Okay no duplicates, I'll see if any other scenery is impacting my FPS

Okay no duplicates, I'll see if any other scenery is impacting my FPS

 

Hi,

 

Not sure if this is your case, but are you using ENB ?

 

In my experience ENB can affect performance on some sceneries more than others, and if I recall, KDFW was one of those bad cases.

 

Best regards

This is a MAJOR performance killer, and unfortunately is very common on FSDT sceneries. Sad that they consider themselves "state of the art" and never miss an opportunity to mistreat their FS9 user base, while failing to provide a product without this basic mistake.

 

As was confirmed by user who said:

 

have run the AlphaSearcher with no missing alpha channels at DFW

 

There aren't any Alpha channels missing in KDFW for FS9, except for the grass texture. That's why even by restoring the alpha channel on that *single* texture didn't do anything: you need to have many missing alpha channels to see an impact. And no, even if there were many missing Alpha channels (and there aren't any at KDFW) they won't cause lower fps, but mostly stutters here and there, at the same fps.

 

That KDFW performs better in FSX is to be expected, because the scenery is the first one that use NO FS8 legacy ground polygons in FSX, which means in FSX we were able to save A LOT of polygons, by replacing them with a single bitmap that runs using a Shader, which is of course fully accelerated by the graphic card. Since FS9 doesn't support such type of shaders, we had to ADD those polygons that we saved in FSX, in order to reproduce a similar visual appearance (minus the bump mapping and specular mapping the FSX shader provided).

 

So, comparing FSX KDFW with FS9 KDFW is comparing one of the *very* few 100% native FSX sceneries out there (no slow FS8 legacy ground polygons at all), with a scenery that in the FS9 version it's even more complex than the FSX version, to make up with additional polygons for the lack of shaders in FS9.

 

KDFW is incredibly good performing in FSX, which is why we went ahead with KLAX and pushed those techniques even further (KLAX use shaders even on the buildings, not just the ground), which is why KLAX in FS9 is even worse compared to the FSX version which looks much better, which also why we decided that KLAX would have been our last product for FS9,

Umberto is the one who knows more about this than anyone - as the saying goes, "He's the man!" But the scenery can run well in FS9 - I didn't have a problem with it on my old system and for most people I think that's been the case. So I would still encourage you to find whatever it is that's causing a problem in your installation of FS9...... It might not be optimized for FS9 but it still works well

Cheers

Ian

Thanks for the replies, I will continue to investigate until I have found a solution. I don't see why developers are favouring FSX over FS9....much of the community still uses it, and is incredibly more stable than FSX. I understand the detail and quality isn't quite up to scratch with FSX, but I personally don't mind. Until I have ensured that P3D is a COMPLETELY bug free alternative of FSX, I'm staying with FS9. Microsoft, you really screwed up with FSX.

KDFW is incredibly good performing in FSX, which is why we went ahead with KLAX and pushed those techniques even further (KLAX use shaders even on the buildings, not just the ground), which is why KLAX in FS9 is even worse compared to the FSX version which looks much better, which also why we decided that KLAX would have been our last product for FS9,

 

Hi Umberto,

 

I'm not debating about the merits of FSX. I'm an FS9 user, so my point of view will disagree with yours. I'm just trying to help this user to have good FPS on your scenery. It's a great one, so I think it's worth the effort.

 

It is possible to have good frame rates in KDFW FS9. In fact, my experience is way better in FS9 in comparison with FSX. Using full custom AI, with almost 80 AI aircraft parked, QWings Avro jet in VC, FS9 offers me 35-45 FPS while FSX under the same variables gives me 12 to 15.

 

My point is, and allow me the criticism, while FS9 vs FSX debates are always interesting, let's not skip the point : why does this user experience such bad FPS? Is it a config issue, is it a problem with the scenery, is it something he should look for. The standard answer should not be : move to FSX. Even if that's your oppinion - which I disagree, but nevertheless respect - I think the user is entitled to recieve support for his FS9 issues.

 

As I said, FSDT FS9 has fine performance, and a computer that could run it in FSX, for sure can handle it in FS9.

 

Best regards

It is possible to have good frame rates in KDFW FS9.

 

Well, of course it is, nobody said otherwise, but that's not the point, I was just explaining WHY the OP had better fps in FSX, which is to be expected, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.

 

In fact, my experience is way better in FS9 in comparison with FSX. Using full custom AI, with almost 80 AI aircraft parked, QWings Avro jet in VC, FS9 offers me 35-45 FPS while FSX under the same variables gives me 12 to 15.

 

Such comparison aren't saying anything, unless you both indicate your system AND what you installed in FSX. Meaning, how many of the addons you listed are fully using FSX (were those 80% AI entirely FSX native ? ), which includes everything, scenery, AIs and airplane used.

