I agree, airport traffic hit your fps. I did not turn it off intentionally. For some reasons, there are times when traffic is light in UT2, 5am being one.

 

I experience bad frames in NYC when I crank up bad weather (snow, rain and clouds).

 

PMDG can also be very tough.

No difference sorry to say. I guess my computer just isn't quite capable of running Mega Airports & PMDG together at the high levels at this point.

May look at overclocking the CPU a little more

 

Set yourself up where you have low FPS, in the NGX cockpit (choose default livery please so I can load it), and save the situation. Post the link to the files.

Set yourself up where you have low FPS, in the NGX cockpit (choose default livery please so I can load it), and save the situation. Post the link to the files.

 

Here ya go m8:

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/tj17wbgmu

 

I am averaging around 15 FPS blasting down the runway 07C and taking off. Panning and looking out the left window brings FPS down to 10-12 at some points. After the wheels are off the ground, I pretty soon hit over 20 FPS. Looking out the window on your left after takeoff brings the FPS down to 12-17 until the football stadium is out of sight.

23fps when loaded straight and unpaused.

Panning left-right 21-23, but usually settling at 23.

Rolling down getting some 21fps, I get a very brief 15fps counter, must be a half-second where terminal appears, but goes to about 21 in the next 2nd. Usually displaying 21-23fps rolling down the runway.

After takeoff, slight roll to the left, flying over main terminals, maintaining 22fps, after passing airport going up to 25-26fps.

23fps when loaded straight and unpaused.

Panning left-right 21-23, but usually settling at 23.

Rolling down getting some 21fps, I get a very brief 15fps counter, must be a half-second where terminal appears, but goes to about 21 in the next 2nd. Usually displaying 21-23fps rolling down the runway.

After takeoff, slight roll to the left, flying over main terminals, maintaining 22fps, after passing airport going up to 25-26fps.

 

Thanks a lot for all your efforts man. It is probably unrealistic to aim for a steady 30FPS in an airport like Frankfurt (in the PMDG VC mind you), which seems to be a benchmark-test for high-end computers really. I suppose these numbers pretty much add up considering you're at .3 more GHZ than me.

It's not a deal-breaker in any way, I mean, Frankfurt seems to be one of the worst, and even that's tolerable. But it would've been nice to run it completely jag-free! :)

Straight from my guide, which I didn't write for nothing:

"And before you ask: no, I am not getting 30fps always, I also fly heavies, and I have sometimes FPS below 30s and I then do have stutters occasionally."

 

Yes, it is unrealistic to expect 30fps in NGX VC at Frankfurt/Heathrow/KJFK etc. It's even unrealistic to expect 30fps in NGX VC as a matter of fact. But weigh against it what you are gaining by using NGX.

 

It would be nice. Maybe some day.

A guy posted here today that he setup his computer IAW NickN, Bojote, and Word Not Allowed. He was getting smooth 25 FPS, using your addons, on a 1.73 GHZ CPU and a old video card. Correct setup should solve your problem.

 

Dave

 

I don't think the guy was seeing performance anywhere like high end machines here, I don't see how that is possible unless there is a major downgrade in FSX settings. Just doesn't add up. Word Not Allowed says he gets that performance in the major cities in the NGX, and there is no way the 1.73Ghz CPU and old VC will get you anywhere near there in those situations.

I agree with you, I don't see how he does it, but that is what he said.

 

I use freeware stuff except GEX and MAAM aircraft. Run almost all sliders up, AI/GA 80% (100% per PTaylor). I get 55 FPS, with external limiter locked to 30 FPS at default flight. Flying the Sulley departure out of LGA at sundown it drops to 26-29 FPS. I am itching to build a IB whizbang but I am scared I will not get any better performance.

 

Maybe the OP can try my config settings and see if they help:

 

// This file was tweaked on Dec 12, 2010 at 03:31 GMT using Bojote's automated FSX Tweaking & Tuning Service

// This file is optimized as follows: 4 core(s), CPU speed 3, HT 0, GPU 1, PREF 2

[GRAPHICS]

SHADER_CACHE_VERSION=4

AC_SELF_SHADOW=0

AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=1

AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=0

ALLOW_SHADER-20=1

ALLOW_SHADER_30=1

COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1

D3D10=0

EFFECTS_QUALITY=2

ForceFullScreenVSync=1

ForceWindowedVSync=1

GROUND_SHADOWS=0

HIGHMEMFIX=1

IMAGE_QUALITY=0

LANDING_LIGHTS=1

NUM_LIGHTS=8

STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=1024

See_Self=1

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024

TEXTURE_QUALITY=3

SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED_10=1693500676

SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693500676

[TrafficManager]

AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=3

AirlineDensity=80

FreewayDensity=20

GADensity=80

IFROnly=0

LeisureBoatsDensity=30

ShipsAndFerriesDensity=90

[Weather]

1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=8

CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=4

DETAILED_CLOUDS=1

WindshieldPrecipitationEffects=1

[Main]

