Textures and Frames EDDT

[FreqFlyer 2]

Dear Aerosoft Team,
I bought the new EDDT scenery and I am very dissapointed!
My Frames are going down to 10-13 fps (NGX, fair weather) and the usage of VAS is horrible. Also the textures of your new EDDT is not state of the art in my opinion. No 3D grass etc..I'm using the P3D v3.2 and have an i7-3770 @3,40GHz with nvidia GTX 970 Ti. No other Addon has any Frame Problems or VAS Problems except your EDDT.
I also read about Problems with "White dirt" and can cofirm that.
I uploaded 2 Pictures and want to know, if that's it what Aerosoft will offer as a "new state of the art" scenery.
Best regards,
Marvin

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

[FreqFlyer 2]

And one more Thing...look at the Papi lights.

Please login to display this image.

Please login to display this image.

[busychild 20]

Same issues here (i7-4790K, GTX980) - FPS are going down to < 18 on approach (which i've only noted on old and large sceneries before), PAPI lights are strange and i've bushes on the runways...

[bradley27 26]

That base image is awfully washed out around the airport, funny how the screenshots managed to miss out that finer detail, also the AFD/AFX file is pretty lacking too. This was meant to be a step up from the German Airports version which in my opinion currently performs and looks a tad better overall.

[holi 13]

A reworked AFCAD file is available, just check the Forum....

 

[Chok 49]

It does appear to be very heavy on performance considering its size even on decent system.

[busychild 20]

vor 11 Minuten, Frederik Pedersen sagte:

It does appear to be very heavy on performance considering its size even on decent system.

 

Yes it does. Although i disabled the Mega Airport Berlin Brandenburg (which is located quite near to the Tegel airport) i noticed massive performance issues. I'm considering to make a testflight to EDDB and EDDT to compare the performance on the approach but i'm quite sure that the performance at EDDB is better as it had already annoyed me the last times i got there...

[NAX 5]

Been awaiting this scenery for a while, but is really disaponted of overall performance. The look of the bildnings and ground is good enough, but the complexity of this rather small scenery should not impact system like it does. Compared to bigger airports, this should really not bring my FPS down to "slideshow"-mode, hitting bottom 6 FPS! Maybe it's not fair to compare to other developers works, but ESSA and EKCH comes into mind... Biggier and more complex, but still let me run about 30 stable.

I suspect the developers, PADLabs, have done a bad job with ineffective modeling and I hope we see a patch rather soon to make up for the mistakes. Until then, I will Disable Tegel as it is useless in it's current state. Useless!

Tegel is so well placed to make it a common destination for flights in northern Europe, and I was so looking forward to this, now it seems, over-hyped addon installed. I cannot remember to have been this disaponted on any previous first-time try for any addon in my 20 year of flightsimming.

Aerosoft stade: 

• High performance and outstanding visual appearance due to optimized modeling- and texture techniques

I ask: Where did it go wrong?

 

I guess getting my money back, cancelling the purchase, is not an option here, but that is what I would do if I could.

 

Hopefully Aerosoft announce an update this week

[busychild 20]

I made some test flights today with my default settings (quite high, autogen sliders to "very dense"):

 

Testcase: 8nm final approach (FSipanel), Autolanding

Aircraft: PMDG 737-800WL

Weather: Clear Skies

FPS Recorded via Fraps

CPU: i7 4790k

GC: 980GTX

 

EKCH (Flytampa)

Min FPS: 18

Max FPS: 55

Avg FPS: 42,8

 

EGLL (Aerosoft)

Min FPS: 11

Max FPS: 29

Avg FPS: 24,4

 

LOWW (Flytampa)

Min FPS: 21

Max FPS: 52

Avg FPS: 39,7

 

An here are the results for Berlin Tegel:

Min FPS: 17

Max FPS: 39

Avg FPS: 31,3

 

I'll try to make some further tests tonight (maybe without or reduced autogen, etc.)...

 

Please note: The tests were made without weather or other add ons running in the background! If i use Active Sky Next it will eat up some fps (depending on the weather situation).

[data63 421]

well... I don't habe EKCH so for me the most comparable is LOWW where you have a lower min FPS and a quite high max FPS - the avg doesn't tell anything. For a smooth flying a constant FPS (not too low) is essential 'cause anything else is stutter.

 

As EDDT is in the middle of a quite populated (autogen, lib-objects and your sliders a full right) area the performance doesn't seem worse than LOWW.

 

What are your numbers with a locked FPS (e.g. 30fps)

[busychild 20]

gerade, data63 sagte:

well... I don't habe EKCH so for me the most comparable is LOWW where you have a lower min FPS and a quite high max FPS - the avg doesn't tell anything. For a smooth flying a constant FPS (not too low) is essential 'cause anything else is stutter.

 

As EDDT is in the middle of a quite populated (autogen, lib-objects and your sliders a full right) area the performance doesn't seem worse than LOWW.

