40 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

surprised no one else has noticed this.

reasonably sure absolutely no one has missed how borken XP lighting and shadows are. (at least no one who actually uses XP rather than spending all their time telling people to post their log files before banning them when the log files show they really were on a clean install)

To LRs credit, scenery shadows have been improved/worked on from earlier builds - and diagnosing & confirming stuff like this is pretty time consuming.

31 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Look at this guy actually believing that multithreading will yield exorbitant performance gains!

Tis the reason Fugaku has 7,630,848 cores. 

Biggest issue getting such tech into the home is windows almost total lack of support for it, and bad implementation of the parts that are supported.

Which is also why Fugaku has RedHat.

Now to carefully put that Windows rant back in its box.

 

Edited July 14, 20214 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

Tis the reason Fugaku has 7,630,848 cores. 

Biggest issue getting such tech into the home is windows almost total lack of support for it, and bad implementation of the parts that are supported.

Which is also why Fugaku has RedHat.

Now to carefully put that Windows rant back in its box.

That wasn't what I was on about. There's a whole lot more about getting multithreading working properly than just puking threads all over the CPU. Things like thread synchronization, dealing with less than an ideal number of cores, thread garbage collection, memory assignment and hooking alI that to a multithreaded rendering API are nontrivial challenges. Instead of having the main loop do a lot of work in a controlled fashion in a single thread, it'll have to be demoted to managing all the other threads, which, owing to said synchronization problems may not yield any performance benefit at all. Then there's the issue of CPU core scheduling which may constantly shuffle all the threads around from one "best" core to another because of individual thread demands, adding yet another ton of overhead and source for errors and instability.

The only reliable fix for bad performance is and will always be better, i.e. faster hardware. No amount of threads will turn a budget 2 GHz CPU with really slow RAM, entry-level GPU and a HDD into something able to produce 60 FPS at 4k and high detail levels.

26 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Then there's the issue of CPU core scheduling which may constantly shuffle all the threads around from one "best" core to another because of individual thread demands, adding yet another ton of overhead and source for errors and instability.

This is where windows really falls over badly in said context. It basically doesnt even try and do a good job of it.

And running 8 threads on a 4 core 3ghz machine (even with HT) is (generally) a lot slower than running 8 threads on an 8 core 1ghz machine - especially with HT, simply because of all that scheduling overhead.

But, where it really matters - on real simulation compute running 8 threads on a 8 core machine vs 4 threads on a 4 core machine at the same ghz the 8 threads 8 core box can potentially more than double the perf of the 4 core machine, because 1 core/thread in a blocked state is a much smaller proportion of the overall compute that gets wasted on the 8 core machine. Whereas 4 threads on both will have identical perf.

This is (imho) why zen 3 is smashing all the perf records, tons of local cache for each core so the ram bottleneck is lessoned, better branch prediction so cores spend less time in a blocked state.

8 is to high for a minimum - but its definitely time to move on from the 6 maximum it currently seems to scale to.

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

That thread dates back to the initial build, So the OP is a "lets do this" rather than "it done", 

The Core sim is bound to single core performance, as you should be aware. The Core sim  needs to be reworked to use multi threads as per original post to improve fps and efficiency. We need to see all cores working and GPU freed up to go to 100% usage. If you took a few minutes to watch the recent Asobo stream, you can see that's Exactly what they have done. As a result, the fps has jumped about 70% or so. LR need to do likewise.

56 minutes ago, Greazer said:

If you took a few minutes to watch the recent Asobo stream, you can see that's Exactly what they have done. As a result, the fps has jumped about 70% or so. LR need to do likewise.

If this indeed turns out to be the case my PC upgrade will be put on hold and I'll buy myself something else instead,😀

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

The Core sim is bound to single core performance, as you should be aware.

As per the microprofiler, the main thread frame boundary mostly consists of doing

"Panel" + "3D scenery "+ "Draw" sequentially

"Panel" and "3D scenery" could be done simultaneously, that would cut 1 or 2 milliseconds off the 9-12ms long main thread, increasing my fps from ~100fps to ~111fps

nice - but nothing to get that excited about.

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

We need to see all cores working

But if you are on windows, all that means is all cores are burning a lot more electricity doing very little extra work. Usually leading to the kind of machines you can buy with windows on thermal throttling all the way down to 400MHz - So look forward to seeing those complaints hitting the microsoft forums (My flight sim drops to 2fps after 5 minutes)

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

As a result, the fps has jumped about 70%

They could get close to xplane if they dumped WASM for their systems simulation and swapped to lua, As is WASM will always take at least 50% longer to do the same task, that is why their displays run at such a shocking framerate (3 or 4 fps from what I've seen in videos).

