AS F-16 banned...

[deltaleader71 5]

So I keep hearing that the AS F-16 is causing frame rate problems and lag on various servers online while I am flying. I guess it may have something to do with the high resolution textures or something with the plane. I dont understand it, but I have been asked before to not fly the AS F-16 by several multi-player hosts as it creates issues. Just now I saw this on the fsx blue angels website as a rule for their server:

4. NO AEROSOFT F-16 FALCONS ALLOWED... Due to the extreme lag that it creates, the Aerosoft F-16 Falcon is not allowed into the public sessions.

Once signed in, here is the direct link: http://fsxproblueangels.com/phpBB3/viewtop...f=37&t=1152

So what needs to happen to fix this problem? Is it a problem or just perception?? I think this is one of the best planes I have purchased to date for FSX...I would like to see it more compatible for online flying some how...

[JamesChams 108]

Well some common sense might also be an issue here too ....

1st That is a site hosted for the BLUE ANGELS and NOT the THUNDERBIRDS.

2nd I believe that the BLUE ANGELS ONLY fly F-18's and NOT F-16's.

3rd The F-16 model is a much heavier model (as was intended to be from the begining) and therefore you might want to wait till these VA's have all upgraded their servers to handle i7 Core or XEON Extreme Multi-Processors (Serious $'s).

There are other VA's out there ...

Good Luck!

[deltaleader71 5]

Thanks for the response James. I do not believe it matters that the server is a blue angel or thunderbird server or whatever. This problem happens on a lot of other servers and as a matter of fact sometime ago I was on a server specifically for thunderbirds and I was ask to fly the freeware version of the f-16 and not use the AS F-16.

As for point 3, are you saying that the AS F-16 requires beefier hardware and that it is expected to hit FPS when flying?? I am curious to know what the cause of this is as you put it being a "heavier model"? Is it plane texture/graphics problem, other animations, etc that causes it to be more graphically intense???

Sorry for the questions...I am not a developer so I dont understand what it is about this plane that causes lag or fps issues.

[JamesChams 108]

...As for point 3, are you saying that the AS F-16 requires beefier hardware and that it is expected to hit FPS when flying?? I am curious to know what the cause of this is as you put it being a "heavier model"? Is it plane texture/graphics problem, other animations, etc that causes it to be more graphically intense???

Sorry for the questions...I am not a developer so I dont understand what it is about this plane that causes lag or fps issues.

Yes, the developers of the F-16 (Aerosoft) told the public on many occasions in various posts here that the F-16 would be harder on hardware with regards to FPS.

So, until the rest of the VA world can upgrade their hardware to deal with these issues; your F-16 maybe left out of secessions for a while...

PS: Here is a direct quote from the "BOSS" himself: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?s=...ost&p=94787

[grunik 0]

I know that the f-16 is very hard on framerates on your own computer, but doen't fsx multiplayer just substitute your airplane to a standard airplane on everyone elses computer that doesn't have this jet??? If so, the server wouldn't be doing any extra calculations than if you were flying the f-18 or any other jet for that matter........I'll try a test in the next few days. I fly with a group of guys that don't have a very powerful server. They've never said anything about me flying this jet (It's all I fly). I'll switch between this jet and another and ask for their observations.........anyway, I'll get back to this topic when I'm done and let you know how it went.

[deltaleader71 5]

I know that the f-16 is very hard on framerates on your own computer, but doen't fsx multiplayer just substitute your airplane to a standard airplane on everyone elses computer that doesn't have this jet??? If so, the server wouldn't be doing any extra calculations than if you were flying the f-18 or any other jet for that matter........I'll try a test in the next few days. I fly with a group of guys that don't have a very powerful server. They've never said anything about me flying this jet (It's all I fly). I'll switch between this jet and another and ask for their observations.........anyway, I'll get back to this topic when I'm done and let you know how it went.

Thanks for testing that out, I was curious about the same thing. I also heard through the grapevine with several folks I fly with saying that if you run high frame rates on your local machine, it affects others during a multiplayer session. That just doesnt seem to add for me. Only thing that comes to mind is if you were not running good enough hardware for the AS F-16 during a multiplayer session and your local machine was lagging...I can see that causing problems!

also...I was checking out the fsx thunderbirds web site last night. They have the same rules as the fsx blue angels...no AS F-16's.

