The more the details, the faster the frames!?

Skybird · 06-04-09, 10:23 AM

This is a welcomed, but strange surprise.

I have FS9 installed. The system is a 3 GHz P-4 with XP and 2 GB, with an AGP-mainboard.

Until beginning this year, I was running a CRT monitor, a 19" 4:3. Graphics were done by an AGP board, a 7800GS with 256 MB.

I have plenty of addons for FS9. Back then I ran it at detail levels with their sliders in the upper third of the scales. I had frames which were okay, and operational at 1280x960.

I then had problems with the monitor, and the gfx-board broke down, too. I got a TFT 22" WS, and an AGP board 7950 with 512 MB. Meanwhile, I also did a new installation of the system, completely.

I was not sure what to expect, since the native resolution of the new screen is much higher than the one I used for FS9 before, on the other hand I have a better gfx-board now. But FS is known to be more CPU- than gfx-dependant, so... I started with settings already scaled down to their lower thirds, to be safe.

Frames were horrible.

I reduced gfx details even more, and viewing ranges, and replaced cloud and aircraft textures with DXT3-textures, did some tweaks and minor changes, trying to improve things. Frames became managable, but it was no real joy. I started to stray away from FS9.

These days I had another flight, at night, and since I noticed some ground lights of the scenery were blinking, I searched for the cause, and experimented with the settings again. I found the solution to be switching off some certain night scenery effects from an external pexture package, and the blinking was gone.

I also noticed some better frames, not much, but it got my attention.

To cut a long story short, I noticed that the frames became the better the higher I set the visual details, and the higher I set the distances for viewing range, cloud and ground details being painted.

I don't understand what is going on, but I like it, obviously. I now ran the sim at 1680x1050, with traffic and weather addons, complex airport sceneries and some of the most complex planes and cockpit modules on the market, with all settings and ranges even in the top quarter of the scales, and I have totally fluid frames, better than with the old gfx-board and monitor. Now, this maybe is because the gfx-board really makes such a difference (I did not expect the difference between a 256-7800GS and a 512-7960 to be so great). But when I start to decrease these settings, frames do not become better, but worse!

Does this make sense for anybody?

Needless to say, I'm in heaven, no matter the how and why.

AVGWarhawk · 06-04-09, 10:46 AM

I ran a 7800 on my XP systems and yes, I noticed better frames the higher I set the resolution and detail...this was for SH4.

FIREWALL · 06-04-09, 10:50 AM

Your last sentence in post says it all.

That's what counts.

RickC Sniper · 06-04-09, 02:11 PM

That sounds a bit crazy but I am glad it worked out for you. Enjoy the new widescreen.

Task Force · 06-04-09, 02:39 PM

Maby because things arnt comeing into the game more frequently because they are appearing farther away.

Never heard of a Game that goes better the hugher you put it. lol

AVGWarhawk · 06-04-09, 03:02 PM

Entirely possible from my experience. I would run XP with a AMD 3200+, 2 gig RAM and EVGA 7800 card. SH4 was run on my machine at the standard resolution 1028x768 and it ran ok. I never thought upping the resolution would make the FPS get any better. As the game was modded and more crew spots added, screens being made for widescreen monitors, etc. I changed the resolution one day because new things were being covered up by the lower screen resolution. Low and behold, my frame rates increased as my resolution increased. I was flabergasted to say the least. I believe Skybird is experiencing what he is describing.

CaptainHaplo · 06-06-09, 09:05 PM

2 possibilities

First you have to remember that your monitor has a "native" resolution. This is what the monitor runs best at - the GPU has to do minimal "scaling" to native compared to trying to run something different.

When your PC knows what the native is on the video - and you change it - your making the GPU do 2x the work. First it has to draw the picture in memory - then redraw it to the odd and funky scale you want on your monitor just because you don't want to use the native res. This isn't exactly the way it really works - but running at a non-native res is often harder on the vid card.

