Hi all I'm very curious to know how much of in impact a model has if it was not built with the fsx sdk, I understand that its makes sense that the model preforms better if it was made with the tools for that specific program, like fsx. but how much of a frame rate hit do you take just being fsx compatible? and not being built with the fsx sdk?? is it really that much of a difference in hard numbers?

Not that I have noticed. It is really more about available features and whether it appears normally.

It depends on the model. I used to have a few port overs that hit my FPS hard, some of the older Dreamfleet stuff and F1 stuff. Mainly the more complex it was in FS9, the more of a hit you'll get in FSX if it is a port over.I fly only native FSX models now...

I copied default Cessna 172 from FS9 to FSX. That's very simple model so works ok, but compared with default FSX Cessna 172 I have:External model: around 130 with native FSX Cessna and 80 fps with portover.Interior model: around 45 with native Cessna and 40 with portover.If you have both FS9 and FSX installed, you can try it by yourself.

From my understanding, the biggest reason you see FPS increases both in the VC and viewing from exterior spot views in FSX is the FSX SDK literally separates the VC from the exterior model. Apparently, FSX only renders the VC when you are *in* the VC view. FS9, on the other hand, only uses ONE model that includes both the VC, exterior and any other added interiors like cabins, galleys, etc, views. It's similar to rendering a fully realized 3D airplane vs. just sections of a airplane.The increased FPS using the FSX method of rendering makes sense when you think about it.

From my understanding, the biggest reason you see FPS increases both in the VC and viewing from exterior spot views in FSX is the FSX SDK literally separates the VC from the exterior model. Apparently, FSX only renders the VC when you are *in* the VC view. FS9, on the other hand, only uses ONE model that includes both the VC, exterior and any other added interiors like cabins, galleys, etc, views. It's similar to rendering a fully realized 3D airplane vs. just sections of a airplane.The increased FPS using the FSX method of rendering makes sense when you think about it.

Um, not quite. FS9 models do have two completely independent models in a single file. The mesh for the "interior model" is not rendered to screen until one is in the VC View.What makes the real difference is how FSX renders FS9 portovers versus FSX Native models. FSX has to generate drawcalls based on the polygons in FS9 portovers. FSX generates drawcalls for FSX Native models based on the Materials used.Where an FS9 portover might require up to 200-300 drawcalls, a well-optimized FSX Native model may require as few 9 - 20 drawcalls. Rarely will any FSX Native model need more than 40 - 60 drawcalls.

Um, not quite. FS9 models do have two completely independent models in a single file. The mesh for the "interior model" is not rendered to screen until one is in the VC View.What makes the real difference is how FSX renders FS9 portovers versus FSX Native models. FSX has to generate draw calls based on the polygons in FS9 portovers. FSX generates draw calls for FSX Native models based on the Materials used.Where an FS9 portover might require up to 200-300 draw calls, a well-optimized FSX Native model may require as few 9 - 20 draw calls. Rarely will any FSX Native model need more than 40 - 60 draw calls.

Thanks for the insight Bill, :( its really interesting how fsx deals with the models, thanks guys I really appreciate your thoughts. :(

Thanks for the correct information, Bill :(