Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Heavy_Driver

FSX is broken...

Recommended Posts

Geofa, you should not be seeing any messages about reducing rendering options with the processor you have. I assume you use a decent Nvidia card? I run the highest res textures, complete water level, and mid-level selections for the rest of the options and I am between 40-60 fps. Maybe try to tone down the objects and roads a bit? X-Plane renders far more autogen than FSX does, so lower settings will provide more bang for your buck. Cranking sliders to the limit are not the best true comparison within each sim. I prefer a balance of what runs well while still looking good, and I can get that in X-Plane without cranking things up. Perhaps your issues are driver-related or something. As I have said before, I own both sims and fluidity is not even a close contest on my Q9550/GTX260. X-Plane easily wins without blurries, hiccups, and no frame drop around downloaded/installed scenery. Plus, there are some wonderful addons that should be out in the next couple months that might encourage you to split time with your simulators!I sure hope this does not present me as an X-Plane a really excited user or anything. I am new to the sim, honestly. I'm still way more comfortable with the MSFS series, but I am learning to really love X-Plane.Thanks,Scott
I have been told xplane has problems with nvidia cards-however with two different systems and many different drivers my results have been very consistent. As I mentioned I am running xplane pretty much on its defaults.Once again-in your compare to fsx are you choosing similar settings? For instance are you turning ai traffic , scenery complexity slider, and visibility to xplanes built in limitations-which in some cases are zero? Have you turned your AA setting to the same as xplane's? Are you using an aircraft with the same complexity and 3d cockpit in xplane of a typical one you are using in fsx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But FSX is no longer being developed and, with its single core execution, has crappy crappy FPS.XP9 has much better FPS due to its multicore support and is still being developed. If only it had the add-ons like PMDG and LDS!
With FSX, there is NOTHING like a "single core execution" - it happily uses all cores you throw at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as... "The lowest LOD radius is much less then 20 miles in FSX, and X-Plane doesn't have any similar resolution-degrading mechanism." Since you can't see further in xplane than 25 miles by your count-of course xplane wouldn't need such a degrading mechanism-it is built in by limiting the visibility!
FSX starts artificially lowering texture (and probably mesh) resolution very quickly, much more and much more quickly then the graphics card would do. For example, with LOD radius set to 'High', FSX switches from LOD 15 (~1 m/px) to LOD 14 at 0.6 nm out, while at 'Low' LOD radius, the switch occurs at only 0.3 nm out. At 25 miles out, you get LOD 10 with the 'High' setting vs. LOD 9 with 'Low' LOD radius. And for the record, I see a difference in texture sharpness up to a LOD radius of about 10 or so - while the maximum you can set in the UI (i.e. 'High') is 4.5. The LOD 15/14 switch is at about 1.5 nm out then. So, even at the UI's highest setting, FSX artificially lowers terrain resolution significantly, while X-Plane doesn't. Which means for a fair comparison, you'd actually need to increase the LOD radius above 'High' by hacking the config file. Well, assuming FSX is smart enough to clip the scenery at the visibility limit, that is.
but the default terrain in xplane sure looks blurry and ragged in compare [...] Photoscenery likewise in compare.
Are you running X-Plane at something other than the highest texture resolution setting by any chance? Because photo scenery in particular looks so much better in X-Plane on my machine (given the same resolution, created from the same source images).
and I still maintain if you set the sims up in as similar fashion as you can, fsx will outperform xplane and give you many more features.
I have never bothered to do a real comparison, simply because the point is somewhat moot on my machine: While I can easily get FSX to run at triple-digit frame rates by turning settings way down, I can't manage to get rid of the frequent momentary drops to single digits. Which is completely and utterly useless, of course. Even when limiting the frame rate to lowish double-digit numbers, I get constant micro-stuttering. X-Plane, on the other hand, maintains triple-digit frame rates absolutely smoothly when turning settings way down.
Geofa, you should not be seeing any messages about reducing rendering options with the processor you have.
I agree, assuming your graphics card is half-decent. That might indeed be a driver issue - which X-Plane seems to have the annoying habit of provoking time and again, especially under Windows. With my old ATI card, X-Plane would run at less the half the frame rate under Windows than under Mac OS X (on the same machine, running Windows natively via Boot Camp). Clearly a driver thing - Windows should run slightly faster than Mac OS X (due to better optimized drivers I guess). Turns out frame rate would return to normal (i.e. more than double) by switching to window mode and decreasing the window size slightly. That's not really a solution, of course, if Windows is your main (or only) platform.
With FSX, there is NOTHING like a "single core execution" - it happily uses all cores you throw at it.
I agree: FSX's multi-core utilization is about on par with X-Plane's. Both use additional cores only for loading and pre-processing scenery in the background, more or less. But X-Plane's graphics guy is well aware of the problem, and is actively working an gradually improving it.Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in too since I run both XPlane (high settings) and FSX (no AI or autogen).- XPlane always has sharp textures (unlike FSX)- XPlane never reduces LOD on the mesh (unlike FSX)- XPlane is fluid without any micro stutters (unlike FSX)The only thing I really dislike about XPlane is the 25NM max visibility. I really hope XP10 increases max visibility to 100NM like FSX. Sure if the users machine cant handle 100NM then XP will reduce visibility, but at least powerful CPU/GPU setups will get much greater visibility (maybe even 100NM).


Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FSX starts artificially lowering texture (and probably mesh) resolution very quickly, much more and much more quickly then the graphics card would do. For example, with LOD radius set to 'High', FSX switches from LOD 15 (~1 m/px) to LOD 14 at 0.6 nm out, while at 'Low' LOD radius, the switch occurs at only 0.3 nm out. At 25 miles out, you get LOD 10 with the 'High' setting vs. LOD 9 with 'Low' LOD radius. And for the record, I see a difference in texture sharpness up to a LOD radius of about 10 or so - while the maximum you can set in the UI (i.e. 'High') is 4.5. The LOD 15/14 switch is at about 1.5 nm out then. So, even at the UI's highest setting, FSX artificially lowers terrain resolution significantly, while X-Plane doesn't. Which means for a fair comparison, you'd actually need to increase the LOD radius above 'High' by hacking the config file. Well, assuming FSX is smart enough to clip the scenery at the visibility limit, that is.Are you running X-Plane at something other than the highest texture resolution setting by any chance? Because photo scenery in particular looks so much better in X-Plane on my machine (given the same resolution, created from the same source images).I have never bothered to do a real comparison, simply because the point is somewhat moot on my machine: While I can easily get FSX to run at triple-digit frame rates by turning settings way down, I can't manage to get rid of the frequent momentary drops to single digits. Which is completely and utterly useless, of course. Even when limiting the frame rate to lowish double-digit numbers, I get constant micro-stuttering. X-Plane, on the other hand, maintains triple-digit frame rates absolutely smoothly when turning settings way down.I agree, assuming your graphics card is half-decent. That might indeed be a driver issue - which X-Plane seems to have the annoying habit of provoking time and again, especially under Windows. With my old ATI card, X-Plane would run at less the half the frame rate under Windows than under Mac OS X (on the same machine, running Windows natively via Boot Camp). Clearly a driver thing - Windows should run slightly faster than Mac OS X (due to better optimized drivers I guess). Turns out frame rate would return to normal (i.e. more than double) by switching to window mode and decreasing the window size slightly. That's not really a solution, of course, if Windows is your main (or only) platform.I agree: FSX's multi-core utilization is about on par with X-Plane's. Both use additional cores only for loading and pre-processing scenery in the background, more or less. But X-Plane's graphics guy is well aware of the problem, and is actively working an gradually improving it.Judith
I'm basically having the same performance issue with X-Plane as Geof is having. If I sit at KLAX no airport scenery, objects set to default no AI, I only get frames in the low 20's, where as in FSX I get 40's with scenery extremely dense, and autogen dense and weather (no AI). I have a C2D E6850 @3.0ghz 4GB with a Nvidia 9800GTX card. I also get the rendering objects warning if I try using more than default. So there may be something to this Nvidia problem with X-Plane. As for the visibility issue, the 25 mile limitation is a non starter for me. I like to have realistic weather conditions, both low visibility and high visibility. The other biggie is the lack of a decent ATC system. FSX ATC with all it's faults when modified with FS-EditVoicepack and combined wth AISmooth does a pretty good job considering it was never designed to handle the amount of traffic we throw at it.

Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some compare shots:Now to be honest I wasn't all that fair with fsx-I have a multitude of add ons including fex,gex,utx,rex (2048 clouds), and the only thing I turned down for this compare was the visiblity to 30 nm. I also have ultimate traffic running with 70% GA/40% commercial. All these add ins will of course drain performance, so as this is a compare of features/performance fsx has a stacked deck against it. The only add in I have in xplane is the realityxp gps in the first shot.The first shot is takeoff at my home airport.Xplane is with a custom Baron based on my aircraft with the add in of Reality xp gps. There is only a 2d cockpit-no 3d.Notice no airport buildings-just a runway. I am geting 24.74 fps. (By the way, my Baron takes a 12 fps hit over the defaults that only have a few instruments displayed).Fsx with the Carenado Seneca-3d cockpit (more fps intensive), two independent Reality xp gps's,a full stack of instruments, airport buildings, animated birds, and extra objects placed with easy scenery-in addition to traffic moving/flying around and all the add ons listed above that should drain the sim even more. Fps is 33.Next as to "sharpness of textures" let's have a look at xplane and fsx with autogen on:Xplane 27.92 fps:Fsx 61.7 fps:..and now without autogen. Which textures are clearer?Xplane:Fsx:Now the point is-I use both sims, and xplane does a lot of things that fsx can't do. But when I see comments about performance being better in xplane than fsx which is "broken"-I just have never seen that. In fact I see the opposite-. It makes me wonder if the textures of xplane had the sharpness of fsx, and there was ai traffic, and there were airport buildings, and the visibility was unlimited etc. what xplane would run like. Now it only logical that fsx users when they first try xplane feel the big difference is performance. It is also understandable why-it is rendering a lot less.With my new rig however, fsx wins by quite a bit, even with the deck stacked against it. Don't get me wrong-xplane has lots of good things going for it. But when I see the two mantras repeated of performance/flight models being superior in xplane, I don't agree. ...and I think there is a clear reason for the "perceived" superior performance.I appologize for the 2 shots at the end here-I realized I had miss sized the second image, tried to get rid of them both-but they are somehow here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geof, how are you lowering visibility of FSX to 30nm? The Visibility slider in the weather section only goes down to 60nm? If you are doing it from a weather addon like ASA, I don't think that limits what FSX is actually loading.


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geof, how are you lowering visibility of FSX to 30nm? The Visibility slider in the weather section only goes down to 60nm? If you are doing it from a weather addon like ASA, I don't think that limits what FSX is actually loading.
Weather/user defined/customized. You can go all the way down to 1/16 of a mile....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try an add on airport or some photo scenery for X-Plane you will soon see just how crisp the textures are.I notice FSX has no cloud shadows unlike X-Plane! I think that was too hard for ACES to make performant in FSX.What video card you using, and don't forget XPlane uses OpenGL and not DirectX, so you might need to bear that in mind when tweaking video cards settings.Someone should convert some of the textures from FSX to X-Plane, just to compare apples with apples.edit: FSX gauges are so slow to refresh compared to X-Plane. None of those pictures can portray just how fluid X-Plane is, nor the feeling of the aircraft through the air or its ground handling.


Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try an add on airport or some photo scenery for X-Plane you will soon see just how crisp the textures are.I notice FSX has no cloud shadows unlike X-Plane! I think that was too hard for ACES to make performant in FSX.What video card you using, and don't forget XPlane uses OpenGL and not DirectX, so you might need to bear that in mind when tweaking video cards settings.Someone should convert some of the textures from FSX to X-Plane, just to compare apples with apples.
I have two video cards-an 8800 gt and 8400gs..I have bought several areas of photo scenery for xplane-it doesn't have the resolution of what I have posted in the screen shot forum with fsx-I was hoping it would. I have some new photoscenery that does 1m resolution in fsx-can xplane do that or is it available?Yes-cloud shadows are one of the things xplane does better, along with system failures, stormscope and a few others.This thread was about xplane's superior performance to fsx-and I just don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread was about xplane's superior performance to fsx-and I just don't see it.
And yet I find X-Plane superior in performance to FSX!

