Why I get 50 fps in FSX and you do not?

[Guest Nick_N]

To those who see results that may not agree with what I posted.... =================================================== SETTING UP FSX and HOW TO TUNE IT What I have posted in FSX tuning is to get people in the RIGHT ballpark so they can tune their system in with a good methodology in starting off. There can be differences and there can be some variations but for the most part what I posted should get most systems tuned correctly.Your Mileage May Vary DO NOTE: The results good or bad depend on the type and condition of your hardware, your ability to run a clean, spyware, virus free system, a reasonable amount of boot programs in your OS, and, your ability to maintain good maintenance on your system============================================================That tuning list is based on getting STARTED, not flying payware Heathrow in a heavy hitting aircraft and all the visual bells and whistlesAs for what I am 'on the same page' with... "What I Had To Do to Get My ATi Card To Run High FPS By Removing Scenery, Detail and Image Quality" is not what that tuning thread is about. I am absolutely not on the same page with that, or with "FSX has timing issues with modern hardware" I could sum that entire tuning thread up in a very short list. The only reason I go into the long detail is so people who are new to FSX get a solid feel and understanding of what they are doing so they can take it from there and work out the settings for their installs.

[FalconAF 213]

No. Educate yourself. It's not difficult to use a search engine in Google and find the information, verify it, then come back here and tell us all about it. If you must get someone to get your answers for you, then please post the question in the correct forum, and I will think about answering you. For everyone else it is sufficient for the purposes of this topic that the error has been highlighted, the mistake corrected. The myth busted.

You talk a good game, but lack the substance. Any argument made should be suppported, yet you refuse to post links to your support. Show me the links...show me the links!The article was written in 1999 and pertains to CRT's. And IT contains the main falsehood in comparing "movies in a theatre" to a computer monitor display. Barring the "motion blur" issue (which can never be solved on a computer monitor), the reason a movie has to be projected at 24 FPS is because the projector uses a SHUTTER between displaying the frames of the film. The movie screen actually goes DARK with nothing on it between frames when the shutter is closed, the next "frame" is moved into position in the projector, and the shutter re-opens. The last image (frame) shown on the screen is retained on the retina and interpreted by the brain so that you do not see the "blank screen" between shutter openings and closings. A computer monitor doesn't work that way. The "screen" never goes dark. Go ahead...start FSX and set it up so that NOTHING IS MOVING in the scene (no AI passing by, etc). Then set your Frame Rate Limiter to ONE FRAME PER SECOND in FSX. Tell me how many "blank screens" you see. None. The monitor will draw the SAME FRAME SIXTY TIMES on a monitor set at 60Hz.Try displaying that movie at a shutter speed of one frame per second.I'm a nice guy. If you have evidence or proof that an LCD\TFT monitor set at 60Hz WILL refresh itself more than 60 times a second, I'll retract everything. Show me the link...show me the link. From a REPUTABLE source, by the way.EDIT: Here are a couple links YOU should read. At least I post MY references.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_ratePay close attention to the parts about "CRT Phospher Retension" vs "LCD Backlight Image Retention" vs "Response Time", and the REAL differences between "Refresh Rate" vs "Frame Rate". Then YOU will be educated, like the rest of us. As a test, after you read the articles (if you even bother to), here's a little "quiz" for you to test your understaning of it:If "FS 11" was released for the XBox (or similar "TV display" platform), would the "display" you see be any better than what you now have on your computer monitor, from the REFRESH RATE or FRAMES PER SECOND perspective?When you can answer that question correctly, I'll take your "advice" (or criticism) seriously. Class dismissed.Rick

[pmanhart 176]

I don't think the Aerosoft chap was trying to tell people how to tune and brag that he was able to sustain 50 FPS on a mediocre machine, he was letting the community know what he ran FSX on and what settings he was using.Throwing accusations at people and demeaning them doesn't help the community, let alone help anyone achieve a higher FPS in FSX.

[Guest Nick_N]

No one accused anyone of anythingMy name was used in a way that suggests I agree or I am "on the same page" with what has been said or what was in that PDF. I am simply setting the record strait.

[Tabs 2,790]

From the document:"Want a reason why FSX gets slower with more expensive cards? I can just guess but it cannot be a coincidence that the 4650 was about the fastest card around when FSX was created. Some 3d guy explained to me that when the GPU gets more complex there is more (not less) information to be send. If there is a timing problem in FSX the time window to send data might just not be large enough."I'm sorry but this stuff here is just flat out wrong. The 4650 was not around when FSX was created - FSX came out in October of 2006, the Radeon 4650 came out two years later in August of 2008 *after* the faster 4850 and 4870 cards were already released. (the slower cards like the 4650 are just stripped down versions of them actually). On top of that, the actual programming for FSX was done long before the sim was released. I had an Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX in my system when FSX was released, then upgraded to a GeForce 8880GT, then to a Radeon 4870. Each upgrade gave me better performance and image quality, not worse. I'm not sure who this "some 3d guy" Mathjis talked to is, but this kind of information just isn't correct in the slightest. A major reason a gamer upgrades their system is to play games they already have with better performance. What sense would that make if a game only ran optimally on hardware available at release and ran worse on better hardware in the future? 15+ years as a gamer and system builder tells me it's not true. FSX is absolutely no different and this is why we saw such a massive difference for the better when the i7 CPUs came out vs. the older ones.