 

I can only vouch for KDFW of course and, as I've said, it performs better than the FS9 version ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, which usually boils down to testing the airport without ANY other addon installed with a default airplane both in FSX and in FS9. Of course, provided the hardware is fast enough because, only a slow video card, a scenery that heavily use shaders will not run very good and you would better served by FS9, but on a video card that IS fast, you will HAVE to use the FSX version, otherwise all that power will be entirely wasted on FS9, because the FS9 version of the scenery is more CPU-dependent.

 

So yes, it IS possible to get good fps even in the FS9 version, but that the FSX version is faster, it's not an indication that something is wrong in FS9.

Such comparison aren't saying anything, unless you both indicate your system AND what you installed in FSX. Meaning, how many of the addons you listed are fully using FSX (were those 80% AI entirely FSX native ? ), which includes everything, scenery, AIs and airplane used.

 

Just for the record, I was using QWings Avro jets (FS9 and FSX versions for a more direct comparison), Active Sky injected weather, REX, and of course, KDFW being a major American Airlines hub, around 95% of the AI aircraft are FSX native ( AI Aardvark revised Boeing and MD8x FSX models). Currently there are no Airbus FSX models, but they are very scarce in this scenery. I have an i7 920@ 4,2 GHz, an GTX 680 4GB, 6GB RAM, Windows 7 64 Bit.

 

FSX runs fine for me IF I don't use AI. I just don't like flying ultra realistic addons in to ghost airports

 

Best regards

With such system, you should have better fps in FSX but, as I've said, the only correct test is without anything: just the airport.

 

Because, we are discussing the airport itself (being faster in FSX) NOT trying to see if FSX is faster than FS9 with so many addons installed, that's entirely besides the point.

 

FSX runs fine for me IF I don't use AI.

 

That's simply means your FSX AI, even if "95% native", were either too complex or, even if they were native, they weren't so much optimized. Saying "80% AI" also doesn't say anything, without comparing both their schedules and complexity settings in the FS9 and the FSX version of the AI package you were using AND comparing their number of polygons too. If FS9 is drawing 100 AIs at 80% with 2000 polygons each, and FSX is drawing 200 AI at 80% (because the schedule might not be the same) with 5000 polygons each, it means FS9 is drawing 200K polygons for the AIs while FSX is drawing 1M of polygons for AI so, even if FSX did that at HALF the fps, it means FSX WAS FASTER, because it was doing 5 times more work, in only double the time.

 

The fps parameter is really not saying much: what counts should be polygons/seconds instead. It will be then the developer's responsibility to use those polygons in sensible ways, to get a flyable framerate.

That's simply means your FSX AI, even if "95% native", were either too complex or, even if they were native, they weren't so much optimized. Saying "80% AI" also doesn't say anything, without comparing both their schedules and complexity settings in the FS9 and the FSX version of the AI package you were using AND comparing their number of polygons too. If FS9 is drawing 100 AIs at 80% with 2000 polygons each, and FSX is drawing 200 AI at 80% (because the schedule might not be the same) with 5000 polygons each, it means FS9 is drawing 200K polygons for the AIs while FSX is drawing 1M of polygons for AI so, even if FSX did that at HALF the fps, it means FSX WAS FASTER, because it was doing 5 times more work, in only double the time.

 

I don't disagree with that. But in the end it's a matter of user perception isn't it? I don't run Flight Sim to test the ammount of polygons it can render, I run it to get an experience that I consider matches my perception of reality. And I consider flying with these AI settings a higher priority than enjoying other FSX-only technologies that FSDT are bringing to the table. They look great, and many of those are real breakthroughs, but my aspiration (again, this is my personal view) for a realistic experience puts a full AI simulation at a higher priority.

 

Also, I believe that most FSX AI native models do not increase model complexity versus their FS9 versions.

 

I wasn't criticizing the optimization of FSDT FSX sceneries, as I said, they run very smoothly with no (or dramatically reduced - under my subjective criteria) AI, this is an issue with FSX and it's ability to run AI settings similar to the FS9 environment I use.

Umberto, why are you not continuing to support the community of FS9 users? The reason I will not migrate back to FSX as it is not stable. Sure for looks, it is a bit better, but for a person who flies for the realism of flying an aircraft that depicts the real world counterpart well, FS9 is the better bet. If I were just flying for visuals, then of course FSX would be the option, but like me and many others, I resent to the unstable program that is FSX.

Umberto, why are you not continuing to support the community of FS9 users?

 

This quote from this thread was in response to what you are asking, or rather why they aren't going to do CYVR for FSX when asked.Here's the link and a copy of what he said. http://www.fsdreamte...hp?topic=7358.0

 

Quoting Umberto

 

"No plans whatsoever, I believe this was made clear enough already.

 

There's no way it will ever fit into FS9, it's a entirely different level of complexity compared to KLAX, which also got lot of complaints by FS9 users, which totaled less than 10% of the sales (we know, since KLAX for FS9 wasn't released together with FSX). CYVR will be MUCH more FSX-dependent: we had to do cut and remodel lots of things with KLAX just to be able to *export* it for FS9, there's no way CYVR will ever fit into the FS9 .BGLs, and the materials used requires some special blending modes that FS9 does't have even a closest equivalent.

