Random thoughts:
Update your drivers! Version 9 uses driver features that version 8 does not. Just because version 864 works doens’t mean that your drivers are up to date and bug free! First thing to try when weird things happen in version 9 is a driver update.
If you have 60 fps and a rendering setting cuts it to 30, you probably have vsync on – that is, your graphics card can only run at an even divisor of your refresh rate. The next hit will be 20, then fog. Change your monitor refresh rate to 75 or 80 hz. If the framerates all change (to 80, 40, 20, etc.) it must be v-sync. Turn v-sync off for better framerates under heavy load. Nvidia users, you need to turn v-sync to off, not application controlled.
X-Plane 900b7should be able to put sustained load on three cores – if you’re recording a QuickTime movie, one core draws the world, one compresses QuickTime frames, and one rebuilds 3-d as you fly. So…I guess we’ve already hit a point where a quad-core machine has some benefit over a dual-core machine. (I think we’ll start to see more central features use more cores during the v9 run.)
The new forests rebuild 3-d very frequently – dual core users who run on “tree hugger” should see utilization of 75% or higher on both cores, depending on video card power. (If your CPU usage isn’t 100% then probably your video card is holding you back – turn down FSAA.)
I woke up this morning to one of those funny coincidences that defines the experience of working on X-Plane: two users had emailed me. One was asking whether we’d be extending water reflection technology to airplane fuselages (like some other programs have) and the other made the case that such an extension was not necessary. The two emails arrived in sequence! (Perhaps there was a forum debate on the subject somewhere.)
First, I can tell you that if we ever have reflective airplanes, it won’t be that soon. I have a number of features for version 9 that are in progress and need to be finished off before I can start anything new.
Reflective airplanes are on my “investigation list”…that is, a feature where we want to do the initial research to see if it could be implemented in a way that makes sense (for X-Plane this means: would it look good and not kill fps too badly for at least some segment of our users).
I believe the X-Plane 9 version run will start to contain more features for serious 3-d modeling of airplanes. Version 9 already features 3-d lighting in the 3-d cockpit, key frames for animation, and a ton of new datarefs to drive that animation. We’re going in the direction of being able to model the plane in absurd detail.
We’re also looking at the lighting model in X-Plane. We’ve only started this work for version 9, but consider pixel-shader-based water. Even in the “no reflections” case, the pixel-shader based water is a reflection of the real sky (as rendered) with a procedural texture to create waves. When you compare this to the version 8 water, you can see how having really close alignment of the coloring scheme for all parts of the sim creates more of a sense of realism.
So reflective airplanes are at least on my list of things to try. I have seen users do wonderful amazing “metal” textures on airplanes, but the one thing that I think holds them back is that all metal airplanes have some kind of tinting assumption to them based on the reflection used…typically these are “blue-based” (meaning they look right on a sunny day) or “gray based” (meaning they look right on a cloudy day). But if you put the plane in the other environment the texture looks a lot less convincing. Reflective textures would let authors really use the real sky color on the plane, for consistent lighting (especially when the plane’s orientation changes and the blue side isn’t up anymore).
On the other hand, reflections are expensive. Planes reflect light from all sides, so we would need to take reflections from all angles (the water always reflects up, which is a huge savings). For low-quality settings for water, we drop the terrain, and since the terrain only reflects at the water’s edge, this is a pretty tolerable omission. An airplane reflection with “sky on the bottom” would look absurd. (Similarly, the water tends to only reflect things that aren’t on camera, so the total rendering load of water + the world tends to be static. The plane would pick up a lot of 3-d objects even in orientations where they don’t do much good, so plane reflections would become expensive.) And the plane reflection isn’t usable for any other plane…do we build them for all planes or just the user’s plane?
Certainly right now it’s still too soon to tell. Not only have I not done the research into this feature, but we still don’t have comprehensive performance data on the water across lots of hardware. A number of users are reporting huge framerate loss on the lowest water settings. This implies that our “render-to-texture” code is slow on some hardware but not others. (The fps loss on my laptop with the lowest water setting is less than 4%.) Render-to-texture is new to v9 and used heavily, so we need to understand how it scales for all users before we go further.
Finally, there is a whole area of 3-d techniques that X-Plane does not yet use that could make sense for airplane modeling: artist controlled fake lighting.
