43 replies to this topic

[james_macnair]

This is from P-12C Pilot's (FSX Game Designer) blog entry...

"Performance Anxiety

Not mine, but FSX of course...

The number of posts regarding FSX performance is staggering, but not particularly surprising. Unlike console systems, PC's come in a lot of different flavors and the number of hardware and driver combinations is practically infinite. This is the bane of PC development.

I am at a loss for why some users had good FSX performance in a demo or in the beta and poor performance in the release. I am also at a loss why one user with a super system will have worse performance than a user with a system that is a few years old (although I'm guessing their "sliders" are not set the same). I did read a thread from a user that has a fantastic system running a beta of Vista but has poor performance with FSX. I'm no Vista expert, but I have to wonder how much of that particular problem has to do with driver issues as I know some of the Vista video drivers had issues a month ago. As I've mentioned many times I'm running on a XPS Gen 2 laptop that is well over a year old and my perf isn't that bad (although it is if I crank everything up). We used a desktop machine recently that is much more powerful than my laptop for some video capture and we were looking at each other wondering why we weren't getting more fps. So a lot of this is a mystery to us non-devs, and we share in the frustration as well.

So what are we doing about it you ask? Well we aren't having all-team meetings to discuss performance, but we are reading the forums and looking at what users are doing to try and improve performance. If there is a good solution out there we are going to look at what is going on "under the covers" and see what we can do to improve things. We are looking into improving multi-core processing, and of course working toward the DX10 update. I personally am not involved in any of this work, I just know that it's going on around me. I have great confidence in the team that we will be able to improve some things for some hardware configurations, but I'm not sure much can be done for older hardware, lack of ram, and sliders set beyond what their system is capable of. I should also say that the DX10 update is the only planned code update that I know of, so I have to assume that any perf gains we make internally will have to wait until that release. Any release is a non-trivial event in our studio, so it would be a big deal to release anything earlier than the DX10 update. But who knows, stranger things have happened...

A couple other bits of information I've heard over the past few months you may find interesting. In order to move FSX nearer to the cutting edge of game graphics we felt we had to move to shader 2.0 support at least (wanted to do more). This decision is a significant factor in frame rates being lower for FSX than what you would have thought we would have based on FS2004 technology. Many aspects of the rendered image on your screen are running through a shader even though it may not seem like it. If we had built FSX without this shader support, we would have higher frame rates but we would be much farther behind the times for the general gaming industry. Our requirement to support backward compatibility for aircraft and other content is holding us back from fully taking advantage of everything a modern graphics card has to offer. IF we were to do what nearly every other cutting edge game does and create a one-off engine with no backward compatibility, we could tax the video cards more heavily. I'm sure the community that invests in add-ons (and creates add-ons) would implode if we did that (and none of us want that to happen). Comparing a game without backward compatibility requirements is an apples and oranges comparison. Better multi-core support was seriously considered but the risks associated with taking that route were too great to dive into when trying to finish the product. For us we had to get the product stable for shipping and trying to debug such a complex product on multi-core would have de-stabilized all of our efforts and pushed out the release date an unknown period of time. Business realities which few users probably understand or respect forced our hand on that one. Maybe we can make progress on that front now that we have shipped. Lastly, if I understand it correctly, because we provide full multi-monitor support, we cannot support all of what SLI has to offer. I think a dev would have to elaborate more on this to actually be useful information...

Flight simulations are the only entertainment product that I know of which require open and unrestricted sight lines out to the world. Comparisons are constantly being made to first person shooters which have incredible frame rates and amazingly rich environments. I'm as impressed with them as the next guy, but they cannot render a realistically scaled and open representation of the Earth. If any of them actually can do that and do it in a way where I can go anywhere on the planet seamlessly, then I would like to see it. And if they can do it with frame rates users often quote with great enthusiasm, then we won't be in business for very long.

