I feel left out... I can't rant anymore now that I run P3D. It runs too good

plus FSX in DX10 mode...

 

All respect to your hard work with FSX and DX10... I found almost zero difference between the two even after following your tweak guide. Is there something I did wrong?

I mean it. I'm not trying to be rude in any way, point fingers, shout anyone down, etc. of that sort. I understand if your computer has a legitimate performance issue and us at the forum are always willing to hand out advice. Please feel free to tell us about it! But please, keep things nice and don't get mad, especially at us (I've seen this so many times). FSX is a complex system that is very buggy because it has had no further updating since Acceleration (Unless you count Prepar3d as one, which I don't). FSX, even on high end machines, has many hundreds of things to calculate at any given second. Here's a list of SOME of the calculations just to give an idea of what FSX is capable of (please note I may be wrong on some of these as these are my own inference, but I do know FSX has to calculate a lot):

1. How to Draw Scenery (more complex with add-ons)
    
   
2. Where to draw scenery.
    
   
3. What textures to place on the scenery
    
   
4. Where to place the textures (again more complex with add-ons)
    
   
5. How large to draw the textures
    
   
6. How to apply the selected in game settings (this is a biggy because there are so many combos, but lower settings general fare better here because they are easier to load. This is a big factor on the calculations listed here and not listed.)
    
   
7. How to draw the aircraft (HUGE depending on aircraft polys both inside and out [this is why Captain Sim and PMDG's are big on frame issues most of the time])
    
   
8. Where to draw the aircraft at given times based on speed, altitude, and attitude calculations)
    
   
9. How to position the camera (pretty big due to so many combos)
    
   
10. How to judge the programmed parts of the aircarft (again huge)
     
    
11. How to draw the animations
     
    
12. How to draw certain clouds
     
    
13. Where to draw certain clouds
     
    
14. What textures to use for the clouds
     
    
15. What textures are used on the aircraft (biggy)
     
    
16. Judging how the air will affect the aircraft (winds)
     
    
17. Judging how the air will affect clouds
     
    
18. How to draw autogen
     
    
19. Where to draw autogen
     
    
20. What textures to use on autogen
     
    
21. How to draw scenery
     
    
22. Where to draw scenery
     
    
23. What textures to use on the scenery
     
    
24. How to draw airports (biggy if they are addons or have lots of scenery)
     
    
25. Where to draw airports
     
    
26. What textures to use on airports
     
    
27. Where to draw airport parking, runways and taxis for ATC
     
    
28. Where to draw airport parking, runways and taxis for AI
     
    
29. How to draw AI (BIGGY)
     
    
30. Where to draw AI
     
    
31. What textures to use on AI
     
    
32. Where to draw the sun
     
    
33. Drawing the sun textures
     
    
34. Deciding which sky textures are to be used
     
    
35. Re-sizing of all aforementioned textures and any listed after this to fit the correct objects/effects
     
    
36. What the aircraft (yours) needs to be doing based on hot-key presses, current situation, and aircraft programming (can be big)
     
    
37. What the aircraft (AI) need to be doing based on current situation and programming (can be a less strenuous on software because AI are not designed near the complexity of today's add-ons)
     
    
38. Deciding which effects to use
     
    
39. Deciding when and where to use said effects
     
    
40. Applying the textures of said effects
     
    
41. Loading the GUI
     
    
42. Deciding how to display the GUI based on custom selected GUI textures or default
     
    
43. Loading missions
     
    
44. Loading sounds in missions and when to do so
     
    
45. Loading anything previously stated again if another flying session is loaded without shutting down the sim (can be big)
     
    
46. Deciding which cores of the PC to use to load certain aspects
     
    
47. Loading each aircraft into the GUI
     
    
48. FSUIPC (can be big if using many programs with it at once, or at least it can on my PC)
     
    
49. Deciding how to handle hardware (joysticks, yokes, rudder pedals, throttles, TrackIR, etc.)
     
    
50. Deciding how payload and fuel affect aircraft flight and behavior
    

These are just some of the more major calculations FSX does, not to mention the many hundreds more smaller ones. Now, the point of this wasn't to annoy you, make you angry, point fingers, complain, or bore you. It was simply to give an informational bout those out there who complain about performance here like it's our fault (no pointing fingers, but you know who you are). Now I am a respectful and respectable human being who loves flight simming as much as the next user on this site, and likes to socialize with the community, but complainers can make that difficult to enjoy. Please do keep in mind, we at the forum are always going to listen to your argument and respectfully keep in mind that you are a human being too, no matter how angry at us or how awfully you treat us. We are always going to help you with kindness and support, so we'd greatly appreciate the same back from you. So please, if you do bad with performance in FSX, please let us know and we're glad to help! But please don't complain to us like it's our fault. Want to brag how good yours is? Go ahead! We will congratulate you (and maybe plot to steal your computer ) and maybe get jealous, but we're glad to hear from happy simmers!

 

Thanks for listen...well...reading,

 

-Chris

 

 

Um... I think I spend over $1,200 on a computer that can do all of that stuff, and isn't that what it's for?

all good ,no great ! here FSX has never run better for me I found that not tweaking around with the cfg file is, for me, the way to go.....also good hardware! I remember trying to run fsx on a crappy store bought computer Lol then I thought cfg tweaks were the answer. Glad I ''suffered" through the learning curve.

All respect to your hard work with FSX and DX10... I found almost zero difference between the two even after following your tweak guide. Is there something I did wrong?

 

I guess so, Ben: I can only think the Ti is a bottleneck: You have a high-end proc and system with a middle-of-the-road GPU.

 

If I can do this time after time at a smooth 29.9fps - you should be able to do it also. Vancouver Plus, from Holger Sandmann and Jon Patch.

 

All respect to your hard work with FSX and DX10...

 

It was that hard work that achieved those pics, and it means that everywhere else is easy.

 

Sharing knowledge of one's hobby is not work.

But they could have lessened the pain if they had provided for a 64 bit and the memory address ability (OOM issues) issue. Was it really hard to imagine that eventually it would go to 64 bit?

 

:lol:

Not a hope, Manny.. in 2004 - if that's when Microsoft began the development of FSX - there was no 64-bit operating system available - and certainly no pool of experienced 64-bit game developers. Not even a retail-level hardware platform, either. The only hardware available in 2004 would be the Intel server boxes, with NT-Server 20xx, smp processors, ECC memory, with multi-buss scsi mobo's. You want to pay $20,000+ for a server? Hard? I would say not even possible.

You have a high-end proc and system with a middle-of-the-road GPU.

 

The 660Ti outperforms the 580....

Quantum computers, that are a million trillion trillion trillion times faster than todays fastest computers, should be able to run FSX at a decent rate. Dont 'ya' think ?

I hope to live to see that day.

 

 

jime

Not a hope, Manny.. in 2004 - if that's when Microsoft began the development of FSX - there was no 64-bit operating system available - and certainly no pool of experienced 64-bit game developers. Not even a retail-level hardware platform, either. The only hardware available in 2004 would be the Intel server boxes, with NT-Server 20xx, smp processors, ECC memory, with multi-buss scsi mobo's. You want to pay $20,000+ for a server? Hard? I would say not even possible.

 

I think this is a bit of a non-starter, seeing as how Microsoft makes Operating Systems and further to the point were in fact developing FSX to showcase their next-gen O.S. (Vista). The direction in which the market was heading was pretty clear to those of us on the outside even then, let alone a dev team within Microsoft.

Interesting, this is what I talked with a friend Today...

Just to add one thing, do you know that Full Flight Simulators needs 5-10min to load one airport? And airports and scenery don't looks like ORBX, it's ok - but not so detalied and clear. I saw only a very few static aircrafts on EDDF for example... And that was FFS which costs 20-25 milions of euro!

Well ok, flight dynamics and sounds is another story, apsolutely fantastic and way over fsx, which is expected... But i think that ACES did awesome job with FSX, even in this stage, unfinished...

I'm going to have a rant now... It stuns me how often FPS is mentioned.

 

FSX sure is unique, as it must have quite a few people who must sit and watch how many FPS FSX is generating rather than actually looking out the virtual cockpit window and enjoying flying!

 

I feel this must be true as some can even quote how many FPS are generated at any given time

 

On a serious note, is their a guide that explains exactly how to measure FPS! I'm not talking about a programme that measures it although it should always be the same one with a known FPS hit on FSX. Then at least you can compare apples with apples. This brings me onto another point and that's how can you ensure that everyone is using the same scenery, weather and planes. oh and a set screen resolution, blah blah blah. Is it measured at say Ulan Bator airport where you can ensure that know-one has additional scenery?

 

Now some bright spark is going to tell me that their is a mega airpot and Orbx scenery available for Ulan Bator lol

 

Is their a scientific repeatable way? If not then its all in the eye of the beholder and mentioning FPS should cause the offender to donate a $ to Avsim.

 

Apologies, the rant is now over.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

P.S. this thread should be renamed! Any offers?

I'm going to have a rant now... It stuns me how often FPS is mentioned.

 

FSX sure is unique, as it must have quite a few people who must sit and watch how many FPS FSX is generating rather than actually looking out the virtual cockpit window and enjoying flying!

 

I feel this must be true as some can even quote how many FPS are generated at any given time

 

On a serious note, is their a guide that explains exactly how to measure FPS! I'm not talking about a programme that measures it although it should always be the same one with a known FPS hit on FSX. Then at least you can compare apples with apples. This brings me onto another point and that's how can you ensure that everyone is using the same scenery, weather and planes. oh and a set screen resolution, blah blah blah. Is it measured at say Ulan Bator airport where you can ensure that know-one has additional scenery?

 

Now some bright spark is going to tell me that their is a mega airpot and Orbx scenery available for Ulan Bator lol

 

Is their a scientific repeatable way? If not then its all in the eye of the beholder and mentioning FPS should cause the offender to donate a $ to Avsim.

 

Apologies, the rant is now over.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

P.S. this thread should be renamed! Any offers?

 

I'm not sure if i understand well what you asked, but this is scientific metod to measure and compare FSX performance: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/

 

I'm not sure if i understand well what you asked, but this is scientific metod to measure and compare FSX performance: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329116-fsxmark11/

 

Cool, I'm also sure this will help any fledgling FSX'ers too.

FSX with it's performance issues has caused me a great deal of headaches over the last year. If that was the only problem it might be ok but frankly it feels like half-baked alpha release software at the best of times. I'm on the verge of going back to single-layer cloud setups because I can't stand the stupid bug that causes distant clouds to be rendered through the one you are right infront of. Every time that happens the immersion is ruined for me - it is DISGUSTING and I am so damn sick of it I nearly punched my screen the other night. That's just one issue. Add to that the boneshack autogen that looks like it's taken right from a third world country no matter where you go, the fact that it always pops up all over the show (again ruining the immersion), and an overbright and unimmersive night setting + appalling light systems in general...the list goes on. Slightly less realistic flight-dynamics I could live with but graphical mess-ups like this just ruin it for me and there is no way around them save hack-job addins like ENB that make certain situations looks great whilst breaking everything else.

 

FSX is rubbish. Plain and simple. I can only hope we live to see a truly worthy platform emerge. Perhaps if MS had focused more on the quality of their product and less on cheating more of the masses with their marketing hype.

 

That's my rant for now and I will add that I am a natural complainer so no need to point it out thanks.