Inside the biggest FS add-on company

February 4, 2007

What is the CPU doing?

Filed under: Aerosoft Mathijs — aerosoft @ 1:56 pm

Amongst bloggers there is a contest to see who has the longest interval between posts and as you seen I entered that contest. I won’t even apologize. My last blog was about FSX and why we have so much problems running it. Basically I said the users were behind on hardware but I now realize that’s not true. Let’s see facts as they are, FSX has problems. Serious problems.

No matter what Microsoft tells us (not that they tell us a lot), if we see exactly the same and do exactly the same in FSX and in FS2004, we see half the frames in FSX. So MS told us to start using the special FSX code and different tools and we did. We got better looking objects but even lower framerates because there was more calculation to be done on every visible polygon (the shape that makes up the things you see). Now this is new.

In the past we were used to see a drop in framerate in the default simulator with every update, but per polygon we always had the same framerate. The default sim would look better and that costs frames, but with the same objects loaded we had similar framerates. Not so in FSX, even if we dress FSX down to use FS2004 aircraft and FS2004 scenery we get half the frames. And that CPU power is not used for better flight dynamics, better weather or better ATC, because as we all know, that is simply not there. So we lost half the frames and gotten basically nothing in return.

In fact things are even worse. One of the big steps forward was supposed to be the better use of the GPU (graphics card) power. If you have a modern GPU you got a little computer there that might be as powerful as you main CPU! Using Direct X the software can send a ‘object’ (say a cube), a texture (say wood texture) and a light source (say the sun) to the graphics pipeline and your GPU will put the texture on the object and calculate how the light will affect it, create shadows etc. Your CPU is at that time free to do other things. In FS2004 the CPU had to do a lot of these things but in FSX it is supposed to be DirectX and the GPU who handles a lot of that. And to a certain degree that is true, updating your graphics card for FS2004 could make it look better but hardly mattered for your frames. In FSX a fast graphics card does make things faster and looking better. But it is well know that FSX is still basically CPU limited. Your FPS depends on a lot of things but the speed of your CPU determines at least 80% of it.

So we lost half the frames and the CPU is supposed to have less to do. What is that CPU doing? We can look at processes that are running and we see for example a very strange amount of disk handling (some files are loaded dozens of times in a matter of seconds). We also see the expected huge amount of I/O with the graphics system. But per polygon FSX is just a whole load less efficient.

So what is the CPU doing?

 

23 Comments »

  1. First one to comment “what MS doing?” gets blocked from the blog, lol

    Comment by aerosoft — February 4, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

  2. IF (I said IF) FSX has some pre-launch testing on their own, what machine do they use? This is perfectly replicated in a Core 2 Duo 6600 processor running a NV8800GTX, I mean, must I get Extreme CPU to take full advantage?
    This type of questions raised by mathijs, cannot be reached after so much time in development, unless it was careless.
    That also raises the question on what was the beta team doing while the Betas were out there for testing? This should be the basic first part of the whole testing scenarios: Performance.
    In my own experience, I teste FSX is so many diferent configuration not only because I can, but also because I wanted to see where this sim could go. Guess what? No system no matter how powerful could reach the performance and stability of FS9.
    There are so many issues that seem to be ignored by beta testers, like mesh problems and now performance management that it is ligitimate to ask one of two questions:
    Did the Beta Team really work?
    If so, did MS listen to them?

    Comment by Glideslope — February 9, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

  3. I can only agree.
    I run FSX on a dual core 2.4 ghz Intel with a 8800 GTX card and 2 gigs of ram.
    When flying below 5000 ft. i can only get 10-15 fps.
    But then again, in my oppinion, MS are not know for their optimized code. In contrary. In which, FSX is a very good example.
    Take OS’s. While on the Mac even simple tasks as moving windows is done smoothly. But on my machine there is still flicker. Im not saying that the Mac is a better machine, just that the code might be better.
    I think the next move for MS is to start optimizing the code, so we really can get some “bang for the bucks”.

    Michael

    Comment by Micheal Jessen — February 9, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

  4. But you can use a dual core to improve the situation though MS has not and will not provide for hyperthreading. Go into Task Manager, open performance and then right click on the non-system items and assign the affinity to one core or the other. I put fsx.ece on to core 1, and all of the others on to core O. The frame rate improvement is 40 or so percent. Over photographic scenery there is no problem, but with default scenery the clumsy autogen loading system creates so many calculations that the sliders must come back. But outside of add-on airports and places like New York I am getting frame rates between 20-25 (locked at 25)with autogen set to sparse and density set to normal. There is juddering however at loweer altitudes, and hopefully the SP1 and Dx10 patches we have been promised with 8800 gpus will at last make a difference.

