Jump to content

martinlest

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by martinlest

  1. Yes, I could do that (over 500 of them though!) - just leave the first three lines in each obj file, delete all the rest of the data (after backing up!). In the end (far quicker), I replaced the turbine.dds file with a blank png file, renamed to the same of course. Seems to have worked, though I have only tested very briefly so far. Thanks.
  2. .. I could remove them by editing each obj file, but there are so many. Or replacing the turbine.dds file with a transparent dummy file. Rather 'unofficial' solutions though, I guess!
  3. Well, it's not that I 'don't like them', as such; it's simply that no amount of AA will stop them flickering, and it really is very distracting to have so much in unison rapid pulsing going on. There is surely an 'unofficial' way to remove them... I haven't had a look yet, but if anyone has a tip for this, 'cos it does rather spoil the overall effect (it's the only thing I have found that does)... Thanks.
  4. Hi. Could someone kindly advise if I can remove all the windmills/windfarms from the TEGB scenery? They look great up close, but otherwise, from the air, the white poles flicker so badly that they stick out like rapidly flashing beacons. Very distracting, your eye can't help but be drawn to them as they all pulsate in unison. I haven't found a way to stop this rapid pulsating, so would far rather remove the whole lot from TEGB. Edit them out of a library.txt file perhaps?? Many thanks! Martin
  5. John, that is fantastic news - it's certainly going to please an awful lot of people! Just hope it's not too far down the line: I am not getting any younger! Thanks to others who replied too... I am not about to swap out my TEGB image files for Ortho4XP either, but screenshots using Ortho4XP (zl17) compared with ORBX do show a distinctly less blurry terrain.
  6. OK, fine. Not sure why ORBX choose (apparently) to ignore this question (especially as I have bought all of TEGB so far, so am a 'paying customer'). 8 days is surely long enough to wait for a response? It's not a specific 'support request', so I am guessing this is the right forum....Even if the points have been answered elsewhere, a link to relevant comments would have been useful. A number of people asking about this on XP11 forums at the moment (and voicing their disappointment with blurry textures), so not as if it's only me who is (was?) interested.... Oh well, so be it.
  7. I bought all the TEGB scenery for X-Plane 11 some while back, but seem to recall that there was a discussion about ORBX releasing an uncompressed version, for the many users who have plenty of disc space! (I am not saying that ORBX ever agreed to this - just that it has been talked about). The scenery looks good from on high, but for VFR flying, as has been commented many times, it looks rather blurred. From what I remember that is mostly due to the compression that was used? I had the whole of the UK covered with Ortho4XP terrain before I decided that I'd give TEGB a go. By ditching the Ortho4XP scenery for TEGB I have made gains, and losses: gains in that colour matching of one area with its neighbours is no longer an issue with TEGB (and some nice autogen of course); also, no clouds (though I had managed to edit most of them out of Ortho4XP using Photoshop). Losses in that, as has been said, the terrain now looks far less sharp than it did. There's also an fps hit, I find. Is making an uncompressed version of TEGB available even a possibility? Wouldn't that help with the rather blurred effect of the terrain? I see some people in their frustration are even replacing the ORBX image files with their own Ortho4XP dds files, and getting much sharper terrain as a result ('before' and 'after' videos/screenshots). I don't want to go down that road for now and am still hoping ORBX might present some kind of solution to the rather unfocussed scenery we currently get. In other respects it all looks great - it seems such a shame not to have the same sharpness we get with Ortho4XP (I used zl17, and zl18/19 in some areas: TEGB at the moment looks a bit like Ortho zl15 has been used, especially when you are flying near the ground). Would it be impossible to have a set of uncompressed files available for download for those who have bought the packages? (Would that make an even greater impact on the frame rates though? Currently, I already lose 10-20% fps compared to Ortho4XP, and have pulled sliders down as far as I am willing to go). Is ORBX XP11 Ireland also going to be released in this compressed state, BTW? Thanks.
