Ok, I see what you mean, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

This community has produced several standardized tests to compare FSX across various hardware configurations. In order to do so, the FSX settings and software itself must be the same. If you wish to run a baseline benchmark and then change settings or install add-ons to compare with your own stock results, that is a good way to determine the impact of the setting(s) and add-on(s) in question. The FSXMark 11 benchmark is a great place to start.

 

No offence taken

 

I was never aware of FSXMark 11 until it was posted above. I'm sure FPS will always be synonymous with FSX until we are all running on petaflops! Maybe...

I'm still tweaking after a week trying to get Gold just to run smoothly for 10 minutes at a time. Not getting very far. Used all of Word Not Allowed's guide .

Okay, this post is far more popular than I thought it would be...

 

More to the point of it in the first place

 

I recommend a few steps to getting a decent FPS count in FSX with at least acceptable settings

1. Get a good computer for it. For those considering one, don't just call and ask for a good laptop. If you don't know much about computers, at the very least say you want one that does incredibly well in gaming. If you do know a lot about what performs best, ask for a good compromise between great hardware and your budget
   
2. If you already have one, just got one, or don't have enough money for new one and yours currently sucks with FSX, try a few of these.
   
3. ******* tweaks. Normally I manually tweak the CFG and use FSX Booster (which did help for me) but if you're not looking to pay, look around the internet or use the ******* tweaks (just a google search for that will do).
   
4. Adjust settings. If you're suffering in performance, you probably have the settings way too high or just too high. Adjust them for a compromise between FPS and 'prettiness'.
   
5. All of the above :lol:
   

I hope these tips hep some.

 

Now onwards,

 

X-Plane

 

I have X-Plane 9 (thought of buying 10 but not sure yet) and haven't played it in a while because my current laptop sucks with it (But I'm getting a new one soon). The graphics looked pretty good I'll admit, and flying felt good with the included aircraft, but something about FSX just keeps me from liking X-Plane as much. Not to tarnish the goodness of our X-Plane fans, but my personal views.

 

My First Sim: FS1 in the 80's. To think i was so excited over 'good graphics' then. I wouldn't even spit in it's direction if it weren't for the fact that it was my first sim. I do have a special place for it in my heart :wub:

 

I haven't been a member here at AVSIM for long and have hardly made many posts (as you can see under my username) but I've come to learn quite a bit from FSX and our users here in that time B)

 

Have a nice day

 

-Chris

Also, you'll notice I said "how to draw scenery" and "where" and "textures" for the scenery twice because I believe its the hardest on frames now that most of us have already balanced autogen and scenery.

I just thought FSX was more resource hungry than most applications. For example, other games I play only use 2 cores maximum and the GPU is around 90% or so. FPS is over 60.

 

Other games render small levels. From what I understand about FSX, is the whole globe is a "level", but it only renders a radius around the aircraft. A 6.5 mile radius around a plane is huge compared to a small level that most other games have.

FSX coding is awesome. I believe the 64bit tesselation is all in code and ensures no gaps between tiles as they lay on the curved surface of the earth. Your latest twitch games are run practically all on the GPU, but even then, if they had to do all the stuff FSX does off screen, they would come to a crawl.

but even then, if they had to do all the stuff FSX does off screen, they would come to a crawl.

 

Not really... Look at the engine that BF3 runs on. DX11 and advanced realtime particle physics, vehicle physics, and bullet physics. The technology is here to support a very advanced simulator without hurting performance.

A rant about ranting.

Classic.

Not really... Look at the engine that BF3 runs on. DX11 and advanced realtime particle physics, vehicle physics, and bullet physics. The technology is here to support a very advanced simulator without hurting performance.

 

Yes, that's what i'm saying; it's all on the GPU...

FSX coding is awesome. I believe the 64bit tesselation is all in code and ensures no gaps between tiles as they lay on the curved surface of the earth. Your latest twitch games are run practically all on the GPU, but even then, if they had to do all the stuff FSX does off screen, they would come to a crawl.

 

Take Skyrim for example. If you spawn around 200 AI to do some sort of huge battle, the FPS drops drastically. Probably the same way that FSX suffers a major FPS hit whenever you have the AI traffic settings turned really high.

AI does take a huge performance hit to any game, especially simulators like FSX.