3 to 6 fps is a 100% jump

Absolutely nothing to get that excited about, and a very very long way to go to catch up with X-Planes 111fps.

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

LR need to do likewise.

Really not comparable.

LR do have more optimisation in the works

https://developer.x-plane.com/2020/11/stuff-we-are-working-on/

The two bullets of interest are

Quote

An X-Plane frame often has sub-views rendered to form the main view (e.g. shadows, water reflections, cube maps, in-cockpit cameras, etc.). Any concurrency we expose makes the sim faster in these scenarios, and they are common.

Right now while multi-monitor is possible with X-Plane, it is very expensive performance-wise. Having a frame that can be farmed out to multiple cores would make multi-monitor less of a performance hit.

Really looking forward to seeing that - not least because it means we'll get a few extra fps for the cockpit panel, but also be able to turn on all those lovely graphical features that make the sim look pretty.

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

They could get close to xplane if they dumped WASM for their systems simulation and swapped to lua, As is WASM will always take at least 50% longer to do the same task, that is why their displays run at such a shocking framerate (3 or 4 fps from what I've seen in videos).

What?? MSFS is so much.... No, no, no. I can't be bothered anymore. You are right. X-Planes FPS is miraculously good.

46 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

What?? MSFS is so much.... No, no, no. I can't be bothered anymore. You are right. X-Planes FPS is miraculously good.

I belive he is talking about the screens refresh and fps which does feel laggy in MSFS compared to Xplane.

Performance is a much broader topic than "I have 60 fps" so the wing view and the scenery feels smooth.

 

15 minutes ago, akita said:

I belive he is talking about the screens refresh and fps which does feel laggy in MSFS compared to Xplane.

But it doesn't. For the umpteenth time: if you load XP with orthos, clouds to the horizon, shader mods, shadows, ai planes and reflections etc in an attempt to bring the visuals closer to those of MSFS its offers far far worse performance. Why this is the case I know not but it's just a fact. Am I on another planet? It's what I see with my own eyes! Why is this fact so controversial?

Edited July 15, 20214 yr by jarmstro

35 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

if you load XP with orthos,

i get better perf from lvl16 orthos than I do from default.

35 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

clouds to the horizon, shader mods, shadows, reflections

yes xp11 clouds and lighting are borken, you'll see me complain about that a lot - that has nothing to do with the perf of the underlying sim and CPU multithreading wont help because they should be 100% on the GPU.

35 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

ai planes

AutoATC adds generally 100uS to the frame time. (so small its generally to small to measure any impact)

XP AI planes add a lot more because each AI plane calculates a full flight model on your machine. 

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

yes xp11 clouds and lighting are borken, you'll see me complain about that a lot - that has nothing to do with the perf of the underlying sim and CPU multithreading wont help because they should be 100% on the GPU.

But they are not broken. They work OK. They just clobber performance. They are part of the sim at present and that's the whole point. You can't claim XP performs better than MSFS when it does not. Half Life 2 runs brilliantly on my machine but you can't compare it to a modern game because you are not comparing like with like?

And until the X-Plane community comes to terms with this reality I can't see how it will move forward?

Edited July 15, 20214 yr by jarmstro

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

This is where windows really falls over badly in said context. It basically doesnt even try and do a good job of it.

That stupid, generic Windows slander don't work on me and you bloody well know it.

26 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

That stupid, generic Windows slander don't work on me and you bloody well know it.

Well, normally we are talking xp11 benchmarks but it extends to pretty much everything

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

But they are not broken. They work OK.

They are properly borken.

They all use a ton of CPU time when they shouldn't use any at all and they glitch worse than their improvement in looks is worth.

Im sure they will be fixed fairly soon (with luck next year sometime), but there is no point pulling punches, the core design of clouds, shadows and lighting dates back to early opengl days and it shows.

Edited July 15, 20214 yr by mSparks

18 hours ago, jarmstro said:

But it doesn't. For the umpteenth time: if you load XP with orthos, clouds to the horizon, shader mods, shadows, ai planes and reflections etc in an attempt to bring the visuals closer to those of MSFS its offers far far worse performance. Why this is the case I know not but it's just a fact. Am I on another planet? It's what I see with my own eyes! Why is this fact so controversial?

2 different topics, simulation FPS like drawing lines on aircraft panel, speed indicator refresh, flight dynamics etc VS "normal" FPS what people typically look at when benchmark games.

For the graphical aspect, you need to understand new tech will efficiently use modern hardware, so I expect for example if Xplane would introduce volume clouds to look better and to be a bit faster.