For example, imagine if the airplane contained a single “reflection” texture – this texture would contain a fake ground texture and alpha transparency where the sky color goes. X-Plane could then fill in the sky color (where there is transparency) only when the weather conditions change, and then apply the texture keeping the plane’s orientation in mind. Such a proposal would give the plausibility of reflections (correct coloring on all parts of the plane across lighting, orientation and weather conditions) for a fraction of the cost of “real” reflections. I’m not saying this is the best idea, just that there’s a lot of intermediate ground between “full reflections” and “make a static texture”.
Lori and I are hooked on the TV show “House”, where Hugh Laurie plays a really grumpy doctor who solves bizarre medical cases more or less by ESP. The characters are well written, but the medical plot line is somewhat predictable: there are four quarters to the show – in each one House except the last, House will make the wrong diagnosis and the patient will get worse right before the commercial break. (Usually this involves massive bleeding or cardiac arrest going into the long commecial block at 0:30.) None of the symptoms fit until the very end when House finds the simple right explanation they just couldn’t see.
This set of nvidia crash bugs felt a lot like that – we had multiple attempted fixes, some of which didn’t help at all, until finally after multiple tries I found a bug that explained all of the otherwise completely weird behavior we were seeing.
But I must admit – I have brought shame on the house of X-Plane…the buggy code was mine and the mistake was really stupid. Why nVidia on Windows? As far as I can tell the optimizers present in most OpenGL engines can change whether (and how) the bug manifests itself – different OS/driver pair: different engine with different optimizers.
Now that (at risk of massively jinxing ourselves) we have the crash bug fixed, I will resume performance work. Once we get a build done with all of the immediate performance items I want to cover, we’ll start collecting user reports on in-field performance. So I should have more specific instructions on what you can do to help us isolate performance problems in the next few days.
(Probably I’ll be blogging a lot today…the load/change-planes/crash/recompile cycle I am going through while working on the crash bug is a slow one – my old Dell is long in the tooth…it leaves me a lot of time to post.)
Beta can be frustrating for both users (why don’t they fix the bugs I reported) and programmers (I need more details in my bug report). Here are a few thoughts on what makes an initial bug report useful:
- Precision of reproduction. This is probably the most important thing – we get a lot of “open an airplane”-type instructions. Which airplane? It turns out that a lot of bugs depend on the particular content being used. So if you know how to make a bug happen, please describe it in the most painfully precise steps possible!
- Short is beautiful. We must know precisely how to reproduce a bug, but a procedure that takes two hours kills our productivity. So please try to determine how to reproduce the bug with the minimum number of precise steps.
- Clean system. Bugs that involve only the default content shipped with the sim are more useful for us because they’re quicker to find and more likely to be due to a bug in the sim itself.
- Nuke the prefs. Bug reports that start with “delete your preferences” are good because it means the bug procedure starts from a known state (the sim defaults). We get bugs that we can’t reproduce because something is subtly different in our system. Killing prefs is the quickest way to eliminate this case.
As an example, the cleanest, simplest version of the nvidia crash bug would be:
1. Delete prefs.
2. Start the sim.
3. Open the C172 using the “open aircraft” dialog box.
Result: unexpected program termination before the terrain is visible.
Back in the good old days (that would be X-Plane 6), X-Plane’s framerate would suffer in two ways as you cranked up the rendering options:
- For most features (more visibility, more autogen) as the CPU and GPU became more heavily loaded, the framerate would gradually decrease.
- If you ran out of VRAM (that is, the working set of textures needed per frame was more than your card’s VRAM) framerate would really die fast – think 2 fps.
The reason for this second behavior was that computers couldn’t shuffle textures between main memory and VRAM fast enough to render a frame in a 30th of a second.
As computers have gotten faster, this second behavior has gone away – modern cards, with fast PCIe 16x busses, can transfer textures from system memory to VRAM pretty fast – fast enough to have the working set be (slightly) larger than VRAM and still fly. So as texture memory increases, framerate decreases more gradually.
However, a new behavior has emerged: “glitching”. You may have noticed that when you’ve got your computer set to the ragged edge of the rendering settings, as you turn the camera, the framerate will stutter for a few frames, then return to a relatively high rate (40-50 fps).
What’s happening is: the working set of textures and geometry needed by X-Plane just barely fit in VRAM. But when you turn your head, a different set of textures and geometry are needed. While the card sorts out what is needed and what isn’t, it spends some time needlessly shuffling textures, and eventually reaches stability, with only what’s needed in VRAM, and framerate stays high.
Glitching has emerged as a mode of performance degredation because over time we’ve cut down the amount of “stuff” (textures and geometry) x-plane needs to draw a frame to only what’s really absolutely needed. This means there is less intersection between the working set in one view and another, and it also means you can get closer to the edge of your hardware.