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet I find X-Plane superior in performance to FSX!
Great-and how are the looks, add ons, and ai traffic,atc? The op mentioned add ons too. Why don't you post a similar compare of your superior performance-I am really intrigued as with two different systems I never found that to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great-and how are the looks, add ons, and ai traffic,atc? The op mentioned add ons too.
Advantages of X-Plane - fluid fps and no micro stutters- super smooth gauge refreshes- no blurries - no mesh LOD changes- autogen better looking and better scaled- cloud shadows- better overcast and rain- better water reflections- better sensation of movement through the air- better ground handling- better failuresprobably more I cant think of right now.Yes ATC in FSX is a joke, as it is in XPlane, so its not even worth comparing.No AI in XPlane so FSX wins there.

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advantages of X-Plane - fluid fps and no micro stutters- super smooth gauge refreshes- no blurries - no mesh LOD changes- autogen better looking and better scaled- cloud shadows- better overcast and rain- better water reflections- better sensation of movement through the air- better ground handling- better failuresprobably more I cant think of right now.Yes ATC in FSX is a joke, as it is in XPlane, so its not even worth comparing.No AI in XPlane so FSX wins there.
Show some shots please of the superior performance and textures that was questioned above...As for ground handling--have you piloted a real plane?-I still can't take off in xplane-the squealing brakes and the over sensitive ground handling frankly ruins the sim for me. The sensation of movement thru the air once in the air I will agree with along with the better water reflections. Autogen looking better-perhaps trees-but as one user said-the buildings look like someone thru a toybox over the landscape along with extremely poor landclass. Fluid gauges, no stutters, and no blurries-no difference on my rig with fsx or xplane-but the instruments on xplane look cartoony and not real.Better overcast, failures, and rain-for sure xplane better here.As for fsx atc being a joke-I've always taken exception to that from the fs crowd. Maybe if you fly heavies and want gate assignments etc.-but for GA it is pretty close (the star/sid mania always aludes me since it rarely if ever takes place in real life). Xplane is clearly behind in atc and ai though-period.But again-the topic was fsx being broken and xplane having no add ins. I submit fsx is not broken, gives better performance than xplane does when the playing field is equaled, and there is no question fs has more/better add ins.I think I already showed some proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show some shots please of the superior performance and textures that was questioned above...As for ground handling--have you piloted a real plane?-I still can't take off in xplane-the squealing brakes and the over sensitive ground handling frankly ruins the sim for me. The sensation of movement thru the air once in the air I will agree with along with the better water reflections. Autogen looking better-perhaps trees-but as one user said-the buildings look like someone thru a toybox over the landscape along with extremely poor landclass. Fluid gauges, no stutters, and no blurries-no difference on my rig with fsx or xplane-but the instruments on xplane look cartoony and not real.Better overcast, failures, and rain-for sure xplane better here.As for fsx atc being a joke-I've always taken exception to that from the fs crowd. Maybe if you fly heavies and want gate assignments etc.-but for GA it is pretty close (the star/sid mania always aludes me since it rarely if ever takes place in real life). Xplane is clearly behind in atc and ai though-period.But again-the topic was fsx being broken and xplane having no add ins. I submit fsx is not broken, gives better performance than xplane does when the playing field is equaled, and there is no question fs has more/better add ins.I think I already showed some proof.
Screen-shots later tonight, after work.Maybe you need to calibrate your controller if you find ground handling too sensitive. Squealing brakes? If your using a joystick button try assigning the "half strength" brake key, if your using toe brakes on rudder pedals then try calibrating.Placement of autogen objects is not good, but the size and appearance of those objects is much better than FSX.Cartoony instruments, if so its just the artwork, try the BK117 or take a look at the CRJ200 previews and tell me how any FSX aircraft can possibly compare to that VC!Sure FSX might not be broken, but it aint going anywhere. FSX will be stuck in its 2006 rut forever. X-Plane is active development.And yes, X-Plane still feels far smoother than FSX to me! It's performance is better.

Matthew S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...