Of course not being a dev, I may have gotten some of this wrong (although I don't think so) and considering there aren't very many FS team members blogging, and I will encourage them to blog through me if they want to get information out to users, or to post directly on a community forum. As we build out our own website I expect we will have a direct avenue for sharing information through it as well. When we have solutions we will try to get the information out as quickly as we can.
"

Interesting bits to take note of.....

--------

"In order to move FSX nearer to the cutting edge of game graphics we felt we had to move to shader 2.0 support at least (wanted to do more). This decision is a significant factor in frame rates being lower for FSX than what you would have thought we would have based on FS2004 technology."

--------

"If we had built FSX without this shader support, we would have higher frame rates but we would be much farther behind the times for the general gaming industry. Our requirement to support backward compatibility for aircraft and other content is holding us back from fully taking advantage of everything a modern graphics card has to offer."

--------

Lastly, if I understand it correctly, because we provide full multi-monitor support, we cannot support all of what SLI has to offer. I think a dev would have to elaborate more on this to actually be useful information...

--------

Flight simulations are the only entertainment product that I know of which require open and unrestricted sight lines out to the world. Comparisons are constantly being made to first person shooters which have incredible frame rates and amazingly rich environments. I'm as impressed with them as the next guy, but they cannot render a realistically scaled and open representation of the Earth. If any of them actually can do that and do it in a way where I can go anywhere on the planet seamlessly, then I would like to see it. And if they can do it with frame rates users often quote with great enthusiasm, then we won't be in business for very long.

-------

Some interesting points here guys, and a couple of questions answered i think you'll agree...

Original article...

http://blogs.technet...ce-Anxiety.aspx

[r34per]

Why did you stick with the old shader 2.0? and not use 3.0? it would have much better and nicer like in Pacific Fighters.

[brewha202002]

I might get flamed for saying this, but the risk they took by releasing this product with an aging engine, might be far more disasterous then the risk of developing an engine to make full use of multicore CPU's.  For us the consumer, I sure hope I am wrong.

[brewha202002]

I do love the honesty from these developers blogs.  Read between the lines and you can see the truth.

"Business realities which few users probably understand or respect forced our hand on that one."

Otherwise known as Microsoft's bottom line.  At no cost can that be effected.

[Humpty Dumpty]

Its seems to me that for us, the consumer, FSX is one big ######-up

[DMcGrew]

Well.. they better do something to help dual core..

[Katahu]

brewha202002, on Oct 10 2006, 09:47 AM, said:

I might get flamed for saying this, but the risk they took by releasing this product with an aging engine, might be far more disasterous then the risk of developing an engine to make full use of multicore CPU's.  For us the consumer, I sure hope I am wrong.

It's not their fault that we're stuck with an aging game engine. It's us who are at fault for that because the majority of us strictly demanded backwards compatibility. Like P-12C said: if they had moved one to creating a new FS game engine in much the same way it was done for CFS3 then the addon community would buckle in on itself.

[Brad]

Pinned - very relevant information.

[gameguru]

Interesting post from MS

Developing software is always a compromise and the kinds of issues that MS face are no different to any other software development. However, some of their choices do surprise me a little.

MS say that they moved to shader 2 because they didn't want to fall too far behind other games and that has had an adverse affect on performance. Actually the user of software doesn't care how things are done - pixel shader or whatever. Hence MS might have fallen into the age old trap of offering newer solutions which are worse (in the customer's eyes) than before.

They also state that they had to make FSX backwards compatible. Well there are other solutions to this problem. They could have created some tools to re-compile FS9 models into FSX format. Not ideal, but as they say, the alternative is to lock future products into the past because you don't want to change. Hence when FSXI comes out the quantity of backwards compatible add-ons could be so huge that they cannot change? In my view, it might be better to sort it sooner rather than later.

Hence 2 decisions - one going for latest technology without any obvious benefit for the customer and another sticking with old technology and making a rod for your own back.

As I said earlier, not an easy solution whichever route you choose. I personally think that it would be better to offer FSX with as good/better performance with some hassle to convert the add-ons.