 

What are your numbers with a locked FPS (e.g. 30fps)

 

The min fps at LOWW were 21 and at EDDT 17 (so EDDT was the worst one apart from EGLL)! I'll make some tests tonight without autogen just to be shure that it isn't related to these settings. This will also make the min fps more comparable as the loading of the autogen buildings can cause stutters which are affecting this value.

[Chok 49]

33 minutes ago, busychild said:

 

The min fps at LOWW were 21 and at EDDT 17 (so EDDT was the worst one apart from EGLL)! I'll make some tests tonight without autogen just to be shure that it isn't related to these settings. This will also make the min fps more comparable as the loading of the autogen buildings can cause stutters which are affecting this value.

 

I have done some testing with the autogen and scenery complexity sliders. When i'm looking at the airport buildings i still get low frames even though the sliders is all the way to the left.

 

i have also disabled the scenery around the airport, but that did not really give anything.

 

(all above in P3D V3.2)

[Drehstuhlpilot 189]

I deactivated the ugly textures around Berlin. However the fps are still bad and I am disappointed too! I really hope they update their product but now I cannot recommend this scenery yet. 

 

I hoped this is the scenery of the year because it is my second home airport but it isnt

 

:(

[Cargostorm 98]

Apart from the newer airport layout, is there any reason to buy new Tegel X if one has the old Tegel from German Airport Team? I find the textures of the oldie not bad and performance was good.

[busychild 20]

@Cargostorm The scenery looks nice but as others have stated there are some issues with it (performance, PAPI lights, base image, etc.) and personally i would wait until these are fixed.

 

Back to my test flights:

 

Testcase: 4nm final approach (FSipanel), Autolanding

Simulator: P3Dv3.2

Aircraft: PMDG 737-800WL

Weather: Clear Skies

LoD: High, Tessellation Factor: Ultra, Mesh resolution: 1m, Texture resolution: 15cm

Scenery Complexity: Extremely Dense

Autogen vegetation density: None

Autogen building density: None

No traffic

FPS Recorded via Fraps

CPU: i7 4790k

GC: 980GTX

 

All approaches are made with identical settings in the simulator. Here are the results for the approaches:

 

EKCH (Flytampa):

Min FPS: 46

Max FPS: 56

Avg FPS: 51,4

 

LOWW (Flytampa)

Min FPS: 38

Max FPS: 61

Avg FPS: 54,7

 

EDDM (Taxi2Gate)

Min FPS: 36

Max FPS: 61

Avg FPS: 56,46

 

EGLL (Aerosoft Mega Airport London Heathrow)

Min FPS: 42

Max FPS: 53

Avg FPS: 48,0

 

---

 

EKCH, EDDM and EGLL are (in my opinion) more complex sceneries as EDDT, LOWW maybe similar.

 

The results for EDDT are:

Min FPS: 25

Max FPS: 50

Avg FPS: 44,4

 

---

 

I think there must be something at the scenery which eats up much frames. I couldn't believe that i got better frames at the Mega Airport London Heathrow (which is much more complex) than on Berlin Tegel... If i could help with some further tests please don't hesitate to contact me.

[Chok 49]

It would be really great if one of guys from AS could comment of whether you think this performance issue could be addressed in a future update and if there already is plans to do so or not? 

 

The results above seems reasonable for such an update, and after the testing I've done. It seems that no matter how much i turn down the settings in the sim, i still end up having bad frames compared to similar products. Both within the scenery's you make and what you can buy elsewhere. This leads me to think that it is a matter of something being wrong with the scenery instead of a case of "i want all sliders to the right and its still bad" syndrome.

The fact that the actual scenery (if you take into account that you disabled the photo real area around it) is so small. Kind of adds to my suspicion of something being wrong. I wouldn't expect it to perform as bad as it does if you compare to the size of lets say AS Zurich V2?

 

Without being mad about it, i feel that it is sad to buy a scenery that you have to disable because you cant run it, even on a decent system. and i sincerely hope that you will consider to patch it  

 

I run it on P3D V3.2 on a 4.5ghz CPU with a 970 GTX.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well as long as it is well optimized (and it is), getting more fps means reducing the number of drawcalls (so deleting or simplifying objects) or reducing the visual range of objects. There is no magic fix. We are discussing it with the developers.  I do find 44 fps in an area where the base scenery is as dense as it is in around Berlin not too shabby however!  A setting of 15 cm for textures and mesh that dense is not very useful however because as far as I know NONE of the mentioned products contains data to support that. You are basically asking P3D to interpolate data and that is a very cpu intensive task. Alwaqys adapt the setting to the product, unfortunately that's needed these days as there is no standard.

 

In amount of drawcalls the other sceneries you mention are not more complex however.

[Chok 49]

37 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Well as long as it is well optimized (and it is), getting more fps means reducing the number of drawcalls (so deleting or simplifying objects) or reducing the visual range of objects. There is no magic fix. We are discussing it with the developers.  I do find 44 fps in an area where the base scenery is as dense as it is in around Berlin not too shabby however!  A setting of 15 cm for textures and mesh that dense is not very useful however because as far as I know NONE of the mentioned products contains data to support that. You are basically asking P3D to interpolate data and that is a very cpu intensive task. Alwaqys adapt the setting to the product, unfortunately that's needed these days as there is no standard.