  8. Looks pretty nice. My only worry is that, with all the London city scenery active, although it will all look wonderful, the frame rates are going to suffer. My fps is kind of OK there with a freeware EGLC addon. Not wanting (at all!) to be a wet blanket, but I'd be scared that an ORBX airport next to all that city scenery would tip the balance towards a stuttering nightmare?
  9. Yes, I said: the 'someone' being your good self, now I look back. I will experiment with the scenery pack ini file - you doubtless right: it's not worth fiddling with it like this when I move from one area to another - may be a red herring anyway. My quick tests showed that moving all my aircraft had a big impact however, though I'd need to move them back again to test further. I think though I'll leave it for the present; as I said, I feel I've done enough troubleshooting for the time being! My 'reward' was a beautiful flight just now from Delhi to Shimla, up in the Himalayan foothills.... the Ortho4XP scenery looked great. If ORBX were to issue 'TEI' (True Earth India), however!! .... Happy flights to you too, and many thanks again for all the advice.
  10. Thanks - as a footnote, I just opened a flight at Delhi airport (the new one uploaded to XP11 library last week - nice but very, very 'heavy' resource wise) and am getting a maximum at the stand of 75fps (!) as opposed to a maximum of 30fps before (though 30fps was Ok for me). At the heaviest parts of the airport though, or when you can see the whole of it on arrival however, I got around 12fps before .. now I get about 25fps (very acceptable given the scenery). Nil desperandum... I think moving all my addon a/c out of XP and adding them via a symlink has given me the biggest frame rate increase. I am just hoping that this isn't another of those five-minute wonders and when I start up XP tomorrow I am not back to square one. Stranger, and certainly less irritating things have happened! We'll see..
  11. Ok, I decided I had to carry on with ths, rather than fly - and I seem to have improved things a lot: I have a copy of 11.32 'out-of the-box' on another PC and I copied that to my XP11 computer. I then added folders, slowly replacing the ones in the 'clean' version of XP11 with ones from my original, 'full' version (I did this by adding symbolic links - the quickest and cleanest way I think). At first, with the 'vanilla' version, I got a huge increase in fps (settings the same as in my original screenshot here) - up to 55fps. As I added stuff, that decreased of course, but not by much. Then I got to lua scripts!... I thought I knew exactly what lua scripts I had installed (big mistake to rely on my memory like that these days!), but there were a few I had forgotten... I removed all apart from two, which are 'must haves' for me and which I would still use even if they had been responsible for the fps decrease. Fortunately the ones I removed must have been at least partly responsible for the frame rate issues, because whereas my EGBB test was getting 18fps, if I was lucky, it now gets about 30. I am more than happy with that... I think someone said I should check plugins here, and I did move a lot of the plugins out when I was testing - but I stupidly did not remove these lua scripts: I have not yet tried to find out which of the ones I removed is mostly to blame, because at the moment I have had enough of troubleshooting/testing - it takes SO long for XP11 to load up again each time; I've been on it most of the day now. Lucky I am semi-retired - not sure how people manage to fly X-Plane and have a full-time job!! I also found that I can gain a few fps by de-activating all the scenery I am not flying (I have so much, it's a bit silly really) by changing SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/ to SCENERY_PACK_DISABLED Custom Scenery/ in the scenery ini file for those areas I will not be flying (quick and easy with an 'intelligent' text editor like EditPad). So now that I intend to fly just in India for a week or so, for example, I have disabled all the entries in the ini file this way, apart from the libraries, Indian airport & Ortho4XP sceneries, Global airports, HD mesh... I seem to get a nice boost in fps too if I do a similar thing to all the aircraft I now have installed. I have moved all the aircraft out of the XP11 aircraft folder (apart from the ones that install with Laminar of course), say to a folder called 'Hangar' (outside of the XP11 folder), and just create a symbolic link to the XP Aircraft folder for those I want to fly at that time. I did that in FS9 in fact to maximise resources. Not sure if the tweaking like that will prove to be a bit too much of a hassle in the long run, but I'll give it a try. Thanks to ORBX for 'hosting' all this, which is a bit off topic I guess, but hopefully may help others with similar issues. Martin
