Bushhawk Xp

[Kiwikat 2]

I tried reducing the size to 1024 x 1024 on the orange taildragger version and it didn't seem to help. I guess it is something with Vista. Everyone reporting poor FPS seems to have Vista. Hmm... gotta love Microsoft sometimes

Oh, I also tried reducing my settings and it didn't seem to have any impact.

[Nick C 110]

I'm running Vista, I must be one of the lucky ones I guess?

[helialpin 47]

One more unlucky VISTA FSX Acceleration DX10 Bush Hawk driver reagrding the frame rate issue here!

I can´t tell you how many frames I get because I don´t care about the numbers but the little Hawk is really hard to fly in Tahiti X or the OrbX-Environment. And I don´t have serious framrate problems with other Aircraft. OH and I´ve a totally fresh installed FSX Acceleration just with OrbX, TahitiX, Lord Howe, FlyTampa St. Maarten, the Twin Otter, RealAir Citabria and the Nemeth EC-135 on board. So I´d really be happy to see a solution for this issue!

[ChrisB 11]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't FSX reduce images automatically to 1024 at render time?

[Kiwikat 2]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't FSX reduce images automatically to 1024 at render time?

I'd think if that were the case there would be no reason to have 2048 x 2048 textures. FSX certainly shows higher resolutions than FS9 and I thought FS9 displayed 1024 x 1024 textures.

Helialpin kind of answered the question I was going to ask, whether directX made a difference. Seems DX10 is experiencing the issue too. At any rate, time for bed. Hopefully there will be some more ideas as to what's going on and if there is a fix when I wake up.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

I also found the BH to be very heavy on frames, heavier on frames as my new MD-11 and that surprised me the most. I'd say the textures are not the real problem. You can gain a little bit by converting them into dds - and dds run better because it takes load of the graphics card because the card does not have to flip all textures in realtime when they are used (and there are a lot in use here). Besides I don't get why on earth a small plane like this should need around 100 Textures for around 120MB VRAM - jesus, not everybody has a card with 1GB VRam at home.

The real pain is the model. Both model files combined (outside and VC) use 40MB. For comparison a Carenado Mooney uses 4MB and the new MD-11 uses 11MB. That gives you an idea how huge and complex the model is - and how poorly optimized. In the MD-11 every single button and switch is 3d and modelled and there are countless animations. Why on earth should need a small bushplane 4times that much???

I'm honestly quite disappointed because the BH is barely flyable atm because of its strange design choices. I'll try to convert textures to dds and downsize them to 1024 and see if that helps me a bit. Otherwise those 30 are flushed down the drain. Guess I need to be more careful next time around not jumping at a long awaited addon.

P.S.:

The Bushhawk is about 8.2m long. The BH XP uses three 2048 textures to cover that lenght (fuse1, fuse2 and tailplane) which makes it 6144 pixel for the lenght of the plane. That makes it about 750 pixel per meter, or 7.5 pixel per cm. That is hilarious overkill. Other incredibly detailed paints like the high res repaints of the Mooney M20J have about 1/3rd of that res (one single 2048 texture for the left and one for the right) and still showing every rivet there is.

The bushhawk has way overblown textures and an over the top model. A lot of fps paid for nothing here in my eyes.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Just did a little test. I converted all the exterior textures from the VH-AUS to dds and reduced them to 1024*1024 where they were larger. Now, you tell me which is which...

One is the 2048 bmps and one is the 1024 dds. Can you spot a difference at all? FPS gain for me in the outside view was noticeable though, about 1/3 more frames for me by that alone. And there is more potential because the specs don't need to be 1024 because the contain no custom specs but only a uniform color. So there is no special reflection and tint visible from specific angles so you could even size those specs down to 512*512.

The texture load already went down from 110MB to 65MB and there is room for more. I'd say you can cut the texture load in half without even seeing any difference. We can't do the same with the bloated model ourselfes unfortunatly.

[horst18519 231]

That proves again that every system reacts different on texture sizes, poly counts and other things.

We will try to release an optional 1024 or 512 dds texture set for those who have better framerates this way.