[JamesChams 108]

I see ...

Well, I do remember that (at least in the not so recent past) "MOST" VA's liked their members to set the FPS limit to 20 FPS for their secessions. Check and see if that is part of the requirements.

As for the Model usage; It is true that FSX will show other users ONLY the same aircraft they are flying, IF they don't have the same aircraft or textures for it installed. So, they should ONLY see the aircraft that they are flying or maybe a Cessna 172 etc. and NOT have a major hit on FPS'. Perhaps, you can find out what they are seeing that is causing them to dislike its usage in their VA. That may also be a reason (although not a good one) for excluding the AS F-16 (other than the FPS issues).

Thank you all for bringing this information to the staff here; Another good reason to have them re-consider upgrading/modifying or even adding a Two-seater version for the future.

[forstmeier 0]

I see ...

Well, I do remember that (at least in the not so recent past) "MOST" VA's liked their members to set the FPS limit to 20 FPS for their secessions. Check and see if that is part of the requirements.

As for the Model usage; It is true that FSX will show other users ONLY the same aircraft they are flying, IF they don't have the same aircraft or textures for it installed. So, they should ONLY see the aircraft that they are flying or maybe a Cessna 172 etc. and NOT have a major hit on FPS'. Perhaps, you can find out what they are seeing that is causing them to dislike its usage in their VA. That may also be a reason (although not a good one) for excluding the AS F-16 (other than the FPS issues).

Thank you all for bringing this information to the staff here; Another good reason to have them re-consider upgrading/modifying or even adding a Two-seater version for the future.

While i'm reading this post i'm thinking at my own difficulties flying F16 in Gamespy Sessions, but no problems when i myself opening a session with Gamespy. Connecting to even strong servers the problem is always the same.

My previous post: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=22638

The first question here is, what is the tecnical difference between Creating a Session with Gamespy and Connecting to a normal Gamespy session ?

In fact i'm not the only one facing this difficulty when entering a Gamespy Session.

Thanks for your kind attention.

Forstmeier Raimund - Padova / Italy

[x-man 0]

The first question here is, what is the tecnical difference between Creating a Session with Gamespy and Connecting to a normal Gamespy session ?

In fact i'm not the only one facing this difficulty when entering a Gamespy Session.

It seems likely that GameSpy priorities session differently for users and hosts. To not go into much details, usually in client/server (session host and user) and "rendezvous server" (GameSpy) scenario, all parties involved maintain connection status with each other with special packets as:

- "poof notice" - notice sent from user, or session host informing about disconnecting

- "stay alive" – question sent by client or server to opposite party (can be anybody to anybody – meaning: GameSpy, session host, session client) – asking for response. "Stay alive" in short substantiate to question: "Hey – are you still connected?". Whoever receives "stay alive" packet, replies with conformation. Lack of response is interpreted as "disconnected status". Reason for using "stay alive" is to cover for situation when for some reason involved party fails to send "poof notice" (as say when someone computer crashes or what I know otherwise – when session is ended by closing FSX rather than pressing "sign off" button), ….or when packet is lost in transit for some unknown reason.

Typical procedure of sending "stay alive" is strictly defined, how many "stay alive" packets are sent and how long party waits for answer before assuming that confirmation was not received. Usually ICMP protocol is utilized, however in GameSpy case it seems, since Microsoft knows many people nowadays blocks ICMP, stay alive packet were most likely fitted into TCP GameSpy/client communication. Bulk of session information between session's host and clients goes over UDP peer-to-peer.

Understanding above, it seems logical is that GameSpy, uses different thresholds for session hosts and session users. Because session host are more vital than users since they provide flying environment for everyone connected, it seems likely they worth of sending more packets and waiting longer for response.

As GameSpy is getting busier, its connection pipes are getting slowly choked down, which results in increased time of packet transit (especially in last hops of connection) and packet transit loss. This results in longer times which "stay alive" response packet needs to reach asking party. If it exceeds threshold and reaches server too late, you simply will loose connection. This is why its important what connection speed you are using at home and where host session is geographically located. Because bulk of session communication goes over peer-to-peer (contrary to popular belief: BOTH for direct IP and GameSpy type sessions), it takes shorter time for packet to travel from say New York to Boston, or Amsterdam to Zurich, than from California to London. Shorter the distance better chances of reaching it in time and lesser chances of being lost en route.

