FSX is well known for being poorly coded/implemented in many aspects, unlike BF and other games.

 

first I've heard of it...

Ah. Fair enough. I stand corrected, though there are a couple settings that differ from Ryan's recommendations which are giving me good results, even with AS2012 + Graphics, UTX and GEX.

 

Take a look here: http://forum.avsim.n...f-all-settings/

 

Specific differences are your supersampling is off, AA is disabled at the panel (not sure if that makes a difference versus "none"). I'd mess with your GPU settings more than your FSX.cfg first to see your results there, as apparently the FSX tweaks aren't doing much.

 

 

 

Also, I wouldn't compare FSX with other games, as FSX is well known for being poorly coded/implemented in many aspects, unlike BF and other games.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I did try supersampling and while it looked great I picked up some stutters so I changed back to disabled. I will mess around with it a bit more. One other possibility which as a previous reply suggested, would be to move this to the graphics card forum. I am starting to wonder if the 192 bit memory bus is part of the problem on my 660 Ti. My 5850 had a 256 bit memory bus.

...anyone noticed how BF type games come out every few weeks? Anyone noticed how often a flight simulator comes out that's better than FSX, even with todays rip-snorting GPUs? FSX is one hell of a sweet piece of code ladies and gentlemen, and make no mistake.

Its horrendously broken. Honestly. Its not very good, but its still the best we have. OK, some aspects are good, but the fsx code is based on 20 year old code, which does not scale very well to modern hardware

Thanks for the suggestions. I did try supersampling and while it looked great I picked up some stutters so I changed back to disabled. I will mess around with it a bit more. One other possibility which as a previous reply suggested, would be to move this to the graphics card forum. I am starting to wonder if the 192 bit memory bus is part of the problem on my 660 Ti. My 5850 had a 256 bit memory bus.

 

It's my understanding that your graphics card would not have an impact on performance unless you set the BUFFERPOOLS to "0" or USEPOOLS to "0" depending on your fsx.cfg file. I'm running a GTX570 and decided to set my BUFFERPOOLs to "0" for a while. That has helped on initial drawing of textures, etc., and switching back and forth between views. My system will also run with BUFFERPOOLS=15000000. But when I do that I'm depending on the CPU to take the load. The "0" figure brings your graphics card into play more. Not an expert...just stating what I have found.

 

Yes the entries in the FSX.cfg file are key and most will work across the board with different systems. There's too much emphasis put on FPS in FSX. The key should be "is it relatively stutter free and smooth" regardless of the FPS being displayed. The more addons you load, the bigger the impact on system load.

 

In my experience that boils down to the CPU, RAM and hard drive structure. Some nVidia drivers will not work well with FSX. I'd be happy to share what my FSX.cfg file, Nvidia Inspector and other settings look like, but just because they work on my system means they will provide the same results on another.

 

You can ask on the graphics card forums. You might come across someone with the same hardware that found a solution. I have all those FPS games, BF2, Medal of Honor, etc. yes they play great, but they are using a lot newer technology than what we have in FSX, so they work great with the new graphics cards.

 

Sorry for the length....just felt compelled to throw my 2 cents in. Good luck in getting it where it works for you. We all want that to happen.

Its horrendously broken. Honestly. Its not very good, but its still the best we have. OK, some aspects are good, but the fsx code is based on 20 year old code, which does not scale very well to modern hardware

 

Nope, the 20 year old code you speak of is written the same today. FSX does 64bit tesselation in code and a great deal more besides. If you saw FLIGHT, that was FSX with DX11. Some improvements were ADDED to the core physics calculations to make taxiing more realistic. Physics is worked out the same now as it was then. Forget what you read in forums about FSX being poorly coded, it was the state of the art back then. It's framework and it's structure will be the best way to go with a new one even today.