    Comment by Ian McPhail — February 12, 2007 @ 7:30 am

  5. Ian, I think you mean Processes and not Performance.

    And if you get a 40% increase it means you got a very CPU intensive task running next to FSX. I am running the complete office (Word, Excel, Outlook and Acess) plus a heavy Photoshop while I run FSX. But when I gave FSX it’s own CPU it did not matter a single frame. And logically not as all these applications just sit idle, they don’t use CPU cycles when you don’t use them.

    It’s a bit like the people who say you should close all apps before starting FS. As long as you got memory not being used and the apps don’t do heavy calculating it’s a waste of time.

    Comment by aerosoft — February 12, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

  6. If you install Vista, you will see a difference from what I’ve been reading as all the new stuff (IE Direct X 10) that FSX is trying to take advantage of is not there in XP.

    Of course, you have to have the honking computer to get Vista running but afterwards I’ve read some people say they had a 50% increase in FSX performance after installing Vista…

    Comment by Matt Riggins — February 13, 2007 @ 5:04 am

  7. There is no increase in fsx performance with vista yet. In fact, there is a decrease due to now shabby video card drivers. The only people to experience performance gains must have had bloated xp because there is no way frame rates are better under vista. Anyone with half a brain, fsx, and vista will tell you it is all hype.

    Comment by Joe — February 16, 2007 @ 12:07 am

  8. I spent some time testing and comparing fs9 vs fsx on diferent platforms (hardware and software). Look! FSX trully sucks at the moment. But let me clarify this. I am oe of those fsimusers, who likes to make fsim look like the REAL thing. Meaning authentic scenery, nice looking aircraft, little details such as hi-res a/craft textures. I like to run it as if I am in that cockpit.
    Right now I have Vista on 1.86 Ghz core2 with 2G of ram, Radeon X1800. This hardware config works with vista. I am using PDMG aircraft (and some other commercial addons), Frankfur Mega Scenery, Vienna FlyTempa, GatwickPro etc. In FS9 20-25 fps no problems even on line with traffic. FSX on the other hand (no add on scenaries, just basic MS) 15-18 fps. I loaded FSX version of wilco B777 released a couple of weeks ago. Oh my God, what a waste of money that was. 5 fps. (9 max) I felt like my graphics card is going to smoke.
    I have not use top range hardware, but hi mid range (ATI and Nvidia). 1.86 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz core 2. Yes. I agree there may be improvement but dont tell me I am going to increase frame rate from 9 to 20 using top range cpu. I mean the issues with ne games vs existing hardware are always ongoing. This time however MS has created half of the product, with HUGE hardware demands. Good luck to all developers. I wish few other fsim users could add some comments. It is truly a good game. MS should always be congratulated for that. But all that glory, somehow, falls down the drainhole when you start experiencing these issues. Makes you think, what ou paid for doesn’t it.

    Comment by Mario Lazakovic — February 18, 2007 @ 8:27 am

  9. I’ve enjoyed FS9 the past few years, namely b/c I had a fast machine, 3.45Ghz Extreme Edition with 2Gig of fast memory. But FSX simply bites. Even with sliders turned down, I’m getting around 9fps near the ground and FSX often just shuts down by itself when flying Captainsim’s shuttle. No matter what I do, in playback mode the playback studders terribly. Everyone else I’ve spoken with say the same thing, it studders bad, and MS has done nothing to address this issue. Guess I hv to wait 1-2 yrs before powerful & cheap enough computer become avail which will run FSX, just wonder if MS will hv worked any bugs out by then.

    Comment by glcanon — February 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

  10. Keep in mind there are a lot of people that are pretty happy about with FSX (personally I never load FS9 unless it is for some testing or support issue). See our forums and read how happy people are with the BeaverX, Mega Airport Budapest etc. If the basic sim would be unbearable they would not buy add-ons for it right? And believe me they do, our sales data for FSX add-ons is very strong.

    Also keep in mind that MS is working on SP1 right now. So they do listen as the main thing is this update will be performance. I still like to know what my CPU is doing but just look at the images at this review: http://www.mutleyshangar.com/features/mutley/lhbp.htm

    That’s FSX you see. And it looks damned good.

    Comment by aerosoft — February 18, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

  11. Could I ask someone on this forum to post a KNOWN good hardware configuration for FSX, which gives at least 18 fps, providing commercial add on scenery is used such as Budapest 2007, ultra high a/craft detail turned on using PDMG B737, medium to high ground and weather details. I would more than appreciate any replies. Keep in mind I would like to achieve at least 18fps.

    Comment by Mario Lazakovic — March 19, 2007 @ 4:01 pm

  12. Hello everyone,

    Let’s start with the hardware:

    Motherboard:
    NVIDIA 680i

    CPU:
    Intel Quad Core

    Memory:
    4 GIG of Corsair (PC6400) running at 2.1 volts/800 MHz.

