, most non-coders cannot easily understand all the factors involved here.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11493
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby junior-s » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:08 pm

Someone decided to develop that 777-S at high detail, and then it consumes more memory.

The level of detail if that 777 should make it consume too much memory. It consumes too much memory for what it delivers. A good counter example is the 787-8 which is too a highly detailed aircraft and yet much lighter on resources than the 777-S. Or the 707, that's lightweight too.
Should the devel team veto detailed aircraft based on the notion that they might not run on all systems? Or could we perhaps trust users to select aircraft based on what runs on their system and what they want to have?
Detailed aircraft can exist without consuming that much of memory. The 787/707/777-PMDG are good examples.
Maxing out all options together (most detailed aircraft, most detailed scenery, high graphic detail,...) is intended for people with gaming hardware. Asking to be able to run that on every bit of hardware is unreasonable.
I don't need to max everything in order not to be able to play it. The default settings by themselves are enough to make the game unplayable, at least on Linux. FG's memory consumption is high and the scenery is too detailed. Either that, or it's a combo of mistakes that make the game not work for everybody. For instance, I saw a picture in this forum showing a part of the scenery: it was formed of what, little squares of 40x40cm? Even smaller? That might be OK in short distances but the screenshot (for what I can remember) showed the scenery as quite far. No one gives that much attention to ground level details, no one will zoom out till they can see ants on the ground.
Well, some might think GIT is a devel version which does potentially weird things, so if it really does something weird, it'd be worthwhile to find out why (needless to say, I'm not seeing this here).
For what I recall the same problem with the FPS happened on 3.0 too, so I'm assuming Terrasync was pushing a scenery that didn't work for me.
Can you tell me who of the developers actually said that? Or did you really make it up?
There's no reason to make that up. I just don't remember who wrote that. Or I could be mistaken. Either way, that's what it seems from the responses we get here.
Using the 2.0 scenery (or in fact any scenery) is optional.
Sure it is. Flying with FG is. Breathing is :) It's just that the scenery shouldn't be as heavy as it is. There's "something" with it that makes it heavier/slowe than it could be.
And you should in fact not do it if you think you're low on memory. I think that recommendation is now all over the place in the forum, on the FG site and on the mailing list.
So what now, you're going to put a note on the downloads page and on Terrasync saying "only use this if you have 8GB of RAM"?
And if memory is the bottleneck (an extended period of low framerate jumping back to 50 sure looks like the system starting to use swap...)
It's probably not swap, I had plenty of memory on that case and swapiness set to 1.
The 'simulator that runs fine with your current hardware' has probably just the same feature - if you would feed it hires data for terrain and aircraft, it'd consume more resources than you have.
It loads a low-res texture for the entire globe and manages 3D vertexes in a way that an entire mountain would look as if it was made of 30-40 big squares if you were looking at it from .5 mile away. At 20.000ft an entire island would look as if made of 4, maybe 5 squares, and only if it was really protuberant, otherwise it would be just a flat surface.
Last edited by junior-s on Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
junior-s
Retired
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 2:27 am
Location: Wonderland
Callsign: junior-s
Version: GIT
OS: Arch Linux

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby junior-s » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:22 pm

This isn't the first person/contributor to state pretty clearly that they're kinda disappointed with the way FG has evolved over the years, some others stated pretty clearly that even a recent version of X-Plane looks and works better than FG 3.x using the same hardware - so I guess we should take this for what it is, i.e. feedback demonstrating that people no longer know how to scale down FlightGear's features.
In fact I tested X-Plane and it works so well I couldn't believe, because the developers say "use 16GB of RAM and multiple processors". That's not quite the case, as I spoke to one of it's developers he/she said the game auto-adjusts itself to the hardware it's been run on. But even so, I didn't notice any difference from the ad videos they put up on Youtube.

