Jump to content


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Highly Detailed 3rd Party Airports

Recommended Posts

After suffering recently with an undiagnosed performance problem with my FSX installation, I thought why not give this DX10 a go.

Wow! I am so impressed with the quality of FSX as a result ... nice clear, sharp images and the best thing, it has improved my performance noticeably. For me it made the difference between an average FPS of 4-7 to 28-30! It's nice to finally fly free of studders.


So ... highest kudos to both Steve, and Paul for making this all possible. I will admit, that this forum, for the less than savvy computer person is quite daunting with it's quite complicated and terminology heavy conversations. Hopefully those with the know how can dumb it down for us novices enough that we can benefit from their discoveries to make this experience even more rewarding. Its obvious that enhancements are being realized at a fast pace.


I do have to comment on one disappointment though. When using some 3rd party airport sceneries, as tested Orbx's Seattle, and FlyTampa's Tampa, although the frame rates are respectable, the application becomes almost unresponsive. For example, movements of VC focus using the hat switch are grossly delayed ... so much than one may think the app has crashed. Views lurch after delay all around the VC based on input from the user several minutes previous. The mouse moves, but menu's are unresponsive to clicks. This does not happen in the default airports, or in some of the freeware airport sceneries shared by private developers. What is kinda cool, as the initial image stablizes after pressing "Fly Know", clouds are represented by jagged triangles and polygons that gives the sky a crystalized look. It eventually is replaced by actual sky and cloud tectures.


Has anyone else noticed similar problems? Can one suggest a possible cause / solution? I'd hate to rule out awesome scenery packages in exchange for improved DX10 performance. Honestly, I'm greedy and would like to experience both!

RM Killins

Share this post

Link to post

Thanks for the kudos, Mr Killins, but Stevejp is the brains - not me! I'm the messenger - merely passing on my experiences, and the things I've tried.

Echoing most everyone else's experiences - DX10 has made a huge performance gain over DX9 on my machine too. However I've found that the only real way to being successful with FSX in either mode - it's still horsepower that counts, and taking a first glance at your hardware, I suspect that this is the cause of the lag between screen updates - it's the system itself, and how it's built. I wish I could be more positive.


The 960 will get up to about 4.45 to 4.45 gig, and o/c'd to that speed it should handle it just fine - no lag, good graphics and able to take a higher load than when using DX9. BUT - memory speed, at 1333 MHz will be a limiting factor: also, too - the 560Ti is quite a good card, but limited both in performance and in memory - and FSX makes no use of SLI at all - the proc has to use extra resources to manage it. This is compounded when you add the third GPU - the 8500 into the mix. I assume you're using it to run extra screens, FMC, EFB, etc.,. The single drive will be a limiting factor, too - it is far better to run FSX on its own, say - 250 gig hard drive.


So.... as above - I wish I could be more positive: I would suggest #1 create a very specific default flight - saved while in the air, over familiar scenery, with some fair weather. Fly it, note the performance - as it is right now. Then - bump up the proc speed. It will do 4.2 or so on air, but will likely require water to hit 4.4 - 4.5. Then - fly the same flight - you only need twenty or thirty seconds to evaluate a change. I would then suggest removing the extra gpu's, going to the single screen - as a test - not as a permanent solution, and then again - running the flight,looking at the performance change. 3 x 23" monitors are a huge load. Add back in the second 560 - same test procedure - then add the 8500 and test again. I will be willing to bet you will see fairly significant performance changes as you go through these stages.


#1 - proc speed. #2 and #3 - SLI with 3 x 23" monitors, plus the additional 8500.


I've also sent you a pm.

Share this post

Link to post

Hi Paul, thanks for the reply and no disappointment in your comments. I wasn't oblivious to the fact that my system was underpowered for my expectations, but hopeful that perhaps it was an incompatibility issue. I appreciate your advice, and will digest it a bit more. An option for me to strongly consider is OC of the processor ... something I'm a bit timid and apprehensive to do, but it may make a noticeable change without a costly CPU upgrade. (Anyone have a resource for overclocking for dummies?)


It's a shame my video card arrangement doesn't have the gusto (I knew SLI had no benefit with FSX, but it's my understanding its the only way I can span the three monitors.) , and until the resources (financial of course) roll in, I think I'm having to accept it's limitations. What is the best available Nvidia based video card on the market now for best results? I do have options ... reducing the resolution, using a single monitor, take the 4th support monitor out of the equation.


FSX is on a dedicated 1TB WD drive already.



RM Killins

Share this post

Link to post
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online

  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.

    $7,075.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
  • Create New...