    Video Card:
    BFG 8800GTX 768Meg (NVIDIA)

    Hard Drive(s):
    4 Seagate ST3500641AS (500 GIG)

    Monitor:
    19″ Acer Flat Screen

    Operating System(s):
    Windows Vista Business Edition (32Bit & 64bit)
    ===================================
    Now, let’s get to it.

    I have the deluxe edition of FSX.
    I have tons and tons of add-ons, from planes, scenery, GPS and so-on…

    First of all let’s discuss WINDOWS for a moment running in 32bit vs. 64bit.

    1) 32bit will only recognize 2GIG of memory.

    Having 4GIG and applying a MICROSOFT 32bit patch I am able to see only an additional .8 of a GIG to bring the total to 2.8GIG of system memory.

    2) 64bit allows up to a maximum of 4GIG, which I have and does recognize.

    Now let’s bring FSX into the picture.

    FSX with all it’s marvels and wonders is simply and completely a memory beast!, no new information there!

    Running on the 32bit system, my desktop alone is taking a little over a GIG of memory.

    So now I only have about 1.8GIG of free memory left to run FSX.

    I can tweak FSX to run in ULTRA setting in all areas of available modifications.

    It seems to run quite well, normally; however there are times when it gets a little sluggish, jittery or jerky in motion then it clears.

    Sometimes this means that you’re getting close to running out of available memory and are soon to crash all together.

    This has happened to me, intermittently.

    Even when I tweak it down a bit.

    Now the opposite is true to some extent.

    I’ve over-tweaked FSX past the ULTRA settings and have had momentary success.

    Again depending on the aircraft type/detail and a combination of scenery/location and misc, it becomes a hit-or-miss situation.

    I tell you this though; I have NEVER been able to push FSX to the MAXIMUM settings on all phases of available adjustments and been successful.

    At least not long enough to enjoy my flight past take-off.

    So what are we talking about here…

    Who did MS FSX design this software for?

    What operating system and hardware did they intend this software run on?

    Maybe a NASA super-computer?

    Do you own one, because I don’t and I’ll tell you straight away, it is not designed to run on a machine, even as powerful as mine.

    What were they thinking? As always with MS.

    I totally blame the operating system. TOTALLY!

    With all the power in hardware technology, (Motherboards, Graphic Cards, Memory, CPU…) you would think that MS would build an operating system that could accommodate these hardware peripherals.

    Starting with the memory constraints of WINDOWS in general.

    A 2gig (32bit) ceiling is just not acceptable! At all!

    After 5 FREAKIN’ YEARS of design, VISTA fell completely short of its goals by way of not being able to comply with today’s hardware demands.

    Even though on a general operating level, besides the UAC annoyances, VISATA generally speaking IS truly a better operating system than XP, on it’s best day!

    But what good does that do for US gamers.

    Sure you say, what about DirectX 10!

    Well, what about it! MS FSX doesn’t support it! And it’s an MS game!

    So what does that tell you about MS as a whole?

    I also mentioned that I am also running a 64bit version too.

    Well, no barging here either.

    I thought that if I installed 64bit that I would be able to utilize my full 4GIG of memory including the 768meg of my 8800GTX video card which would CURE my memory error crashes in FSX.

    W R O N G – W R O N G – W R O N G

    I had absolutely no added success- even with the additional memory!!!!

    WHY????

    Not a clue!

    Neither does MS!!

    How about that for support!

    And don’t get me started on that!!!

    Because I’ll write another 12 pages on how MS support sucks!!!!!

    So, in the end, where does this leave US gamers?

    I’ll tell you- NO WHERE!

    At least not any time soon, meaning within the next quarter.

    It’s rumored that MS is releasing an update or patch that will allow FSX to utilize DirectX 10.

    When? I haven’t a clue and neither do they, at least specifically.

    So, what does ALL THIS MEAN? To any of US?

    All we want, all that we ever want is a way to play our games to fullest extend that the game allows in accordance to the hardware we own.

    PERIOD THE END!

    Don’t short change me!

    Don’t make a game that can never meet its expectations or exceed the limits of those expectations if cannot!

    Got It!

    Good!

    Now lets all sulk and weep onto our external gaming controllers, and wish like little children waiting for Santa Claus to bring that perfect, magical gamming experience we all dream of!

    And when it happens for you, just let me know what medication you’re on, so that I can join you in this fantasy.

    Signed a disgusted and disappointed gamer.