  12. Thanks for the continued input - much appreciated. No, my CPU temps are good, I have 'Core Temp' on a desktop app. Even with XP11 running, temperatures rarely exceed ambient + 25 degs. (so high 50s at the moment). At my EGBB test, with the JDa320, core temps are barely rising about 50 degs at the moment. Yes, I o/c'd the CPU slightly some months back to 4.5GHz... I have tried a few adjustments in the nVidia CP since I last posted - although some people seem to have most 3D settings active there, most seem to say that only the performance mode option is really relevant to XP (I have mine at max performance). I have also tried setting TO to On - some people report fps drop, others a gain. For myself, I gained about 2fps with TO switched to On. Today at least... I also use nVidia Inspector (did I say?) where a few of the many options definitely do work in XP11 (at least on my machine). I tried the 'VMI-Twick' idea above too today, using John's settings - it cut my fps at EGBB from 21 or so down to 12?? Some are saying that there is an issue with 11.3x, but I have a copy of XP11.26 too, and I don't really see that much difference if I run exactly the same flight there - maybe 1 fps on average. I think the time has come for me to ignore fps for a while and do some flying (I am off to India for a week or two)! I'll monitor how things go, performance wise, in the meantime.
  13. Ok, did that again. No change. I gain 1-2 fps max. Can't decide whether it is worth the gain, especially in TEGB where it seems quite a few objects disappear if the slider is not at max? (I have left it at 'max' for now). I get about 3fps gain if I turn reflection detail to minimal instead of low - I'll try that for a while, but if this sets off the cockpit shadow bug again (which plagues me - and many others) I'll have to switch it back to 'Low'. My CPU/GPU timers (at EGBB) now average 0.047/0.036 respectively. Thanks.
  14. Sounds good... I'll have a look now. Thanks. Quick try of the new GTX1070 - huge increase in score in GPU benchmarkers like Heaven and Valley, like 60% or more, and the VRAM usage of about 4.5GB (GPU-Z) is obviously a lot better with an 8GB card, rather than my 4GB GTX970 - but ... I am getting exactly the same fps at the 'usual' EGBB Rwy33 test spot as with the GTX970!! Ho-hum... (not to put it any stronger than that!).
  15. Thanks for the clarification. (Yes, not sure why I included the Scilly Isles in my question - I can see the scenery is there!)
  16. 1. I do really need all those plugins... and I haven't added any since the frame rates went down. A few weeks back I got high frame rates almost everywhere, apart from at airports like Aerosoft's Heathrow (where they were still perfectly OK, even so) and the plugins were the same as I have now. I will try removing them though at some stage soon, just by way of troubleshooting, but I can't see any that I would want to lose permanently (except in the unlikely event that one did suddenly appear to be responsible). 2. AI traffic is already off. I do use World Traffic 3, but loading or not loading AI traffic via that programme makes little difference to my frame rates. 3. I have experimented several times over the past several months with turning Reflections off. I always get the bug back with reflections set to the far left. I can post a link to threads which discuss it if you like. I am by no means the only one who gets this. The bottom line (if there is one) for me is that, as I write this, my ToLiss a319 (a joy, but not the most fps-friendly of my planes) is currently sitting at Delhi airport - the new, highly complex and so supposedly 'frame rate killer' rendition (uploaded the other day to the X-Plane.org library)... https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/51285-indira-gandhi-international-airport-vidp/&tab=comments ... with zl18 Ortho4XP all around, and my frame rates are between 22 and 30 (my max setting) depending where I place my aircraft around the aprons. That's better than any number of places I can choose in the UK now, with TEGB removed and at a default Laminar airport. It makes no sense to me at all. Something seems to have 'gone wrong' with the UK since I removed the Ortho4XP terrain and used TEGB instead. When I can take a deep enough breath and troubleshoot some more, I'll see if I can see what is happening to the loading using process Monitor; that sometimes helps. I am in any case going to replace my GTX970 with the 1070 tomorrow.. hopefully that will allow me to ignore this frame rate issue by increasing the fps enough so that I hardly notice it. Thank you again for the comments David.
