"Personally I can fly at 15FPS and I find helicopters like the Dodosim to be perfectly controllable at 12FPS. It's all preferential I suppose"

 

You are crazy, sorry, I don´t want to be rude, and be banned forever, but the absurd nonsense I read here, time after time, makes me go:

 

80P

 

@OP: Aerosoft is famous for it´s awesome products, which at the same time performs totally un-acceptable!

 

Enjoy what you have bought, I never did it...

 

FSX is perfectly smooth starting at around 18 FPS so he's not that far off.

 

Throw everything you know from other games about FPS out the window with FSX. It's not working on the same sliding scale.

FSX is perfectly smooth starting at around 18 FPS so he's not that far off.

 

Throw everything you know from other games about FPS out the window with FSX. It's not working on the same sliding scale.

 

hey if you're happy with it, that's great. but 'perfectly smooth' for me means nothing less than locked at vsync! it absolutely is the same 'sliding scale' since it's not like my eyeballs or brain suddenly slow down just because i'm running FSX.

 

if i had to fly at 18fps i wouldn't bother flying at all. the only reason i live with the 30ish i get is because there's no alternative that is as feature rich or has such detailed 3rd party aircraft...

 

cheers,

-andy crosby

It's not about frames guys!

You can run fsx at 18 even less and have a perfectly smooth flying experience with no stutters at all with pmdg and addon scenery just like in my case.

 

 

 

David DD

Ok now I am confused.

 

Its not about frame rates.

Its about smooth no stutter flying.

 

So if a scenery add-on introduces not one, but both situations, then it is not properly rendered for your "average FSX Simmer" - yes?

What FPS lowest level of smooth flying is acceptable 15?, 18? 20? 25? 30? and would purchasing US CIties X take you down to the lower end?

 

I don't own any Aerosoft scenery, but I must say I have considered buying it but if there is a "significant" FPS impact I would certainly want to know.

 

So what is it please. Does Aerosoft US Cities X suffer from a noticeable frame rate drop, or just a "not-unreasonable" one? I really like the style of the cities and layouts - they look almost real from the images but if they are going to have a noticeable impact on my FPS then I would probably not purchase them. I do fly complex tubeliners like the PMDG models so if you toss in a frame hitting city then this might well take down the FPS to something that is just not acceptable.

 

Obviously your answer depends a lot on your computer makeup and graphics card, but for "averaging sake" if all computers regardless of their makeup get an impacted loss of FPS from Aerosoft US Cities X then surely we can state that here - and any solutions a users has found to tolerate both the scenery and the aircraft without suffering big drops in FPS.

 

Ray

 

My System

Quad i5 750 2.6 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz, EVGA GT460 1 Gb ram, 8 Gigs 1600 Ram,using graphics drivers 301.42 tweaked with NvIdiainspector 1.9.6.5

It is about smoothness and not frames. A very common FPS to lock the sim at is 30fps. That's where I have it. I don't really notice problems until I get below 15 or so but then again, I don't look at the FPS counter. If you want it locked at 60, I highly doubt you are going to find a rig that will perform like that unless you want to fly stock FSX. Maybe some of the newest systems come come close but I have read enough posts by people with state of the art rigs reporting problems when the throw a lot at their systems. Try all sliders right, 100% UT2 traffic with WofAI supplements, ORBX scenery, the NGX, 4096 clouds with ASE and the NGX and I doubt you will be getting 60 FPS.

 

LAS has night lighting. It does the trick for me but it is hard on the FPS - I had to dial down some of the settings (I think it was custom autogen). I also have Detroit and Buffalo. Like most of their products, they don't have night lighting or seasonal textures.

duckbilled...what i was getting at is that "stuttering" is low frame rate by definition (often including wide variation in frametime from one to the next)

 

but like i said, hey if folks are happy that's cool with me.... and you're right that no rig can do 60fps quite yet at least not with heavy mods. my original point is that the other posters statement that an average framerate of 20 is somehow 'perfectly smooth' is a misnomer.... 'smooth enough' might be a more accurate description.

 

again i'm not talking about subjective 'smoothness' here but the actual fundamental math of what it means to be smooth.

 

to get back to the original topic since this has been a total threadjack!!:

 

ray hughes, i have niagara, detroit, chicago and cleveland. the frame hit wasn't really noticeable with light GA aircraft. chicago does feel a bit slow when i land there in the pmdg ngx. overall if you have an area that you're interested in particular they are probably worth it for some GA sightseeing. beyond that their value may be limitied if you are flying tubeliners, the coverage areas look pretty small from 30,000+ feet.

 

i mostly got those areas because i do a lot of ga flying around the great lakes since i'm from detroit area originally..but i'm probably gonna skip most of the other cities...

 

they are fairly inexpensive it might be worth just picking one and trying it yourself.

 

cheers

-andy crosby

 

and duckbilled.. high five dude.. go lions

Think about buy US Cities X San Francisco, are there still no night time textures for this(or any other Cities X product)? If so, is the whole city black at night then? What does night time look like?

 

Also, is the performance hit truly heavy or no worse than a well done detailed airport?