Um - not sure how that smiley showed up...was supposed to be eighty...LOL

Um - not sure how that smiley showed up...was supposed to be eighty...LOL

Should of been a frownie. :(

FSX is very adaptable, flight model wise, so what core do you speak of.

...and in every other dimension!!

Mainly the inefficient coding and overall instability which lends it a sluggish, disconnected feeling even on modern hardware. The latest version XP10, in comparison, runs like a well oiled machine.

Really? This is the biggest myth of all of them!! To put it in perspective, my system is what would be considered a modest system by today'sw standard. (3.0Ghz (No Over clock) E6850, 4GB, GTX 460) So the difference is much more noticable. First X-Plane 10 with the following settings using the default Cessna 172SP sitting on runway 16L KSEA with 20AI arcraft. Visibility 100nm and clear skies.Wow 8FPS and where's Mount Raineer???Now FSX withg 100% UT2 Airline Traffic, the Default C-172SP at the same location with these settingsOh, there's Mount Raineer!!...and while we're at it, here's a cockpit shot of a complex model the PMDG 737NGX. Even with that FSX with greater scenery detail gets better performance, then XP10 default.Even Mathis from Aerosoft which were planning a Flight Sim of their own, couldn't find a Engine that could do what the FSX/ESP engine does, XP10's obviously can't!! So much for the FSX engine is inefficient myth!!

Guys, you need to get down from "extreme res". You can win massively on all other settings if that is lower. I'd recommend "very high /compressed" and "high uncompressed". This settings defines how much VRAM is used and has to be worked with in the first place.

Guys, you need to get down from "extreme res". You can win massively on all other settings if that is lower. I'd recommend "very high /compressed" and "high uncompressed". This settings defines how much VRAM is used and has to be worked with in the first place.

I'm showing FSX highest res to XP10's Highest, which should be comparable.

that's your decision: you either…a. compare two sims for the sake of comparing two sims; orb. you try to get the best out of each sim.

that's your decision: you either…a. compare two sims for the sake of comparing two sims; orb. you try to get the best out of each sim.

Ok I tried reducing texture res to Normal (Yes I dd restart) not much difference!!Also I normally don't use these settings for either XP10 or FSX. For XP10 I usually use default, and FSX the only difference is Autogen is set to Dense. I just set them higher to challenge Mountain Man's claim!!

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by tf51d

ok. next most bad thing is: world detail distance. (how far out you see objects). Bring that one down to "medium". In combination with the lower res you should now see a real boost. tell me how it goes.

I'm showing FSX highest res to XP10's Highest, which should be comparable.

Why should they be comparable? Look at how much Vram your using in X Plane 10 your 460 is being overtaxed there. unless you have 2 GB of VRam. if you cut down the world detail distance to low, it will improve your fps immensely and at the dame time give you about the same amount of detail you get in the real world. I suspect though you are probably one of those that think you should be able to see at least 129 miles if not more. Cut down on your roads a little will make a huge difference too. Chances are you won't do any of those things, as your real agenda is to pretend that FSX is the better sim. It may or may not be, To most of us, it doesn't really matter, most everybody here uses both sims, or perhaps all of the sims. Lets compare everything else to Falcon 4, that is about the same as you all are doing here.Below is a screenshot of a rendering screen on a 3.0 Ghz system with a GTX 560 that gives me upwards of close to 30fps at KSEA Seattle. and 40 fps where I fly the most KPWA

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by wb5okj

calm down, wb5okj. He is not on an agenda. Let's just try and help him find the best settings for his sys.

Why should they be comparable? Look at how much Vram your using in X Plane 10 your 460 is being overtaxed there. unless you have 2 GB of VRam. if you cut down the world detail distance to low, it will improve your fps immensely and at the dame time give you about the same amount of detail you get in the real world. I suspect though you are probably one of those that think you should be able to see at least 129 miles if not more. Cut down on your roads a little will make a huge difference too. Chances are you won't do any of those things, as your real agenda is to pretend that FSX is the better sim. It may or may not be, To most of us, it doesn't really matter, most everybody here uses both sims, or perhaps all of the sims. Lets compare everything else to Falcon 4, that is about the same as you all are doing here.Below is a screenshot of a rendering screen on a 3.0 Ghz system with a GTX 560 that gives me upwards of close to 30fps at KSEA Seattle. and 40 fps where I fly the most KPWA

Mountain Man's claim, is XP10 engine is more efficient then FSX/ESP's, and you want to reduce rendering even further in XP10, or use a higher VRAM card? ( The GTX460 is already 1GB, which should be more than enough) That's what you call efficient?? If I reduced FSX levels to those levels I'd get even higher performance, and still display greater detail!!

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by tf51d

Ok, if that is really what he wants. Over and over there have been posts about how to start at minimums and work yourself up, I usually don't react to posts, but it is getting to be riduculous.If what I said above is incorrect Tom I apoligize for coming on too strong.Actually who cares or why should we care who or what is more efficient, it seems to me in the end we want a sim that will do what we want it too.

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by wb5okj

Mountain Man's claim, is XP10 engine is more efficient then FSX/ESP's, and you want to reduce rendering even further in XP10, or use a higher VRAM card? ( The GTX460 is already 1GB, which should be more than enough) That's what you call efficient?? If I reduced FSX levels to those levels I'd get even higher performance, and still display greater detail!!

As I tried to say before: Let go of the comparison. It is not about Service Pack 3 for FSX, this is a completely different sim. Accept it. And now try to lower that world detail distance as suggested ("medium"), and please report.

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 your 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.GlenEdit: The only difference is Tom is using Nvidia and I'm using ATI. I switched to full screen just to be exactly the same, made no difference.

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by Muskoka