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.1 //default .33

[bufferPools]

UsePools=1

PoolSize=8388608

RejectThreshold=131072 //262144 //524288

[Display]

BLOOM_EFFECTS=0

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40 //80

TextureMaxLoad=9 //30 3, 6, 9,

//MAX_TEXTURE_DATA=1500

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=14

[TERRAIN]

//TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1376 //6000

//TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=907 //6000

AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5

DETAIL_TEXTURE=1

LOD_RADIUS=10.000000

MESH_COMPLEXITY=100

MESH_RESOLUTION=25

SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=10 //2,30

TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=29

WATER_EFFECTS=4

[sCENERY]

DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1

IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5

LENSFLARE=0

MAX_ASYNC_BATCHING_JOBS=3

//SmallPartRejectRadius=4.0

[DISPLAY.Device.AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series.0]

Mode=1920x1200x32

Anisotropic=1

May look at overclocking the CPU a little more

 

Unfortunately, that will only help...a little more...

Seems the inherent difficulty in accurately benchmarking FSX make it frustratingly hard to gauge where performance "should" be.

 

This should be no surprise since everybody's hardware AND flying experience is different... So, different scenarios will yield different results.

 

If you fly low and slow VFR, you can nearly max out every single slider simply because VFR planes don't require loads of resources like complex commercial airliners do.

If you fly the heavy iron, then you are going to have to make sacrifices because of the increased CPU cycles needed for the airliner simulation itself. It's that simple.

 

Luckily, FSX is one of the last remaining PC games that allow users full control of their gaming experience compared to most recent games that are straight console

ports with zero custom settings.

 

Tweaks can only help you to a point. IN this game, you are going to hit a ceiling no matter how good a system you have.

 

This ties directly into what I said above.

 

I know people spend insane amounts of money on "uber" hardware, BUT they should also be aware that FSX is a poorly coded game (running on modified code from 2000)

and you can't run demanding addons all at once because of the bad coding. This is why you have to tailor your flight experience to what you are doing and have the appropriate

expectations to match.

 

For example, if you want to fly into heavy detailed airports with lots of AI traffic in a complex airliner like the PMDG NGX... Then you are going to have to turn down your Scenery

and Autogen settings to "normal" (or below). This is just the reality of FSX. If people had more realistic expectations of what the sim can and cannot do, I think a lot of these

performance threads would be a thing of the past, IMO.

 

This is not to say you can't have a legitimate tech problem, but from my perspective the majority of FSX Performance threads and discusions around the web are mostly based on unrealistic

expectations more than anything else.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to be a jerk, or one of those belligerent posters who lecture others, but offers no help in return.

 

My point is FSX can do a lot of things IF you are willing to work with it. And by "working with it" that means making certain choices and having certain expectations that are realistic

given the game's limitations.

 

The day we can run high-end addons all at once with all AI traffic maxed out is the day we have 16-core, 10 GHz computers... And by that time FSX wil look like a cartoon compared to

the 3D, holographic simulators that are piped directly into our cerebral cortex at that point :P

[/font][/color]

 

This should be no surprise since everybody's hardware AND flying experience is different... So, different scenarios will yield different results.

 

If you fly low and slow VFR, you can nearly max out every single slider simply because VFR planes don't require loads of resources like complex commercial airliners do.

If you fly the heavy iron, then you are going to have to make sacrifices because of the increased CPU cycles needed for the airliner simulation itself. It's that simple.

 

Luckily, FSX is one of the last remaining PC games that allow users full control of their gaming experience compared to most recent games that are straight console

ports with zero custom settings.

 

 

 

This ties directly into what I said above.

 

I know people spend insane amounts of money on "uber" hardware, BUT they should also be aware that FSX is a poorly coded game (running on modified code from 2000)

and you can't run demanding addons all at once because of the bad coding. This is why you have to tailor your flight experience to what you are doing and have the appropriate

expectations to match.

 

For example, if you want to fly into heavy detailed airports with lots of AI traffic in a complex airliner like the PMDG NGX... Then you are going to have to turn down your Scenery

and Autogen settings to "normal" (or below). This is just the reality of FSX. If people had more realistic expectations of what the sim can and cannot do, I think a lot of these

performance threads would be a thing of the past, IMO.

 

This is not to say you can't have a legitimate tech problem, but from my perspective the majority of FSX Performance threads and discusions around the web are mostly based on unrealistic

expectations more than anything else.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to be a jerk, or one of those belligerent posters who lecture others, but offers no help in return.

 

My point is FSX can do a lot of things IF you are willing to work with it. And by "working with it" that means making certain choices and having certain expectations that are realistic

given the game's limitations.

 

The day we can run high-end addons all at once with all AI traffic maxed out is the day we have 16-core, 10 GHz computers... And by that time FSX wil look like a cartoon compared to

the 3D, holographic simulators that are piped directly into our cerebral cortex at that point :P

 

Good post. Agree from beginning to end.