So my view on glitching is basically “too bad”. If the working set weren’t as carefully trimmed, you wouldn’t have glitches, but the framerate would be entirely low, not entirely high. The only solution is to turn down settings that increase the working set (object density, world LOD, tex res, forests…) until the computer can run without glitches.
An even stranger variant of this: users sometimes report framerate getting “stuck” at 19 fps and then coming back when they change apps. The problem is that the driver doesn’t know exactly what the best order of textures to keep in VRAM vs. shuffle is…as the view changes, sometimes the driver ends up with a non-optimal decision about what stays in VRAM and what goes, causing framerate to drop. Changing which app is in the foreground fixes this by temporarily pushing a lot of items out of VRAM, at which point the driver makes a different decision by luck.
Again, the solution is simple: turn down rendering settings to get the working set smaller than VRAM.
Basically, if the working set is smaller than your amount of VRAM, you should have even framerates, proportional to rendering load.
If the working set is greater than VRAM, the driver may find an optimal way to shuffle things and only decrease fps a little, or it may find a non-optimal way to shuffle and you’ll get terrible fps, and that shuffle can change on the fly, causing framerate to fluctuate all over the place.
I would have to say my track-record at predicting hardware developments in the sim world has been pretty poor. But these two factors seem like they won’t change for a bit:
- The amount of working data a system can crank through in one frame keeps increasing while the total amount of virtual address space stays the same (3 GB).
- The gap between the fastest and slowest systems from a finite time period keeps widening.
To elaborate on this first point, as video cards get faster (both GPU and internal bus/RAM speeds), system RAM and buses get faster (graphics slot changes are rare, but with enough VRAM this is relatively moot) the amount of texture and geometry data that X-Plane can tell the card to draw in a 30th of a second keeps going up. So users are running with more trees, roads, 3-d, etc. than in the past.
But all of this stuff lives in memory, and even if a user has 8 GB, X-Plane can’t load more than 3. Imagine what will happen when a graphics card can draw 3 GB of data in one frame? X-Plane will have to use all of its available memory for things you see right now or it will waste graphics power. This would mean purging from memory anything that isn’t on screen!
On the second point, video card power doubles every, um, six to twelve months (perhaps more like 18, now that the card makers are hitting the same fabrication and power limits that the CPU makers have already hit, but this is all seat of my pants). So even if we only supported the last three generations of cards (we support at least seven!!) that gap in performance doubles!
This means that every year it requires a more flexible rendering engine to make a sim with decent frame-rates for old computers and up-to-date graphics on new ones.
X-Plane 9 is currently in beta 2. Long-time X-Plane users know that a lot of bugs get fixed between early and late betas, and they also know that a good number of bugs get added between the early betas.*
If all goes well, X-Plane 9 beta 3 will be out in a few days. My advice is: don’t panic. X-Plane beta 2 crashes for a number of users, so our top priority is to fix the crash and get the fix out ASAP. If your bug doesn’t get fixed in beta 3, it’s probably because we’re still working on it but didn’t want to delay getting the crash fix to users.
Similarly, beta 3 will include some performance improvements, but more are coming. Beta 3 doesn’t represent the end of our performance tuning, it represents the first beta that we can do serious analysis with. We only have a fraction of all of the supported video cards within the company, so if your computer is having performance problems, well, we’ll figure out what’s going on in beta 3 and then fix it.
* Our approach to bug fixing is: if a piece of code is buggy because it’s subsystem has a design problem, we go in and fix the design problem, even if we’re in beta. Other companies might say “no fixing design problems (which changes more code) during beta.” But the way I look at it, badly designed code is just going to cause problems all the time until it’s fixed, and it has to be fixed some day, so why wait.
(Why would there be badly designed code in X-Plane, or any computer program? Computer programs change over time, and the functionality they perform changes and grows. As this happens, the designs of the past no longer make sense for future requirements. In my experience most design problems come from code “outgrowing” its framework.
So our approach is to upgrade the framework as soon as it shows signs of growing pains, rather than jamming as many features into the existing framework as possible until it becomes so overcrowded that we can’t get anything done.)
Read the info here:
http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/phpwiki/index.php?NewVersionAnnouncement
Please note that if you are a scenery author and not a programmer, this will not directly affect you at all. (But see the section on compatibility – old plugins will still work!)
Version 9 will also feature a lot of new datarefs – this should make things a lot easier for authors doing animation.
