A while ago I put three operating systems on my laptop. With the Mac Pro I’ve done the same thing – it’s a huge win to be able to cover such a wide swath of OS/GPU/CPU combinations with fewer machines. Last time it was OS X 10.4, Windows XP SP2, and Ubuntu 6.06. This time I repeated the process with OS X 10.5.2, Windows Vista RTM, and Ubuntu 8.04. Random observations:
- Linux really just keeps getting stronger. I’ve always been a bit skeptical about Linux as a desktop environment, particularly as a Windows/Mac developer (that is to say, I’m spoiled by free high quality IDEs ad debuggers that require no setup to use the platform SDK, comprehensive platform documentation in one location, etc.). But Linux installation is becoming more plug & play and trouble-free each time I make myself a live CD.
- Windows Vista is a train wreck. I feel a little bit lame blogging this, as taking pot-shots at Vista is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. But the contrast between Ubuntu, which has become easier to use over a year and a half, and Windows, which has not, is stark.
- There are some positive things to say about Vista. The partition-aware installer is a real convenience for multi-booters. And once you figure out where everything has been moved to and go back to “classic” views, the OS is tolerable. But you’ll still find plenty of things that will make you want to tear your hair out. My recommendation: stick with XP. (Duh.)
Now on to the performance numbers. These numbers are the Xp900 time demo fps tests 1, 2 and 3. Each set of 3 numbers is from the three phases.
1 2 3
MAC 49/ 60/ 62 38/ 43/ 44 21/ 20/ 21
WIN 121/128/133 114/115/119 77/ 75/ 82
LIN 143/144/157 130/123/132 92/104/113
That’s not a typo. Linux is beating out Vista, but both are absolutely killing OS X. What’s going on here? I don’t know. But there appears to be something that isn’t well optimized in the GeForce 8 drivers on OS X.
I suspect Apple will close this gap eventually; don’t bother asking me for status information on this because if they ever tell me what’s going on, I’ll be bound by NDA not to tell you.
For now my recommendation is: consider dual-booting into Linux – it’s pretty easy to install Ubuntu and you’ll get great X-Plane performance. With good drivers, the Mac Pro and 8800 are just monstrous.
The New Mac Pro came today. I’m very excited about this computer because it may be the first computer that can render an entire set of global scenery on its own in under three days. We’ve always had to apply multiple computers to the problem, sometimes in different cities, and synchronize the data. Being able to do the render on one box is a nice simplification.
A few immediate observations:
- Man is it expensive. If you aren’t Warren Buffet and your work isn’t buying it, think long and hard about why you need it. The iMac is a more reasonable X-Plane computer. (And from what I understand, both Radeon HDs and GeForce 8’s have driver problems on OS X; until Apple fixes this, consider BootCamp. With the new iMacs you can pick which next-gen card with “work-in-progress” drivers you want.)
- Buy third party parts…not only will you save money, but you’ll get the joy of installing them. Since the “blue and white G3” Apple’s cases have been on par with well-designed PC cases for accessibility. The Mac Pro is nicer though – hard drives and memory are all installed on rail-guided slide-in parts; two hard drives and two DIMMs took about 5 minutes and a single screw-driver.
My office is going to explode. Here’s a rough list of all of the Macs we have in the house now:
- Mac Pro (the new scenery rendering machine, also graphics with 8800, will be triple-boot).
- Aluminum iMac (mostly for testing graphics code on Radeon HD, but it’s now the DVD burning station, runs Ubuntu 7.10).
- Mac Book Pro (old X1600-based, portable dev machine, triple boot but LILO is dead).
- G5 (the old rendering machine, kept around to regress bugs on PPC, R300 chipset, OS X 10.3, etc.).
- Dell P-IV 2.6 ghz – mostly used to record music, but it does have a GeForce 6 in it, and it’s a good low-end test system. (A 2.6 ghz P-IV doesn’t get you real far, the FSB is slow, and it’s only got 4x AGP.)
- G4 laptop (800 mhz) – case is falling apart, but if I ever needed to try to run on a really low-end system. Actually at this point the laptop is so far below min specs that it probably isn’t worth it.
- Mac Book – got this for my wife, but if I begged she’d let me regress Intel X3100 bugs on it.
So there are two points to note here, and neither of them are “Ben has a lot of computers” and “Ben’s office is a mess.”