If I wasn't into coding and tinkering, I'd also probably favor X-Plane over FlightGear, simply because it "just works".
That was an option I considered. I wrote a big e-Mail to them stating that they should publish their game via the Internet and not only via DVD's, because if I was to buy it I'd pay 2.2x it's price + 100% on taxes (60$ x 2.2 [price of dollar] = 132R$ + 100% importing taxes = 264R$ + shipping = 36.4% of the minimum wage here). They said "by the end of this year", but I'm not that patient. Also, I don't like the way their controls behave with Keyboard and Mouse, that little square doesn't provide enough sensitivity to allow precise movements.

So, I'd say we do have a problem, but what people consider the problem is usually just a symptom and not the real culprit.
I'd appreciate if you explained what symptom this could be :)
But that should be understandable, most non-coders cannot easily understand all the factors involved here.
Most of your users, you mean 8)
junior-s
Retired
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 2:27 am
Location: Wonderland
Callsign: junior-s
Version: GIT
OS: Arch Linux

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Prometeo 2013 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:45 pm

I would like to comment on my good experience with flightgear. . Before anything say I'm new to the forum and although I tried it and flightgear almost 10 years the game has changed so much that you can not compare. To say that I was a programmer for years. . Although not very good lol and that helps me in understanding the program. . Reach the program after thinking about buying FSX but as the game had ended in Xplane .. then I thought I tried it and did not convince me that the demo was not enough high fps and also when I went shopping I saw that I could not download but only buying physical copy. I do not live near a store. So get to flightgear. . Before I criticize say that my experience with the game is a 9 out of 10 .. but if you understand that there are things that a normal user would then leave the game .. 1 - I find that in the early days of suddenly lose the stage and after browsing the forum I found the solution was to delete the configuration directory. . Before had fallen across the world stage because he thought that was the problem .. 2 - when I think on an airplane is an aircraft that conforms as much as possible to reality but then discover that many have a basic or incomplete FDM. . so I doubt that the flying experience is realistic. 3 - I also seek to know what airport I have flown many hours flight .. have .. etc as a database of my flights. But this is not implemented. 4 - a sometimes strange things happen to me like that when I click on the clock map opens ... this gives the impression that it is a project with parts .. alfa code in other pieces of code in beta ... and another piece of code of a mature project .. 5-When you start playing MP you think you're being ridiculous and I do not know the phrases that are used between the tower and the plane did not know her would not be so bad that there was a wiki on the subject. Finally flightgear say that I love but I think that instead of adding new options would be interesting to refine and improve existing ones. greetings to all and thanks for the great work.
Prometeo 2013
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:43 am
Callsign: Prometeo2013
OS: windows 8.1

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Thorsten » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:09 pm

This isn't the first person/contributor to state pretty clearly that they're kinda disappointed with the way FG has evolved over the years, some others stated pretty clearly that even a recent version of X-Plane looks and works better than FG 3.x using the same hardware - so I guess we should take this for what it is, i.e. feedback demonstrating that people no longer know how to scale down FlightGear's features.


Yes, whereas we take it in fact as what precisely? What do you think we do with that kind of feedback?

Memory footprint has been a recurring theme on the mailing list and Rebecca has demonstrated it to be almost exclusively relate to the scenery. The scenery team is busy getting rid of extra zero area triangles for the next scenery release. James has pushed the changes to the tile cache for better memory footprint. People are working on a terrain LOD scheme. Prior to the 3.0 release, you can find my messages pushing for a clear statement that the 2.0 scenery as is is rather memory intense and that we recommend it should only be used on systems with plenty of memory and that we should keep the 1.0 scenery available. There are forum messages by yours truly all over the place explaining that the first measure in case of any trouble with FG 3.0 out of the box should be to revert to the old scenery.

I'm sort of guessing X-plane has a full-time paid person doing the optimizing, which we don't have.

You know all these things - so what's the point of your post? Arguing that feedback is *not* taken seriously?

So what now, you're going to put a note on the downloads page and on Terrasync saying "only use this if you have 8GB of RAM"?


Yeah, pretty much.

