1,746
edits
m (cleanup) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The performance of FlightGear depends on three main components in your computer: the CPU (processor), which makes all the computations; the graphics card, which renders the visual aspect of FlightGear, and RAM (also known as memory) which generally allows FlightGear to have more information running (for the lack of a more technical phrase). | The performance of FlightGear depends on three main components in your computer: the CPU (processor), which makes all the computations; the graphics card, which renders the visual aspect of FlightGear, and RAM (also known as memory) which generally allows FlightGear to have more information running (for the lack of a more technical phrase). | ||
You may also want to check out the following article on building your own FlightGear box based on decommissioned and refurbished server at [[Howto: Build a cheap FlightGear box]], and also learn about how the FlightGear project handles old hardware support at [[FlightGear and old Hardware]] - see [[Minimal Startup Profile]]. | You may also want to check out the following article on building your own FlightGear box based on decommissioned and refurbished server at [[Howto: Build a cheap FlightGear box]], and also learn about how the FlightGear project handles old hardware support at [[FlightGear and old Hardware]] - see [[Minimal Startup Profile]] to start with a bare minumum and turn up settings one by one. | ||
Also see: [[FlightGear Benchmark]] | Also see: [[FlightGear Benchmark]] | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
''Note for old hardware:'' Towards the less powerful end of the range, for FlightGear to run smoothly, it requires a video card with OpenGL drivers 2.0 or higher. You need to spend some time learning settings, and tweaking for bottlenecks, to run FlightGear on very old systems. See [[Minimal Startup Profile]] to start with a bare minimum and then turn settings up. | ''Note for old hardware:'' Towards the less powerful end of the range, for FlightGear to run smoothly, it requires a video card with OpenGL drivers 2.0 or higher. You need to spend some time learning settings, and tweaking for bottlenecks, to run FlightGear on very old systems. See [[Minimal Startup Profile]] to start with a bare minimum and then turn settings up. | ||
Before selecting a GPU and CPU have a look at the benchmark lists in the [[Hardware recommendations#Mostly high and Max settings with 2015.2B mid range GPU|profile]] below for an approximate idea of performance. If you are choosing a laptop see the manufacturers website for that model to find out your GPU and CPU, and check the list. Remember the slowest component will be the limiting component. For example: if you want high graphics but your GPU is slow, having a very fast CPU will not help. Higher resolutions | Before selecting a GPU and CPU have a look at the benchmark lists in the [[Hardware recommendations#Mostly high and Max settings with 2015.2B mid range GPU|profile]] below for an approximate idea of performance. If you are choosing a laptop see the manufacturers website for that model to find out your GPU and CPU, and check the list. Remember the slowest component will be the limiting component. For example: if you want high graphics but your GPU is slow, having a very fast CPU will not help. Higher resolutions need faster GPUs: for example, you can't run FlightGear at 4k resolution with a laptop if your manufacturer has not included a very fast GPU, even if they have included a reasonably fast dedicated GPU - in these laptops you need to run FlightGear at lower resolution, or find a laptop with faster GPU. If you run out of RAM then you cannot have really high visibility ranges or object densities even if your GPU and CPU is fast. The tips in the sections below about avoiding Intel integrated GPUs, mobile laptop GPUs, and low range NVIDIA GPUs (xx10, xx20, xx30, xx40) apply. | ||
''Note on hardware requirements'' | ''Note on hardware requirements'' | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
Requirements are only valid for a target FPS, monitor resolution, usage, and graphics / simulation quality settings. People have a huge range of hardware. | Requirements are only valid for a target FPS, monitor resolution, usage, and graphics / simulation quality settings. People have a huge range of hardware. | ||
For flight simulators the usage can vary depending on the craft used, how the craft is used, and over what scenery the craft is used. The visibility range can change with altitude, how fast the scenery is loaded can change with speeds. How complex the visuals are depends on how much vegetation or man-made buildings are in the visible scenery. The following all place different demands: slow and low with a balloon/[[pterosaur]]/glider/wingsuit/ground effect vehicle, slightly faster and higher in a single prop [[Cessna 172P|C172P]]/[[Cessna 182S|C182]]/[[Piper J3 Cub|Cub]]/[[Piper PA28 Warrior II|PA]], fast and low in a supersonic [[Saab 37 Viggen|Viggen]]/[[Grumman F-14 Tomcat|F-14]] jet, higher altitude but slower in a [[Airbus A320 Family|A320]] airliner, fast and high in a Concorde, extremely fast and high in suborbital craft like the [[X-15]] , or using a [[Space Shuttle|Shuttle]] or [[Vostok-1]] space craft that is fast enough to reach orbit. View distances can vary from [[:File:EC135 Heer.jpeg|individual grass blades]] in airport keep to seeing [[:Category:Screenshots of Earthview|entire continents]] from orbit using | For flight simulators the usage can vary depending on the craft used, how the craft is used, and over what scenery the craft is used. The visibility range can change with altitude, and how fast the scenery is loaded can change with speeds. How complex the visuals are depends on how much vegetation, or man-made buildings/objects, are in the visible scenery. The following all place different demands: slow and low with a balloon/[[pterosaur]]/glider/wingsuit/ground effect vehicle, slightly faster and higher in a single prop [[Cessna 172P|C172P]]/[[Cessna 182S|C182]]/[[Piper J3 Cub|Cub]]/[[Piper PA28 Warrior II|PA]], fast and low in a supersonic [[Saab 37 Viggen|Viggen]]/[[Grumman F-14 Tomcat|F-14]] jet, higher altitude but slower in a [[Airbus A320 Family|A320]] airliner, fast and high in a Concorde, extremely fast and high in suborbital craft like the [[X-15]] , or using a [[Space Shuttle|Shuttle]] or [[Vostok-1]] space craft that is fast enough to reach orbit. View