By the way: We use 2 textures for the lenght of th BH (fuselage 1 and 2) and you can spot the difference, but maybe this is indeed a Vista limitation as somebody mentioned before.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

You can spot the difference but its barely visible, and that at a distance that is much closer than usual. I'm on XP by the way. You don't count the tail to the lenght of the BH? Or does the fuse2 already reaches fully aft and the tail texture only goes up? Anyway it is more than a normal system can take. I've yet to see another plane that is so texture heavy and oversized modelwise...

- Twin Otter -> 11MB model, 23MB texture

- H-1 Racer -> 10MB model (and this is higly detailed), 33MB texture

- A2A 377 -> 15MB model (and highly detailed again), 75MB texture

I simply cannot understand why the model files are so large here with the BH. Over 40MB makes the model nearly 3 times as complex as the A2A 337 and 4 times as complex as the H-1 Racer. That can't be right. Maybe there is a lot modelled that is not visible.

Another thing is texture load times. The original texture set takes ages to load, the 1024 dds one pops up basically instantly.

Oh and if you can spot the difference, wich one is which?

[Boerries 24]

Oh and if you can spot the difference, wich one is which?

First is 1024, second is 2048. Look at the line under the edge of the window.

edit: UPS! I´m wrong.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

And, does it look much different? So much that you're willing to sacrifice so much fps for it???

Here's a differnt side by side...

The 1024 is on the left, the 2048 on the right.

[Boerries 24]

And, does it look much different? So much that you're willing to sacrifice so much fps for it???

No. Any chance to get the textures?

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Not sure if that would not collide with copyright. After all those textures are not my work, I simply converted them.

I'm willing to upload them when I'm done with the optimization. There is quite a bit of optimization room left like downsizing the spec maps etc. And I need to do something to the interior which is still to heavy on textures.

[spotlope 4]

I believe Thorsten said he'd be happy to make an official reduced-size texture pack. It's something to think about before putting a lot of time into tweaking them yourselves.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

I know but I rather tweak one or two repaints myself in the meantime so I've somthing to fly. And given the design choices made I rather do it myself. See, textures don't need to be a certain size in general. They need to be high res when needed and when they show something. But they don't need to be when they don't or it's just a waste of VRAM.

A great example of what I mean can be seen on the PMDG MD-11. Those liveries that use a generic (unicolor) specular texture for the fuse use a low res one (512*512) that creates the subtle shine etc in reaction to the sun. Those liveries that use special specular textures (like the American Airlines one where the AA logo etc reacts and shines differently) use a higher res 1024 one. High res where there is detail and where it is needed, normal and low res where it isn't. That's clever optimization. Another example is the A2A 377. The paints that suffer too much use 2048 textures, the ones that don't use 1024 ones. Detail and texture where it's needed again.

With the BH there are a monster load of textures that don't add much visible detail but they are huge in size. The spec maps that are only unicolor are 1024 where they could be 512 without and difference. There is also no mip mapping here which would allow to load a lower res version of a texture when you're little farther away. You load immense amounts of textures even if you're viewing the plane from a mile away. I know devs tend to have monster rigs but many customer don't.

There are also texture that look artificially blown up. Wheels for example look blurry in the texture - they look identical to what you get when you resize a 1024 texture to 2048. You won't get more detail but you'll get more texture load - for nothing. There is a lot that can be done here. My guess would be that I can cut the texture load in half without any visual sacrifice.

Sadly I cannot do that to the model. So instead of a light version for the textures I'd rater have a light version for the model that is a bit more optimized. There is a lot of detail here but not as much that would justifiy a model that is 4 times as large as the one of a MD-11 or Hughes H-1 racer. The BH just stresses the system more than needed in my eyes without providing any benefit.

To say that clear, I like the BH! It flies nicely and the dimmable lighting is just wonderful. And the sound is great out of the box. And there are a lot of nice little details here like the coffe cup and post-its etc. But that doesn't help much if it's help back by questionable design choices and obvious lack of optimization.

[RobdeVries 2]

Rob,

What kind of system do you have?

Hi Kofi,

My system:

Processor:Intel Core2Duo 6850 2x3.0 GHz

Mainboard:GigaByte P35-DS4

Memory:G.E.I.L. 4GB DDR2 KIT Retail (2x 2GB 800mhz CL5)

Video:XFX 8800 GTX/575 768 MB

Power:OCZ StealthXStream 600W

Harddisk:2x Seagate Barracuda RAID0

WinXP Pro SP3

FSX SP2/Acc

[Pidder 7]

I was wondering what's about my system and smaller textures. I took one the taildraggers, resized every bitmap to 1024 pix, than flipped and converted to DXT5-DDS files. Took me some time ...