[FalconAF 213]

Nick nailed this whole issue a long time ago when he stressed that a CONSTANT frame rate WITHOUT STUTTERING is more important than overall frame rates in FSX. Unless you are really horsing around an aircraft in FSX (like flying an F-16 at Mach 1 in a 180-degree per second turn), you don't need even 60 FPS. In most "normal" flying scenarios, 30 FPS, and even less sometimes, works just fine, if they are constant and stutter-free.

[DylanM 1,069]

I'm with Ryan and Nick on this one. If FPS is all that you are going for, then some of the suggestions may work (and that seems to be what he's trying to get across). But if the point is to find that balance between sim speed and visual quality, then Nick's guide should be the one to use as a starting point.And the point about the graphics card is rather weak - wonder how much slower a gtx285 or a 5870 would run on his system.

[snave 0]

You talk a good game, but lack the substance. Any argument made should be suppported, yet you refuse to post links to your support. Show me the links...show me the links!The article was written in 1999 and pertains to CRT's. And IT contains the main falsehood in comparing "movies in a theatre" to a computer monitor display. Barring the "motion blur" issue (which can never be solved on a computer monitor), the reason a movie has to be projected at 24 FPS is because the projector uses a SHUTTER between displaying the frames of the film. The movie screen actually goes DARK with nothing on it between frames when the shutter is closed, the next "frame" is moved into position in the projector, and the shutter re-opens. The last image (frame) shown on the screen is retained on the retina and interpreted by the brain so that you do not see the "blank screen" between shutter openings and closings. A computer monitor doesn't work that way. The "screen" never goes dark. Go ahead...start FSX and set it up so that NOTHING IS MOVING in the scene (no AI passing by, etc). Then set your Frame Rate Limiter to ONE FRAME PER SECOND in FSX. Tell me how many "blank screens" you see. None. The monitor will draw the SAME FRAME SIXTY TIMES on a monitor set at 60Hz.Try displaying that movie at a shutter speed of one frame per second.I'm a nice guy. If you have evidence or proof that an LCD\TFT monitor set at 60Hz WILL refresh itself more than 60 times a second, I'll retract everything. Show me the link...show me the link. From a REPUTABLE source, by the way.EDIT: Here are a couple links YOU should read. At least I post MY references.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_ratePay close attention to the parts about "CRT Phospher Retension" vs "LCD Backlight Image Retention" vs "Response Time", and the REAL differences between "Refresh Rate" vs "Frame Rate". Then YOU will be educated, like the rest of us. As a test, after you read the articles (if you even bother to), here's a little "quiz" for you to test your understaning of it:If "FS 11" was released for the XBox (or similar "TV display" platform), would the "display" you see be any better than what you now have on your computer monitor, from the REFRESH RATE or FRAMES PER SECOND perspective?When you can answer that question correctly, I'll take your "advice" (or criticism) seriously. Class dismissed.Rick

Indeed, if you read your own links, you can see where your erroneous statement came from. You irredeemably confuse refresh rates with pixel cycles. More research needed.The cross reference from your own site reference makes this abundantly clearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...play_technologyNote how the `Hz` figure refers to complete off/on reversal in CRT, yet LCD retains a constant level of illumincation which specifically decries the `Hz` as an objective meaurement of update rate.To create the simple analogy:I have a car that accelerates from rest to 60mph, then stops, then returns to 60mph. I also have a slower car that takes longer to reach 60mph, but doesn't have to stop and return to 60, but just keeps travelling at the same speed... Given that neither can EXCEED 60mph, which arrives first? Class is indeed dismissed. You have no understanding of frame rate and no understanding of the correct forum in which to continue this discussion.

[Benjamin J 751]

Maybe he doesn't get all facts right, but ultimately that's not what he tries to tell us. I think you guys are now concentrating on sidestuff, not the actual topic.The biggest point of Mathijs's post, is the fact that every situation requires different settings, and that's why there is the "save" option in the settings panel. For example, when flying over the Alps, you will need very different settings than when standing at Lelystad airport, and turning settings down or up may help a lot to get your system do what you ask it to do with great results. Now, not to be rude or anything, but you guys have to understand that this is ultimately what Mathijns tells us and also gives us numerous exmaples off. Whatever he else he may say may be right or wrong - in the end, I think it's rather unimportant. The big point, of saved settings files for each and every situation, is what the post is about and I think he probably has got a very good point there.