Second - with CPU intensive games, the CPU is in charge of "throttling down" on the graphics. When you push the graphics up, your actually not making the CPU spend process cycles "deciding" what to draw and what not to. The CPU just sends it all to the vid card - and the GPU then draws it. It actually frees up the CPU when you increase the detail levels. More data moved off the CPU and onto the GPU. Less info being held in the cache and more stuff sent into the memory of the card - like texture data. As long as the GPU can handle it, your going to see better frame rates in the rare instances the game is a CPU hog vs GPU. Really all depends on where the bottleneck is.

Arclight · 06-07-09, 07:49 AM

I completely agree with the second explanation, but isn't the monitor itself responsible for scaling graphics to a non-native resolution?

CaptainHaplo · 06-07-09, 08:57 AM

Yes and No. The explanation I gave isn't perfect by a long shot. Both do some scaling, in a sense. What happens is your vid card outputs a signal at a certain resolution - what you set it to in the OS. If that isn't the same as what the monitor is set to - then yes the monitor has to scale it to fit what you have. However, most monitors currently just have a range of supportable resolutions, so they simply accept the proper input and display it, no scaling needed. The "native" res is the one which is best displayed on the monitor. Only monitors with their own "manual" res selection thus need to do any scaling. Edit - I forgot about the autoadjust function - that does define some minimal scaling for the input so that it uses full screen area. So pretty much all monitors do SOME scaling.

The key is the vid card. Ever notice in windows when you go to resolution - there is a "recommended" one? This is based of the monitor. Its also what win draws initially. So the GPU draws this for output to the monitor. But, if you have the monitor set to a different res, the GPU then has to scale the drawing back - because IT is the one that knows what resolution to output. The monitor is passive in that. Make better sense now?

Arclight · 06-07-09, 12:17 PM

If you say so.

06-04-09, 10:23 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The more the details, the faster the frames!? This is a welcomed, but strange surprise. I have FS9 installed. The system is a 3 GHz P-4 with XP and 2 GB, with an AGP-mainboard. Until beginning this year, I was running a CRT monitor, a 19" 4:3. Graphics were done by an AGP board, a 7800GS with 256 MB. I have plenty of addons for FS9. Back then I ran it at detail levels with their sliders in the upper third of the scales. I had frames which were okay, and operational at 1280x960. I then had problems with the monitor, and the gfx-board broke down, too. I got a TFT 22" WS, and an AGP board 7950 with 512 MB. Meanwhile, I also did a new installation of the system, completely. I was not sure what to expect, since the native resolution of the new screen is much higher than the one I used for FS9 before, on the other hand I have a better gfx-board now. But FS is known to be more CPU- than gfx-dependant, so... I started with settings already scaled down to their lower thirds, to be safe. Frames were horrible. I reduced gfx details even more, and viewing ranges, and replaced cloud and aircraft textures with DXT3-textures, did some tweaks and minor changes, trying to improve things. Frames became managable, but it was no real joy. I started to stray away from FS9. These days I had another flight, at night, and since I noticed some ground lights of the scenery were blinking, I searched for the cause, and experimented with the settings again. I found the solution to be switching off some certain night scenery effects from an external pexture package, and the blinking was gone. I also noticed some better frames, not much, but it got my attention. To cut a long story short, I noticed that the frames became the better the higher I set the visual details, and the higher I set the distances for viewing range, cloud and ground details being painted. I don't understand what is going on, but I like it, obviously. I now ran the sim at 1680x1050, with traffic and weather addons, complex airport sceneries and some of the most complex planes and cockpit modules on the market, with all settings and ranges even in the top quarter of the scales, and I have totally fluid frames, better than with the old gfx-board and monitor. Now, this maybe is because the gfx-board really makes such a difference (I did not expect the difference between a 256-7800GS and a 512-7960 to be so great). But *when I start to decrease these settings, frames do not become better, but worse!* Does this make sense for anybody? Needless to say, I'm in heaven, no matter the how and why. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-04-09, 10:46 AM	#2
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I ran a 7800 on my XP systems and yes, I noticed better frames the higher I set the resolution and detail...this was for SH4. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

