Will this increase NGX performance

[Jetman67 335]

Hi All If I move Radar Contact 4.3, Active Sky Evolution , and fscommander to another PC using wide FS will it help at all with the performance on the PMDG 737NGX, I am thinking probably not as I have a current system running Win7 64 Bit with 16 GIGS ram, i dont want to waste my time if there is nothing to really be gained, advice appreciated thanks

[Glynn 403]

HelloIt is very much worth it both from the performance point of view and what to me is the main benefit, having FScommander running on another screen which is a great benefit whilst navigating around airports using Radar contact.I have these programs running on a laptop it makes reading charts and aircraft tutorials much easier, I now have all of my charts, aircraft manuals ect on the laptop, no more printing out and ringbinders to worry about.ASE will run using simconnect, RC and FScommander will need WideFS.Go for it, its well worth it.

[JetNoise 0]

Hiwhat about FsInn, worth the hazle to put it on a second pc/ laptop. Right now my laptop is running anyway for resding charts (nDac) and displaying online traffic ( dolomynum)Oliver

[rrasfly2 0]

if you want to get a lot of performance back then switch to 16 bit colors. you wont notice anything but a better fps rate. and all you have to do is go into your FSX settings, advance, and look around in the list of numbers till you find your screen size and it should end with x16 . not x32. it will give you so much better frs. Robert Shedd

[martin-w 1,268]

Hmm... well, thats something I haven't tried before. Thanks Robert.

[JetNoise 0]

Yapp, i will try as well and report the result. thanksoliver

[William J.S.S 173]

Really? There is no drawback to using 16bit colors? What is the difference berween using 32 or 16 then?

[Chock 12,392]

The difference is in colour range, so there is a drawback, but not so as most people would notice. 16 and 32 Bit will give you a wider range of colours than 8 Bit (the Bit Depth essentially being the gamut range of how many colours each pixel could potentially be and how well such colours could be dithered, depending on the interpolation method used). The advantage is that with a smaller palette that a lower Bit Depth confers, calculations are less intense for moving images where the pixels have to change colours. Higher screen Bit Depths can offer superior dithering in some cases too (assuming you have a decent monitor and graphics card which will display the difference well enough), but as anyone who knows Photoshop will confirm, even the vast majority of Photoshop's filters only work in 8 Bit depth on RGB (and that's the industry standard high end image editing package!). So if 8 Bit RGB is good enough for editing most print artwork before converting it to CMYK for print output, where such artwork is most often output to film or plate at 300dpi (i.e almost four times the typical PC monitor resolution), then with screen resolution being at most being 96dpi (and more typically 72dpi), that tells you all you need to know. Or to put it simply: most people probably wouldn't spot a huge difference when we are talking about a palette range of 16 million colours if that palette range dropped to a ''mere'' 8 million colours LOL, when even a 256 colour palette range can display stuff reasonably well. The difference in Bit Depth would probably be noticeable on high definition monitors if comparing things side-by-side, and to come back to Photoshop, because that is so, at some point Adobe are going to have to get their asses into gear and make PS filters work on 16 and 32 Bit as HD monitors become more the norm now we are in the realms of Blu-Ray world, digital video for film production and such, but up until now they still only have 8 Bit filters even on the 64 Bit version of Photoshop for the most part, and if its good enough for them at present, then it's probably good enough for our toy aeroplanes. The computer industry makes money off selling hardware with bigger numbers, so the perception for Joe Blow is of course that 16 Bit must be twice as good as 8 Bit and 64 Bit must be twice as good as 32 Bit, but it is a 'squared value' rather than a doubled value when Bit Depth increases as far as shifting colours about on screen is concerned, which tells you why the calculations can be considerably tougher for higher Bit Depths. Al

[William J.S.S 173]

if you want to get a lot of performance back then switch to 16 bit colors. you wont notice anything but a better fps rate. and all you have to do is go into your FSX settings, advance, and look around in the list of numbers till you find your screen size and it should end with x16 . not x32. it will give you so much better frs. Robert Shedd

Ok....lol...having wiki open when I read your post, I understood about 50%....But I will digest it more. Love learning.Above what I quoted, sorry for being dense, but He is talking about the screen resolution settings right? The little scroll menu that you pick what fits your monitor? Or am I going to have to go into the cfg. file.... Thanks again.

[Chock 12,392]

Read this wiki page and it will explain why reducing the Bit Depth will speed things up: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Color_depth Basically, your computer will have less work to do. Al

[William J.S.S 173]

LOL!That is what I was looking at also. Your the man, thanks for enlightening me a little more on this subject. Going by this "In 16-bit direct color, there can be 4 bits (16 possible levels) for each of the R, G, and B components, plus optionally 4 bits for alpha (transparency), enabling 4,096 (16 × 16 × 16) different colors with 16 levels of transparency" Wouldn't having all your settings when on 32bit, but running the Highest TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD possible, 4096, not really matter? So I would, if you wanted to keep everything even run 16bit, even at 4096, and not even notice a real difference, but still gain maybe a couple fps..where i need it the most? Or am I reading it all wrong....It all basically comes down to this with me....I love the simulation.....I could care a little less about the wide range spectrum of detail to the last drop....I love a complex addon, and as a secondary, would like it to look good. I am only really concerned with my aircraft looking the best to be honest....I want no jaggies, and no blur....the scenery is coming in at last place with me, as I fly at FL300 +....so ya....apart from landing, I could really care less. Good performance, and a detailed aircraft is what consumes my google searches..... Am I right about that Bit setting being in the control panel inside FSX, the monitor resolution?Would I also have to change the setting through my desktop? Or would the sim automatically make the change for me when I boot up the game.

[rrasfly2 0]

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=JVNqsYxVHLIThis shows you all you have to do. Its easy.Robert Shedd

[William J.S.S 173]

Sorry, that link only shows a couple music type videos for me.

[Richard Sennett 1,970]

tried 16x vs 32x fps were worse in 16x you might want to check your fps for each setting to be sure which works for your system best.

[--Randy-- 5]

This idea of dropping 32 bit color to 16 bit sounded like it was worth a shot to me....so I gave it a try. Loaded up in Seattle where I always get a FPS hit. I noticed None to maybe 1 or 2 fps difference. I was getting 16fps with 32 bit and 16 to 17fps with 16 bit......so I am disappointed to say the least. Sounded good to me though. I am going to leave it at 16 bit for a while just to see if I notice any difference anywhere else.