[btwilks 7]

Just for the record - I entirely agree with Geoff's comment from earlier today.This isn't the only thread where snave has introduced unecessary personal insults to a thread that I'm reading for enlightenment rather than confrontation. And, frankly, I find that approach distasteful and probably in breach of Avsim's conditions of posting - but a moderator or adminstrator would undoubtedly know that much better than me.Brian Wilks

[Mike T 211]

No. Educate yourself. It's not difficult to use a search engine in Google and find the information, verify it, then come back here and tell us all about it. If you must get someone to get your answers for you, then please post the question in the correct forum, and I will think about answering you. For everyone else it is sufficient for the purposes of this topic that the error has been highlighted, the mistake corrected. The myth busted.

Mad Dog is totally correct:"FPS: Frames Per Second, the rate at which your video card is drawing frames to its frame buffer. If the FPS is higher than than the refresh rate, then the extra frames are lost and tearing could occur."http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-fram...t-technologies#True gamers still won't use LCD panels and still use CRT displays because they could handle 100hz, therefore could actually display games at 100fps with no loss. Higher FPS is required on a digital screen because there is no "blurring" which makes a 30fps movie look fluid. The higher the FPS on a computer, the more fluid the game, but with a 60hz monitor, you won't see anything over that speed. With the release of new 120hz monitors, you WILL be able to see 120 FPS and that changes the game completely. And if you haven't seen a HD movie on a 120hz screen, go see it, its totally surreal.

[scott967 62]

The main thing I got out of the paper, is you can tweak your sliders to maintain 50 fps average, which I think is pretty much unamazing. The question remains how much in-flight tweaking do you want to do, and how much IQ are you willing to lose (or perhaps, better, is how much IQ is not really useful).scott s..

[Lynxboy 0]

I've not been on this forum long and can already see that I'm out of my depth, especially with this discussion but I'm going to post what I've found so far in using Mathijs's guide.I printed off the PDF document by Mathijs Kok earlier today to see if I could taylor it to my machine and FSX. I was sceptical as I've performed various tweaks to FSX when I had my previous hardware installed but to no avail. It would be interesting to see what tweaks were suggested and how they'd react on my current machine.Previously, FPS rates weren't too good when flying a decent aircraft; below 20 mostly, under 15 in busier locations. So any improvement is good for me.I've just flown the MD-80 Pro and tested most views and the results were fantastic, the best I've seen in FSX yet! I'd set the FPS setting to 'Unlimited' and I achieved between 30 and 40 FPS in VC view both on the ground and in the air with rates increasing as I panned outside the aircraft. On the ground the highest I noted was between 45 and 60, whilst in the air it fluctated between 60 and 80, with the highest noted in excess of 90FPS! Such FPS achievements made the simulator totally smooth and completely wow'd me - it was the first time I've ever experienced smooth flight and decent quality objects in FSX. Long many it continue!I hadn't done anything different except change the settings as per the guide by Mathijs. The test will come when I use more demanding add-ons.I'm not sure if anyone will be interested in my findings but hey, I'm still in shock from my experience and thought I'd share it.Regards, Adam.

[Guest CryogenicPilot]

What I don't like about Mathis' "article" is for those new to FSX, he is basically telling them to sacrifice visuals for speed... And on top of that some of his facts are flat out wrong e.g. The ATI 4650 was not even released when FSX was released in 2006; It's a 128-bit card with DDR2 RAM, so it is inferior to most mainstream gaming cards, too. As stated, my settings give me what I want:Smooth performance, but also aesthetically pleasing things like...-Detailed terrain textures (UTX; GEX)-Detailed terrain mesh (FSGlobal 2008; ProMesh)-Nice looking aircraft and VCs (Ground and Self-Shadowing)-Nice environmental effects (Shader 2.0 water; REX 3D Cloud coverage). These are the things I believe are the real visual improvements over FS9 that make FSX worth using if your hardware can handle it. I also have FS9 installed, but at this point, it is mostly for speed, or compatibility issues with some payware addons I own (those originally developed for FS9 that perform better on FS9 vs. FSX).

[CFIJose 5,485]

The idea that new technology hurts FSX performance is absolutely ludicrous.Every upgrade I've done in the last 4 years has helped improve my simulator's performance.Maybe Nick can explain this better than I can but just relying on my experience upgrading computers, there will be a time when 8 real cores at 5 gig will be a reality. I'm pretty sure that FSX will one day perform just as smooth as fs 2004 performs today with AG sliders etc at max.To imply that newer technology might decrease fsx performance is simply wrong and I'll bet lunch on that.