92 replies to this topic

[vampirolatino2]

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,

 

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.

 

 

Here is a clear example of running NEW Tech with old operating systems. No windows updates? The same problem. Sadly now days, you NEED the operating system updates to run the new hardware at their manufacture specs. Those people still in old XP and 32bits systems will indeed experience some problems with VPX and New hardware.

 

I'm running an ok system, new OS, and VPX @ 4K resolution and don't have any problems with performance (knock on wood). FPS never go below my fixed FPS.

 

VPX was meant to run on new systems and OS imho. If you can't afford to upgrade then there is VP9.9.2 tables... a LOT of them. BTW, they still are the same tables just in VPX. So have fun with the VP9 table catalog. Why VPX needs to be downgraded?! Sorry but that's crazy talk, that's like saying to Microsoft to Downgrade the Xbone to Xbox 360 specs lol

 

Now optimization is another talk, yes VPX need's to be more optimized, but that will come with time. Currently and to my knowledge there is only 2 or 3 guys in their free time doing all the heavy work. So I give them major props.

 

And in all, the VPX tables will stay there until anyone that have a low or mid-range pc can afford upgrade.

 

This is my opinion on the subject. Happy Pinballing!!!

[gtxjoe]

I think toxie and fuzzel (and all others that contributed) get to take a long vacation to celebrate the VP10 release. Congrats on the release!

They added a ton of new functionality and the authors need to be given an opportunity to learn how to use it and to learn how to make tables that use the power of this new functionality appropriately so it does not alway require high end Gaming hardware.

It has only been one week of the initial release. You have not given the authors the opportunity to do this yet.

Sit back. Enjoy the VP10 releases that are available now and provide your feedback with details. But don't forget to enjoy or abandon all the excellent VP9 and Physmod tables available to you

[vampirolatino2]

Forgot that .... because I have been using VPX for ... like a year now .... it is "new" and it takes time for table optimization to kick in. Heck!! A good example is the JP's tables, even he can tell you that from release beta 1 he have been using the vpx new resources and I witness how each iteration the tables were running better and better.

[Scorpion]

Hello,

I understand that this is the first version of vpx, then need learn good to use it....the program is potentially great, ask for very good hardware, but in my case the problem is the physics...the ball make wrong trajectories, this is not possible to play well.

Only the pins of JPSalas have perfect physics. It is so difficult to tune it?

Thanks to all people that made Vpx..

Scorpion

[ringorian]

I have to pc´s , one midranged (650gt ..), and one more to the top   (AMD 290)

The pyhsics on the 650 are not get on the demanding tables, playing them on the 290 pc, they are good.

 

I gave up trying with that mid pc .. The beefier the pc, the better the fun .. and the play ... and its worth it

 

Thanks Fuzzel and Toxie and all the others ...

[TNT2]

 

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,

 

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.

 

 

Here is a clear example of running NEW Tech with old operating systems. No windows updates? The same problem. Sadly now days, you NEED the operating system updates to run the new hardware at their manufacture specs. Those people still in old XP and 32bits systems will indeed experience some problems with VPX and New hardware.

 

I'm running an ok system, new OS, and VPX @ 4K resolution and don't have any problems with performance (knock on wood). FPS never go below my fixed FPS.

 

VPX was meant to run on new systems and OS imho. If you can't afford to upgrade then there is VP9.9.2 tables... a LOT of them. BTW, they still are the same tables just in VPX. So have fun with the VP9 table catalog. Why VPX needs to be downgraded?! Sorry but that's crazy talk, that's like saying to Microsoft to Downgrade the Xbone to Xbox 360 specs lol

 

Now optimization is another talk, yes VPX need's to be more optimized, but that will come with time. Currently and to my knowledge there is only 2 or 3 guys in their free time doing all the heavy work. So I give them major props.

 

And in all, the VPX tables will stay there until anyone that have a low or mid-range pc can afford upgrade.

 

This is my opinion on the subject. Happy Pinballing!!!

 

 

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

Thanks to all who have made VP10 what it is.

[BigBoss]

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.
 

Vp10 runs great on a mid range PC. You have a super low end machine. Welcome to 2010:(

[xzotic]

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.

 

The issue that I have is that I had all these interactions with vp 9 Physmod 5 and it played flawlessly however VPX is significantly worse performance wise with the same interactions.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

This sound like the Physics of VPX has room for optimisations that may improve performance.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I have noticed this on some tables, is this something that could be improved in the future? ie: Preloading all GFX before game can actually start?...

 

 

 

 

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.

Some VPX tables are definitely worse than others. How much information do authors have to check for optimisations/load during table development?