But ultimately MS are in a nice position - flight sim is virtually unrivalled (X-plane?), so although we may have to go through a few years of pain with FSX to get FS9 frame rates back, we have no other choice that offers the breadth of the MSFS series.

As a customer I can't help but feel disappointed that something has been taken away in the name of progress.

[Robin.]

gameguru, on Oct 10 2006, 09:55 PM, said:

latest technology without any obvious benefit for the customer

Are you kidding? No obvious benefit to the customer? Where do you think the vastly improved graphics for FSX comes from?

[Katahu]

Quote

But ultimately MS are in a nice position - flight sim is virtually unrivalled (X-plane?)

The FS series is completely rivalled alright. One would have to be blind to not see how serious X-Plane can be when compared to FS in terms of dynamics, functionality and even frame rates.

Heck, the X-Plane already has a built-in space feature for quite a long time. It even allows you to fly over a martian landscape. However, it has some major quirks [graphically] such as how the weather looks [rain drops look like grains of salt], water landings are a joke [float planes bounce like tennis balls on calm water when landing] and how the virtual cockpits look [do you like flying with half a cockpit?].

Then there's the IL-2 Sturmovik series. What it lacks in flexibility it makes it for in stability especially when played online where you wouldn't have to worry much about cheaters. The dynamics are good, although its stall characteristics are somewhat rough at best and the steps taken to installing updates is rediculous.

Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is a free, stand alone program that allows you to travel an entire star system using realism space physics and has a steep lurning curve when trying to even establish orbit. In terms of functionality and flexibility, Orbiter is drawing quite a crowd even though it's not competative at all compared to the commercial sims.

Again, to say that the Microsoft FS series is unrivaled is like saying that a WW2 sherman tank can out do a modern-day A1 Abrams.

[gameguru]

"latest technology without any obvious benefit for the customer"

I should have quoted the original MS text - but they clearly state that some features of FS9 now use pixel shaders to create the same result. What I mean by "without a benefit" is that FSX renders the FS9 graphic features but more slowly - that's not a benefit. I agree that new water effects are a benefit. But even with these switched off, FSX is still much slower. I would be pleased to see any objective proof that FSX at the same level of image quality (aka eye candy) runs faster than FS9. That's what I mean by not a benefit.

In terms of MSFS being rivalled by IL2, I disagree. Does IL2 map the whole world? Does it have airliners, ATC, accurate airports, detailed ground textures, complex weather systems? IL2 is great, but it doesn't occupy the same market sector as MSFS. I still assert that X-plane is the only real rival to MSFS.

[Katahu]

Quote

In terms of MSFS being rivalled by IL2, I disagree. Does IL2 map the whole world? Does it have airliners, ATC, accurate airports, detailed ground textures, complex weather systems? IL2 is great, but it doesn't occupy the same market sector as MSFS. I still assert that X-plane is the only real rival to MSFS.

Read my last post more closely, you'll see that I was referring to IL-2's stability as a sim. In X-Plane I still experience crashes to desktops while in FS9 I experience severe stutters when playing online. IL-2 almost never has this problem [at least for me of course]. Ok, granted that IL-2 is not very competitive as X-Plane is. Remember, the IL-2 series is the youngest franchise as far as I'm concern. Maybe several years down the road it might become a serious competitor.

PS: The purpose of my last post is to point out your obvious error in believing that the FS series is "unrivaled".

Edited by Katahu, 10 October 2006 - 09:35 PM.

[james_macnair]

ok guys i think its time to stop this little argument (and don't try and say its discussion, because it doesnt sound like it from the outside)

[cyonics]

I want to hear more about not supporting SLI, that is just crazy! How are you suppose to get good FPS?

[Katahu]

james_macnair, on Oct 11 2006, 06:04 AM, said:

ok guys i think its time to stop this little argument (and don't try and say its discussion, because it doesnt sound like it from the outside)

I'm sorry it sounded like an arguement to you. It's that I find it quite confusing to see a couple of people thinking that the FS series is unchallenged for the past 25 years. Well, may it was unchallenged in the first couple of decades since the release of FS1, but I'm pretty sure other companies [especially Laminar Research's X-Plane] have caught on in the later years of the FS series.