There's a story to that, and that is that for years we (certainly I and many others) have been asking the scenery team again and again to release something of the new world scenery, even if it's not perfect, so that we have something to work with. They've finally done so - and we got something that's not very perfect - with zero-area triangles, possibly too high details on roads, heavy on memory,... so now that's a base to improve upon.

But of course, now everyone finds that it's not perfect and complains that it's not perfect. And then, I feel compelled to speak up, because I specifically asked to release early even if there'd be problems. And in my book, that voids any right to complain.

Because if I had been asked to release something early, knowing it's not 100% ready, and I had done so and would face the reaction I'd now get from the user base, I'd feel pretty pissed, and I'd pack my stuff and leave.

The story of course continues, because in their infinite wisdom, the powers to be made the 2.0 scenery the default via terrasync and did in fact for some undisclosed reason not insert a statement into the release announcement that it's heavy on memory, and I've been spending tens of hours by now to make that bit of info more widely known. So the whole way the 3.0 release went with the 2.0 scenery and the information about potential problems was a royal clusterf*&^%


It's just that the scenery shouldn't be as heavy as it is. There's "something" with it that makes it heavier/slowe than it could be.


Yeah - sure is - but we asked for it in the current state, and that's now there and people are over the problem making it better.

It's probably not swap, I had plenty of memory on that case and swapiness set to 1.


Yeah, well, so what is it? Does it depend on graphics settings? Scenery? Aircraft? Nasal? We don't know, so we can't fix.

There's no reason to make that up. I just don't remember who wrote that. Or I could be mistaken. Either way, that's what it seems from the responses we get here.


Well, I think that's an important issue here, because I have never ever witnessed anyone from the developers say you need to buy a new computer to run newer FG versions. So - if that's what seems the response you get here - point me to an instance here in the forum please. Or take it back and acknowledge that this is in fact not the response you get.

For instance, I saw a picture in this forum showing a part of the scenery: it was formed of what, little squares of 40x40cm?


Surely not. CORINE has a resolution of tens of meters. We do have 10 cm sized resolution on textures with procedural texturing, but that's created on-demand on the GPU. And it's not made of squares in any case. So - kindly point me to the picture. You can't just go around and talk about things /somewhere/ in the forum and statements made by /someone/. Information needs to be verifiable. If you say we do something bad, you at least need evidence for it.

/ Personal note/

I'm getting seriously frustrated about the whole scenery thing. About the release management which discarded all the good evidence about memory issues. About users who can't find it in them to cut the scenery people some slack and acknowledge that the 2.0 scenery is a step towards something better - not the end product, but something to work with while something new is rolled out, and that using 1.0 apparently isn't an option. About the misinformation that is spread because people can't be bothered to verify information. About long term contributors who run around and claim that we have a huge problem in the code, when in fact all investigations have shown that most issues go away when reverting to 1.0 scenery. And about the general notion that nobody would care about the whole thing, when in fact plenty of people are working on the issues.

Finally flightgear say that I love but I think that instead of adding new options would be interesting to refine and improve existing ones.


Not the same people. Making scenery is a completely different branch of coding from rendering scenery. Even if I would not add any more rendering options, I would have zero qualification working on scenery. You can't simply assume that you can reassign people to any task - a 3d modeler isn't going to be a coder if you ask him to, a graphics artist isn't going to become a rendering specialist. Within each area of specialization, people do fix bugs before adding options.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11378
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Hooray » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:48 pm

Thorsten wrote:Yes, whereas we take it in fact as what precisely? What do you think we do with that kind of feedback?

We aren't really acting upon it, simple as that. Which is not about a single contributor/developer, but about the project as a whole.

I've been getting 7-9 PMs since the beginning of the year just about these issues, not from newcomers, but from contributors who are basically saying the equivalent of "I am feeling locked out, can no longer run FG, performance is getting worse almost each week". And please keep in mind that this has been going on long before the 2.0 release. I am not even counting public discussions here.

We started seeing these discussions around 2010 when scenery related features were added on the FG side of things, not TerraGear, such as random buildings and other "memory gobbling" features.
That's when all those "OpenGL out of memory" started showing up here, too.

