Hello,

 

I just had a minor upgrade and started to, for the first time, install FSX in my setup.

I'm running i5 2500K at stock speed since my mobo doesnt support OC, not just yet. And running 9800GT 1GB + Gskill 4GB 1600 RAM.

 

Had tens of hours reading all possible tweaks I could find in the net and avsim. Had my fsx.cfg tweaked automatically @ Bojote's. I'm using plain fsx with no addons and SP1+2 with no accel. The only addon is ASE which compatible with fs9/fsx (im a stubborn fs9er).

 

So at EGLL I got 45-62 FPS (set unlimited) using default plane, traffic is 50%, no GA traffic and boats, vehicles and leisure boats are less than 30%, mostly 20ish. Tried in less dense area I got ranging from 52-62. DX10 off, the rest of the sliders were adjusted based on Bojote's and some of them from Aerosoft site called "Why do get 50 fps and you get single digit fps?" thread.

 

So my question, how will I run, say, REX, GEX and NGX at most airports. If you think I will get acceptable FPS (locked 25-30?) I may start "overclocking" my credit card for those addons.

 

Forgive my ignorant and the dead horse topic. I just thought as time goes by more and more perspectives and tweaks might vary.

 

 

 

Cheers

So my question, how will I run, say, REX, GEX and NGX at most airports. If you think I will get acceptable FPS (locked 25-30?) I may start "overclocking" my credit card for those addons.

I'd say that there are a lot of folks out there running those addons with way less powerful systems. For instance, REX may not even have any impact on your fps since it most of all replaces the artwork of textures, not necessarily the fps impact they have. You could run it with some high settings like 2048 or 4096 on the textures, but perhaps just stay at the default FSX maximum of 1024 and enjoy the way better looks on the clouds, the skies and water. Also, the runways and things will be a lot better. You also get a weather engine, so there's nothing stopping you, so to speak.

 

GEX isn't a framerate killer at all and the NGX 'just' comes with the impact a detailed plane (and one with 'glass') will establish. But it would also allow to run lower res textures or slightly less fluent displays. However, I don't think your system will need that toned down stuff, just leave her at max.

 

When talking about GEX, perhaps think about UTX too. They match nicely in Europe for example.

 

The main impact may happen with some airports plus dense traffic. EGLL is nice from e.g. UK2000 and also allows for a detail adjustment in three steps, just in case. To conclude, I think your system can handle a lot while the only drawback may be the use of antialiasing on your current card and when in the clouds.

I'd say that there are a lot of folks out there running those addons with way less powerful systems. For instance, REX may not even have any impact on your fps since it most of all replaces the artwork of textures, not necessarily the fps impact they have. You could run it with some high settings like 2048 or 4096 on the textures, but perhaps just stay at the default FSX maximum of 1024 and enjoy the way better looks on the clouds, the skies and water. Also, the runways and things will be a lot better. You also get a weather engine, so there's nothing stopping you, so to speak.

 

That's what I heard. And I had good times with REX+FS9. It is glad knowing rex still has little impact in FSX in terms of FPS. I just started from a scratch, the default FSX ground texture is even better from fs9 with FSGlobal and GEPro.

 

GEX isn't a framerate killer at all and the NGX 'just' comes with the impact a detailed plane (and one with 'glass') will establish. But it would also allow to run lower res textures or slightly less fluent displays. However, I don't think your system will need that toned down stuff, just leave her at max.

 

Thanks for the tips. I am not a big fan of NGX really, but since some said it was a fps hog, I'd like to know how it will run. I don't expect much from FSX as my system is far from anything special, it's a solid setup but not a monster. I may buy realair SF and a couple of Carenado and if everything goes well, I'll think of PMDG 747 v2.

 

When talking about GEX, perhaps think about UTX too. They match nicely in Europe for example.

 

The main impact may happen with some airports plus dense traffic. EGLL is nice from e.g. UK2000 and also allows for a detail adjustment in three steps, just in case. To conclude, I think your system can handle a lot while the only drawback may be the use of antialiasing on your current card and when in the clouds.

 

Encouraging. Thanks again. I do apply some tweaks although most of them are 'try and see' tweaks. And one question, do you apply DX10? Bojote said it would eat FPS yet other said It might increase your FPS significantly.