In "Paderborn X", scenery details "very high", VFR-Germany 1 on, "cold front" weather sheme on (FEX) I found:

- the BMP taildragger with high res textures about 21 fps while starting in western direction over the airport

- the new DDS taildragger, same condition, which increases the frames up to about 23 fps (loads much faster of course!)

- the default Cessna 172, same situation with a framerate of about 27 fps.

The BH is 25% slower or - other way round - the C 172 30% faster in frames.

Should I use the Cessna now?

[Private-Cowboy 3]

No, but as you can see there is a benefit of 1024 dds and it does not come at a visible cost. The major problems aren't the textures. The major problems are the huge models. They drag down the fps more than the textures. But we can't do anything to change that can we.

Besides for those with limited VRAM the texture reduction will yield a bigger benefit than for those with lots of VRAM to spare.

[horst18519 231]

I am of course unhappy about the fact that you suffer those problems. Let me explain why the model grew just that big:

It is indeed a fact that a lot of polys that made the MDL grow so extremely big are invisible. Now, don't start yelling yet.

I still believe nobody has ever built dimmable instrument backlighting in a 3D panel, and I mean: completely 3D gauges. And I think I know the reason: The poly count on those gauges is at least 4times as big as the normal 3D gauge without backtlighning.

Now, when I first created this feature I got "oohs" and "wows" from all over the place, so I decided to keep them.

They have in fact a percentage of, say 15% of the total poly count in VC.

There are also lots of other things I tried on that plane and everybody I was talking to about those features (like the frosting windscreen) told me to keep it in any case.

Believe me: I wasn't happy about the MDL growing to 20MB, it sure didn't make things easy for me to model as the rendering tool crashed dozens of times.

Now why did I keep the MDL size? There's one big answer:

When FSX was introduced some 2 years ago almost everybody went "Are you crazy, MS? Nobody can fly with decent framerates, not even on default terrain with a default C172!!"

Now, 2 years later lots of us are flying with great framerates - with complex aircraft and huge, complex sceneries.

So I expected (and I still think this is a good decision) that I'd rather build an aircraft that may almost be too complex for some PCs, but on the longer run you'll all have longer fun with it.

I think the biggest nightmare for a developer is to put thousands of hours of work into something, which is thrown away after 2 hours because it's dull and doesn't offer any fun. I'm sure the Bushhawk will not suffer this.

Still I don't want you to throw it out the window after not 2 hours but 20 minutes because you think it doesn't fit your fps expectations (which is a relative measure anyway). So I'm staying on it and I will do what I can to make this aircraft even more enjoyable for you.

In 1 year nobody will talk about about framerates of this product anymore. That is no argument for now, agreed. But it will be then. And for now, we'll try to tweak some more fps for you.

[ChrisB 11]

Very fast reply - I am creating a full set of low resolution textures right now. Mea Culpa folks - there's always something forgotten in the rush.

[Kofi 0]

I also found the BH to be very heavy on frames, heavier on frames as my new MD-11 and that surprised me the most.

The real pain is the model. Both model files combined (outside and VC) use 40MB. For comparison a Carenado Mooney uses 4MB and the new MD-11 uses 11MB. That gives you an idea how huge and complex the model is - and how poorly optimized. In the MD-11 every single button and switch is 3d and modelled and there are countless animations. Why on earth should need a small bushplane 4times that much???

Hmmm...

This *could* be why the Bush Hawk is hard on FPS performance....

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Folks,

I have just been informed that the textures are being looked into and that replacements are being done, so its not necessary to keep posting about them until after they have been issued.

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Okay folks,

As you know we will look at the issues at hand and try to do something about them, but theres no point in keep posting when we know the issues!!

[horst18519 231]

Could anybody (Shaun?) please do something? This is getting out of control.

No, I didn't mean reporting bugs or asking questions on fps or other Bushhawk-related things, that is ok. But let's please keep to that topic.

[Cody Bergland 4]

Fair enough. I am to blame for shifting the topic . I think the necessary information regarding issues with FPS has most likely been addressed, along with the developers looking into making a solution.