Again, sorry, I didn't meant to start an arguement. I just wanted to clear out a simple misconception.

[dsnowden]

"Well we aren't having all-team meetings to discuss performance'

They should be!

I personally don't care about backward compatibility!  Seems like with every release developers bring out a new version of 3rd party addons anyway!  And I keep on buying them.  

Just give us all lots of notice that the next realese will not be backward compatable and developers and simmers will be prepared, if the product is good people will buy it. Going to have to make the jump sometime!  Waiting to do it isn't going to improve the situation.  It will just be more expensive later on. Now was the right itme to do it I think, and they missed the boat on that one.

Hey and where is my rebate form for upgrading to FSX, did anyone else get one in their box?  So not only is it more expensive, but they took the $25 rebate away.

I think the game looks good though, it just could have been so much better.  I am having fun with it anyhow.

[Katahu]

dsnowden, on Oct 11 2006, 07:52 PM, said:

"Well we aren't having all-team meetings to discuss performance'

They should be!

I personally don't care about backward compatibility!  Seems like with every release developers bring out a new version of 3rd party addons anyway!  And I keep on buying them.  

Just give us all lots of notice that the next realese will not be backward compatable and developers and simmers will be prepared, if the product is good people will buy it. Going to have to make the jump sometime!  Waiting to do it isn't going to improve the situation.  It will just be more expensive later on. Now was the right itme to do it I think, and they missed the boat on that one.

Hey and where is my rebate form for upgrading to FSX, did anyone else get one in their box?  So not only is it more expensive, but they took the $25 rebate away.

I think the game looks good though, it just could have been so much better.  I am having fun with it anyhow.

You have to understand that not everyone agrees with the idea of ignoring backwards compatibility. There is still a SIGNIFICANT number of users who want Microsoft to keep with backwards compatibility. I agree that at one point or another, we might have to suck it up and deal with a fresh new game engine in order to progress. But unfortunately, there's not enough people like you or me to make such an impact. So it's people like you and I who have to suck it up and deal with having the same game engine.

[dsnowden]

Well said Katahu :-)

Maybe they should release another version and call it FSX Advanced Flight Simulator LOL!

I really don't think those who don't want to loose their backward compatiblity would not buy the sim with a new game engine.
The more they scream for backward compatibility the more it holds the sim back.  Most developers of 3rd party addons would jump at a chance to charge you yet again for the FSX Advanced version.  It would take some time for it all to get up to speed, but I can just imagine how great it would look.

Anyway just thinkin out loud, your right though, this time we will have to suck it up  

[minsc_tdp]

> The number of posts regarding FSX performance is staggering

Please keep this in mind when making decisions about what your team is working on.

>PC's come in a lot of different flavors and the number of hardware and driver combinations is practically infinite

While obscure combinations of drivers with particular hardware will undoubtedly have additional performance problems, let's try to stay on the topic of why performance sucks for everyone.

>I'm running on a XPS Gen 2 laptop that is well over a year old and my perf isn't that bad

Could you elaborate?  What are the specs, and what do you consider "not that bad"?  15 fps isn't that bad?

>Well we aren't having all-team meetings to discuss performance

That is a real shame.  You need to explain to your team that bad performance is killing this title.  Flight Sims are about simulating reality and immersing yourself in that simulated reality, and the biggest "fiction-breaker" is low FPS.  The world does not move at 5-15 fps.  Anything less than 60 is trash.

Do they not understand that you can have a sim using SM 3.0, 1500 cities, 4000 airports, 60,000 planes and none of that matters if they player starts it up, cranks the settings to the MINIMUM, get 15 fps, and says "gee this runs like crap.  I'm taking it back to the store."