Hello,

please, i have a very big experience with those performance issue, i had zillions.

first as mentioned delete your fsx.cfg and let it make a clean one. do the bojotes tweaking tool only** then set FSX like PMDG said in the introduction. do all they say including in the cfg.

remove the lense flare that's killing your performance. i recommend you to disable the aircraft lable in the traffic page (very recommend) also the cockpit tooltips, it's not for the NGX and its taking some memory. you should be fine that way, promise

I have the tooltips enabled so I can see my elevator trim setting. Not sure what other way to do it or if it really has a big effect on performance. I dont really notice any difference whether lens flare is on or off on my system.

I have the tooltips enabled so I can see my elevator trim setting. Not sure what other way to do it or if it really has a big effect on performance. I dont really notice any difference whether lens flare is on or off on my system.

you wont see any difference in FPS, and by the way you can eyeball the Trim..

Nope, the 20 year old code you speak of is written the same today. FSX does 64bit tesselation in code and a great deal more besides. If you saw FLIGHT, that was FSX with DX11. Some improvements were ADDED to the core physics calculations to make taxiing more realistic. Physics is worked out the same now as it was then. Forget what you read in forums about FSX being poorly coded, it was the state of the art back then. It's framework and it's structure will be the best way to go with a new one even today.

Actually, no Steve, the code of 20 years is not written the same way today. And the last time the Flight Simulator franchise could be considered state of the art was when it was still written in assembler and delivered astounding performance on the machines of its day. And that was well over 20 twenty years ago.

 

When they changed to a 3rd generation language, in the late eighties, it allowed them to introduce massivly more features and drastically reduced the cost of writing code, however, they lost the performance edge. The prevailing wisdom at that time was that Moores law would continue to be followed with faster CPU's and that it was reasonable to develop on 'super' computers as they would halve in price in 18months making them accessible(ish) to consumers. This reasoning also lead them to think that there was no commercial advantage to writing code that was performant.

 

The change to 32bit with Windows95 seemed to take them by surprise, and 17 years later, FSX is still 32 bit.

 

Your suggestion that the "framework and it's structure [of FSX] will be the best way to go with a new one even today" gave me a good laugh. In 2012, when the even your phone probably has a dual core processor, FSX can only use secondary processors to load textures. There is simply no multiprocessing capability in the design. It can't even offload its graphic resposibilities to a GPU, as they effectivly hadn't been invented when the core of FSX was being designed.

 

That worst offender of all, and the real difference between the way code is written now and the way it was written 20 years ago, is that FSX is monolithic and not moduler and that means you can not take out the piece of code that does one job and replace it with something better. Every single change you make, changes everything else, and that makes it stunningly expensive to work on.

In the last years I have been keeping on asking myself why and why no software houses decided to invest some resources building up a whole new flight simulation...... above all seeing all the crap that populates the video game industry in these last years. The potential market is huge.

 

Flight was a thought but Joshua Howard sunk it 2 years before its release, thank you Joshua, thank you indeed.

There is simply no multiprocessing capability in the design. It can't even offload its graphic resposibilities to a GPU, as they effectivly hadn't been invented when the core of FSX was being designed.

 

Yes I expected someone to home in on core multi threaded stuff that must obviously change to go with current hardware, gave me a great laugh.

In the Kostas post I see something like highmemfix=1 etc..

 

I do not have those lines within my fsx.cfg.

 

Am I supposed to insert them manually ?

 

Where ?

 

Thanks in advance

To the original poster:

 

1. You need to sign your real name to your posts here please, it is a PMDG forum rule.

 

2. When you moved from ATI to Nvidia did you properly clean out the ATI driver first before installing the Nvidia card?

 

There's a tool called Driver Fusion (formerly called Driver Sweeper) that's good for this:

http://treexy.com/products/driver-fusion

 

I had to reformat to get my GTX570 to perform correctly back when I bought it - I know that's a pain to do, but just saying it did solve a similar issue for me. There's really no circumstance where an ATI card should perform better in FSX than a similarly specced Nvidia card currently.

Yes I expected someone to home in on core multi threaded stuff that must obviously change to go with current hardware, gave me a great laugh.

 

Let's not be rude Paul, if the hardware had not improved there's little need for another sim.