 

Finally, what is the 'recommended' minimum specifications for VPX? From this thread I can see some people with 6 series and above Nividia GFX cards with high end processors reporting little to no problems. Does VPX rely that much more on the GFX card than the processor over vp 9 physmod 5? As mentioned in my post I overclocked my quad core i7 CPU to 3GHZ and that helped but due to stutters on many tables I'm also now considering to upgrade my Nividia GTX480? Are we really talking about a i7 3GHZ+ quad core CPU with a Nividia 6 series GTX (or equivalent) card as the minimum specs now for VPX? If so, then someone should just say so and then it would be easier for new users and old users to determine what upgrades they need to realistically play VPX smoothly.

[BigBoss]

A $100 i3 CPU and $120 gtx750ti will do fine.

[bassgeige]

The easiest way to tune your midrange PC is like what I did, enjoy effects which work and otherwise do not use new features by disabling them off. In the conclusion it means for me, I can enjoy everything but do have future room with new hardware.

 

I can imagine that new hardware from this year with faster RAM (and its successor) a very fast quad core with more than 4 GHz for each core and a brand new GPU, SSD and at least 16 GB RAM may be what is needed to play with all possible effects.

 

Those who have a new quad core CPU with more than 4 GHz for each core and the latest RAM and an AMD R9 Fury X, R9 Nano or Nvidia GTX 980 Ti or better GPU can experience how good the first VPX release can handle the new effects.

 

I am very happy that I can enjoy it as described in my first sentence.

Edited by bassgeige, 04 January 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[xzotic]

A $100 i3 CPU and $120 gtx750ti will do fine.

That's interesting Bigboss. Is that your setup?

 

I find it curious because a search on the comparative specs of the GTX480 against the GTX750ti have them at level in terms of real world performance. Sure there are differences in the specs but some specs actually favor the GTX480 and from a real world perspective they seem to balance out. Given that this is the card I have with a higher i7 processor than the i3 you suggest I'm not sure how the suggested minimum specs could handle VPX?

 

Perhaps it relates to some specific aspects of a GTX750ti that has the benefit over the GTX480 that VPX takes advantage of. If that's the case it would be good to know what those aspects are. I would hate for someone to go buy that setup and have comparable results to what I am having.

 

However if this is indeed your setup and you are able to smoothly run every VPX table released so far at least 60 FPS then it would be great if we can understand why that is.

[allknowing2012]

AMH is a table that for me is unplayable - it is not your typical table. i3 + 750ti.

[xzotic]

AMH is a table that for me is unplayable - it is not your typical table. i3 + 750ti.

Thanks for the feedback. Can you also try the latest Demolition Man for VPX that was just released? Awesome table by the way but suffers from constant microstutters. I'm trying to change every setting I can to improve it and no luck so far. I would be interested if you are getting the same issue?

[bassgeige]

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.

 

There is also the possibility to integrate an own pinball frontend into VPX next. By this step I think a one time play button usage and an ask from VPX by that time to add it to VPX own favourites frontend list can make any other frontend obsolete.

[xzotic]

Eureka! I found something really interesting. I have been testing every possible combination of graphics settings both within VPX and Nvidia settings. I noticed something odd with the Demolition Man table. I was unable to lock the refresh rate to 60 FPS. With F11 on it would show alternating frame rates between 40 and 90 (about 1 second apart) with an average of 63 (or there-abouts) with constant micro-stuttering. It didn't matter what I chose in the settings I could not lock the FPS. Also when I dropped all GFX levels to minimum in VPX the table looked crap yet still didn't improve the FPS!!

 

So I then loaded up JP's TOTAN which I know played very nice. Low and behold it was showing locked 60FPS as expected with no micro stutter. I deduced that there must be something specific with the Demolition man table. I decided to disable the b2s backglass. Sure enough the FPS magically locked to 60 frames and the microstutter is gone.

 

So based on this testing it appears (for what ever reason) VPX is having some issues with B2S with some (not all) back-glasses as TOTAN works fine with its B2S backglass but Demolition Man does not.

 

Does anyone have any idea why this might be so?

Edited by xzotic, 04 January 2016 - 04:12 PM.

[xzotic]

Here's some more testing feedback. The problem with VPX microstutters occurs with the Demolition Man Fantasy B2S available here on Vpforums. This causes VPX to not be able to lock frames even when set to do so and has constant microstutter. I tried a B2s backglass from "that other site" and that one works perfectly with frames locked at 60 as expected.

 

So it has definitely got to do with VPX and only some specific B2S backglasses. I cant think of a logical reason why the FPS V/SYNC lock suddenly doesn't work with that combination but I've tested it over and over and can reproduce it every time.

 

Given that I didn't have issues with any b2s backglass with vp9.x I can only deduce that there is something wrong with the way VPX is integrating with B2S which is only being impacted by certain backglasses. It should (hopefully) be possible for anyone else here to reproduce. It may be necessary though to do the same test on a comparable rig as mine as a top end rig may "mask the issue" however the changing FPS rates with F11 pressed even (when they should show locked) should be visible and reproducible on any system.