 

You've been helpful. Thanks

 

 

 

Cheers

That DX10 thing is a bit of a mixed bag. It might enable some fps increase but may also cause some addons to go completely white or it needs a fix on e.g. the flickering runway textures. Some parts can be cured though. Well, if it does give you way more fps, it's worth a shot of course and also the efforts on tweaking around the bugs. Find some tweaks and fixes here. http://forum.avsim.n...imental-shader/

 

NGX fps hog. Yes and no. All glass in FSX causes a drop and since the system detail is very high too, it takes away some fps. But I'd say the PMDG folks did good and optimized it. For example, it runs better than my Maddog and only slightly slower than my iFly 737. The resource hunger is big though, so you may not want to add super high autogen settings or tweaks on the LOD radius unless you want FSX to run into a 'oom' situation when above nice addon scenery. I guess you've named it, 'try and see'.

 

Another addon plane of that kind would be the Concorde X in my eyes. Means on the resource appetite. On the tweaks, that Highmemfix is vital. Not only with the NGX.

 

On GA planes, me says that you can pick anything you like. There's no real fps hog around when compared to airliners. The G1000 renditions from Flight1 will eat some fps, some FS9 portovers may do too, but your CPU can handle that.

That DX10 thing is a bit of a mixed bag. It might enable some fps increase but may also cause some addons to go completely white or it needs a fix on e.g. the flickering runway textures. Some parts can be cured though. Well, if it does give you way more fps, it's worth a shot of course and also the efforts on tweaking around the bugs. Find some tweaks and fixes here. http://forum.avsim.n...imental-shader/

 

I'll do more readings about this .

 

NGX fps hog. Yes and no. All glass in FSX causes a drop and since the system detail is very high too, it takes away some fps. But I'd say the PMDG folks did good and optimized it. For example, it runs better than my Maddog and only slightly slower than my iFly 737. The resource hunger is big though, so you may not want to add super high autogen settings or tweaks on the LOD radius unless you want FSX to run into a 'oom' situation when above nice addon scenery. I guess you've named it, 'try and see'.

 

Another addon plane of that kind would be the Concorde X in my eyes. Means on the resource appetite. On the tweaks, that Highmemfix is vital. Not only with the NGX.

 

On GA planes, me says that you can pick anything you like. There's no real fps hog around when compared to airliners. The G1000 renditions from Flight1 will eat some fps, some FS9 portovers may do too, but your CPU can handle that.

 

yes I found highmemfix somewhere in my fsx cfg after being auto tuned by Bojote's. Based on your shed of preview, I'm gonna start with C340 II F, and see how everything works. I presume complex aircraft addons will reduce at least 10-20fps, so I should expect 25 locked, if it goes lower..well..

 

 

It'll be nice to view your PC specification too.

 

 

Cheers

I'm running an i7 at 4 and a GTX570 with Win7 64bits. The fps are locked at 30 and, so far, all the GA planes work nicely while the airliners taxi the system some more of course. I usually lower the autogen one notch on the airliner flying.

 

I'm also running REX-E, GEX, UTX and some weather from REX-E. I don't have any tweaks on the LOD radius or autogen density or something, so I'm pretty much at default levels when it comes to the sliders in FSX. The toughest situations in FSX surely happen around the major hubs while having plenty of AI planes parked or moving. But I'm ok and the framerates allow for some hand flown approaches, which is vital for me.

 

There would be some tricks one could pull if this wasn't the case. The AI addons allow for hotkeys to clear the approach (FSUIPC also offers such a thing) and some addon airports like Orbx or UK2000 offer a detail level variation. So if you would run into problems at those, you could e.g. reduce the amount of parked 3D cars. However, some spots run fine and in highest detail, not really needing that user tuning. FSDT comes to my mind, their later stuff just works as it should and looks beautiful. Older Aerosoft airports sometimes are a hog though. At least in my book.

Well, if you get into buying addon airports, perhaps check the forums on the fps impact if you are in doubt. As said, your CPU can handle a lot, while overclocking would surely offer more headroom.

 

What's your operating system by the way? 64 bits are recommended either way.

I'm running an i7 at 4 and a GTX570 with Win7 64bits. The fps are locked at 30 and, so far, all the GA planes work nicely while the airliners taxi the system some more of course. I usually lower the autogen one notch on the airliner flying.

 

you can easily go higher than 4. Lower autogen setting in inside FSX?

 

 

I'm also running REX-E, GEX, UTX and some weather from REX-E. I don't have any tweaks on the LOD radius or autogen density or something, so I'm pretty much at default levels when it comes to the sliders in FSX. The toughest situations in FSX surely happen around the major hubs while having plenty of AI planes parked or moving. But I'm ok and the framerates allow for some hand flown approaches, which is vital for me.

 

What is your acceptable FPS around major hubs? Is it true 22FPS in FSX is different from 22FPS in fs9? I mean I never get lower than 60 no matter what I am throwing at with all all sliders fully right.. But in FSX, 25 is a highly flayable they said.. I don't get it. So far with plain and default, I get 45-62 FPS in FSX.

 

 

There would be some tricks one could pull if this wasn't the case. The AI addons allow for hotkeys to clear the approach (FSUIPC also offers such a thing) and some addon airports like Orbx or UK2000 offer a detail level variation. So if you would run into problems at those, you could e.g. reduce the amount of parked 3D cars. However, some spots run fine and in highest detail, not really needing that user tuning. FSDT comes to my mind, their later stuff just works as it should and looks beautiful. Older Aerosoft airports sometimes are a hog though. At least in my book.

Well, if you get into buying addon airports, perhaps check the forums on the fps impact if you are in doubt. As said, your CPU can handle a lot, while overclocking would surely offer more headroom.

 

What's your operating system by the way? 64 bits are recommended either way.

 

Wilco.

 

Im on Windows 7 Pro 64. Should I keep using "4GB patch"?

The 64 bits OS won't need any patch on the memory management. The 32 bit folks had some 3gb patch or something. Do you mean that one?

 

Good question on the fps amount needed. While I think that the actual 'needed' value will differ with the preferences or even abilities of the user, the smooth impression in FSX may indeed be increased over FS9 while running the same framerate. Counting how many frames arrive per second is one thing, remaining an equal timespan between the single frames may then lead to a smooth impression and that's the point where FSX might be better. This would render low fps situations to be more predictable when e.g. hand flying.

 

But I can't judge that one. Perhaps you are better, with some fresh FS9 memory. I'm pretty ok with the 30 fps limit and some 15 to 20 fps in heavy large hub situations. Anything lower and I will reduce detail. By the way, there's a quirk which leads to a fps drop when using the internal FSX limiter while the fluid impression might increase that way. You will often find tips which describe to run FSX itself unlimited and externally limit fps. When being new to the sim, I would try both ways.

 

For example, Word Not Allowed's guide describes that method and I think it's worth a look since you already know the Bojote preferences now. When trying both paths or perhaps even mixing some items (be careful on that one), you may receive your personal setup. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/370594-read-before-posting-software-hardware-guide-for-fsx/

 

On the autogen, I never have it maxed, but second or third highest is a nice target for me.

Erm, seems like the link to Word Not Allowed's guide is broken. :( Well, perhaps try again later, I'm sure the admins are already on it. It's in the hardware section of the forums. A pinned thread right on top. Food for thought or going letter by letter, as you like.

 

And on the fps topic. I think the counter is ok to initially judge things and their impact, but the later operation may well be focused on just noting the fluent impression you receive. So the counter shouldn't be active and dictate the quality of the settings. Guess that's a sort of psychological thing.

The 64 bits OS won't need any patch on the memory management. The 32 bit folks had some 3gb patch or something. Do you mean that one?

 

Yes, that's the patch. I often had crash over Paris, most of the time when flying at night.

 

Good question on the fps amount needed. While I think that the actual 'needed' value will differ with the preferences or even abilities of the user, the smooth impression in FSX may indeed be increased over FS9 while running the same framerate. Counting how many frames arrive per second is one thing, remaining an equal timespan between the single frames may then lead to a smooth impression and that's the point where FSX might be better. This would render low fps situations to be more predictable when e.g. hand flying.

 

But I can't judge that one. Perhaps you are better, with some fresh FS9 memory. I'm pretty ok with the 30 fps limit and some 15 to 20 fps in heavy large hub situations. Anything lower and I will reduce detail. By the way, there's a quirk which leads to a fps drop when using the internal FSX limiter while the fluid impression might increase that way. You will often find tips which describe to run FSX itself unlimited and externally limit fps. When being new to the sim, I would try both ways.

 

Thanks. This is what interests me the most, you said that 15-20 FPS is acceptable in major airports, I often read similar statements that 20-25 FPS is simply normal for FSX. As I said earlier, in FS9 FPS is very high. I spent hours experimenting on the FPS and I guess flying 20-25 in FS9 isn't as smooth as in FSX with the same values. Once I set it to unlimited, it somehow jumped to 90ish but the average is 40-50 with most sliders are fully right.

 

Im going to search Word Not Allowed's thread as you mentioned, no worries about the broken linkt mate

 

Since FSX has a lot better looks, I think I'll just fly low and slow with some decent GA's. I know, the most successful tweaks is upgrading my system. Til then, I am quite happy even with the default fsx settings.

 

Thanks for your time responding to my questions mate, I appreciate it. :)

 

 

Cheers