FSX and 8800GTX 768MB DDR3 video card... :(

[Guest Rayed]

>The fix is called Vista:o Yeah and I am the Queen of England.

[Guest Rayed]

> It can easily handle DX9 games,>but you'll not see a giant leap in fps. Once there is a DX10>patch for FSX I would almost put my head on the block and>promise you a giant boost in FPS.>>You gotta remember it's a DX10 card for DX10 games. DX9 is now>a thing of the past, so why ohhhh why should nvidia use the>quality hardware to support DX9 games? Wait for the patch ->I'm sure you'll be more happy then!Oh really? I happen to have the same card as original poster has and a couple of other NVidia samples - I can see 150%-300% performance boost in most DX9 games I was able to test and all of this at insane resolutions. Exception - FSX. But, yeah, they render whole world and Vista will make it run 500% faster.

[boshar 6]

>Oh really? I happen to have the same card as original poster>has and a couple of other NVidia samples - I can see>150%-300% performance boost in most DX9 games I was able to>test and all of this at insane resolutions. Exception - FSX.>But, yeah, they render whole world and Vista will make it run>500% faster.:-lol You've got that one right :-lol

[Guest Babubhai]

The real test will be when the graphics card is running on DirectX 10, and when FSX is upgraded to run on DirectX 10 as well.

[Magic Man 2]

When will people realise that it doesn't matter how much GPU power you throw at FS, it is CPU bound and has been for several years.

[jdk2 1]

Hi Rob,Something just doesn't seem right. Your CPU is an X6800 which is one of the fastest processors available yet you're only getting a meager 7-12 fps. Have you considered that maybe your machine is not setup to perform at its peak? I realize you're an engineer and have a thorough grasp of how software should perform but those fps are not indicative of your hardware. There could be some underlying problem(s) that doesn't allow your hardware to perform at it optimum level.Unfortunately, I have no idea what it could be but there seems to be issues which need to be addressed at the hardware level. Jim Karn

[Guest Babubhai]

Because it is the graphical features that have a big impact on the framerate. For example, try the bloom effect, that really effects the framerates. And also the frame rates have gone lower because of the upgrade of the pixel shader model.FS has always required a fast CPU as well, not denying that...

[Guest smarti05]

Welcome to the Royal Family, FSX is very CPU bound, the bloom effect uses CPU not GRAPHICS which was really dum but thats why nobody can use it. I can turn everything up, change the angle of view and get great frame rates, however change the viewpoint to include the horizon over a densely populated area and everything chugs.I very much doubt his machine is set up badly after all he has enough knowledge to get an 8800. My advice to anyone is play FSX on low settings, its still better than FS9 and you'll soon get bored anyway then in a year upgrade your pc and enjoy FSX all over again.Its only a badly written game after all, not the end of the world.

[jdk2 1]

I don't think that his machine is setup badly. I just think that there's a disparity between the setup of the hardware and the performance he's receiving. If you look at this post][/b, the frame rates they were getting are much higher than what he's describing. Admittedly, they were using the latest nVidia 680i SLI motherboard, but they used the same processor.It just seems odd that he doesn't see similar performance. My post was just to suggest that there may be a driver issue preventing him from seeing this type of performance. Jim Karn

[Guest]

I have a 'meager' 3.6Ghz p4 with 2 GB ram and an 8800gts and sitting on the runway at seattle with sliders all set 3/4 of the way up, water set to 1 high, complexity to dense, autogen at sparse, and vehicle traffic to 20% i get 14fps in the default cessna at a whopping 3840x1024 with 4xxAA and 8xAF. I easily average 20-25fps+ in the burbs, smaller cities like portland and the bush. With this new video card it's almost not even worth my time to upgrade as it effectively increased my frame rates in all my other games by 50-75% easily while also providing for a huge increase in the quality of the visuals. I am not even getting anywhere near the efficiency out of this card with the cpu that i have now either so there is still a lot of untapped power in my system. An x6800 should chew this game up or at least give you much better fps than me. If a 2 year old 3.6ghz p4 is getting better scores than a pimped out x6800 system while also rendering at a much higher resolution then something is amiss on your end. It would be interesting to setup a side by side frame rate test with you with us both having our sliders and video options identically set and with the same aircraft on the same runway at the same time of day in the game.Dave

[brynjames 0]

>>6502 8-bit CPU@1.02Mhz>>64K RAM, 8K Basic ROM, 8K Kernel ROM, HiRes Mode: 320x200 pixels,3 >>voices,Cassette Drive, Cartridge Port (direct access to CPU bus)Hey Rayed, fine system you have got there. Bet it runs Pong at super frame rates. Where do I get one too? :) :)--Bryn

[Guest robains]

I'm at 3.9 Ghz on a X6800 CPU -- are you serious about CPU limitation? My 2nd core is hardly being used. There is certainly a limitation but it ain't the CPU and I think we are ALL well aware of what the limitation is!Please, explain to me how Vista is the solution? There isn't even a FSX version with DX10 support, so again how is Vista the solution?I wish you FSX flag waivers would just get out of conversations you have no knowledge or experience with.Rob.

[Guest robains]

errr folks, I'm running an X6800 at 3.9 Ghz and my FSB is around 1500Mhz -- hot is right, it runs hot that's why I have it cooled to -10 degrees C. I'm running some extreme hardware so please stop blaming the CPU - besides the 2nd core is barely doing anything in FSX.I can assure you the CPU is not the issue.

[Guest robains]

With those lame settings you listed in the link, I can get well beyond 33 fps even at SFO. Also the listing is for 1600 x 1200 not 1920 x 1200. And the min is 17 fps (I'm talking about mins as that is what is most important on final to a large airport/city). Anyway, that is a good link because they confirm what I already know and it is good to see someone else running into the same problems.Why do you folks say "there is something wrong with your setup" because XYZ person can get MNO frame rates?To repeat for the 1000th time, ANYONE can turn down the details to get better frame rates -- this is NOT new. However, I personally want FSX to look better than FS9 at the same frame rate, so far I've not been able to acheive that. To get FSX to look at good as FS9 at 1920 x 1200, I've had to turn up the FSX graphics settings -- when I do so, the frame rates take a nose dive.And yes, I can get over the fact that FSX was not coded very well, there is enough evidence to prove that FSX has got performance issues.I'm posting my results so that others can determine if the 8800GTX will be enough for them to "save the day" with FSX.

[Guest robains]

DX10 is in my Vista RC2, your #2 point is not correct.Point 1 and 3 correct.However your statement "order to see some performance improvements in FSX" is an assumption, we don't know, we can only hope. What we do know so far is that Phil Taylor will NOT do a from scratch re-write, but will look into other ways to help performance.Being a software engineer there are many ways to address performance, I hope the Aces team does NOT select the easy option -- reduce polygon count and reduce texture detail as this will reduce realism.I hope they take a serious and hard look at their real issues because I find it difficult to believe they didn't profile FSX regularly during the development process.Rob.