By my observation with Packet Sniffer and some guesswork, it seems logical that FSX sends to session's host only information about planes position in virtual flying space, plus their type, call sign, possibly (not sure) some events as lights ON, landing gear down etc.

Once session's host receives information from all clients, it redistributes them to all users - so you can see other planes in FSX as well. Things like scenery and planes graphics are supplied by local computer instead being sent over Internet – simply because sending all over Internet would cause massive connection stress. This is by the way also why, in order to see other players plane types, you have to have it installed on your end.

Now, understanding above it becomes clear that faster and more maneuverable the plane, more demanding it will be on connection for everybody in session. It simply takes more information (and therefore packets) to describe planes path if it flies fast doing zigzags and S-es, than some steady, straight path slow mover. All fast and/or maneuverable planes as fighters or helos will be more connection demanding - however are you flying F-18 or F-16 should not matter.

F-16 specifically may matter only if someone would have same type of plane installed on their end, or when your plane is substituted on someone's PC by some graphic demanding substitution. F-16 is simply more graphic demanding than say Cessna. This however has to do with someone's local PC performance and nothing to do with connection performance for everyone in session. It would matter for session performance, if it would be session host's PC which would lag because of your plane. Performance of host is important to everyone, since it supplies everyone with information about other plane locations.

In this particular case however, I think it safe to say Blue Angles simply prefers to see Blue Angels flying in their session and either imagined themselves some justification, or just needed polite way of expressing that Thunderbirds and Angles don't mix,…

If you experiencing online problems with F-16 only, it might be either something become corrupted in your F-16 copy, also could be running F-16 is so demanding on your hardware that it affects performance of your PC and its communication. If you getting good FPS rates last is unlikely to be the case.

[forstmeier 0]

It seems likely that GameSpy priorities session differently for users and hosts. To not go into much details, usually in client/server (session host and user) and "rendezvous server" (GameSpy) scenario, all parties involved maintain connection status with each other with special packets as:

- "poof notice" - notice sent from user, or session host informing about disconnecting

- "stay alive" – question sent by client or server to opposite party (can be anybody to anybody – meaning: GameSpy, session host, session client) – asking for response. "Stay alive" in short substantiate to question: "Hey – are you still connected?". Whoever receives "stay alive" packet, replies with conformation. Lack of response is interpreted as "disconnected status". Reason for using "stay alive" is to cover for situation when for some reason involved party fails to send "poof notice" (as say when someone computer crashes or what I know otherwise – when session is ended by closing FSX rather than pressing "sign off" button), ….or when packet is lost in transit for some unknown reason.

Typical procedure of sending "stay alive" is strictly defined, how many "stay alive" packets are sent and how long party waits for answer before assuming that confirmation was not received. Usually ICMP protocol is utilized, however in GameSpy case it seems, since Microsoft knows many people nowadays blocks ICMP, stay alive packet were most likely fitted into TCP GameSpy/client communication. Bulk of session information between session's host and clients goes over UDP peer-to-peer.

Understanding above, it seems logical is that GameSpy, uses different thresholds for session hosts and session users. Because session host are more vital than users since they provide flying environment for everyone connected, it seems likely they worth of sending more packets and waiting longer for response.

As GameSpy is getting busier, its connection pipes are getting slowly choked down, which results in increased time of packet transit (especially in last hops of connection) and packet transit loss. This results in longer times which "stay alive" response packet needs to reach asking party. If it exceeds threshold and reaches server too late, you simply will loose connection. This is why its important what connection speed you are using at home and where host session is geographically located. Because bulk of session communication goes over peer-to-peer (contrary to popular belief: BOTH for direct IP and GameSpy type sessions), it takes shorter time for packet to travel from say New York to Boston, or Amsterdam to Zurich, than from California to London. Shorter the distance better chances of reaching it in time and lesser chances of being lost en route.

By my observation with Packet Sniffer and some guesswork, it seems logical that FSX sends to session's host only information about planes position in virtual flying space, plus their type, call sign, possibly (not sure) some events as lights ON, landing gear down etc.

