92 replies to this topic

[akiles50000]

I have tested some tables in my pc dual core with card graphic 9500GS of 1Gb and they are all unplayables.

I would like if any developer that have worked in the new VP10 can you say me if going to build a version of VP10 to run in midrange pcs because if not I think that a lot of people will not be able to play to the tables of VP 10.

Right now VP 10 it,s only playable with computers very power.

 

I,ll go building tables with VP 9.92 and playing only to tables done with VP 9.92 because all the tables of VP 10 are impossible play them.

It,s a shame but it,s the only solution that I have for the moment because to buy a power pc only to play to tables of VP 10 isn,t the solution more cheap.

I think to have done a version of VP 10 with less requeriments for midrange pcs like VP 992.

It,s only my opinion.

 

[xzotic]

There are a lot of settings you can try and change to improve performance. VPX isn't going to have another version however they might find ways of optimising the code.

 

I've done my own testing and I also have noticed a considerable reduction in performance in VPX. Even using the same settings  (where possible)  as VP 9 (physmod) still resulted in choppy game play. VP 9 played smooth on my system. I'm running a quad core i7 at 2.4GHZ and a Nvidia GTX480 on Win7.

 

I've since overclocked my CPU to 3GHZ and that has improved things so it looks like it may be CPU bound. But not sure.  I may need to upgrade my video card as well.

 

I realise the new VPX is doing more with better GFX etc so a performance drop is not unexpected. However it would be good if anyone can share any settings that will improve performance while maintaining the same level of fidelity that was possible under vp9 physmod 5. 

 

Hopefully the devs still have some ideas to optimise some of the code where possible. Otherwise it may be that we just have to suck it up and upgrade.

Edited by xzotic, 03 January 2016 - 11:25 AM.

[toxie]

That's why we also released VP9.9.2. Both VPs have their positive and negative aspects.

And VPX requires more modern hardware, while VP9.X.X does not.

 

EDIT: of course there is always room for improvement, performance-wise, but the stuff that could bring 'large' increases of performance are also rather large tasks, so nothing that will come very soon.

Edited by toxie, 03 January 2016 - 11:27 AM.

[STAT]

I think, a "midrange" Version of VP10 would be the same as VP9 ... of course, i understand you akiles50000,

maybe it's enough if the Authors let "disable" some Options like "too much Lights" ...

But i think, you can go a step Forward and upgrade your GPU - you dont Need an extreme powerfull System.

 

I am in luck, and havent Problems ( "only" AMD A10 and GTX 750 )

Edited by STAT, 03 January 2016 - 11:30 AM.

[Slydog43]

I want a very demanding table with all heavy options to test my current config.  I think I can run any table, but always like to optimize my rig.  I used to test the  checkpoint vp9 table and see how much stutter there was, and uncheck options until it ran smoothly.

Love VPX and how it looks and especially how good the physics are, great job devs.  So does any1 know the most demanding table at this point (kingpin?)   thanks

[TT11]

I found that the VPX Sopranos makes my system stutter slightly, whereas other tables like T2, Rolling Stones, 6 Million Dollar Man, etc. have no stutter.  Maybe try this table fully optioned up....??

[Jeffrey Spender]

my system is a Win7 3 screen cabinet, i5 processor, with 4GB RAM, with 9800GT 1GB and GTX660 2GB.
i'm having lots of trouble with that new Star Trek for vpx, also the latest Metallica vpx is really hard to load and to play. so i had to disable it on Hyperpin.

i'm also considering to upgrade my whole pc.
i mean if i would have to pay €400,- for a GTX 970 card, then why not also upgrade processor and memory you know?

[bassgeige]

Congratulations to the whole development team! You successully mastered the balancing act to improve the software and also to keep the amount for required hardware, to perform the software in a good condition, in easy to manage limits.

 

Your result is outstanding! I am rejoicing already, while thinking about the ongoing further development and the upcoming software capabilities in the horizon!

 

[atarian]

VPX definitely uses multiple cores nowadays and by observing the windows task manager's performance tab I can typically see 2 cores being utilised however some heavy hitters use 4 cores. I use directB2s files and was sometimes experiencing microstutter for some tables but not at other times.  Through several tests I did observing the perf monitor it appeared to be related to which cores VP10 was running on.  After some experientation I found by forcing directb2s and some other programs to cores 0 and 1, and force VP to cores 2 to 7 I rarely get any microstutter now.  VP will only use 2 to 4 of the core however it should be pretty much be getting exclusive use of those cores.
 