  17. Really?? I read from ORBX in January that Alderney was in beta. Is there a problem with getting data for the Channel Islands that prevents it being included in GB scenery? If ORBX come back and say 'no', CI will not be included, I'll spend time correcting my Ortho4XP scenery (may be that the screen shot was without Ortho4XP scenery as I removed it when I installed TEGB of course). If they confirm the islands will appear, I'll not bother. As for the Scilly Isles, I used to have the Earth Simulations sceneries in FSX and they were great. I hardly ever flew FSX though (I am one of those many Luddites who preferred FS9) so am looking forward to the islands reappearing in TEGB (they weren't in SP1 were they - I didn't actually check). Thanks!
  18. Yes, JD a320. Changing the a/c makes little difference really... At the 'usual' test position, EGBB Rwy33, it's 18 or so in the a320, 19fps with the c172 (I just double-checked). X-Plane = XP11.32r2
  19. This is one of those things that starts to 'do your head in', as some of the kids at my school insist on saying! I have spent a couple of hours now trying to fix things... I deleted most of the contents of the preferences folder (after copying it to the desktop first) and let XP rebuild the files.... At Rwy33 of EGBB, my standard testing place for the past day or two, I then got 30fps - but only because all the graphics settings had been set pretty much to the far left of the sliders. I put them back to how they are in the screenshot above, one by one. The killer, it turns out, is 'Number of World Objects' If I set it to Low, I get excellent frame rates. However, set as above, to High, things are odd.. I tried (1) ZBAR - where I have no 3rd. party scenery at all. With the settings as in the screenshot I got 30fps (my maximum as set by nVidia Inspector, as I think I mentioned). (2) VIDP, where I have Ortho4XP terrain and a complex airport: still got 30fps!. (3) Back to EGBB, where there is both TEGB and an addon airport: 18fps only. (4) As (3) but removed the addon airport: 19fps. (5) As (4) but removed all ORBX GB scenery as well: 23fps. Not sure what to make of all that.. I attach the log file anyway. Thanks for any thoughts! Log.zip
  20. This probably reflects more on my pathetic internet search skills more than anything, but I have been looking in the forum here and Googling, trying to ascertain whether TEGB includes these islands or not - in vain. I had assumed 'yes' (though they do not appear on the red 'area covered' in the pdf), but flying into Jersey today, I got what you see in the screenshot, with cars running down the 'cliff' face. So either they have not been included (hopefully they will be added in an update at some stage, in that case?), or something has gone very wrong. Thanks! EDIT: Ah, OK - just found something about Earth Simulations.. in January it was announced, I now see, that Alderney was 'in beta'. I haven't tried flying there yet, but clearly, unless something has gone wrong with my setup, Jersey is not there yet. I assume that both groups of islands will be added in full in due course then... Nice.
  21. Yes, I agree. I do not though get much of an fps boost if I turn reflections off completely, and as I say, that brings on the 'dreaded' blackened cockpit - quite a few threads on the XP org forums about that. Going to start troubleshooting the fps issue now, deleting preferences etc.: it appeared to 'crash' at the time I installed TEGB, but it seems that that is just coincidental - as I reported, testing the same scenario without TEGB only increases the fps by 2 or 3. I never had any problem getting 25-30fps even at busy airports before, but so many now give me less than 15fps - really frustrating (as frustrating not to know why as to endure the juddery low frame rates themselves!)... I just flew from EGBB again and was getting 12fps on the ground. This gradually rose as I did, and by 10,000, above TEGB terrain as far as the eye can see, I was back to 30fps. OK, I need to try the default EGBB airport instead of my addon, but airports uploaded by the wonderful 'tdg' rarely impact frame rates at all, so I doubt that is the issue, especially as the low fps seems everywhere I have tried so far, at ground level. Anyway, I will post back once I have any results. I'd like to get the frame rates back before I install the new GPU or I won't be on a 'level playing field', if you see what I mean.