So this is not about one isolated feature causing this - maybe it's mostly TerraGear scenery that is contributing to this these days.
But the bottom line remains that such things go unnoticed because we don't provide the mechanisms/tools to detect such issues much earlier.

Back in 2010, I was the one who posted a patch to allow /some/ memory stats to be obtained at run-time, but the whole thing got disregarded quickly when random buildings were considered "fixed".

Fast forward 3-4 years later, we're having another issue due to resource utilization, and it's -again- only core developers, and experienced contributors, who know how to actually profile FG and sample memory occupancy per subsystem.

We've seen the same issue with regard to accusations that Nasal/GC would be causing all the "slowness" in FlightGear, i.e. garbage collection issues. And more recently, people are claiming that any combination of Nasal+Canvas is deemed to be slow and inefficient.
And then, back in the early Rembrandt days there really was a discussion about making Rembrandt the default option, despite all its performance related shortcomings - and look at the number of Rembrandt-related threads where users are pointing out performance issues.

So yeah, I'd say that people complaining about our lack of acting do have a point: We're not acting upon the feedback provided by end-users, instead we're fixing "symptoms" (at best, as in individual features), and we don't fix the infrastructure to allow non-coders to more easily tell when/why things are going haywire and to make better informed bug reports, i.e. in terms of concrete features & subsystems I mean, not actual C++ functions (which can really only be expected of people who build from source and who know how to patch SG/FG or even OSG).

And yes, that's basically a matter of providing some kind of dedicated monitoring function, analogous to the existing system monitor, which also tracks other resources, such as RAM/VRAM - at least optionally.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to all "blame" it all on more TerraGear progress - the underlying issue is a known one, and we've seen recurring patterns here long before World Scenery 2.0, it's just the concrete manifestation that differs over time, but otherwise the culprit is that we 1) don't provide any optional diagnostics to tell what's going on in terms of CPU/GPU/RAM/VRAM utilization, and 2) that we don't do any headless regression testing when adding new features. So I can kinda relate to people feeling "locked out". We're certainly far from being user-friendly, if people have to be around for half a decade to turn FG into a usable piece of software ... :D

Thorsten wrote:There are forum messages by yours truly all over the place explaining that the first measure in case of any trouble with FG 3.0 out of the box should be to revert to the old scenery.
No need to check the archives, but that's an exaggeration: you'll find a single thread where I am posting my findings with regard to 2.0 scenery, and where I also state that I've found osgEarth to perform much better in comparison, even when compared to 1.0 scenery at times. So what I may have suggested a few times is that people consider using the osgEarth engine instead of the native scenery engine, regardless of 2.0 scenery - simply because it is obviously much more optimized for the time being.

Thorsten wrote:You know all these things - so what's the point of your post? Arguing that feedback is *not* taken seriously?

Well, the number of core developers involved in the forum, and involved in providing end-user support is fairly limited, as you know. Thus, it's our workload/frustration that is increased by certain threads/discussions (like this one). Then again, it isn't helping that people who actually provide patches and discuss what could be done to make this more prominent (which I did, even years ago), are -indeed- not taken seriously. Like you, I am really only acting as an "interface" here between developers and end-users/contributors.

While I agree that having just conversations is deemed to have little impact, posting patches and discussing possible options is basically as good as it gets, short of forking the whole shebang and providing another option :D

Personally, I can go on just fine for another decade - but I can at least admit that we don't act upon feedback, and can back it up with discussions that took place half a decade ago.
And it all kinda makes sense, I am even guilty of this myself: I also find it more "exciting" to do some fancy Canvas display than fixing the Nasal/GC - and that seems to apply to roughly half a dozen of people around here who obviously have the mental capacity and expertise to address such issues, no matter if it's an alternate Nasal/GC scheme, or an improved threading architecture - still, we're all motivated by things having to be fun, and there's really only a single guy who seems to "enjoy" doing the unglamorous work of fixing other people's ugly code all over the place, and that guy is kinda busy with allowing aircraft to be switched at run-time :D
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11493
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Prometeo 2013 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:21 pm