 

In amount of drawcalls the other sceneries you mention are not more complex however.

 

I totally understand what you are saying, and I am not asking anyone to perform miracles. I am also fully aware that a lot of testing has been put into this prior to release. However, everyone I have talked to/what I have read on this forum, about this fully agree. The performance is a problem that makes them not wanting to use the scenery, and these are people that also uses scenery's, like AS Zurich or Heathrow, which performs fine. In addition, what you said, kind of adds to the point. Heathrow and Zurich are both at least 1/3 bigger than Tegel, and the surrounding autogen in EGLL should shove more performance than Tegel, so if Tegel is not complex in any way, why is it on the brink of being unflyable due to low frames? Something must be wrong somewhere.

 

So whether this a case of something actually being wrong with it, or us (the people who claim to have problems) just being whiny bict… I will leave you and the devs to find out  

 

When that is said I am very glad to hear that a future improvement/update, is being discussed and I am thankful of your reply.

 

[busychild 20]

Hi Mathijs,

thanks for your feedback!

 

vor 3 Stunden , Mathijs Kok sagte:

I do find 44 fps in an area where the base scenery is as dense as it is in around Berlin not too shabby however!

The tests were made without any autogen buildings or vegetation. I wanted to test just the airport and nothing else (also no weather, traffic, etc.). And it turns out, that i get more fps at the Mega Airport London Heathrow which (as far as i know) is much more complex. The difference between Flytampa's Vienna or Taxi2Gate's Munich are more than 10FPS! I would assume that this is a major difference!

 

vor 3 Stunden , Mathijs Kok sagte:

A setting of 15 cm for textures and mesh that dense is not very useful however because as far as I know NONE of the mentioned products contains data to support that. You are basically asking P3D to interpolate data and that is a very cpu intensive task. Alwaqys adapt the setting to the product, unfortunately that's needed these days as there is no standard.

Unfortunately i didn't found any recommendation from Aerosoft for the settings for Tegel. So could you please be so kind to give me a hint for the settings so i could make further tests with these settings instead.

 

vor 3 Stunden , Mathijs Kok sagte:

In amount of drawcalls the other sceneries you mention are not more complex however.

I haven't a clue - i was just expecting that they're more complex as there are more buildings, objects, etc. I think the user doesn't mind about draw calls or the complexity - what is important is that you get a good performance on your system (and i assume that other users have also set up their system so it fit's the needs perfectly). If you then run a scenery which has significant worse frames than other comparable airports and you are getting a slideshow while approaching it's just frustrating.

 

Againg - thank you very much for your feedback and i appreciate your help! It would be awesome if the developers could take a look and maybe (i hope) it takes just some little changes to make this scenery performing better...

[guenseli 76]

Just to drop a comment here also:

 

after some flights I have reinstalled old Tegel again.

 

New Tegel gives me about 13 frames during approach, old Tegel (same settings, same addons, same weather of course) I get 18 to 20 which is ok and relatively fluid in P3D 3.2.

 

All other issues, like PAPIs, AFACD, Jetways and the textures are not what I have expected from a 2016 product, but I would have tolerated them if the performance would be great like other modern airports.

Hope there will be some improvements in (near) future.

[Pedrodowd 8]

Hello guys

alas I must add my name to the list of people having frame rate issues with this scenery.

I would like to say firstly how fantastic it looks in P3D, I have not had any graphical issues.  The attention to detail on the airfield buildings and night lighting is fantastic.   I was really looking forward to this airfield as it provides a great destination from the uk, and as far as looks go it has fulfilled the brief extremely well.

I currently have a 4770k running at 4.5 ghz stable a 980ti and lots of lovely ram.  I don't normally have any real issues running complex scenery normally if required I turn down autogen, scenery complexity etc to achieve fps well above 30. In this case however, I am stumped.  I have followed the advice of other forum posts as well as the above mentioned changes and still seem to get very poor (bordering on unusable) performance on approach and around the airfield.

Please please don't take this wrong way, I really don't want this post to turn into a flame war. We all want the same outcome. And I'm fully confident that the guys that produced this fantastic scenery will stand behind it by making the necessary adjustments to bring us what it so nearly is, which is one of the most sought after and eagerly anticipated airfields this year. 

 Thank you for taking the time for reading this little essay!

[GermanyGreece93 3]

Hi all,

 

same here. Tegel is running with an Intel i7 4770k @4.6 Ghz with 10 fps, all other Aerosoft Addons are running with 35+ ( Prepar3D v3.2 )

 

 

[Pedrodowd 8]

Any news on any fixes for this airfield chaps? Any way we can make some changes at our end? Has anyone discovered any workarounds? 

[guenseli 76]

Bump

 

 

I'm also interested if there are any fixes planned to improve performance?

[Pedrodowd 8]

Bump.