Harvey (S43) seem to a smaller airport but sure as hell my machine take a nose dive whenever I got to Harvey. It seem this "little" airport really has some stuff that is bringing my machine to a grinding halt.. I have a a middle class machine.

 

To be able to land without a slide show at Harvey, I really have to deselect ALL stuff from Harvey and still harvey is only in the low 10's.

 

Anyone else notice that Harvey is quite heavy on FPS..!!

It's by far the worst performing scenery I have and as much as I would like to add Monroe it would be pointless as it would make the whole area a no fly zone. I installed it, found it impossible, went back to FTX Central and trurned everything right down to the bare minimum and tried again but it was still pretty awful. Haven't been back since.

I can get better FPS from UK2000 and FSDream teams huge airports than a small Orbx GA.

 

The detail is amazing, Orbx developers are the best but if an airport give to low fps it becomes a complete waste of time no matter how good it looks.

 

I don't have Harvey but the last few orbx airports I bought the fps where going lower each time.

 

As a matter of fact I am re thinking FSX, ATM I am thinking FSX for 737NGX and P3D if they sort it out and for Slow and Low that is more about eye candy and that is what Orbx is about, stopping and going to MS flight as it progresses. The eye candy there is stunning and there new patch with the kiddy options turn of for how the planes fly is not so bad believe me.

Have a look here and there is tons of fps here.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/368784-fog/

A couple of us have experienced the same thing. Although flying from S43 is problem free, (don't know about frames, but it's smooth) flying to S43 can cause a bit of a slow down. Not enough to make landing difficult, but enough to remind you you're not really flying!

Yup, you have to shut off the flow stuff, reduce the grass particularly, maybe notch back your autogen to dense from very dense. I think they are trying to put too much stuff into their airports, they tend to be a work of love and art but they are no good if you do not get average of greater then 16 frames per second.

Israels's Farm (WA56) hits me far more than nearby but much denser and detailed Concrete (3W5). I wonder what causes this.

thanks guys, i thought maybe there is something wrong with my harvey install. At least I am then not the only one seeing a huge FPS drop flying into harvey

Harvey (S43) seem to a smaller airport but sure as hell my machine take a nose dive whenever I got to Harvey. It seem this "little" airport really has some stuff that is bringing my machine to a grinding halt.. I have a a middle class machine.

 

To be able to land without a slide show at Harvey, I really have to deselect ALL stuff from Harvey and still harvey is only in the low 10's.

 

Anyone else notice that Harvey is quite heavy on FPS..!!

FPS in the 20s and very smooth.

 

At night, lots of visibility, poles and UTX lighting on, some panel options checked off, but most are on.

North

South

I get about the same kind of frames as Jose. However, without doubt, Harvey is definitely a frame pincher. Sat at the end of the runway with most of the scenery options unticked I get about 23 with AG set at very dense, so not complete b******s but certainly not the kind of performance you'd expect at a small airfield. IMO Orbx, without doubt, produce the finest scenery available anywhere for FSX. However, they seem to be completely devoid of consideration for how their scenery will run, even on high end computers, and more interested in all the eye candy. I mean, some of their large AUS airports are absolutely superb, but just a complete joke. An example was only this week, a flight from Canberra down to Melbourne and I was getting a framerate ranging from about 14-17 on approach to the airport. This is virtually all the options unticked on the airport CP and running my AG at normal with fair weather! But as I said, they still make awesome sceneries.

But, Jose and Rockliffe looking at your machine specs (I5, I7 and overclocked) it is no wonder you getting in the 20's.. As I said I have very ancient machine (quadcore 2,6 Mhz bog standard). If I could get 20 Fps harvey, I would be in flightsim heaven..

 

Maybe time to do that upgrade

But, Jose and Rockliffe looking at your machine specs (I5, I7 and overclocked) it is no wonder you getting in the 20's.. As I said I have very ancient machine (quadcore 2,6 Mhz bog standard). If I could get 20 Fps harvey, I would be in flightsim heaven..

 

Maybe time to do that upgrade

Do the upgrade JB :Peace:

But, Jose and Rockliffe looking at your machine specs (I5, I7 and overclocked) it is no wonder you getting in the 20's.. As I said I have very ancient machine (quadcore 2,6 Mhz bog standard). If I could get 20 Fps harvey, I would be in flightsim heaven..

 

Maybe time to do that upgrade

It's a great time to upgrade. It's very affordable and you can take advantage of all the free help at avsim. You want FSX to run in the 20s and smooth.

 

I get about the same kind of frames as Jose. However, without doubt, Harvey is definitely a frame pincher. Sat at the end of the runway with most of the scenery options unticked I get about 23 with AG set at very dense, so not complete b******s but certainly not the kind of performance you'd expect at a small airfield. IMO Orbx, without doubt, produce the finest scenery available anywhere for FSX. However, they seem to be completely devoid of consideration for how their scenery will run, even on high end computers, and more interested in all the eye candy. I mean, some of their large AUS airports are absolutely superb, but just a complete joke. An example was only this week, a flight from Canberra down to Melbourne and I was getting a framerate ranging from about 14-17 on approach to the airport. This is virtually all the options unticked on the airport CP and running my AG at normal with fair weather! But as I said, they still make awesome sceneries.

The only airport that I can honestly say is a major problem is YBBN. It's beautiful, but I have to lower the settings on the CP & FSX or it's unusable.

 

FSX and I'll add ORBX add=ons require the fastest CPU/GPU combo + an SSD with all kinds of tweaking (FSX & Inspector Settings.) Since all systems are unique, the user should experiement to find the best setting for the type of flying they do.

as I said in another post maybe I am a sissy, but I would have done it long ago, was it not for the re-install that I dread, because after 4-5 years everything is just the way I want it and now to have to reinstall windows, FSX, and all my orbx stuff, not to mention my addon planes... O man I know I know I just have to do it..

 

and thanks I know I will get a lot of support from you guys. I saw a few people mention that you can just export FSX and copy it over into a new rig, but I need to read up a bit more, because that will be the perfect solution if I can do that.

Granted, it is daunting at first. But once you've stepped over the line a sense of calm descends and you bathe in the warm feeling of knowing that all that accumulated crap has gone. When it comes down to it, just save anything you know you'll want again. It also enables you(well, me anyway) to organise things properly.

About exporting and copying FSX to a new system: don't count on it. I once tried to simply MOVE FSX to another drive and even THAT didn;t work out well... I would advice to reinstall everything from scratch and (big timesaver!!!) only install what you actually use... That might help a lot already!

 

My personal and very subjective advice would be to uninstall FSX and then only install MS Flight, but well... that's taking things a bit too far, I guess. :P But boy, I am SO GLAD that all this 'help, it doesn't perform well' crap is all behind me! And as a bonus I have awesome looking graphics too. Sometimes life is good.