- X-Plane 9’s use of graphics hardware has caught up enough with the bleeding edge that I now basically have to have “one of everything” to really debug the sim. We’ll have some major updates to shaders in future patches, so having accumulated all of this hardware in-house (a lot in the last few months) will help me debug these things faster. A lot of these setups are due to “X doesn’t work” bug reports specific to certain hardware/OS combinations.
- It’s really handy that Macs now have x86 chips because it cuts down the number of boxes. The new Mac Pro will give me an nVidia DX10-type platform not only for OS X but also for Vista (first Vista machine in the house, not because I want Vista, but because someone in the company should have at least one copy) and Linux too, if I can make it work.*
So the next time we release a beta and it immediately crashes your computer, please bear with us. It really did work bug free on some computers we own…we’re getting closer to a complete matrix to catch more of these incompatibilities early on. But even with that huge mess of hardware we’re still missing a lot of combinations.
* Triple-booting Mac/Win/Linux is a much bigger PITA than double boot. The problem is that the old MBR-type setups only give you four partitions, of which one gets eaten for the firmware. That leaves you three partitions and three operating systems, but by default Linux wants a second one for swap (a good idea). So you need to either stick a fifth partition
on and fix the MBR by hand or reconfigure Linux to use on-main-volume swap-space. In summary, with only two operating systems, eitiher Windows or Linux “just installs”, but to put three on one drive, you get into customization.
Now that multi-core machines are mainstream, you’ll hear a lot of talk about “threads”. What is a thread, and how does it relate to using more cores?
Definitions
A “core” is an execution unit in a CPU capable of doing one thing. So an 8-core machine might have two CPUs, each with four cores, and it can do eight tasks at once.
A “thread” is a single stream of work inside an application – every application has at least one thread. Basically a two-threaded application can do two things at once (think of driving and talking on your cellular phone at the same time).
Now here’s the key: only one core can run a thread at one time. In other words, if you have an eight core machine and a one-thread application, only one core can run that application, and the other seven cores have to find something else to do (like run other applications, or do nothing).
Two more notes: a thread can be “blocked” – this means it’s waiting for something to happen. Blocked threads don’t use a core and don’t do anything. For example, if a thread asks for a file from disk, it will “block” until the disk drive comes up with the data. (By CPU standards, disk drives are slower than snails, so the CPU takes a nap while it waits.)
So if you want to use eight cores, it’s not enough to have eight threads – you have to have eight unblocked threads!
If there are more unblocked threads than cores, the operating system makes them take turns, and the effect is for each of them to run slower. So if we have an application with eight unblocked threads and one core, it will still run, but at one eighth the speed of an eight core machine.
It’s not quite that simple, there are overheads that come into play. But for practical purposes we can say:
- If you have more unblocked threads than cores, the execution speed of those threads slows down.
- If you have more cores than unblocked threads, some of those cores are doing nothing.
Trivial Threads
When a thread is blocked, it does not use any cores. So while X-Plane has a lot of threads, most of them are blocked either most or all of the time. For all practical purposes we don’t need to count them when asking “how many cores do we use”. For example, G1000 support is done on a thread so that we keep talking to the G1000 even if the sim is loading scenery. But the G1000 thread spends about 99.9% of its time blocked (waiting for the next time it needs to talk) and only 0.1% actually communicating.
What Threads Are Floating Around
So with those definitions, what threads are floating around X-Plane? Here’s a short list from throwing the debugger on X-Plane 9.0. (Some threads may be missing because they are created as needed.
- X-Plane’s “main” thread which does the flight model, drawing, and user interface processing.
- A thread that can be used to debug OpenGL (made by the video driver, it blocks all the time).
- Two “worker” threads that can do any task that X-Plane wants to “farm out” to other cores. (Remember, if we want to use more cores, we need to use more threads.)
- The DSF tile loader (blocks most of the time, loads DSF tiles while you fly).
- At least 3 threads made by the audio driver (they all block most of the time).
- At least four threads made by the user operating system’s user interface dode (they block most of the time).
- The G1000 worker thread (blocks most of the time, or all the time if you don’t have the G1000 support option).
- The QuickTime thread (only exists when QuickTime recording is going on).
So if there’s anything to take away from this it is: X-Plane has a lot of threads, but most of them block most of the time.
Core Use Now
So how many cores can we use at once? We only need to look at threads that aren’t blocked to add it up. In the worst flying case I can think of:
- The main thread is rendering while
- The DSF tile loader is loading a just-loaded tile while
- One of the pool threads is building forests while
- You are recording a QuickTime movie (so the QT thread is compressing data).
