Worth upgrading from maxed out FSX?

[tf51d 284]

Hi Tom,I tried to duplicate you settings and location as best I could. You'll notice something odd in the screen shot with respect to the total size of textures used. I'm running at a higher resolution, but his texture usage is 50% more, why. Anyways, I'm getting 34fps at these settings. If you have a good enough system, it will run fine. Just posted for comparison.Glen

True, but the same goes for FSX! If I had a I7 2600K @ 4.8Ghz, I'd be getting 60+FPS, and probably close to 30 with the NGX!! Edited January 23, 2012 by tf51d

[Muskoka 104]

Tom, I know, I thought you might be interested in what it can do, that's all. I'm still curious why your texture usage is so much higer than mine? Maybe that's why my clouds look like poo at high altitudes, is texture loading different between Nvidia and ATI??GlenEdit: Tom's system 1357.75 meg of textures. My system 827.40 meg, at the exact same settings, other than my higher resoloution. Someone in the know, please explain.Edit2: Or is this related to the ATI bug / problems we keep hearing about??

Edited January 23, 2012 by Muskoka

[woweezowee 10]

AI planes?

[Tom Wright 438]

I think his texture usage is higher because he does not have the 'Compress Textures' checked, whereas you do.I must admit I had a bit of a 'wow' moment playing around with the latest demo in the Pacific North West area in real weather a few minutes ago. The clouds are stunning, if very taxing on performance (lowest I saw was 20fps when flying through a cloud). The scenery from altitude in that area looks pretty nice too.Now i've given it a chance, I will admit i'm quite taken with it personally. Performance does take a bit of tweaking but you soon learn what affects FPS the worst (for me it was cars and clouds). The graphics, particularly the shadows and the HDR effects, really can look quite wonderful.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Tom Wright

[wb5okj 26]

Here is the default C172 at KSEA rnwy 16L on a 3.0 Ghz machine no overclocking

[Muskoka 104]

I think his texture usage is higher because he does not have the 'Compress Textures' checked, whereas you do.

Yes he does, your looking at the wrong screen shot, the one you looked at is not Toms.I set my system to the max you can in the Rendering options, still only 1133.25 meg of textures used, fps at 17.33. Something is defininetly wrong or odd with respect to Nvidia vs ATI.GlenEdit: Donald your settings are nowhere near as high as that last shot of mine, yet even your texture usage is higher. Something is strange. Edited January 23, 2012 by Muskoka

[Tom Wright 438]

Do you use Inspector for setting AA?

[Muskoka 104]

Do you use Inspector for setting AA?

Are you talking too me.... :smile:If you are, I'm using a ATI video card, no Inspector here, that's for those Nvidia boys / gals. Although I see myself jumping to the other side fairly soon. Well not jumping over too, going back where I used to be, the happy land of Nvidia, cause at the moment, me and Mr. 6970 are not getting along.GlenEdit. I should add though, I don't set the AA or AF at the driver level in the Catalyst Control Panel. I let Xplane take care of it. Have tried both ways, really didn't make a difference. It did in Linux though, I'll leave that for another post. Edited January 23, 2012 by Muskoka

[JasonD210 0]

My opinion is that no matter how you dress up FSX, it's still fairly flawed at the core, which is the part that really matters as far as I'm concerned

Fatally flawed? Please explain. I and many others are having many excellent hours flying the PMDG NGX and A2A's excellent accumsimmed vintage aircraft, not to mention the concorde X. Add to that ASE, REX, UTX, and a few airport add-ons, plus Norway and Antartica scenery, and you have a marvellous sim! It's very easy to develop on. Unfortunately X-plane is not so easy.X-plane is an excellent simulator but it could do with a few more on the development team I think. It's admirable that Austin is developing it on a non-windows platform, but the simulator remains too idiosyncratic for my liking, in particulary the interface. Perhaps it's better that way - nerdy, I mean :-)

[wb5okj 26]

Yes he does, your looking at the wrong screen shot, the one you looked at is not Toms.I set my system to the max you can in the Rendering options, still only 1133.25 meg of textures used, fps at 17.33. Something is defininetly wrong or odd with respect to Nvidia vs ATI.GlenEdit: Donald your settings are nowhere near as high as that last shot of mine, yet even your texture usage is higher. Something is strange.

Glen my GTX 560 has 2GB of Vram, so I don't have to compress the textures. I always use uncompressed extreme resolution. I'll turn other things down if I have to. I like to keep over 30 fps but that is in th areas I usually fly at home so is not so demanding. If I fly at a demanding airport, I am good with 25fps.The 560 card will use up to 98% of the VRam on x-plane, and usually about 70% load. Edited January 23, 2012 by wb5okj

[Tom Wright 438]

Are you talking too me.... :(

Sorry I meant Donald (wb5okj)!! I noticed in the shot of his settings that he doesn't appear to have any AA set but in the shot it definitely looks like there is some level of AA!I have a 560 Ti so would be interested to know! Edited January 23, 2012 by Tom Wright

[wb5okj 26]

Sorry I meant Donald (wb5okj)!! I noticed in the shot of his settings that he doesn't appear to have any AA set but in the shot it definitely looks like there is some level of AA!

I don't use AA at all as a regular rule, and there was none in that shot. I cant tell that much difference in looks with oor without AA. Perhaps an unseen blessing of old eyes. :lol:I keep all AA of in Inspector and let the sim handle AA in case I happen to use it.

[Tom Wright 438]

I don't use AA at all as a regular rule, and there was none in that shot. I cant tell that much difference in looks with oor without AA. Perhaps an unseen blessing of old eyes. :lol:I keep all AA of in Inspector and let the sim handle AA in case I happen to use it.

That's interesting, thanks! I can see the difference on my set up when I run with no AA. Perhaps because i've used it for so long in FSX you get used to it and become less tolerant when it's switched off! Having your AA off though could be a reason why you're able to run with all those objects and maintain good performance, as AA is quite taxing on the GPU.

[tf51d 284]

I don't use AA at all as a regular rule, and there was none in that shot. I cant tell that much difference in looks with oor without AA. Perhaps an unseen blessing of old eyes. :lol:I keep all AA of in Inspector and let the sim handle AA in case I happen to use it.

That would probably explain the performance difference. I use 8Xs AA, and 16X AF Same as I do for FSX! Noted, the In Game AA and AF settings seem to be removed from the rendering options in the latest update. (Except for HDR AA)

[Muskoka 104]

the In Game AA and AF settings seem to be removed from the rendering options in the latest update. (Except for HDR AA)

Tom, are you talking about 10.03 rc2, I still have both AA and AF settings in my Rendering Options, over and above the HDR settings.Still like to here from someone in the loop about the difference in texture usage betwwen Nvidia and ATI. Maybe they don't really reflect much in the real world, just seems odd they can be that different with the same settings, on different video cards.Glen