  22. Thanks for the posts. I think the figures (CPU/GPU times in the fps dataref screen) show that the CPU and GPU are fairly balanced - if anything the CPU is waiting for the GPU rather than vice-versa. Be interesting to see how the figures change when I install the GTX1070 8GB. Glad to hear your 1070 is proving up to the task, JJC. (My holiday is not till the winter by the way so I have ages to look forward to it!). I have already deleted the contents of the shadercache folder and let the files rebuild (a couple of days ago).. I am always wary of deleting preferences though, it has proved a pain sometimes to get things back to how I am used to them - but I always copy the folder first, so I will certainly try when the new GPU is up and running. I have tried several times moving the AA slider down to 2xSSAA+FXAA but it makes absolutely no difference to the fps, very oddly (it has done in the past) so I have left it where it is for now. Oh, and as has been noted on the XP.org forums, if you turn reflections off completely, you are likely to get the bug whereby the cockpit is suddenly plunged into darkness for no reason (even when stationary at the gate) - half the switches etc. plunge into obscurity. Minutes later ilighting returns to normal.. and that annoyance keeps on cycling round. Someone found the cure to be to have the reflections switch at least one notch up, and that works: so that is why I keep it there. If I turn it off, the lighting bug returns...
  23. It's OK - I didn't take it that way at all I have gone ahead and ordered the GTX1070 8GB card - it is at a good price I think at the moment, £229 sterling. It's not the most up to date, but I went through this before on a number of forums and I really don't think that paying around £1000 or more for the latest technology (which won't stay latest very long of course) is necessarily the best investment of money, 'bang for bucks' and all that. Besides, I just paid £thousands for a four-week holiday - got to stop somewhere! I will post back when I have the new GPU installed. I hope I shall be able to report some improvement!
  24. I think the lower fps is in part at least by (bad) chance in the airports from which I have been testing. I often also use St Mary's EGHE as a small airport test, and from there I get my usual maxed out fps of 30. The CPU and GPU times are a lot lower there too, 0.015 and 0.011. On the other hand, there was a time I got 25fps even at Heathrow.. Yes, I did update the GPU drivers a month or two back, but there was no drop in fps at that time. I have XP11 at 'default monitor settings', that is 1920x1200. Do you mean the shadercache folder in Output? I don't think XP11 will even load if you delete the contents of the shader folder... Sad how quickly one's pride and joy high-end system becomes 'long in the tooth'! I originally bought this PC for FS2004 and of course it was stunning, performance-wise. I found XP11 later and fortunately had the specs to run it quite well too. I don't see me changing the PC again any time soon, I must say. I would upgrade the GPU if tests showed that were warranted, but I am not sure that they do... Bottom line for this forum at least is that, no, although ORBX is reducing my frame rates, it's not by all that much. Thanks again for the ideas...
  25. Hi again... Ok, a few tests later... I removed all my ORBX TEGB and in fact only gained about 2-3 fps on average, so I don't know why I have been getting generally lower frame rates over the past week or so than I have been used to in the past. May be some other factor.. Very odd. I am currently sitting at EGBB Rwy 33 (TEGB loaded) and seeing about 14fps in side the cockpit and 17fps outside (JD a320). Not brilliant to say the least! As for the frame rates window, the GPU figure is consistently slightly lower than the CPU. At the moment I am seeing around 0.066 for CPU and 0.064 for the GPU inside the cockpit and outside 0.056 and 0.046 respectively. Do those indicate anything to you, apart from the fact that the my graphics crad may not be the problem (even though it runs at 90%+ VRAM used)?
×
×
  • Create New...