 

All you need to do to test is:

1. Make sure your VPX video settings and/or your GFX card settings is set to lock v/sync to 60 frames (or whatever you are capable of)

2. Load up the demolition man table

3. Play without any b2s backglass and press F11 you will see locked frames and gameplay will be smooth.

4. Download and setup the script to use the Fantasy Demolition Man backglass available here on vpforums.

5. Play and press F11 you should notice that frames are no longer locked and the table microstutters

6. Download the Demolition Man backglass from that "other site" and replace the other B2s file with this one.

7. Play and press F11 and notice that frames are locked again at 60 and everything is smooth.

 

Hopefully this helps the Dev's get to the bottom of the issue. Cheers.

[bassgeige]

Eureka! I found something really interesting. I have been testing every possible combination of graphics settings both within VPX and Nvidia settings. I noticed something odd with the Demolition Man table. I was unable to lock the refresh rate to 60 FPS. With F11 on it would show alternating frame rates between 40 and 90 (about 1 second apart) with an average of 63 (or there-abouts) with constant micro-stuttering. It didn't matter what I chose in the settings I could not lock the FPS. Also when I dropped all GFX levels to minimum in VPX the table looked crap yet still didn't improve the FPS!!

 

So I then loaded up JP's TOTAN which I know played very nice. Low and behold it was showing locked 60FPS as expected with no micro stutter. I deduced that there must be something specific with the Demolition man table. I decided to disable the b2s backglass. Sure enough the FPS magically locked to 60 frames and the microstutter is gone.

 

So based on this testing it appears (for what ever reason) VPX is having some issues with B2S with some (not all) back-glasses as TOTAN works fine with its B2S backglass but Demolition Man does not.

 

Does anyone have any idea why this might be so?

 

I can not say why it occurs, only that it was mentioned more times from beta testers before too.

For example: http://www.vpforums....181#entry325615

 

I did not experience any bad game wise performance problems since I set back the best possible settings to a bit moderater once: http://www.vpforums....e=2#entry329071

 

The test like you did it now too, with my lowered optimal gameplay settings and no frontend used was different to what I saw the last time. The only tables where I saw more than 60 fps today are: Voltaire_10_RTM_V6, JD_VP10_7. Play wise they are both butter smooth.

For DemolitionMan(Williams1994),  M_Madness_10_7_RELEASE, Robocop(Data East 1989), Terminator 2 - Judgement Day (Williams 1991), Tommy_VP10_092915 and TOTAN_1.1.0 the 60 fps was constantly visible.

Edited by bassgeige, 04 January 2016 - 04:49 PM.

[fuzzel]

I don't have a clue either. It might come from the fact that the .net framework (b2s) also accesses the graphics hardware too much for some backglasses than others. VPX uses shaders a lot so there seems to be a fight for resources for some tables and/or b2s backglasses. I guess we can't do much here other than include b2s to VPX. I don't have an idea how to add this into the editor at the moment but that should be the next big thing.

[atarian]

@xzotic - based on your findings maybe try what I suggested earlier in this thread to see if that cures your Microstutter. Run b2s as an exe, change the perf options in the b2s (skip frames, etc.) and then try setting the affinity for the b2s exe and VP exe.

Edited by atarian, 04 January 2016 - 05:44 PM.

[xzotic]

@xzotic - based on your findings maybe try what I suggested earlier in this thread to see if that cures your Microstutter. Run b2s as an exe, change the perf options in the b2s (skip frames, etc.) and then try setting the affinity for the b2s exe and VP exe.

At the moment I have just downloaded alternative backglasses that do work. If I come across a table that doesn't have an alternative backglass that does work with VPX (and my system) then I'll try your work around. I don't think it's a long term solution for people to muck around with affinity settings etc to resolve the issue. Hopefully the potential integration of B2S with VPX will be a more permanent solution.

 

 

I don't have a clue either. It might come from the fact that the .net framework (b2s) also accesses the graphics hardware too much for some backglasses than others. VPX uses shaders a lot so there seems to be a fight for resources for some tables and/or b2s backglasses. I guess we can't do much here other than include b2s to VPX. I don't have an idea how to add this into the editor at the moment but that should be the next big thing.

I think you are on to something here. The alternative backglass I used was more simple and smaller in size. Possibly less demanding on resources and was able to work. The other one possibly was using too many resources as you say. The Demolition Man table appears to be quite large resource wise which could mean that the larger backglass just tipped my system over the limit in what it could handle.

I think your suggestion of getting B2S embedded within VPX is a good one and no doubt will allow for more unified resource management.