Sorry for my coment, I thnik you are a great coder , and all the people is creating a great software..I just want to give encouragement to these problems will disappear soon. Thx to all.
Prometeo 2013
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:43 am
Callsign: Prometeo2013
OS: windows 8.1

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby adrian » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:30 pm

1st: I don't know where you guys find the time to post such long comments :D
2nd: I think I've posted a good number of times about optimizing the terrain code, yet nobody seems to read that
3rd: I'm kindof retired now, can you make my name pink? :D
adrian
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:15 pm

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby KL-666 » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:37 pm

In cases of flightgear being heavy on resources, i have often seen comments like: "lower the settings". Often and surely temporarily that can be a valid solution. But in some cases i think: do not leave it at that statement, because surely a smart solution can be found.

An obvious case is scenery 2.x. Yes it is heavy, yes it is released early (understandably as Thorsten argues), yes one can warn people to revert to 1.x temporarily. But do not leave it at that. Maybe there is being worked hard at smart solutions, but that is not really becoming obvious to people that read the forum. Understandably they get frustrated by that.

For the scenery issue, and actually every issue, i think it is important for a developer to ask himself: "what would a user want/need". I fly high fl300-400, so i might need some 200+ mi visibility to see some earth. Hardware (memory) wise i can only set some 60 mi visibility, so at altitude i fly in plain fog. At low altitude one has a horizon of maybe 20 mi, so the heavy scenery is not a problem at whatever visibility setting. But at high altitude one gets more tiles. The current problem is that the tiles are as detailed as at low altitude, which is totally unnecessary. So the logical second step after the early release of scenery 2.x would be to load lower res tiles in memory at high altitude. I am quite sure that such solution is also used by x-plane, which explains the better experience there.

Well maybe there is already being worked on this kind of optimization. Then just take this post as superfluous.

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby Hooray » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:50 pm

KL-666 wrote in Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:37 pm:Well maybe there is already being worked on this kind of optimization.


TerraGear & LOD

(You should only consider postings made by psadro_gm & papillon81 to be "authoritative" though)
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11493
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: How can I retire from the forum?

Postby junior-s » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:19 am

Well, I think that's an important issue here, because I have never ever witnessed anyone from the developers say you need to buy a new computer to run newer FG versions. So - if that's what seems the response you get here - point me to an instance here in the forum please. Or take it back and acknowledge that this is in fact not the response you get.
You just did:
Yeah, pretty much.

Surely not. CORINE has a resolution of tens of meters. We do have 10 cm sized resolution on textures with procedural texturing, but that's created on-demand on the GPU. And it's not made of squares in any case. So - kindly point me to the picture. You can't just go around and talk about things /somewhere/ in the forum and statements made by /someone/. Information needs to be verifiable. If you say we do something bad, you at least need evidence for it.
I would have to go through all the topics I've read in the past 6 months. It's not doable, and you don't have to believe in anything I say if you don't want to.
I wasn't actually talking about the texture, but the 3D meshes composing the ground. Even if the picture I saw was wrong (which I doubt because the scenery has a lot of different 3D complexity levels) it doesn't erase the fact that FG's scenery is way too much detailed. It's too heavy, you and I don't know for certain what it is but my guess is that the high level of detail - even when at thousands of feet in the air- causes the memory problems.
when in fact all investigations have shown that most issues go away when reverting to 1.0 scenery.
This is a strong suggestion there **IS** something wrong with the 2.0 scenery.

/ Personal note/ (snip)
I do feel your frustration. Don't think of me a someone who contempt the devel team. I love the work that is being put on FlightGear and I do know no one is being paid to work, but I love flying simulations and I simply can't fly with FlightGear considering the current state of it's development. Is it going to be more light on resources and yet deliver a nice Sim? Probably in the future. But meanwhile, I'm doing what I can do enjoy flying simulations.
junior-s
Retired
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 2:27 am
Location: Wonderland
Callsign: junior-s
Version: GIT
OS: Arch Linux

Next

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest