Noel, here's something for you to shoot against.

 

We would have to really, I mean really nail down the exact conditions for this to have much validity. I don't currently have FSDT's JFK for starters! How about standard KSEA with ORBX FTX PNW scenery? I have the NGX...

 

I have the PMDG 747 for FSX, and this is where my problems start.

 

exactly. the pmdg 747 is a classic, but it's quite a frame hog. their newer planes are much faster in the fps department.

 

cheers

-andy crosby

We would have to really, I mean really nail down the exact conditions for this to have much validity.

 

It's just a few screen shots, not a UFO sighting, lol.

 

Trust me Noel, there's no hidden tricks here, screen shots don't lie (valid as you can get) and weren't meant to stir controversy, just meant as something as I put it "to shoot against" meaning something you could use to compare since we have older rigs. Granted if you dont own the same scenery then its a moot point, however JFK is notoriously known as a pretty fps hungry area (especially with 100% AI) hence the reason I figured a good area for a test shot.

 

If I get a chance I could try the ORBX PNW, but I would need to download the latest patch and libraries to get it up to date which I haven't done due to not using it anymore plus probably defrag. I could do another area from a scenery in my sig besides PNW if you wish.

How about standard KSEA with ORBX FTX PNW scenery? I have the NGX..

 

Ok, what the heck. I wasn't going to do it without first downloading the latest SP and library, just to make sure I was up to date, but here it is with the prior update and one of last years libraries and the NGX. Day and night included and I even did it with a the Major Thunderstorm theme for kicks and ENB turned on, plus a night shot with lights.

 

Still get a respectable ~23 FPS with 100% AI and a storm and the NGX. Of course with less traffic and clearer weather the FPS go up a notch, but still very smooth. With a g/a plane the FPS are 30+ FPS, but the NGX with all that traffic brings in down a bit.

 

 

Trust me Noel, there's no hidden tricks here, screen shots don't lie ... I could do another area from a scenery in my sig besides PNW if you wish.

 

I would agree screen shots [of what you are actually running] don't lie, but comparing situations in FSX is spurious until you match them 100% exactly the same. I've learned from many years you can't trust these comparisons whatsoever unless they are not only apples to apples, but freshly picked Fujis v freshly picked Fujis!

 

I've got fabulous performance in line w/ my hardware I'm quite sure having been around here forever and seen how machines run w/ various specs, generally. If you want to just for fun try a real comparison let's lay down the exact conditions and see what happens.

I'm afraid it's Gravensteins versus Gala, or maybe even Gala v Bartlett! I don't know what your autogen is set it, but it appears to be rather sparsely populated w/ 3D buildings. Secondarily, you are pushing 1,440,000 pixels and I'm at 2,304,000, which is well, a whopping difference. Not sure what changing my resolution to a non-native mode will do for a comparison. We also must nail down cloud resolution, terrain density, 3D driver settings for type of AA/AF, etc ad nauseum. As I say, comparisons verge on meaningless w/o really striving to match the comparators.

I'm afraid it's Gravensteins versus Gala, or maybe even Gala v Bartlett! I don't know what your autogen is set it, but it appears to be rather sparsely populated w/ 3D buildings. Secondarily, you are pushing 1,440,000 pixels and I'm at 2,304,000, which is well, a whopping difference. Not sure what changing my resolution to a non-native mode will do for a comparison. We also must nail down cloud resolution, terrain density, 3D driver settings for type of AA/AF, etc ad nauseum. As I say, comparisons verge on meaningless w/o really striving to match the comparators.

 

Noel...if you could give us a clue on how you get such performance on a dual core machine..that would be fabulous :)

Noel...if you could give us a clue on how you get such performance on a dual core machine..that would be fabulous :)

 

I think you must be referring to cmpbellsjc who posted the frame rates and pics and has a dual core machine. I think the reason is there are compromises somewhere: his screen resolution, cloud bit depth, autogen density, etc etc...etc. All in all, despite the difficulties inherent in comparing 'performance' in FSX, in the end I think it's all pretty predictable, with the caveat that there are multitudes of red herrings and other **aries that keep us all guessing/hopeful we will find magic bullets. As I say though, overall, it seems fairly predictable, i.e. you can trace stated performance to the specific set of variables involved.

Update: Now using a FPS limiter I am getting a steady 30 fps at my home airport, Auckland International. However, at an airport such as LFPG or VHHX it dips to 15 fps or so..