 

With the hardware you have in your signature (which is purely wasted with FS9) you surely have noticed how much better KLAX for FSX is compared to the FS9 version, an hypothetical CYVR for FS9 will look bad (assuming we'll ever be able to export it in the first place) and will perform even worse, and of course will not have the signature new dynamic shadows feature.

 

So no, we don't have any plans to compromise the quality of the product (and getting complaints from FS9 users because their version doesn't work well), just to accomodate what is now a TINY minority of users. Everything changed this year and, the most telling tale, is that NOBODY complained when was said that CYVR will be FSX-only, compared to last year when we made KLAX.

 

Note that, as you said already, we don't have any intention to have this thread transformed into a useless discussion FS9 vs FSX.

 

There isn't any need for a discussion in the first place, FS9 doesn't exists anymore for what we are concerned. We decided this as soon KLAX for FS9 was released, when we finally got final and undeniable proof there's no "FS9 users base" anymore, not one that has any commercial meaning to speak of.

 

So, to anyone reading this, don't try to convert this into a poll, there's no "poll" to be made and no decision waiting to be made. KLAX was our last scenery for FS9."

 

Aside from that there is also a look at the most current Avsim poll when users were asked what their main simulation platform was.

 

75% are using FSX

19% are using FS9

2% or less are using either Flight, X-Plane or P3D.

 

With numbers like 75% using FSX as their main sim and the sales numbers for FS9 products Umberto stated, its no wonder they are not supporting FS9 anymore. That's just the nature of the beast when it comes to electronics and games or sims, people move on and a few stay behind.

 

The good news is, if your planning to stay with FS9 forever or at least until what you view is a better sim than FSX, other developers will still continue to develope for both platforms as has been the case with Aerosoft, ImagineSim, BluePrint and a hand full of others, at least until the day comes when their FS9 sales come to a screaming halt and they throw in the towel.

 

 

The reason I will not migrate back to FSX as it is not stable. Sure for looks, it is a bit better, but for a person who flies for the realism of flying an aircraft that depicts the real world counterpart well, FS9 is the better bet. If I were just flying for visuals, then of course FSX would be the option, but like me and many others, I resent to the unstable program that is FSX.

 

What stability problems did you have?

 

No one can argue if you have had stability problems with FSX, if you tried it. But you need to remember there are vast numbers of users using FSX with no issues or least not issues that can be fixed. I was an FS9'er for years and didn't run FSX until a year and two service packs later since its release and I have had no problems with its stability when using a large amount of addon airports, aircraft, weather programs and other utilities. Not to mention the fact that I am running 4 year old hardware still that wouldn't even be considered for someone building a new FSX rig these days.

 

Given the hardware, setup guides (NickN and Word Not Allowed), documented tweaks, and the G3D.dll error catcher in FSUIPC, stability problems with FSX are pretty much a thing of the past, unless of course you have very unusual setup that may cause problems with FSX in the first place. Given that, if FSX was that bad or not stable, 75% of the people who answered the poll certainly would not be using FSX as their main platform, nor would some developers only develop for it.

 

You mentioned you want to fly for the realism of flying a/c that mimic their real world counterparts, you need to check out the stuff by A2A, RealAir, and PMDG's latest offerings. Having FS9 still installed on my rig, I can tell you that those developers FSX a/c are way better than anything I have ever flown in FS9. However you also said that you put "AI simulation at a higher priority", assuming you prefer lots of AI than actually how an a/c flies.

You mentioned you want to fly for the realism of flying a/c that mimic their real world counterparts, you need to check out the stuff by A2A, RealAir, and PMDG's latest offerings. Having FS9 still installed on my rig, I can tell you that those developers FSX a/c are way better than anything I have ever flown in FS9. However you also said that you put "AI simulation at a higher priority", assuming you prefer lots of AI than actually how an a/c flies.

 

Hi, this was actually may statement.

 

What I said was that I prefer flying with my full AI compared to some features that are more gimmicks than actual critical elements of the sim. For example, I prefer flying full AI vs. watching ultra high resolution cows. I would also prefer full AI vs. poodles or semi-dynamic scenery shadows. That's my view on this, I understand that others may have different preferences.

 

You mentioned the higher complexity of FSX aircraft. I'm not a GA user. In my oppinion, at this point in time, only one FSX aircraft is clearly one step ahead : the NGX. Alternatives? I use the Ifly, which may not have all the visual quality, but system wise is a close match. Also, if you wish to have a realistic Airbus experience, there is only one good enough product available in the market, and that's the Airsimmer, FS9 only.

 

I understand that evolution will bring better airbuses, the 777 and 747 to FSX and FS9 will probably be left behind. I'm well aware of this. Maybe sometime in the future, an HW solution is available in the market able to run FSX according to my preferences, who knows? I can say I've tried to move to FSX several times (as I did successfully from FS98 on).

 

In the meantime, I have such an enjoyable FS9 setup that I can say if no more addons were released from this point on, I would still be extremely satisfied for years to come.