Yep. If you really, really put your mind to it, you can use four cores at once. 🙂 Of course, two cores is a lot more common (DSF tile loading or forests, but not both at once, and no QuickTime.
Core Use In the Future
Right now some of X-Plane’s threads are “task” oriented (e.g. this thread only loads DSF tiles), while others can do any work that comes up (the “pool threads”, it’s like having a pool car at the company, anyone can take one as needed). The problem with this scheme is that sometimes there will be too many threads and sometimes too few.
- If you have a dual-core machine, having forests building and DSF loading at the same time is bad – with the main thread that’s three threads, two cores; each one runs at two-thirds speed. But you don’t want the main thread to slow down by 66%, that’s a fps hit.
- If you have a four-core machine, then when the DSF tile is not loading, you have cores being wasted.
Our future design will allow any task to be performed on a “pool thread”. The advantage of this is that we’ll execute as many tasks as we have cores. So if you have a dual-core machine, when a DSF tile load task comes along while there is forests being done, the one pool thread will alternate tasks, leaving one core to do nothing but render (at max fps). If you have a four-core machine, the DSF load and forests can run at the same time (on two pool threads) and you’ll have faster load times.*
* Who cares about load time if you’re flying? Well, if you crank up the settings a lot and fly really fast, the loader can get behind, and you’ll see trees missing. X-Plane is always building trees in front of you as you fly and deleting the ones behind you. So using more cores to build the forests faster means you’re less likely to fly right out of the forest zone at high settings.
Nine women cannot have a baby in one month – that’s the classic example that gets thrown around computer science for the difficulty of parallelization – that is, just because we have ten times as many resources doesn’t mean we’re going to go ten times as fast.
Problems of scalability via parallelization have become very important for graphics engines as everybody and their mother now has at least two cores, and users with more serious hardware are going to have four.
I get asked a lot: “will X-Plane utilize X cores…” where X is a number larger than two. My general answer is: sometimes, maybe, and probably more in the future. I can’t make strong predictions for what we’ll ship in the future, but the general trend for the last 18 months has been us using more cores every time we go into a piece of code to do major architectural changes.
I’ve been doing a lot of work on the installer this week – the first major overhaul of the installer since we originally coded it all the way back at X-Plane 8.15. And the new installers and updaters will try to take advantage of multiple CPUs where possible. A few cases:
- The X-Plane updater runs an MD5 checksum over the entire X-Plane folder to determine which version of the various file components you have and whether they need to be updated. This s not a fast process. I am working on threading this so that more CPUs can work on the problem at once. It looks like there will be only modest benefits from this because the process is also highly bottlenecked on the disk drive.
- The installation engine from the DVD will use more than one CPU to decompress files. For zip compression this wasn’t very important, but the scenery will be compressed via 7-zip compression to get us down to disk DVDs. 7-Zip compresses DSFs about 10% smaller per file than zip, but it’s horribly slow to decompress, so being able to throw twice the CPU at it is a big win.
Now on one hand, our top performance goals are for the sim, not the installer. On the other hand, faster installations are good. But my main point here is: when we wrote new code four years ago, we assumed one CPU and a nice graphics card. We now assume at least two cores and possibly more, and that informs the design of every new feature, not just the rendering engine. If we don’t create a multi-core-friendly design, we’re effectively leaving at least 50% of the CPU on the table.
X-Plane 9 currently recognizes (roughly) three categories of graphics hardware:
- Non-Pixel-Shader hardware (GeForce 2,3,4, Radeon 7000-9200)
- First-Generation Shader Hardware (GeForce FX 5nnnn, Radeon 9500-9800, X300-X600)
- Later-Generation Shader Hardware (GeForce 6, 7, 8, Radeon X200, Radeon X700+)
That first bucket is pretty simple: those cards don’t support programmable pixel shaders (as we know them today) and can’t run any shader effects. The “use pixel shaders” check box doesn’t appear in the rendering settings.
The distinction between the later two is a little bit more subtle. Basically the first generation of pixel shader cards (the 9700 and friends) support only 96 instructions for each pixel shader; this puts us right on the edge of sometimes not being able to draw all of our effects; we have to simplify the water slightly to make it work. The next generation of chips (X850 and friends) doesn’t have this limitation.
By comparison, while NVidia cards have been able to handle long shaders from day one, the GeForce 5’s shader performance is really poor.
So we bucket all of these chips as “first-gen”. When we detect this we:
- Simplify shaders slightly (gets us out of trouble with the 9700).
- Don’t default to shaders being on when the sim is first booted (because the framerate will probably be unusably slow).
Even though the 9700 provided very usable shader performance in its day, by the standards of modern GPUs, this older chip isn’t that fast, so it’s probably for the best that we not enable reflective water by default on machines with these cards.
By comparison, X-Plane deals with almost all other capabilities on an a-la-carte basis; particualr features are enabled if the right menu of hardware features is available. We do this to try to deal more flexibly with the wide variety of cards that are out there. Some examples:
- You’ll get hardware accelerated runway lights if your card supports pixel shaders and sprites (virtually all shader-enabled cards have sprites).
- You’ll get sun-glare effects if your card supports pixel counting (virtually all modern cards can do this).
- The non-pixel-shader rendering code will show more detail if your card supports more texture units (this is only an issue with very old hardware).
I’ve been looking over hardware profiles a lot lately, and I suspect that the next big “jump” in hardware will be the DX10-compliant cards (GeForce 8, Radeon HD). There’s a lot of fine print in what the various cards can do between all of the pre-DX10 cards; at some point when we decide what menu of features we’ll require for rendering, we need to simplify.
My guess is that when we start to have “really advanced” pixel shaders that require hardware more sophisticated than what we need now, we’ll simply require a DX10 card. Otherwise we’ll have to sort through 8 different profiles of fine print, only to attempt to partially support cards that probably won’t be fast enough anyway.
(That is to say, a feature is only useful for us if it can run reasonably quickly. It doesn’t make sense for us to try to make a special “simplified” version of a rendering feature for, say, the X850 if every X850 is going to turn it off every time for framerate reasons.)
If any of this turns into hardware buying advice, I suppose it would be this:
- If you are deciding between a DX10 and DX9 card (e.g. between the HD2400 and X1900, or GeForce 8600 vs 7900) go for the newer generation DX10 ards (HD or GeForce 8); if the card has decent performance you’ll also be setting yourself up for future features.
- As always, pay attention to the fine print of the model numbers, particularly the configuration. Lower model number cards basically have fewer parallel components than higher number ones and that leads directly to lower framerate.
I see an add online for the GeForce 8500 for $70 and 8600 for $90. But if you look at the links below, you’ll see that the 8500 has only half the shaders of the 8600 – that’s going to be a huge performance difference for $20.
(So the moral of this story is: try to get an HD or GeForce 8 card, but don’t dip into the really low end cards because they’re stripped down too far for X-Plane use.)
These pages (NV, ATI) on Wikipedia list specs for a whole pile of cards and can be useful to decode the fine print.
I’m going to be more or less out of the office next week – the Amichai Margolis band is playing a series of shows in Florida. I’m going to have to take the laptop – we’re too close to going final to miss a week of bug reports, but hopefully the next beta will stick for a while. (Initial reports indicate that the video driver initialization changes we made are fixing crashes and not causing new ones.) There will be a beta 23 shortly to address other bugs.
I wanted to take a moment to thank all of the users who have helped me debug video card compatibility problems remotely. I now have seven installed operating system configurations in my office, and it isn’t nearly enough to see all of the problems we hit in field. Looking back at my in-box this week is a reminder of how patient you all have been in trying test builds, sending log after log, helping get to the bottom of some very tricky issues.
Things are going to be a bit busy for the next few weeks – once I get back we’ll be finishing up the last few bugs, so it will take a little while to get back to questions about scenery, plugins, etc.
One of the reasons why the X-Plane 9 betas have had so many more crash bugs than version 8 is that we introduced loading DSFs on a second core. This feature makes scenery loads much slower and (by using the second core) impacts fps less while they happen.
The problem is that I’m still fumbling with code that will allow this in all cases. (That would be three operating systems, two hardware vendors, and a myriad of drivers, some new, some quite prehistoric.)
Beta 22 will be out soon, and will contain the fourth major rewrite of the OpenGL setup code for X-Plane 9. So far the initial tests look good, but we never know until we let a lot of users try the code and find the new edge cases.
It’s relatively easy to tell if your instability is related to the use of OpenGL with threads: simply run the sim with the –no_threaded_ogl option. If things become a lot more stable, it’s a threaded GL problem. Mind you –no_threaded_ogl is more of a diagnostic than a workaround; without threaded OpenGL, the sim will pause when loading scenery.
