Simmerhead: but if I tried that on FSX it also would shudder to a crawl.I would really like to know at what settings you would judge P3D and FSX to be running smoothly. Possibly by holding traffic settings at some mid point, or lower, and then playing with the Complexity and autogen sliders.

Just some thoughts I had when I read the dismal results from both sims:The problem with running FSX without certain fixes and performance adjustments is that it does not take advantage of the knowledge that provides the much better performance we have gained over the years. When I (rather loosely) tested P3D I had the same performance enhancement using the same cfg and other adjustments. As long as both FSX and P3D had the benefit of having the same improvements it would be a fair and meaningful comparison.Having such low frames like 8 and 9 FPS, even under those demanding settings shows the futility of trying to run either sim "out of the box". It would seem to me that running the FSXMARK11 Benchmark test using high performance overclocked machines with the exact same parameters specified would yield interesting findings.http://forum.avsim.n...9116-fsxmark11/Kind regards,

Simmerhead: but if I tried that on FSX it also would shudder to a crawl.I would really like to know at what settings you would judge P3D and FSX to be running smoothly. Possibly by holding traffic settings at some mid point, or lower, and then playing with the Complexity and autogen sliders.

I have run the same test three times on BOTH FSX and P3D. It is a comparative test to see if one performs better and more stable than the other.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, Simmerhead, it's just that I am at the moment I am getting in my small opinion better performance out of P3D but not a lot more.But surely P3D has the potential to improve, FSX does not because it is metaphorically 'locked'.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, Simmerhead, it's just that I am at the moment I am getting in my small opinion better performance out of P3D but not a lot more.But surely P3D has the potential to improve, FSX does not because it is metaphorically 'locked'.

Yep, I heard that many got better performance out of P3D so I had to test it for myself on my own computer and I had no such luck I'm afraid...

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by simmerhead

Just some thoughts I had when I read the dismal results from both sims:The problem with running FSX without certain fixes and performance adjustments is that it does not take advantage of the knowledge that provides the much better performance we have gained over the years. When I (rather loosely) tested P3D I had the same performance enhancement using the same cfg and other adjustments. As long as both FSX and P3D had the benefit of having the same improvements it would be a fair and meaningful comparison.Having such low frames like 8 and 9 FPS, even under those demanding settings shows the futility of trying to run either sim "out of the box". It would seem to me that running the FSXMARK11 Benchmark test using high performance overclocked machines with the exact same parameters specified would yield interesting findings.

I'm not sure I would interpret the results as being dismal. This is a stresstest, not a test on optimizing performance. I wouldn't fly with all settings maxed out as that isn't very realistic, especially in terms of AI traffic.As for "out of the box" many knowledgable individuals like John Venema, Mathijs Kok and Nick N has a "less is more" approach to cfg tweaks and the effect of tweaks seem to vary greatly between different hardware setups.I was in a unique position to test the simulators on a brand new computer with a fresh Windows 7 install and fresh installs of both FSX and P3D. If you have tips for another test I'd be hyppy to try it before I clutter Windows and the sims with addons and get back to my normal flying. Again, I'm not looking for optimal performance, but comparing the two as fairly as possible.

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by simmerhead

I'm not sure I would interpret the results as being dismal. This is a stresstest, not a test on optimizing performance. I wouldn't fly with all settings maxed out as that isn't very realistic, especially in terms of AI traffic.As for "out of the box" many knowledgable individuals like John Venema, Mathijs Kok and Nick N has a "less is more" approach to cfg tweaks and the effect of tweaks seem to vary greatly between different hardware setups.I was in a unique position to test the simulators on a brand new computer with a fresh Windows 7 install and fresh installs of both FSX and P3D. If you have tips for another test I'd be hyppy to try it before I clutter Windows and the sims with addons and get back to my normal flying. Again, I'm not looking for optimal performance, but comparing the two as fairly as possible.

Hi Simmerhead,Yes, but there are a number of other prominent voices clearly heard above the noise, not just the 3 you mentioned. BTW, of those 3, only Nick's makes much sense, and he has a few things wrong too, like we all do. As I said, I recommend you run both simulations in the test program already developed in the AVSIM hardware section called FSXMark11. You could do it in both standard and an overclocked state to really demonstrate the differences under very high, but realistic settings and conditions. The real clincher is that the results could be compared with those of other systems as well.http://forum.avsim.n...9116-fsxmark11/Kind regards,

I'll see what my schedule permits Stephen!

It is what it isn't. Its still a high priced FSX and maybe not even that! No one believes the proofs in the pudding? For us who would try it for an increase in performance this is very good to know. Saved us alot of time and money . Thank you for the test.

I'll see what my schedule permits Stephen!

Thank you Sir. I look forward to the results.Kind regards,

Here are the numbers. Each of the five different benchmark flights have been done three times, so each waypoint fps number is an average of three flights. I've done some editing to the original benchamark flight to reduce it from 25 to 15 minutes. There really wasn't any difference in performance when doing a longer flight at the same waypoints, so why waste more time than neccesary...The high settings will be explained in the full article, but basically it is how I like to fly to make the sim look as realistic as possible. AI traffic is reduced to "realistic levels", bloom and lensflare is disabled, self shadowing, cockpit tooltips and autoigen shadows disabled, and water settings are lowered to Low 2x, autogen is reduced to very high and cloud range reduced to 90 mi. The average fps are quite good at these settings so there would be no problem increasing both autogen to extreme and traffic levels a bit higher and still run comfortably. The New York area is by far the busiest I've found in FSX and perfect for benchmarking. As we all know, water settings and bloom combined is the real performance killer! The i7 2700K doesn't struggle with max autogen.

Edited February 22, 201214 yr by simmerhead

Something I noticed in P3D is that I am getting stutters even though fps are locked to 30 in the Nvidia Inspector...(i7 2700K @ 4.3 Ghz - GTX 580)

No serious stutters in either P3D and FSX with normal settings on my computer. I had some stutters in P3D when flying around Babb, Montana, with fps unlocked. Locking them down solved the problem. I don't use NVidia Inspector so I can't help you there.

The full article is now published on my blog.

Thanks for that Simmerhead. It accords with my untutored impression - that there is very little between them at this stage.The critical issue is that P3D as the successor to FSX has a potential to improve on most of the bugs and limitations in the original.It is now wait and see.