performance tuning / fsx version

[Guest alexzar14]

hello, please advise on how to improve performance with 747, 12fps is a non-flyable rate. I removed VC, I get 20fps when I look sideways (on the ground), and 12fps when back to the 2D panel.I can't use the software at this rate.I see there are discusions here regarding the problems with software functions, but I can't even get to that point yet, can't use the software till I make it usable by tuning performans somehow - please explain how. If there is a way to remove some effects/quality setting of some sort... - that's what I need to be explained.C2D 6600 @ 3.28800GTSFeelThere 737......20 fps on the ground (airports)LDS 767............17/18 fpsFeelThere Airbus1..17fpsFeelthere Airbus2..15/16 fps - and I thought that was intolerablePMDG 747...........11-13 fps. FSX is bad already, can't make a software that will effect performance, - can't mix these two chemicals (FSX and bad-performance software).ok let's just see what to remove from it to improve performance.....

[Guest AJ]

Take a look at the PMDG Ops wiki (link on the website), and also read the introduction section of the manual. Both have some very specific suggestions. In short, turn down you display sliders in FSX, especially water settings, autogen settings, and shadows.These should buy you a few frames. Beyond that try taking it for a flight. In the air your frame rates will be better than on the ground at the gate. Even at 15 fps, FSX is suprisingly smooth. Andrew

[Tabs 2,790]

You should be seeing much better than 11-13 with an E6600 8800GTS system... something else is at play most likely.

[Guest Royalp]

Hi,I am running a core duo 6700 with 4 gig of ram, a Nvidia GTX 8800 card through Vista Ultimate and I am only getting 6-9 fps compared to 50 fps average with other planes. In addition I am getting an "out of memory error" causing FSX to close when swapping internal views. Having run the FS9 version without problems on my older 3 gig machine since its release, I am so far disappointed with this version and hope that there will be a solution for the poor FPS.regards Peter.

[Guest alexzar14]

AJ, thanks. I already did what PMDG OPS suggested, except for reducing autogan and scenery settings to SPARCE - can't do that, there is no point in FSX then, at those settings FSX looks exactly liike a 7-year old FX2000, worst then FS9 for sure.I found for myself that the autogen must be set to at least Dense (otherwise the entire world turns into a desert, like in the FS4.And, Scenery Compexity must be set to Very Dense to take advantage of airport gates/bridges - that's one of the few main reasons I bothered with FSX to begin with.Anyway, scenery at Dense vc. Extra Dense makes no difference in performanca (0.5fps), that's why I have it at Extra Dense. The same for Autogen: to notice any difference in performance, I have to move the Autogan slider to Sparse, or move it no NONE all together - can't do that, can't go back in time to FS2000 days with these settings.Other settings I have set to very little values, all traffic and other stuff is at 10%, mesh-38, I get 20fps on the ground with these settings, reduced to 17 depending on aircraft software I use. In the air performance improves but I like to start and end my simulation at the gate, not in the air So, again, FSX was managed to run well anywhere, reduced performance is due to aircraft software (FeelThere Airbus2 and PMDG-747) - very sad there is nothing that can be done about it.Next generation of CPUs will come in march or so... that's half a year from now, how should I fly these aircraft til then? - rhetorical question of course. Maybe there is a gauge or two that needs to be looked at... or the huge resolution of the 2D panel bitmaps... or some buggy botton...I feel like there is something that is very easy to fix, if identified.

[Guest alexzar14]

well, looks like this is my problem only... ok, let's wait for the next generation CPU, if no other options available.I still believe it's in PMDG's capabilities to evaluate what effects performance and include the fix with next patch (not that I believe you would bother with it anyway :) )Ok I took it to a 2hrs flight yesterday (SFO-Vancouver), I liked it, no problems related to software were experienced, at least ones that demand immediate attention/patch, will do another one today across the Atlantic. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179807.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179808.jpg

[Tabs 2,790]

>I still believe it's in PMDG's capabilities to evaluate what>effects performance and include the fix with next patch (not>that I believe you would bother with it anyway)We know exactly what it is, and if we "fixed" it, the plane would have less functionality and have a worse model and VC than it does in FS9. ACES added a lot of internal technical things that slow down addons like ours. Much of the development time was spent grappling with those issues and waiting on promised fixes from ACES. (some of which did help to their credit, frames were much worse before SP1 for instance) It's not just us too, I get much better frames in LDS's 763, the Leonardo MD-80 and so on in FS9 than I do in FSX. We hope to be involved from the start with FS11 so we can try to ensure this stuff doesn't happen again, but it's much MUCH more complicated than us just issuing a patch that magically fixes performance. The fact that the 747 runs very well in FS9 should be proof to you that it's not "bad performance software" on our end that's the problem here, in fact the optimizations we made to our code during FSX development actually make the FS9 version run better too, which was the point of the updater we included. All of that performance loss is coming from changes ACES made between FS9 and FSX. Their defaults perform well because they're not doing anything even close to what high end addons like ours do.That said, I still think something must be wrong with your setup - that is a very good machine and you should not be seeing such low frames in the 2D panel. RSR himself has a system nearly identical to yours (he has a Q6600 quad core CPU instead of the E6600 dual core) and I know he sees much higher FPS. Are you sure all of your drivers and so on are updated and configured correctly? Are you using Vista or XP?

[Guest Scousefox9]

I have a PD Dual Core (2 X 2.66GHz), 1GB RAM and a 7300LE; an inferior machine but I get the same frames as you and often it falls into single figures. I can say that even then it is VERY flyable indeed. I only had to turn down one slider 1 stage to get this from 20fps in the default aircraft. I have no autogen at all and the world is NOT desert like :S infact it's better because there's no weird pentagon and quadrillateral shapes.I'd agree with Ryan, something certainly isn't right...

[Guest alexzar14]

nothing's wrong with my PC, wrong is when you get bad performance all the time, this is not the case here.I understand the issue now, no more questions to PMDG, thank you.I checked off the "aircraft shodows on ground", that imroved things a bit when taxiing.