Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVER?

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVER?

Postby three-seven-nine » Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:49 am

I’ve been using flightgear for about a year, however it wasn’t a pleasant time. Putting aside the physics and flight models (the triple seven was pulling 320 knots at 36 THOUSAND FEET with ease), the simulator was running at 10-15 FPS (let’s note that I had everything disabled in the render settings so it basically made my eyes bleed). My Mac has a GT650M with 1gb of memory and an Intel graphics card with also 1 gb. I understand I have a crap laptop, but after buying X-plane 11 I found out that it could run 70 FPS at low requirements! How is that possible ?! On every computer I was running FG on it was stuttering horribly. Also, how come flightgear’s community is this big and only 20-30 people are online at a time ?
three-seven-nine
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:05 pm
Callsign: ___379
OS: Mac OS X

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby Parnikkapore » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:37 am

That's weird. Totally weird. My computer has a similar graphics card and can go 30FPS at full graphics...

I'm not sure if it exists on a Mac, but you should try forcing the driver to use the GPU. X-Plane likely has an override listing - FlightGear does not.

P.S. 320 knots at 36,000 feet sounds normal to me. And that height isn't super high either - it's well within cruising altitude.
There are free alternatives to every program you encounter. You just have to find them.
Parnikkapore
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:16 am
Callsign: HS-FGS
Version: next [PPA]
OS: Mint 18

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby legoboyvdlp » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:37 am

Are you sure you got 70 frames per second with X-Plane 11? My laptop runs FlightGear at 35 frames per second without being very high powered. However, it can't even make 15 frames per second with X-Plane.

If you are using Rembrandt, you should definitely disable it, and use Atmospheric Light Scattering, see what difference that makes. Ensure you have the Nividia card selected.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby three-seven-nine » Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:23 pm

320 knots at 36000 feet is about 0.86 mach, and 777 max speed is 0.89. The thing is that If I set the throttle to 100% I would achieve about 390 knots which is 1.04. PS: I have everything disabled and running on low-graphics profile(code)
three-seven-nine
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:05 pm
Callsign: ___379
OS: Mac OS X

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby legoboyvdlp » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:07 pm

That sounds like FlightGear is actually using your Intel GPU. It could also be thermal throttling, apparently. What is your cooling like?

You can choose the Nividia card in the NVIDIA Control Panel - Manage 3D settings - Program Settings.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby Megaf » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:16 pm

Hello mate.
Please try to this and report back.
https://support.apple.com/en-ie/HT202053
And maybe this.
https://support.apple.com/en-ie/HT202043
Megaf
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:14 am
Callsign: MGF87
IRC name: Megaf
Version: 208.1.1
OS: Debian Buster

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby it0uchpods » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:23 pm

I was asked to weigh in here as someone who frequently fixes Apple laptops.

They are generally poor cooling design, some machines actually thermal throttle before ramping up the fans, it's ridiculous. Further, the thermal paste on Macs is applied like toothpaste on a brush... insulating heat transfer.

Please, go to about this Mac, then System Report, and screenshot that Window. Then on the left of that window, click Graphics/Displays, and screenshot. Use a site like imgur or postimage to share it. Knowing your specs would allow us to estimate how FG will run.

Josh

PS: The 777 has a poor flight model, that is why. 320kts at 36000 is too fast to be done "with ease"
it0uchpods/WTF411

FGFS Aircraft Developer
Lead Programmer at it0uchpods Design Group
Download High Quality Aircraft from it0uchpods Hangar
User avatar
it0uchpods
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm
Version: 2018.2.1
OS: Windows 10 x64

Re: FlightGear has the worst optimalisation and graphics EVE

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:35 am

I’ve been using flightgear for about a year, however it wasn’t a pleasant time. Putting aside the physics and flight models


I'm sorry you felt to stick with FG for so long despite the unpleasantness. Good you found X-plane 11 which seems much better for your needs.

Having said that, I concur with what others have said, i.e. the framerate issue is likely a wrong configuration at your end and maybe asking for advice earlier would have spared you some frustration.

For the record, the physics FG is able to simulate is much richer than what X-plane allows, but FG is the product of volunteers and you didn't pay anything for it, so you get the work of enthusiastic schoolkids alongside that of highly skilled engineers and scientists side by side when you look at aircraft in the repository - so you have to go looking for good FDMs a bit.

Anyway, if you're so much happier with X-plane, please spare us the sermon how unpleasant FG is, we generally find it pleasant enough for out needs. Thanks.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9739
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am


Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests