AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

Let Sim Innovations know about your Air Manager experience and let us know about your dream feature addition

Moderators: russ, Ralph

Post Reply
Message
Author
Mickolodias
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:21 am

AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#1 Post by Mickolodias »

I'm running an M1 mac, faily low res.
Running up a video_stream, using the 430 costs me 3-4 fps. G1000 6-7 fps
Both run pretty choppy (which is fine)
The popouts are at most 1 fps cost to pop them out.
Anyone else getting similar results?
I'm one of 'those' mac guys. (and I have no idea why I can't afford to eat)

User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 7918
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:02 pm
Location: De Steeg
Contact:

Re: AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#2 Post by Ralph »

Are you running it on the same machine or remote?

Mickolodias
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:21 am

Re: AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#3 Post by Mickolodias »

Good Question, I was playing around with both.

Here's a quick and dirty benchmark.
All tests are in Forward view (no 3d cockpit)

No Cockpit: 42fps
AM on Host 40fps

AM on host - Popout G530: 39
AM on host - Popout G1000 PFD: 39
AM on host - Popout G1000 PFD+MFD: 38
AM on host - Popout All 3: 38

AM on host - Stream G530: 35
AM on host - Stream G1000 PFD: 35
AM on host - Stream G1000 PFD+MFD: 32
AM on host - Stream All 3: 31

AP on Remote - Stream G530: 40
AP on Remote - Stream G1000 PFD: 39
AP on Remote - Stream G1000 PFD+MFD: 35
AP on Remote - Stream All 3: 33


Definity better streaming to the remote machine. But from this it appears the encode rather than decode takes the most juice.

I found running the stream on the host machine ends up a long way behind (20-30 sec for complex images), the buffer appears to be infinite.
Even the G1000 ends up 5-10 seconds behind pretty quickly

Running on AP on the remote machine, delay is somewhere around 350ms. quite noticable, but very useable
I'm one of 'those' mac guys. (and I have no idea why I can't afford to eat)

User avatar
jph
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:50 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..

Re: AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#4 Post by jph »

Hi,
Definitely sounds like pop-out is the way to go. :shock:
Joe. CISSP, MSc.

Mickolodias
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:21 am

Re: AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#5 Post by Mickolodias »

Well, it's going to depend on the individual setup.

As it is currently stands streaming isn't suitable if your running AM on the XP host machine.
Anyone else getting the huge delay?? is it just a mac thing? just a me thing?

In my case, where I've got separate computers to run the panels, it works well enough in most cases.
Streaming a single G530 or G1000 works out much the same fps cost as running AM on the XP host.
And the delay is similar to my experiments with running a 2nd computer with xplane locked to the main computers view. Which IMO is too much for 3D visuals. But for the panels so far I've found to be totally ok... for VFR at least, haven't tried IFR (I generally fly choppers).

I'm keen to get my Rpi running a stream to see if it's viable building a standalone G1000 PFD or MFD.
I think there is so much potential here for all kinds of things without having to spend 6 months programming glass panels (have you seen the free Kiowa Warrior chopper for XP!)
But given the encode/broadcast cost, it really needs a powerful pc as a host where you can run at 60fps+ so the cost is negligible.

Curious to know from the SI team - to get the most from streaming, is it GPU or CPU juice we need to consider?
I'm one of 'those' mac guys. (and I have no idea why I can't afford to eat)

User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 7918
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:02 pm
Location: De Steeg
Contact:

Re: AM4.2b28 video_stream, costly on the fps?

#6 Post by Ralph »

The Pi 4 cannot run the G1000, the Pi 5 maybe. The GNS's are no problem.

Post Reply