(Also, to clarify, you’ll find talk on discussion groups and game forums about “threaded drivers”. Threads are a programming abstraction that can utilize multiple cores. What I am talking about is X-Plane using multiple threads to load scenery – in our case this requires interfacing with OpenGL. But a threaded driver is different – it’s just a graphics driver that’s been optimized for multcore machines. These two concepts are totally different; you don’t need a threaded driver to use X-Plane 9, and a threaded driver won’t make X-Plane 8 load without pauses.)
A number of Windows and Linux GeForce 7 users have discovered that the command-line option –no_fbos improves their pixel-shader framerate a lot. Windows and Linux Radeon HD users have also discovred that –no_fbos cleans up artifacts in the water. Here’s what’s going on, at least as far as I can tell. (Drivers are black boxes to us app developers, so all we can do is theorize based on available data and often be proved wrong.)
Warning: this is going to get a bit technical.
FBO stands for framebuffer object, and simply put, it’s an OpenGL extension that lets X-Plane build dynamic textures (textures that change per frame) by drawing directly into the texture using the GPU. Without FBOs we have to draw to the main screen and copy the results into the dynamic texture. (You don’t see the drawing because we never tell the card “show the user”.)
We like FBOs for a few reasons:
- Most importantly, FBOs allow us to draw big images in one pass even if the screen is small. For example, if we have a 1024×1024 dynamic texture but the screen is 1024×768, then withou FBOs we have to draw the image in two parts and stitch it together. That sucks. With FBOs we can just draw straight to the texture and not worry about our “workspace” being smaller than our texture. This is going to become a lot more important for future rendering features where we need really-frickin’ big textures.
- It’s faster to draw to the texture than to copy to it.
- If you’re running the sim with FSAA, then we end up using FSAA to prepare all of those dynamic textures. In virtually all cases, we don’t need the quality improvements of FSAA, so there’s no point in taking the performance penalty. When we render right into the texture, FSAA is bypassed and we prep our dynamic textures a lot faster.
Since copying to a texture from the screen predates these new-fangled FBOs by several years, most drivers can copy from the screen to the texture very quickly; however we have hit at least one case where FBOs are much faster than copy-from-screen. That’s really a rare bug, and as you’ll see below, we see more weird behavior with FBOs.
When do we use FBOs vs. copying? Well, it’s pretty random:
- Pixel shader reflective water and fog use FBOs.
- Cloud shadows and the sun reflection when pixel shaders are off do not use FBOs.
- The airplane panel uses FBOs if the panel is 1024×1024 or smaller; if the panel is larger than 1024×1024 we draw from the screen and patch things together. So the P180 and the C172 are using different driver techniques!!
When you run X-Plane with –no_fbos, you instruct X-Plane to ignore the FBO capability of the driver, and we use copy-from-screen everywhere.
Mipmapping
There is one more element: mipmapping. A mip map is a series of smaller versions of a texture. Mipmapping allows the video card to rapidly find a texture that is about the size it needs. Here’s an example: imagine you have a building with a 128×128 texture. If you park your plane by the building, the building might take up about 100×100 pixels on the screen; your 128×128 texture is a good fit.
Now taxi away from the building and watch it get smaller out your rear window. After a while the building is only taking up 8×8 pixels. What good is that 128×128 texture? Its’ much too big for the job. With mipmapping, the card has a bunch of reduced-size versions of your texture laying around…64×64, 32×32,16×16, 8×8, 4×4, 2×2, 1×1. The video card realizes the building is tiny and grabs the 8×8 version.
Why not just use the 128×128 texture? Well, we’d only have two options with this texture:
- Examine all 16384 pixels of the texture to compute the 64 pixels on screen. That sucks…we’re accessing VRAM sixty four times for each pixel. Accessing VRAM is slow, so this would kill performance.
- Simply pick 64 pixels out of the 16384 based on whatever is nearby. This is what the card will do if mipmapping is not used (because option 1 is too slow) and it looks bad. Thsoe 64 pixels may not be a good representation of the 16384 that make up your building side.
So mipmapping lets the video card grab a small number of pixels that still capture everything we need to know about the building at low res.
We don’t mipmap our dynamic textures very often; the only ones that we do mipmap are the non-pixel-shader sun reflections and the pixel-shader sun reflections.
ATI
As far as we can tell, the current ATI Catalyst 8.1 drivers do not generate mipmaps correctly for an FBO-rendered texture. This is why without –no_fbos ATI users on Windows or Linux see very strange water artifacts. –no_fbos switches to the copy path, which works correctly.