    Comment by Bangemout — March 19, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

  13. Now I have a pretty new system with a dual core, 2 gigs of RAM and a 8800gtx gfx card and FSX runs fine for about a week and then just seems to bog down to an ugly looking slideshow. I can uninstall and then reinstall to get things running smoothly but it still bogs down after a week or so of use.

    I have tried most of the “tweaks” for both system and FSX but still the problem persists. I for one am looking forward to the patch so i might be able to get some enjoyment out of FSX that lasts longer than a week! I will continue with FS9 as my main GA Sim and tinker with FSX for some time I believe. FSX had/has so much potential, but I find it just falls short of even the MS stated expectations.

    No game should require you to spend months searching the net and fiddling with your system and programs endlessly in order to get it to run well! What were they thinking? Ahhhrrgg!!! Oh well…..

    Comment by Alex Smith — April 22, 2007 @ 6:33 am

  14. ceiling textures

    I found it very useful. Thanks for the knowledge. I am personally trying to follow the advice & try to be independent.

    Trackback by ceiling textures — June 26, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

  15. Post-SP1 update: the culprit is (in part) the graphic engine which is, by chance or by design, built with the minimum amount of reliance on GPUs. Don’t believe me? Try running a demo of ANY OTHER GAME other than FSX. Try Colin McRae DIRT, an advanced driving simulation with so much immersion you can taste the oil in your mouth. On any of our E6600 rigs it freaking FLIES! And it’s because the graphical workload is simply given to the GPU, and the code is lean and clean. Microsoft is in league (this is not a secret) with Intel, so it is in their shareholder’s interest that we upgrade regularly, and guess what? We do! They also saw how far they pushed the line this time and so SP1 just reduced the amount of idling a bit. Now everyone who upgraded can feel a little better, but in the end we’re all running FS BLOATWARE.

    Comment by F.Mulder — September 8, 2007 @ 8:26 pm

  16. 2. And logically not as all these applications just sit idle, they don’t use CPU cycles when you don’t use them.

    urrr… yes they do.
    the cpu actually swaps the programme(s) between being processed and the memory, can’t explain it very well but i’ve read it on wikipedia.
    The more appps you got open the more processing the cpu needs to do, even if you’ve minimized the programe to the taskbar, the cpu still swaps it from processor to the memory, it just happens so fast u dont notice it.

    Comment by jeckek — November 8, 2007 @ 10:41 pm

  17. [...] Find more about it all here [...]

    Pingback by Airline Fuel » What is the CPU doing? Inside the biggest FS add-on company — March 2, 2008 @ 8:33 am

  18. I just don’t get it.

    Everyone complains. Consider this:

    We experienced EXACTLY the same problems back in FS9 times. When FS9 was released, everyone complained and had to upgrade his system, or simply turn down visuals to increase usability. The years passed, and about two years after the release of FS9, there even were freeware packages containing high definition textures, to make the sim experience even more realistic.

    I guess we can be glad that the FS products do not get sequels every three months. And when we all are a little more patient, we will experience a top-notch simulator in a year or so. And it really was the same with FS9. It just needs some time to maturate.

    Comment by Wurschtie — April 7, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

  19. May 2008 and not much movement here from the Aerosoft side.

    I would, however, add a response to Wurschtie’s message above. FS9 was selling more addons and there were far more freeware planes this far in than FSX is now… i.e. after about 18 months on my PC.

    When I look at the download dates for the hundreds of addons I paid for or the freeware ones, I really have to say that FS9 / FS2004 was already far far better supported after 18 months than FSX is.

    I guess “X” and Vista are the Win ME versions of the current generation. The Avsim download ratio is about 10 to 1 FS9 to FSX downloads.

    Oh well, perhaps we’ll see a good FSXI instead…

    Comment by Chris Brisland — May 23, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

  20. here test your computer specially for FSX i found everything was great but the video card let me down

    http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_fsx_home.html

    Comment by Brad — June 7, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

  21. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Romans

    Comment by Romans — June 19, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

  22. Wurschtie again.

    I agree with Chris. No real change, September 2008.

    However, I noticed that using the VFR Germany Scenery, my framerates are higher. I guess its because when you place objects in a ‘normal’ way, you don’t need as much of them ;)

    What happened to the ‘time-between-blogposts’-contest?

    Comment by Jan — September 19, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

  23. well after microsoft shut down the studio (and development) of the FS sequel we finally should debate if this is a curse or just the best microsoft could do… or should microsoft better shut down it self completly ?

    microsoft is crap, and i am happy that more and more people in my area are changing to linux and apple.

    Bangemout predicted it in some way in March 19, 2007… the best comment here by the way…

    Man I have the same feelings, the f*cking same frustrating and disspointment….

    Rest in Peace FS, my companion in my youth and lifelong game for at least 20 years…

    Comment by Tom Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 7:58 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.