> We are looking into improving multi-core processing

Most users are not running a dual-core system.  Please consider the market conditions before making such decisions.

>but I'm not sure much can be done for older hardware, lack of ram, and sliders set beyond what their system is capable of.

Let's consider my case, for example.  Overclocked Athlon 64 4000+ at 2.6 GHz.  Volt modded GeForce 7900GT at 680 MHz.  250 MHz FSB, 2 GB of RAM with very tight timings.  Four SATA drives in RAID-0 configuration.  This system RIPS through Oblivion like butter.  On this system that is bested perhaps only by a Conroe, I get ~10 FPS with all settings on Low.

>I should also say that the DX10 update is the only planned code update

Again consider the market.  Please check your calendar.  This is not 2010 when everyone will be running Vista with DX10 optimized hardware.  NOBODY is using DX10 right now, Vista adoption is almost guaranteed to be much lower than any previous version of Windows.  Your title is shipping now.  Please optimize it for TODAY's hardware.  Optimize it for tomorrow's hardware tomorrow - after serving your existing customers.

> In order to move FSX nearer to the cutting edge of game graphics we felt we had to move to shader 2.0 support at least (wanted to do more). This decision is a significant factor in frame rates being lower for FSX than what you would have thought

Moving to the "cutting edge" of game graphics does not help sell games if the framerates are trash.  Please, consider - if your graphics look twice as good but the framerate drops in half, you've nullified the improvement completely.

60 FPS on today's hardware should have been the standard throughout the entire project.  Anything that cut the FPS below that should have been dropped, including SM3.

The quality of the graphics when everything is cranked low looks like something from 1998.  And it still runs at 10-20 FPS.

>because we provide full multi-monitor support, we cannot support all of what SLI has to offer

A lame excuse.  You could fully support SLI in single monitor mode regardless of your multi-monitor support.

>Flight simulations are the only entertainment product that I know of which require open and unrestricted sight lines out to the world.  Comparisons are constantly being made to first person shooters

You don't like the First Person comparisons but there are times when it is apt.  Take the game "Just Cause" for example.  Not really an FPS, more of a GTA-style.  The graphics are outstanding when flying very high, very low, and they have the added burden of real ground effects where AI-powered guys are shooting at you.  They transition from plane to car to feet.  FSX is only doing one thing, so it should be able to do it better than a goofy title like Just Cause.  Yet, I find myself firing up Just Cause *JUST TO FLY AROUND*, because it's that much fun.  FSX is nothing but frustration.

> but they cannot render a realistically scaled and open representation of the Earth.

Neither can FSX, because to "render" it means to produce it for the viewer in a way that is remotely believable.  10 FPS ruins all the fun and believability of any simulation and should be considered unacceptable.

Just Cause might be a joke compared to FSX's aircraft realism, but it does an excellent job at showing a graphically beautiful flying experience at high framerates.

The bottom line here is that there is no excuse for the pathetic framerates FSX provides on such high-end hardware at the graphic quality I'm seeing.  There is no excuse for the fact that there is only a few FPS difference between the ultra-low graphical settings and the ultra-high graphical settings.  

It is unforgivable that this title is not being designed for today's hardware.  

It is inconceivable that this title does not adhere to the basic standards of game development where on a top of the line PC, when the graphic settings are cranked to the minimum, 100 FPS+ should be easily achievable.  24 FPS should be the minimum with the graphic settings cranked to nearly the maximum.  If the title is especially challenging to achieve good FPS, it should not be left to the user to tweak hundreds of settings and hack up third-party textures - there should be a simple performance test/estimator that auto-adjusts the settings for reasonable frame rates, or even better, for the frame rate the user indicates is desired/acceptable.

I apologize for my tone but I'm frustrated.  I don't think I'm alone in thinking that anything under 60 FPS on top-end hardware is unplayable.  

I put a lot of time and thought into this post, I hope you spend the fraction of that time to read it all.

Edited by minsc_tdp, 20 October 2006 - 03:13 PM.