06-04-09, 10:50 AM	#3
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	Your last sentence in post says it all. That's what counts. __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

06-04-09, 02:11 PM	#4
RickC Sniper Undetectable Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,221 Downloads: 132 Uploads: 0	That sounds a bit crazy but I am glad it worked out for you. Enjoy the new widescreen. __________________ Support Subsim http://www.subsim.com/store.html

06-04-09, 02:39 PM	#5
Task Force Rear Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SPACE!!!! Posts: 10,142 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Maby because things arnt comeing into the game more frequently because they are appearing farther away. Never heard of a Game that goes better the hugher you put it. lol __________________ Task Force industries "Taking control of the world, one mind at a time"

06-04-09, 03:02 PM	#6
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Entirely possible from my experience. I would run XP with a AMD 3200+, 2 gig RAM and EVGA 7800 card. SH4 was run on my machine at the standard resolution 1028x768 and it ran ok. I never thought upping the resolution would make the FPS get any better. As the game was modded and more crew spots added, screens being made for widescreen monitors, etc. I changed the resolution one day because new things were being covered up by the lower screen resolution. Low and behold, my frame rates increased as my resolution increased. I was flabergasted to say the least. I believe Skybird is experiencing what he is describing. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

06-06-09, 09:05 PM	#7
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	2 possibilities First you have to remember that your monitor has a "native" resolution. This is what the monitor runs best at - the GPU has to do minimal "scaling" to native compared to trying to run something different. When your PC knows what the native is on the video - and you change it - your making the GPU do 2x the work. First it has to draw the picture in memory - then redraw it to the odd and funky scale you want on your monitor just because you don't want to use the native res. This isn't exactly the way it really works - but running at a non-native res is often harder on the vid card. Second - with CPU intensive games, the CPU is in charge of "throttling down" on the graphics. When you push the graphics up, your actually not making the CPU spend process cycles "deciding" what to draw and what not to. The CPU just sends it all to the vid card - and the GPU then draws it. It actually frees up the CPU when you increase the detail levels. More data moved off the CPU and onto the GPU. Less info being held in the cache and more stuff sent into the memory of the card - like texture data. As long as the GPU can handle it, your going to see better frame rates in the rare instances the game is a CPU hog vs GPU. Really all depends on where the bottleneck is. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-07-09, 07:49 AM	#8
Arclight Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Land of windmills, tulips, wooden shoes and cheese. Lots of cheese. Posts: 8,467 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 10	I completely agree with the second explanation, but isn't the monitor itself responsible for scaling graphics to a non-native resolution? __________________ Contritium praecedit superbia.

06-07-09, 08:57 AM	#9
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Yes and No. The explanation I gave isn't perfect by a long shot. Both do some scaling, in a sense. What happens is your vid card outputs a signal at a certain resolution - what you set it to in the OS. If that isn't the same as what the monitor is set to - then yes the monitor has to scale it to fit what you have. However, most monitors currently just have a range of supportable resolutions, so they simply accept the proper input and display it, no scaling needed. The "native" res is the one which is best displayed on the monitor. Only monitors with their own "manual" res selection thus need to do any scaling. Edit - I forgot about the autoadjust function - that does define some minimal scaling for the input so that it uses full screen area. So pretty much all monitors do SOME scaling. The key is the vid card. Ever notice in windows when you go to resolution - there is a "recommended" one? This is based of the monitor. Its also what win draws initially. So the GPU draws this for output to the monitor. But, if you have the monitor set to a different res, the GPU then has to scale the drawing back - because IT is the one that knows what resolution to output. The monitor is passive in that. Make better sense now? __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-07-09, 12:17 PM	#10
Arclight Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Land of windmills, tulips, wooden shoes and cheese. Lots of cheese. Posts: 8,467 Downloads: 53 Uploads: 10	If you say so. __________________ Contritium praecedit superbia.