Other performance tips I have found to help (as mentioned by other people in the VPX Beta thread) are:
 
- Unders Windows 7 set Aero ON and make sure you are using an Aero theme
- Set the VPX FPS frame limited to 1
(With earlier beta builds this setting was worse for me, however in the later builds and the currently release VP10 is is better).  JimmyFingers also recommended several other steps to take related to this which helped me,
- Skip frames in the directb2S settings for each table (right click on B2S and press 'S' to see options.  Restart table after saving)
- If you don't have a PinDMD, then set ddraw to 0 in VPinmame
- Make sure your VP sound driver settings (in the VP options) are using the correct diriver (experiement if you have multiple options).
- In NVidia options set 'Prefer Max Performance' to ON.
- Try reducing the Pinmame sound setting to a lower setting such as 11025hz to see if it helps.
 
It seems that certain ROM generated sounds cause microstutter, however once they have played once the issue disappears (for me at least).

Edited by atarian, 03 January 2016 - 01:22 PM.

[wrd1972]

Just wanted to post my rather modest specs.

9 year old Dell T3400 work station ($120 used on ebay)

Core 2 duo 3GHZ

GTX760 ($100 used on ebay)

8GB RAM

 

Everything runs 98% smooth with an occasional ball glitch on high demand tables which can likely be resolved with settings. At this time, I feel no need to have to upgrade hardware.

Edited by wrd1972, 03 January 2016 - 02:05 PM.

[xenonph]

With more capabilites, comes the need for more graphic processing power.

Kind of like VP8 being like Playstation1, And VPX being like Playstation2.

The PS2 was way better graphically, and more options, but you wouldn't be able to run the PS2 with a PS1 graphic processor.

So I guess it is time to upgrade my graphics processor if I want to enjoy all these new VPX Tables.

They look great!!! But they won't load for me.

 

I have a Win Vista 64bit

Nvidia GeForce 6150SE nForce 430

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ 2.70Ghz

RAM 5GB

Edited by xenonph, 03 January 2016 - 01:53 PM.

[PinballShawn]

I still think something needs optimized, it's either VPX or the tables. I'm running an 8 core I-7 3ghz intel processor, 8 gig of ram and an Nvidia GTX-660, Win7-64 that has been absolutely optimized for my cab, no networking what so ever, almost nothing running in the background, no updates, no nothing and I get some stutter (or ball flicker seems more appropriate of a description) on a lot of the tables I have tried so far, even though the framerate has remained constant. I'm sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. I can run advanced 3-d games maxed out with full framerate, I can play Skyrim or Fallout 4 but I'm getting stutter on a 2-d pinball simulation? Meanwhile PBFX, PBA, VP9.9 and Physmod 5 tables run silky smooth on my machine, not just smooth but liquid metal smooth. 

I know that VPX is in it's infancy so I expect to see things improve as time goes on but I have to agree with the first posters in saying that if you need a $500 graphics card to play a 2-d pinball simulator, something's not quite right.

[toxie]

one of the problems for micro-stutter is still the interaction between VPM, VPX and B2S (and more if you have it enabled, like DOF).

this is hard to tackle, but it got much better recently IMHO.

 

then the physics-engine is also still far from optimal, as sometimes it gets 'stuck' in a 'difficult' situation and needs way too many cycles to resolve this. this will then result in one or more very slow frames (e.g. stutter).

 

the graphics system itself is pretty solid by now, except for the fact that in the beginning it might stutter, as not all graphics have been pushed to the board, but only if everything has been triggered at some point.

 

EDIT: oh, and of course, this also all -can- boil down to the table itself. if the author throws a 1-million poly primitive at us that the physics engine has to handle and the graphics engine to display along with some dozens of 4k textures, then this can also result in problems. This is not so much a problem for games, as there the artists are trained for years and years with an engine and its do's and dont's along with tools that will optimize levels and pre-calculate lighting over-night, etc, whereas VPX targets an audience that must not know -that- much about physics and 3d-graphics and where most things can be dynamic/scriptable.

Edited by toxie, 03 January 2016 - 02:15 PM.

[bent98]

Toxie,

 

I think VPX and VP9.92 is leaps are leaps bounds over 9.21. I have a beefy system GTX970 i5 4gz 8 gig of ram. I was running XP and VPX ran like crap so I finally upgraded to win 7 64bit and make the necessary win optimization settings. Now I can run all VPX with 4x AA and be locked on 60fps no matter what table. The key was setting up the OS, drivers, and settings to achieve micro stutter free performance.

 

With that being said I am curious what the dev teams plans are in tackling Backglass integration, Pinmame migration to 64bit/DX9, and improving the Physics engine? I think now that VPX is final it would be a good idea to work on getting these three foundational areas to align performance and ensure playable are at the highest level.

