horrendous FPS!

[itlnstallion818 0]

I've searched but couldn't find similar problems. My specs are in my signature. I recently bought a new monitor 1920x1080 and ever since, my FPS have tanked to like 2-3fps at my hometown airport, but if I bump it down one notch of resolution, i'll jump to like 25. I truly don't think it's the monitor, although I do understand there are a LOT more pixels. When I load a flight, sometimes I'll get normal FPS (1920x1080), such as 20, and then other times, it'll load and i'll have 2-3fps. What gives? I have UTX, GEX, REX, PMDG.... my FPS are bad even in default aircraft as well...Do I need to rebuild my fsx.CFG? how should I start trouble shooting? It recently started doing this...- Paul Sapp

[itlnstallion818 0]

i use nhancer (to nickN's spec), and i did just notice that if i go in to FSX and change it to anisotropic with anti-aliasing, my FPS jump to normal.... but when its trilinear, then it struggles...

[red1 0]

Your problem is your AA and AF. I recently also got a 1920 monitor and my old card couldn't handle 8xS AA anymore (8800gts), and this was in fs9. If you drop down your AA or AF and fps is normal, its your card. May want to think about a 275.

[itlnstallion818 0]

i dont know anything about AF and AA settings, i just set up per nick's suggestions...i had it at 16xS because thats the only setting on my old 720p TV (1366x768) that didn't flicker...would it be reasonable to assume that 1920x1080 at 16xS is way too much for my GTS 250 to handle? i thought it wasn't a bad video card... would the 275 be substantially better?

[Guest napamule]

On a chance that some other simmer(s) have that card, why don't you post the driver version you are using. I myself would suspect the video card drivers if it was my rig. I would tell myself: ' the driver install did not 'take' (so essentially there are 'no drivers' (files) installed'.) At least none that your card can use.Yeah, the res might be a factor. But not that much difference (20 fps to 5 fps). That spells trouble with your card alright, and perhaps could be fixed by using the proper drivers (ie: might have to 'fall back' to an 'older' version, or, what worked before IF you updated drivers). And on top of that, HOW you un-installed and/or installed the drivers can make a difference (ie: make sure ALL files (including some in your 'My Docs' TEMP folder) are deleted. My 2 cents.CBNapamule

[itlnstallion818 0]

Well, I updated the driver to the newest driver last night from Nvidia (196.21), but before that it was at like 185 something i think (because i read it was supposedly the best driver)... i'm having the same problems with the new driver as i did the old one, in fact, it's worse.another thing is when things are ok (fps wise) when i pan around the aircraft somewhat quickly, i'll get black lines down the screen for a quick second... does that sound like a driver issue? or the card itself?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Well, I updated the driver to the newest driver last night from Nvidia (196.21), but before that it was at like 185 something i think (because i read it was supposedly the best driver)... i'm having the same problems with the new driver as i did the old one, in fact, it's worse.another thing is when things are ok (fps wise) when i pan around the aircraft somewhat quickly, i'll get black lines down the screen for a quick second... does that sound like a driver issue? or the card itself?

You are overloading your system... Somehow, the combination of resolution, high levels of AA and other systems loads are choking some component or combination of components. I've been in similar situations and found that I had to cut back on something to get back to consistent fps.The 182.50 drivers are still the benchmark, so if they worked for you, go back to them. Cut back on the level of AA, go to 4X, at least as a test.Try cutting all traffic to free up some CPU cycles (air, boats, and especially cars)Go back to water 1X.As a test, cut autogen and scenery complexity.Yes, the higher resolution x high AA levels can choke your system and "4 fps" and black spikes are sure signs of video overload.

[TheFamilyMan 279]

i dont know anything about AF and AA settings, i just set up per nick's suggestions...i had it at 16xS because thats the only setting on my old 720p TV (1366x768) that didn't flicker...would it be reasonable to assume that 1920x1080 at 16xS is way too much for my GTS 250 to handle? i thought it wasn't a bad video card... would the 275 be substantially better?

Consider this:1366x768 = 1049088 pixels1920x1080 = 2073600 pixelsThe simple answer is that you've effectively doubled the work your gcard has to do to render AA for your screen. As mentioned above, dropping your AA to 8xS or lower should greatly improve your fps. 16xS at that res is simply too much for your gcard to handle.

