Blinx 17 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Hi! Got Sacramento from Simmarket. It looks good but I get really low FPS and lag. Any fix for this? Lower textures or something? I don't have this problem with any other aerosoft airport. The only airport that is this bad in performance is heathrow. Sim is P3D V3.2 on Intel Xeon 1231v3, Radeon R9 380. Windows 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb 139 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I agree to both statements. This is on a i7-2600/GTX970 system, as well under P3D3.2. In comparison to the recently re-released Rome sporting excellent performance, framerates of Sacramento with the same settings are 1/2-1/3 (~15:40). A minor part of this may be the surrounding: FTX NCA certainly has a higher impact than just FTX OpenLC. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCookieMonster 53 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 A friend of mine had the same issue, disabled all apron clutter, apron vehicles and car parks and the performance went up to satisfying levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb 139 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Thank you CookieMonster, your friend is right. Switching off clutter etc. raises fps by >~25 % Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panman 0 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I too have poor performance at SMF. The cars in the carpark are the major culprit. But switching these off with the config tool only gave me a marginal increase in performance. I will try by turning everything else off. Panman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhpdx40 0 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 In FSX I initially had very poor performance at SMF because I was using ORBX Northern California. I have since unchecked ORBX NA in the scenery library and now using ORBX global and everything is running smoothly...I still have two areas of concern..There's a strange line that runs at an angle the length of both runways and the AI planes upon arrival wheels sink below the runway surface.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb613 39 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Hi Folks, I've been interested in this one as well - prefer reasonable frame rates above all else... I'll hold off on this purchase until I see some good feedback... Regards, Scott Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb 139 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 vor 1 hour , lhpdx40 sagte: In FSX I initially had very poor performance at SMF because I was using ORBX Northern California. I have since unchecked ORBX NA in the scenery library and now using ORBX global and everything is running smoothly.... Perhaps this works if you only fly airliners. I fly VFR exclusively. A trade-off between either a nice airport or a nice surrounding wouldn't be acceptable for me. But I agree, both certainly stack up in a way. First I would try disabling several of the airport options, as suggested above. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted March 25, 2016 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted March 25, 2016 I think you guys simply expect too much: People want to see most realistic aircraft, most realistic scenery with animations, flying birds, waving flags, driving cars etc.etc. But when they put together those addons like Orbx + Sacramento + e.g. a PMDG T7 in an extrem dense area like CA, they start to blame the devs for bad performance. If devs develop for such areas an airport using less memory, because the use low res textures, less animations etc, devs got blamed again. So simply think about what is realistic. And a sceenry where you can switch between a "basic" version using only 100 MB and a "full" version using 2GB might technically be possible but nobody would be willing to pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmoneyprs 186 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Check post #17 in the preview thread. Note that that was written well before the release. In fact, almost a year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I've noticed this airport uses a HUGE amount of VAS on my system. I get warnings from FSUIPC soon after I load it. Even after removing everything in the config, it still loads around 3.7GB. Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted March 26, 2016 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted March 26, 2016 Quote I've noticed this airport uses a HUGE amount of VAS on my system ... How much is huge? It is not huge at all. I made some comparison: P3Dv3.0 with FS Global ULimate, FTX Global, FTX Vector and FTX Northern California and the Airbus A319, no weather, AS KSMF with deafult settings in the Configurator This is what I get with FTX Global (NCA inactive), the def. airport and the Airbus: Please login to display this image. VAS left 1.8 GB This is what I get with FTX Global and NCA active, the def. airport and the Airbus: Please login to display this image. VAS left 1.4GB, so 400MB eaten up only by NCA This is what I get with FTX Global (NCA inactive), AS KSMF and the Airbus: Please login to display this image. VAS left 1.4GB, so compared to the def. KSMF needs around 400MB This is what I get with FTX Global and NCA active, AS KSMF and the Airbus: Please login to display this image. VAS left 1GB. so KSMF still needs only around 400MB And that's not "huge". But as I said above a combination of highly demanding addons (scenery and aircraft) in such a dense area, adding weather with high res cloud textures, high settings in the sim etc. this is simply too much for FSX and P3D, although P3Dv3 behaves slightly better in handling VAS. So dont blame a single scenery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 On my system...which has no problem with any other airport...using the Carenado A36, from a fresh start, FTX NCA I see 3.7 GB VAS used. I reinstalled and it didn't help. By comparison, Orbx KRDD, right up the road, has 2.7 GB VAS used. Same aircraft, same weather conditions. LatinVFR KSNA uses 2.8. So I don't know what is going on with this airport. Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data63 421 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Any other ORBX airports(airfields in the area? FB KSFO? Sacramento is quite in the center of all that nice (and heavy) airports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 The only other airports I have in the area are Charles Shultz, Monterey, and a couple of small Orbx airports further north. No FlightBeam. It's fairly generic Orbx there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data63 421 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 just to get a hand on it - disable Monterrey, Sonoma and the other small ORBX ones and check the VAS afterwards. (FTX NCA and Sacramento only) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 That knocked it down to 3.5...all disabled with the same airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data63 421 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 still quite much - and not coresponding to the 2 times 400MB for FTX NC and Sacramento Mopperle mentioned.... I don't have Sacramento (yet) but I'll try to check tomorrow what NCA + default says at my setup. how about your texture_max_load and LOD_RADIUS settings ? - above 4.5 / 5 that may suck a lot of VAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 It was 6.5. I cut it back to 5.5 and that helped a small bit. I then disabled KSMF and ran the default from NCA. Same conditions I was running 2.3 GB VAS. So, seems like the airport is taking 1.2 to 1.3 additional VAS. Gregg EDIT: I also checked to make sure there weren't duplicate entries in the scenery.cfg...there weren't. All of these tests are running with all optional features turned off except for FTX Compatibility which I have on. I am running P3D v. 2.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 I wish I could figure this out. If other folks aren't using large amounts of VAS...why am I? I took a 'drive' around the airport and it's extremely nice. Sitting on the ground I have low-30s on the framerate. The one thing I notice is that the VAS jumps 500 GB right after the sim screen displays. Maybe a clue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data63 421 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 vor 17 Stunden , seippg sagte: EDIT: I also checked to make sure there weren't duplicate entries in the scenery.cfg...there weren't. All of these tests are running with all optional features turned off except for FTX Compatibility which I have on. I am running P3D v. 2.5. maybe that's the problem. V2.5 was not very VAS efficient afaik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, data63 said: maybe that's the problem. V2.5 was not very VAS efficient afaik So, if I'm understanding, in 3.x it might be immediately freeing some of the VAS back for use? I do know that they've made some significant VAS improvements in 3.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted March 27, 2016 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted March 27, 2016 This already happened with 3.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seippg 3 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 So, I bought and installed 3.2 and Sacramento. I watched the VAS as the sim finished loading and there's a large spike right as it finishes loading and displays the airport and then it drops way down. So, perhaps, there's something in this scenery that the simulator immediately discards. Would be worth a look from the devs. Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
data63 421 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 well... maybe that's exactly the way memory management in V3.2 works - the display engine loads a scenery, calculates what is to be seen an what not and THEN discards unseeable parts. that was one of the great problems in FSX and earlier P3D versions as the display engines didn't "realize" that something wasn't visible any more and held it in the memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.