Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Addon Development Developers post news, updates, & discussions here about your projects in development.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2012, 12:24 PM   #61
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

Stock DG is the one I mostly use, its always there, and I'm used to it. Always put the three stock vehicles in my bases, just seems the proper thing to do.

N.
Notebook is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 12:36 PM   #62
wehaveaproblem
One step closer
 
wehaveaproblem's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orb View Post
 I almost exclusively use the stock DG for different tests, but I don't test the Ascension Ultra.
ha, you didn't ask to. :p

But I tend to use the stock DG for testing too... but I don't test UMMU.
wehaveaproblem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 04:23 PM   #63
PDF
Addon Developer = Media Render
 
PDF's Avatar
Default

FYL I would like to be a beta tester & also I'm currently in works to updating my logos on my website,
PDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-05-2012, 05:02 PM   #64
wehaveaproblem
One step closer
 
wehaveaproblem's Avatar

Default

Thanks PDF, I've replied to your PM
wehaveaproblem is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-05-2012, 11:34 PM   #65
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

I generally use the stock DG for testing as well but have been using "Spider" my lunar lander project to test the UMMU functionality
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2012, 03:11 PM   #66
Screamer7
Orbinaut
 
Screamer7's Avatar
Default

Tom and Friedrich, will it be a major undertaken to make this base compatible with the D3D 9 client?
Or is it more in the line for Jarmo do develop it?
In the D3D 9 or even the D3D 11 client, there are many more possibilities.
At least I think so.
The transparency issue, frame rates and overall anesthetics can be improved.
Screamer7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2012, 03:19 PM   #67
wehaveaproblem
One step closer
 
wehaveaproblem's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screamer7 View Post
 Tom and Friedrich, will it be a major undertaken to make this base compatible with the D3D 9 client?
Or is it more in the line for Jarmo do develop it?
In the D3D 9 or even the D3D 11 client, there are many more possibilities.
At least I think so.
The transparency issue, frame rates and overall anesthetics can be improved.
There was some talk about this in the AU dev thread I believe. Face can tell you if it's a 'major' undertaking, but I know it's certainly an undertaking, and not a priority now. But I hope it will be compatible one day, cos it does make things look a lot sweeter.
wehaveaproblem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2012, 03:56 PM   #68
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screamer7 View Post
 Tom and Friedrich, will it be a major undertaken to make this base compatible with the D3D 9 client?
Or is it more in the line for Jarmo do develop it?
In the D3D 9 or even the D3D 11 client, there are many more possibilities.
At least I think so.
The transparency issue, frame rates and overall anesthetics can be improved.
http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread....&postcount=161
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-06-2012, 04:42 PM   #69
csanders
Orbinaut
 
csanders's Avatar
Default

FYI, "glideslope MFD" doesn't like the "tab" between the lon/lat location values in the "Ascension Ultra.cfg" - it causes a CTD when one starts the glideslope MFD.

Technically it's a "glideslope" bug though (it's not parsing white-space correctly).
csanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-07-2012, 02:41 PM   #70
NukeET
Gen 1:1
 
NukeET's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehaveaproblem View Post
 Thanks for that feedback, it's good to get at an idea of the fps numbers. Seems satisfactory so far.. agree?
Most assuredly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehaveaproblem View Post
 I'll see if I can sort that out without having to tear the hangar to vertices...
Laughing about the way you phrased that statement...NOT about the actual mesh re-work. I know how bloody that can be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehaveaproblem View Post
 Cheers for the vids, much obliged.
Seemed to be the most efficient way...
NukeET is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-07-2012, 04:41 PM   #71
RisingFury
OBSP developer
 
RisingFury's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehaveaproblem View Post
 Thanks for that feedback, it's good to get at an idea of the fps numbers. Seems satisfactory so far.. agree?

I can't say I agree. Even decent / top range computers are somewhat struggling with AU. If AU was the only base of its type in existence, it'd be ok, but if you're hoping the AU technology becomes standard for base making, then we have a problem... pun not intended...

On Sunday when I get back to my computer, I'm going to test what happens if you put 5 or 10 AU bases all over Earth. I think 5 to 10 top range bases based on this technology is a good estimate.

I'd request every tested does this test as well and posts the FPS.

So the test is:
If you spread 5 AU bases randomly across the Earth at distances greater than 1000 km or so, what happens to the FPS. After that, repeat the test with 10.
RisingFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-07-2012, 05:38 PM   #72
storm
Orbinaut
 
storm's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingFury View Post
 I can't say I agree. Even decent / top range computers are somewhat struggling with AU. If AU was the only base of its type in existence, it'd be ok, but if you're hoping the AU technology becomes standard for base making, then we have a problem... pun not intended...
I have some crude data:


Dual-Core E5700 @ 3.0 GHz 3.0 GHz
4.0 GB RAM (3.0 usable)
32 bit Windows 7 Ultimate
nVidia GT 240 512MB RAM
Running Orbiter in 1400 x 875 window mode

Starting off with the default beta scenario with the standard camera view using D7 client (performance appears to be better in D9) the frames start at 42 FPS. As you progress through the graph you will see random sharp drops, those are due to the scenario editor UI. But basically after creating 4 other bases and placing them randomly throughout Earth, making sure that no other base is in view of the first one, we stabilize around 24 FPS.