[itlnstallion818 0]

i have traffic off to begin with...i'll go back to the 182.50 driver and start tweaking...and i think i'll be looking for the gtx275, newegg is sold out though!

[Kosta 122]

i have traffic off to begin with...i'll go back to the 182.50 driver and start tweaking...and i think i'll be looking for the gtx275, newegg is sold out though!

I just read through the thread quickly, to give you my thoughts:For GTS 250, 16xS and 1920 res is WAY too much to handle (it's not really a good card for FSX).The thing with the 275 is that they are sold out and not being produced any more. I think Nvidia is creating a hole in the market, especially because Fermi is arriving soon. Should maybe wait for that, if you can. If not try to obtain the GTX 275 or 285. Both are great cards for FSX and do those 1920pixels very well.16xS is still an overkill for every card today. You shouldn't really be running more than 8xS, my GTX285 drops FPS very quickly with 16xS even in FS9, and picture quality isn't THAT much better.

[TheFamilyMan 279]

i have traffic off to begin with...i'll go back to the 182.50 driver and start tweaking...and i think i'll be looking for the gtx275, newegg is sold out though!

If you are desparate for a gtx 275, tigerdirect has a BFG OC model in stock. One nice thing about BFG is they have a limited time trade-in program for new cards so if those fermi based cards come out in time...(though I have a feeling they initially will be VERY pricey and hard to find, given nvidia's track record).

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

For GTS 250, 16xS and 1920 res is WAY too much to handle (it's not really a good card for FSX).

Opposite here. I just upgraded from an 8800GTS 512 to a GTS 250 OC 1GB card a few months ago based on a recommendation from Michael at FS-GS and am running it on a 23'' screen at 1920x1080, however I use Combined 8xs. Overall the combination of that card with my 23" screen gives me great performance with little to no shimmering. There are a few versions of the GTS 250, however the version I have for the money is a great card. A 275 or a 285 maybe slightly better, but without testing them head to head on the same install, its hard to say how much better the performance on the other cards maybe when compared to the price difference.

[Tabs 2,790]

Consider this:1366x768 = 1049088 pixels1920x1080 = 2073600 pixelsThe simple answer is that you've effectively doubled the work your gcard has to do to render AA for your screen. As mentioned above, dropping your AA to 8xS or lower should greatly improve your fps. 16xS at that res is simply too much for your gcard to handle.

This is the answer right here. Supersampling AA (which is a part of what the "xS" modes do) effectively has to render the entire onscreen image at twice or more the original resolution it's being displayed in. That's how it creates the pixel "map" it uses to produce the AA effect. At 1920X1200 you're simply asking your video card to render images that are far too high a resolution for it to do. 8XS should be doable though, that's "2X1" supersampling, which renders the internal pixel map image at twice the horizontal resolution, but the same vertical resolution. The card then combines this with normal 4X multisample AA, which takes almost no GPU power on a modern card to do. 16XS is 2X2 supersampling (twice the resolution in both the horizontal and vertical for the internal AA map image) combined with 4X multisample AA. That's just too high for a single card to handle. It's rendering everything at 3840X2400 internally - that's almost a billion pixels for every frame. 8xS is less than half the work for the card.Doing really high AA levels at high screen resolutions like this is actually the only thing a dual-video card rig is good for in FSX - it's all based on GPU calculations, so you actually can run these high levels that way.This page on the nHancer site shows you what all the AA modes do to the same image from Half-Life 2 - there's not much visible difference at all between 8xS and 16xS. The high resolution you're running will make the difference even less between them - try out 4xS too, you may find that looks no different as well at this resolution.http://www.nhancer.com/help/AASamples.htmAF has no role in this - 16X AF doesn't cause any kind of an FPS hit on modern cards.

[itlnstallion818 0]

rather than taking this to the hardware forum, quick question.... if i came across another 250 GTS for cheap, would it be advantageous to SLI them? i know FSX doesnt do well when SLI is used, but how about in my case? would i be able to use high AA/ AF?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

rather than taking this to the hardware forum, quick question.... if i came across another 250 GTS for cheap, would it be advantageous to SLI them? i know FSX doesnt do well when SLI is used, but how about in my case? would i be able to use high AA/ AF?

I'd suggest you DO take this to the hardware forum.. that is where it belongs.My educated guess: Highly unlikely that SLI 250s will unclog the bottleneck..In my experience, it is the connection points between components where the bottleneckoften develops.. CPU to memory, memory to video card.. etc.