 

Thanks again to everyone working on this project as I  am thoroughly enjoying VPX and am excited for the future of this project.

[PinballShawn]

VPX definitely uses multiple cores nowadays and by observing the windows task manager's performance tab I can typically see 2 cores being utilised however some heavy hitters use 4 cores. I use directB2s files and was sometimes experiencing microstutter for some tables but not at other times.  Through several tests I did observing the perf monitor it appeared to be related to which cores VP10 was running on.  After some experientation I found by forcing directb2s and some other programs to cores 0 and 1, and force VP to cores 2 to 7 I rarely get any microstutter now.  VP will only use 2 to 4 of the core however it should be pretty much be getting exclusive use of those cores.
 

 
 

How exactly do you do that? I understand how to set processor affinity, and have VP priority set (and locked) at 'realtime' (you need a program to keep it locked btw), but once I get to the task manager, where can I find the B2S server? All I can see is VPX, which I have set to use all 8 cores. I would love to set the B2S to use it's own cores as I've found that a very flashy glass can cause stutter during multiball. Some games I've actually created a static glass for because I got tired of messing with it.

[allknowing2012]

...are people also using pinballx in the background .. or are we talking *just* vpx & b2s?

[Jeffrey Spender]

i use HyperPin, works like a charm for my cab.

[atarian]

 

VPX definitely uses multiple cores nowadays and by observing the windows task manager's performance tab I can typically see 2 cores being utilised however some heavy hitters use 4 cores. I use directB2s files and was sometimes experiencing microstutter for some tables but not at other times.  Through several tests I did observing the perf monitor it appeared to be related to which cores VP10 was running on.  After some experientation I found by forcing directb2s and some other programs to cores 0 and 1, and force VP to cores 2 to 7 I rarely get any microstutter now.  VP will only use 2 to 4 of the core however it should be pretty much be getting exclusive use of those cores.
 

 
 

How exactly do you do that? I understand how to set processor affinity, and have VP priority set (and locked) at 'realtime' (you need a program to keep it locked btw), but once I get to the task manager, where can I find the B2S server? All I can see is VPX, which I have set to use all 8 cores. I would love to set the B2S to use it's own cores as I've found that a very flashy glass can cause stutter during multiball. Some games I've actually created a static glass for because I got tired of messing with it.

 

 

There are a lot of programs to allow you to set the processor affinity.  The THG Task Assignment Manager one is the simplest (a standalone EXE) and I have been using it for about 5 years.  It runs all the time but is tiny.

 

http://www.portablef...dex.php?id=1393

 

re: More info here:  http://www.tomshardw...g-buck,815.html

 

One bug it has, after setting your programs to specific cores, exit the program and restart it to make sure the changes are saved.   Make sure you run B2S as an EXE, and then using the APPLICATION PROFILES tab in the program to the affinity list assigning it to 2 cores.  Then try setting the VP exe(s) to the remaining 6 cores. If this helps, you can then force other programs to use the same 2 cores as the b2S.

Edited by atarian, 03 January 2016 - 04:56 PM.

[jbg4208]

 

EDIT: oh, and of course, this also all -can- boil down to the table itself. if the author throws a 1-million poly primitive at us that the physics engine has to handle and the graphics engine to display along with some dozens of 4k textures, then this can also result in problems. This is not so much a problem for games, as there the artists are trained for years and years with an engine and its do's and dont's along with tools that will optimize levels and pre-calculate lighting over-night, etc, whereas VPX targets an audience that must not know -that- much about physics and 3d-graphics and where most things can be dynamic/scriptable.

 

 

This is where I see most of my issues, is with certain tables themselves. Because some tables will work flawlessly, locked at 60 fps, without any adjustment but others I have to disable reflections on the table and ball and that will fix it. And then there are some that no matter what I adjust I cannot get them run smoothly.

 

 

So.. I think a lot of it has to do with the table creator and how many polys a primitive has or how intense the flashers are set. If I could figure out how to adjust flasher strength I could fix most the tables that are giving me problems. So any help would be appreciated from anyone that knows.

 

The overall best adjustment I found for VPX is to turn on vsync and keep video drivers updated. My system is C2Duo 8500, 16GB ram, gtx650 2gb.

Edited by jbg4208, 03 January 2016 - 05:20 PM.

[shadowjuggalo]

I find leaving most the settings in vpx unchecked helps. And if you set them in your video card setting is the best. Since no matter what if it set in the video card options it uses it. For instance if I set fxaa in video card and don't check the fxaa in vp, the table will still use fxaa since the video card is managing what it can handle without pushing, the card beyond it's limits.