In the graph you can see where I start deleting the bases. These are the FPS spikes following the stable frames of 24 FPS. Somewhat strange thing is that after deleting the 3rd base the frames went back up to 42 FPS, even though there is one extra base remaining (the 4th base and AU main). Deleting the 4th base has no impact on the frames.

I saved the scenario with 5 bases and reloaded, and they once again stabilize at 24 FPS with the default camera view.

I don't know how Orbiter's rendering works, so I don't know how the FPS are affected if you add some complex mesh in the session even though it is not being rendered in the current scene. The only other thing left is the coding overhead from the 4 other bases, and I wouldn't expect it to have such a dramatic affect on the frames. Adding 4 other bases effectively cut the frames in half, even though none of the other four bases are in view.

Last edited by storm; 07-07-2012 at 05:44 PM.
storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-07-2012, 06:18 PM   #73
Raven
Orbinaut
 
Raven's Avatar
Default

Would it be possible to add cargo storage/management for the hangars, similar to woo482's UCGO warehouse, but controlled by TowerMFD?
Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2012, 07:42 PM   #74
Screamer7
Orbinaut
 
Screamer7's Avatar
Default

I also try to spawn multiply AU bases around the globe.
My frame rate with 1 AU is 33 FPS in the D7 client.
With 5 more AU bases scattered around the globe, it drops to 10 FPS.
In the D3D 9 client I started at 55 FPS.
With 5 Au bases it stabilize at 36 FPS.
Interesting.
My PC specs:
Intel core 2 duo E 4400 at 2 ghz.
2 GB RAM
nVidia 9600 GT with 512 GDR 3 ram.


I done several experiments with the standard AU base.
I filled every hanger with various winged aircraft.
XR1,XR2, XR5, DG 4-2, Stock DG, Delteglider EX.
At he vertical launch facility, i spawn a AMSO saturn and the Energia from Kultch.
With this "full house" my frame rate does not drop significantly.
And the best news is there is no CTD at all.
I launch them all and returned with the winged aircraft to AU without problems.
I used the air traffic mode mfd several kilometers from AU and it worked flawlessly.

Last edited by Screamer7; 07-07-2012 at 07:57 PM.
Screamer7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 07-09-2012, 12:14 PM   #75
wehaveaproblem
One step closer
 
wehaveaproblem's Avatar

Default

Just a quick one to say thanks for the fps stuff gents. I'm busy this weekend, but will come back to this with a proper answer shortly.

---------- Post added 09-07-12 at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was 08-07-12 at 19:01 ----------

Okay, so lets address this fps stuff:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingFury View Post
 I can't say I agree. Even decent / top range computers are somewhat struggling with AU.
Unfortunately that's not true. My rig runs AU in excess of 70-100 fps even with a ton of XR fleet vessels added. Tech-wise my rig is actually about a year old, although quite new to me: Intel(R) Core i5-2500k @ 3.6GHZ, 8GB RAM, GeForce GTX 580, Win7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingFury View Post
 If AU was the only base of its type in existence, it'd be ok, but if you're hoping the AU technology becomes standard for base making, then we have a problem... pun not intended...
This is a valid point, but I think it's important to remember that not all bases need be as complex as AU wrt meshes and textures. I warrant the code over-head is not the issue, the polys, textures and transparencies are. Therefore, multiple bases are only a problem if all bases are as detailed as AU. And then, it's only a problem for less up-to-date pcs tbh. I stated from the start of AU dev that some users may struggle with the gfx demand, and although I have tried to be as efficient as possible, I don't intend to change that. But that does not undermine the concept of multiple bases using the code tools. It just undermines the ability for some users to have all the pretty bells and whistles, unfortunately. Also bear in mind that LoD options will enable people to reduce the demand in exchange for less detail. This will also allow us to isolate exactly which elements cause the most demand: meshes, textures, transparencies, code, beacons etc etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm View Post
 I have some crude data:
Starting off with the default beta scenario ...snip... even though none of the other four bases are in view.
Thanks for that detail. It makes me want to ask the following question, to all of you: What fps do you normally get/expect from Orbiter on average, and how does AU compare with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screamer7 View Post
 I also try to spawn multiply AU bases around the globe.
With 5 Au bases it stabilize at 36 FPS.
My PC specs:
Intel core 2 duo E 4400 at 2 ghz.
2 GB RAM
nVidia 9600 GT with 512 GDR 3 ram.
Thanks for the numbers. 36 fps with that rig would be pretty good right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screamer7 View Post
 I done several experiments with the standard AU base.
With this "full house" my frame rate does not drop significantly.
And the best news is there is no CTD at all.
Good news. It's interesting to see that extra vessels had no impact on fps. It would seem that AU is playable for you then?

Also, it is worth noting that I think nearly all users will experience a prettier and smoother experience in the dx9 client, as the dx7 engine has limits as you all know. Admittedly it is not compatible atm, but worth bearing in mind for the future I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven View Post
 Would it be possible to add cargo storage/management for the hangars, similar to woo482's UCGO warehouse, but controlled by TowerMFD?
I'm not that familiar with woo's addon, but the TA crane will offer cargo management options. Are you asking for the ability to spawn cargos directly into the hangar? or?
wehaveaproblem is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.