The new API will allow programmers to access the terrain mesh. This means that add-ons that want to add dynamic graphics content by drawing (e.g. drawing in baggage trucks) will be able to place that content “on the ground” no matter what the surface of the airport area. I think this will allow for some interesting new add-ons.
There have been plenty of rumors and semi-official posts regarding the upcoming major revision of X-Plane (X-Plane 9). I have been trying to keep my mouth shut about it…the problem with pre-announcing anything is that the upside to us is small (at best we do what we said) and the downside is large (at worst we don’t do what we said and people get grumpy). No one complains if XP9 turns out to have no-pause scenery load and it’s a surprise…but plenty of people complain if we say “there won’t be pauses” and then they are.
But…the situation is becoming mildly absurd…plenty of info is out there, and saying “the upcoming major release”, etc. just feels political and weaselly. Austin would be disgusted.
So listen: I am going to try to provide some info on X-Plane 9. This info is subject to change. This is what we think is going to happen to the best of our knowledge. The release is still a ways away and enormous changes will happen. When things change, do not bitch to me that “you promised X” would happen. I do not promise anything. This info is provided to try to help those making add-ons for X-Plane plan appropriately.
With that in mind…I will try to post some more details on the authoring environment in the next few days. For now, here’s some very basic guidance on compatibility and hardware requirements:
- The hardware requirements will be at least as high as X-Plane 8. If your machine is gasping and wheezing on 8, it’s not going to be any better on 9.
- X-Plane 9 will depend more heavily on pixel shaders. If your hardware doesn’t have pixel shaders (GeForce 2-4, Radeon 7000-9200) or has really crappy shaders (GeForce FX series) you will miss out on a lot of the cool stuff in v9, and possibly have the scenery look worse (but faster) than v8 (as we move features from the CPU to pixel shaders).
- Scenery that opens in x-plane should open in X-Plane 9 unmodified – if the scenery works in 8 but not 9, report it as a bug!
- Plugins that work in v8 should work in v9 without modification.
Finally, we are trying to finish up X-Plane 861…this is a bug-fix patch for version 8 – it contains no new features, but it does fix a few nasty bugs, some of which cause crashes. So if there is any new feature, it’s coming in 9, not 861. Version 8 has been out for a very long time, so I will accept no argument that v8 should have more features than it does now. It’s been a long run!
(One of my main goals with 861 is to try to fix any weird behavior for third party scenery add-ons, so that a scenery add-on looks the same in v8 and v9. If we left the bug in 861 and fixed it in v9, authors would have to hack the scenery to make it work with v8, and then remove the hack and republish for v9. By trying to fix the authoring bugs in v8, at least when possible, it lets authors publish one package for both versions. Of course, v9 will have new features, so I expect some v9-only scenery will emerge pretty quickly.)
In my previous post I described the underlying problems that make translucency in airplane cockit objects tricky. That gives us the background to understand how X-Plane draws cockpit objects and why.
The actual draw order for airplane-related objects is this:
- Far away weapons.
- All of the airplanes that we are not inside (this means the user’s plane in an external view, and AI planes all the time). For each of these planes, the external cockpit object is drawn first, then the parts, then the attached objects in order.
- Clouds and puffs and other such environmental phenomena.
- The geometry of our plane, if it is to be drawn and we are in an inside view.
- The attached objects in order for our plane, if internal geometry is drawn and we are in an inside view.
- Weapons that are very close to the plane.
- The inside cockpit object, if we are inside the plane.
A few things to note about this draw order:
- Note that weapons appear twice in the category of “near” and “far”. This is all about the clipping plane – if a weapon is close to us, it must be drawn with the cockpit object, late in the draw cycle, when we are doing “close” things. Weapons are treated dynamically – they change where they are in the draw cycle depending on their position in space. This is necessary because a weapon starts out real close (just off your wing) and then goes real far away.
- The user’s airplane is special-cased when we are in an internal view … at that point if external things are being drawn, they are done in the later “close” view with the cockpit.
- The external cockpit object is (strangely) quite early in the draw order. There’s really no good reason for that. What’s particularly annoying is that it’s inconsistent with the internal draw order. The main point of internal/external cockpit objects is to let you simplify your cockpit object in external view for performance.
Is there a sane way to set up an X-Plane 860 aircraft with translucent geometry? I’m not 100% sure about this, but it looks to me from the code like the correct thing to do might be:
- Put any translucent windshield/canopy/etc. in the last attached object.
- Put only the interior panel (and not the canopy) in the cockpit object.
This works because in the external view the canopy is drawn last, and in the internal view, the panel is more or less guaranteed to be closer than the canopy, which is good enough.