distances can vary from [[:File:EC135 Heer.jpeg|individual grass blades]] in airport keep to seeing [[:Category:Screenshots of Earthview|entire continents]] from orbit using a separate orbital renderer. Flying over a dense forest can mean [[:File:Alouette-lll over the Carpathian Mountains in Romania in Autumn (Flightgear 2018.x).jpg|vast]] amounts of trees are in view, while flying over a barren desert or ocean can mean there are few objects. You can always fly with a lower scenery loading distance and/or a lower visibility distance. A cloudless day can mean there are fewer clouds to draw and also may be lighter on CPU to simulate as Advanced Weather tracks lifecyles of individual clouds. On very old systems turning down cloud density and visibility range can help - as can turning off parts of the Advanced Weather simulation, or using basic weather. If you are flying at night using instruments for navigation, you can turn down graphics settings a lot :) . Different craft place different demands on CPU and GPU. Some craft have detailed electrical, electronic, and mechanical systems which are demanding on the CPU to simulate, while a craft like a glider does not. Some craft have high fidelity graphics and complex electronic displays - these can be demanding on the CPU and loading times, not just the GPU!. Some craft have options to reduce graphics. Some craft have options to reduce CPU usage by making parts of the simulation less responsive or less fine-grained - but these craft tend to be craft which are demanding on the CPU to start with. | ||
Tip: If you have a slow GPU or CPU, you may be able to find craft that are less demanding for your bottleneck. Different aspects of craft can be demanding on the GPU or CPU - systems & instruments, aircraft interior art, aircraft exterior art, or flight dynamics model (FDM). For example, some craft may have detailed systems and instruments but have simple interior art. Some research projects just produce a flight dynamics model with no art and simple systems. Don't worry about the CPU time taken by the flight dynamics model - it isn't really heavy on CPU to simulate - think of an offline flight dynamics engine like JSBSim as a photo viewer for digital fine-art - it may take hours, days or weeks to render a fine-art quality ray-traced [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: | Tip: If you have a slow GPU or CPU, you may be able to find craft that are less demanding for your bottleneck. Different aspects of craft can be demanding on the GPU or CPU - systems & instruments, aircraft interior art, aircraft exterior art, or flight dynamics model (FDM). For example, some craft may have detailed systems and instruments but have simple interior art. Some research projects just produce a flight dynamics model with no art and simple systems. Don't worry about the CPU time taken by the flight dynamics model - it isn't really heavy on CPU to simulate - think of an offline flight dynamics engine like JSBSim as a photo viewer for digital fine-art - it may take hours, days or weeks to render a fine-art quality ray-traced [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raytraced_image_of_several_glass_objects.png digital image] but your web browser can display it very quickly - similarly JSBSim can take the results of computational fluid dynamics done on a supercomputing cluster (like a ray-traced digital image), or taken from windtunnel data (like taking a photo), and simulate flight dynamics quite quickly. Tip: You can use the filter in <code>[[FlightGear Qt launcher|FlightGear Qt Launcher]] > Air craft tab > Browse > Filter using ratings > click Adjust minimum ratings</code> ([[FlightGear Qt launcher#Community video walkthroughs|video tutorial]]) to lower minimum ratings and look for craft which have e.g. good systems and flight dynamics model but simpler art - but this only gives a ''small'' clue - some craft like a glider may not have much systems to simulate or have a simple model so they are not demanding even when recreated in detail. | ||
Without target FPS, monitor resolution, usage, and settings, requirements are meaningless other than for maximum settings (i.e. meaningless for what hardware people actually have) - even maximum settings are hard to predict as they depend on what scenery a flight can take place. It's not trivial to find exact specifications, even for commercial applications with lots of test systems. Some commercial 3d applications do give out specifications for less than max settings but these mostly do not give target performance/quality/usage at all, and a lot of 3d applications like games have limited usage patterns making it easier to check - since commercial screenshot galleries tend to be on the most powerful systems at time of release without stating hardware, not giving detailed performance/quality/usage targets is also a way of making people forget quality may not look anything like advertised on their hardware. The topic of quality and performance is not as simple as commercial applications make it out to be in their advertising. People should consider that a bit of time spent tweaking settings for the performance bottlenecks in your hardware, for your typical usages, can make a huge difference to visuals and FPS. | Without target FPS, monitor resolution, usage, and settings, requirements are meaningless other than for maximum settings (i.e. meaningless for what hardware people actually have) - even maximum settings are hard to predict as they depend on what scenery a flight can take place. It's not trivial to find exact specifications, even for commercial applications with lots of test systems. Some commercial 3d applications do give out specifications for less than max settings but these mostly do not give target performance/quality/usage at all, and a lot of 3d applications like games have limited usage patterns making it easier to check - since commercial screenshot galleries tend to be on the most powerful systems at time of release without stating hardware, not giving detailed performance/quality/usage targets is also a way of making people forget quality may not look anything like advertised on their hardware. The topic of quality and performance is not as simple as commercial applications make it out to be in their advertising. People should consider that a bit of time spent tweaking settings for the performance bottlenecks in your hardware, for your typical usages, can make a huge difference to visuals and FPS. | ||
edits