Once session's host receives information from all clients, it redistributes them to all users - so you can see other planes in FSX as well. Things like scenery and planes graphics are supplied by local computer instead being sent over Internet – simply because sending all over Internet would cause massive connection stress. This is by the way also why, in order to see other players plane types, you have to have it installed on your end.

Now, understanding above it becomes clear that faster and more maneuverable the plane, more demanding it will be on connection for everybody in session. It simply takes more information (and therefore packets) to describe planes path if it flies fast doing zigzags and S-es, than some steady, straight path slow mover. All fast and/or maneuverable planes as fighters or helos will be more connection demanding - however are you flying F-18 or F-16 should not matter.

F-16 specifically may matter only if someone would have same type of plane installed on their end, or when your plane is substituted on someone's PC by some graphic demanding substitution. F-16 is simply more graphic demanding than say Cessna. This however has to do with someone's local PC performance and nothing to do with connection performance for everyone in session. It would matter for session performance, if it would be session host's PC which would lag because of your plane. Performance of host is important to everyone, since it supplies everyone with information about other plane locations.

In this particular case however, I think it safe to say Blue Angles simply prefers to see Blue Angels flying in their session and either imagined themselves some justification, or just needed polite way of expressing that Thunderbirds and Angles don't mix,…

If you experiencing online problems with F-16 only, it might be either something become corrupted in your F-16 copy, also could be running F-16 is so demanding on your hardware that it affects performance of your PC and its communication. If you getting good FPS rates last is unlikely to be the case.

Many thanks for your detailed explanations. I believe it will be usefull also to other users.

Forstmeier Raimund - Padova/Italy

[forstmeier 0]

Many thanks for your detailed explanations. I believe it will be usefull also to other users.

Forstmeier Raimund - Padova/Italy

I made more then 20 tests with Gamspy flying ONLY F16-Aerosoft plains. Each Test was POSITIV !

No interruption at all, not even with bad connections (yello or high numbers). This in both tests, opening a Session and entering into a session. This is quite interesting as the Sessions have been opened in different countries, Europa + Usa. My ADSL connection is still the same here in Italy: 54 MBps.

regards

[Cody Bergland 4]

I think the problem comes from those that are using multiplayer, and while not flying the F-16, their computers are seeing others flying it... therefor their computers may be taking a hit from other users.

HOWEVER, in my experience flying online for over 2 years, I have noticed no significant different of those using the AS F-16 online in small numbers, say 2 or 3 of them. If you load at an airport with a whole bunch, like anything else, things will start lagging.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

And nearly every aircraft we will be working on will have the same "problems", because we will not reduce the complexity of the models for sure! What will change is that we now learned to be about 15% more efficient with polygons so that will help a bit. I'm not too worried that some organizations have network problems with a complex model, it's something that we always expected.

[João Pinto 23]

That sounds a lot more like a poor server than a bad model. This isn't exactly a "problem" but an issue regarding hardware support. Furthermore if you use an airplane that everyone has, it will be reproduced on the other people's computers, thus it's not YOUR plane but their AI rendering. So if their harware renderer is poor, these "problems" happen.

And come on, no one flies complex polygon aircraft online with the intention of multiple close flying purposes.

Vatsim uses extremely low polygon models for a reason, you know...

[forstmeier 0]

That sounds a lot more like a poor server than a bad model. This isn't exactly a "problem" but an issue regarding hardware support.

I agree with Mr. Mathijs (AS). The model should not change !

The only helpful comment here is reporting real tests. It is by logic that i checked the real presence of other F16 machines even knowing most of the players since quite a long time.

This discussion should help to overcome some problems with Multiplayer.

Connection permitting, why we do not fly together ? Different UTC time should not be a problem.

Starting at time UTC ? Who is using a good server connection ?

Name of Session ?

Description ?

AT: KHIF

State the session name and players code here in Forum for identification. Maybe we will understand more and write less.

[deltaleader71 5]

It seems logical to me that MS should have put in an option to adjust the model complexity/resolution through the UI just like you would do for scenery if that makes sense. I don't know enough about how all this works to understand the challenges around it but it is just a thought.