• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

Ade-gp 0.0.94

G

gadgets

Resource contributor
Messages
9,388
Country
ca-britishcolumbia
Since upgrading the poly processing, I've been considering doing the equivalent for lines - but held off to avoid destabilization. However, with George's experience a couple of days ago where the texture disappeared as a consequence of him doing a couple of normal things, I decided to "take the plunge".

The attached Version 0.0.94 includes that new capability. Of major significance also is that you now need open the editor only to specify/change line width or texture settings. Vertex insertion/deletion/moves from the ADE panel, for example, SHOULD now be handled automatically.

As promised, I have also:
  • added another option to the compile dialog to allow the user to specify either ARP or local center as reference for compile, and
  • eliminated the "proximity-to-center" check from the resize logic.
Updating the user manual is next on my list.

As with polys, the reworking of the lines code resulted in an overall simplification. ("Second time around" is always better.) I've spent a lot of time testing this new release. Nonetheless, I'll be very surprised if you don't find a few loose-ends.

Have fun!

Don
 
Last edited:
Just recompiling with 0.0.94 using the default ARP reference increases the bgl size from 242Kb to 304Kb :eek:



I think I'll stick with 93.

George
 
Last edited:
If you really mean 93 and not 93(a), then this is not surprising, since lines and polys are now compiled separately - increasing the file overhead. This should not have any effect of performance.

If you mean 93(a), then please send me both files so I can investigate.

Don
 
I mean 93.

I don't see how a 25% increase in size would not have an effect on performance.
 
I don't see how a 25% increase in size would not have an effect on performance.
Click to expand...
Why don't you send me the files and perhaps I can explain.

Don
 
I don't think you need the files to explain why a larger file takes longer to read and evaluate.
 
Obviously, the larger file will take longer to read and, probably, also to evaluate. But that's done only once - at the start of the "session" and we're talking milliseconds. My reference to performance was with regard to performance of FSX in simulation mode - and I believe I have explained that adequately.

If you have demonstrable proof that the output of the version 0.0.94 compiler is less efficient simulation-performance-wise than the 0.0.93 version, please send me the two .asm files and I'll attempt to determine why?

Don
 
George, did you demonstrate a frame rate difference between the two in the sim? If so, by how much?
 
ASMs attached.
Click to expand...
Thanks George. In light of your earlier posts, I assumed I would not be getting them. And now I no longer need them.

I have compared version .93 and .94 compiles for one of my airports and, indeed, there is a significant increase in file size. This is due to two factors:
  1. to allow separate visibility parameters, lines and polys are now handled individually. So, for example if you had both lines and polys at layer 40, in .93, this would have generated one BGL section whereas in.94, it would generate two smaller sections. However, the number of triangles to be drawn and the number of DRAW_TRI statements is unchanged, hence, no additional processing once the file is loaded.
  2. In .93, I had a feature to eliminate duplicate VERT statements. In .94, I added a vertex number comment to each VERT statement. But, this comment defeated the check for duplicates. Therefore .94 contains duplicate VERT statements. However, as before, other than a slightly-longer load time and some wasted storage, there is no impact on FSX.
Both issues have been resolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgibson View Post
George, did you demonstrate a frame rate difference between the two in the sim? If so, by how much?

I didn't check, but the GP files are too large anyway.
Click to expand...
File size is a function of the number of ground poly objects. It should be virtually identical to what would be generated by FS8 MakeMDL.

Don
 
George, a GP line is actually a polygon, albeit a very long thin one.
 
tgibson said:
George, a GP line is actually a polygon, albeit a very long thin one.
Click to expand...

This is what Don wrote:

" lines and polys are now handled individually"

What I don't understand is why, when using the ARP as the reference point, the files should have different sizes.
 
This is what Don wrote:

" lines and polys are now handled individually"

What I don't understand is why, when using the ARP as the reference point, the files should have different sizes.
Click to expand...
George, it would seem you missed this post (but I can't imaging how since you quoted from it).

Each BGL section in an .asm file contains data and some overhead (e.g., reference location, coverage, etc.). When what was previously one section is split into two, the amount of data remains the same but the amount of overhead is doubled - thus increasing the file size. This is the price of separate visibility specifications for lines and polys which allow you to reduce the "FPS hit" that you would otherwise suffer.

While you have commented extensively on file size, you've not indicated that you have experienced any Flightsim issues with the new compiler.

Don
 
I think you answered my question in an earlier post:

"Therefore .94 contains duplicate VERT statements"

As there are only lines in my file, presumably the increased size is due these duplicated vertex definitions.

It is no problem for me, I'll stick with .93.
 
Why are you going to stick with 0.93, when 0.94 has no frame rate effect?
 
tgibson said:
Why are you going to stick with 0.93, when 0.94 has no frame rate effect?
Click to expand...

FPS is not the Holy Grail.

I run XP which, even though I have 8GB RAM, has limited memory capability. As it is, I need to reduce autogen to prevent OOMs.

Any reduction in RAM requirement is a bonus.
 
I have found a problem in version 94. It will throw and exception when a gp object is moved.

I'll get an update out shortly.

Don
 
Updated 0.0.94 attached.

George will be pleased to learn that I've found a way to slightly reduce .asm file size for large, complex arrays of gp objects.

Don
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top