At risk of further killing my track record of driver bugs in v9, we do think this is a bug. We have good contact with the ATI Linux driver guys so I have hopes of getting this fixed.
nVidia
It appears that the process of creating mipmaps for FBO textures is not accelerated by the hardware on the GeForce 7 GPU series. This is why GeForce 7 users are seeing such poor pixel shader performance, while GeForce 8 users aren’t having problems.
Now poor performance is not a bug; there’s nothing in the OpenGL spec that says “your graphics card has to do this function wickedly fast”. Nonetheless, what we’re seeing now is unusably slow. So more investigation is needed — given that the no-FBO case runs so quickly, I suspect the hardware itself can do what we want and it’s just a question of the driver enabling the functionality. But I don’t know for sure.
The story on X-Plane performance is never over, but the chapter that is 9.00 pretty much is. I think we’ll be RC in the next build (if all goes well). Certainly a lot of the things that are still performance “problems” will require changes larger than we can do in a late beta.
I say problems in quotes because a lot of what’s been reported lately is in the form of: a huge screen res + a lot of shaders + a lot of FSAA = slow fps. That’s not really a bug, that’s an engine limitation. Now I want to make the engine as fast as possible, and a lot of this pixel shader stuff is new to 9.0, so if our track record for tuning stays the way it was for v8, we’ll probably get some efficiency improvements later.
But unfortunately there’s an underlying limitation: the new water and fog both cause the rendering engine to consume significantly more hardware resources than it would otherwise. Turn them on and you get prettier pictures at a price.
Just to post a a few general things I’ve found:
- X-Plane 9 will tell you where your GPU really stands. GPUs that were very adequate for X-Plane 8 (like the GeForce 6600 GT) will turn out to have nothing left in reserve for v9, while GPUs that were bored in v8 (the GeForce 8800 GTX for example) will show what it really has.
- Generally the cost of going from no shaders to shaders with water reflections of “none” and no volumetric fog should be very low if your screen res and FSAA don’t add up to something crazy (like 16x FSAA at 2048×2048).
- If you do have serious performance hits, try –no_fbos in the command-line; some drivers seem to have trouble with them.
- The P180’s virtual cockpit is a lot more expensive than the other ones, because it has a huge panel that is used in 3-d. We’ll hopefully rebuild the cockpit at some point.
- Turning water reflections to “complete” is very expensive. Watch the water and use the lowest setting that looks good. You don’t need complete reflections if there are a lot of waves!
- Shaders, FSAA, and screen size are all pulling from the same set of resources – be careful about cranking up all three.
- Check your v-sync – a lot of users whose vsync clamped them at 60 fps in v8 will be clamped at 20 in v9.
- Do your testing with texture res set low, then crank texture res later; pixel shaders also require the allocation of VRAM that can’t be purged (for things like reflection images) so running out of VRAM can show up in some weird ways performance-wise.
- The new Intel iMacs have serious performance problems with shaders on. This is due to driver limitations; given the much better performance under BootCamp, I expect the Mac performance to get better when the drivers are updated. For now I’d keep shaders off.
For now, please hold off on sending me performance reports. I just don’t have time to address them. In the future I will try to solicit very specific performance data points that we need to check. Perhaps in the future we can also set up a database of fps-test results to have a more comprehensive idea of how the hardware does its job.
I expect future features to appear in v9 that further eat hardware; those features will have an off switch. You may have to pick and choose what graphics you enable; there is no free lunch here. I also expect new graphics cards to emerge that make the GeForce 8800 GTX seem quaint!
What a difference new drivers make. ATI’s latest OpenGL drivers (Catalyst 8.1) seem to work quite well with X-Plane. On two fronts:
- Linux. Turns out all you need to do to make X-Plane happy on Linux with ATI hardware is update the drivers. I’m running with the Cat 8.1 drivers on my MacBook Pro and things look good. Use Catalyst 7.11 drivers or newer! No more MALLOC_CHECK_=1 or –no_threaded_ogl. With the next beta, you won’t have to use –force_run anymre.
- Windows. We were getting reports of corrupt screens on startup, and with the Catalyst 8.1 drivers these reports became very frequent. Turns out our threaded OpenGL code was doing something naughty*. Beta 19 fixes this.
The only known issue I can think of is: if you see corrupt water reflections, run with –no_fbos.
* Well, the way you set up threaded OpenGL on Windows and Linux is not very well documented, so I say naughty in that we made the drivers unhappy. I have yet to find a document that states clearly whether what we were doing is correct or not. We had to guess.
