A Sudden Change of Heart

[FSMuseum 39]

I don't know where you got the math but I somehow agree on that. Is there a way to improve autogen in fs2004?

 

Not that I know of yet, not even with any addons i currently know of, but I bet there is a way.

 

 

We should be carefull stating that FSX is running full AI traffic, for some this means over 100 visible planes on screen, for others it's a couple of World of AI packages. It's also different running full AI traffic in an american airport (where the majority of planes are Boeing, which have FSX native AI models available) vs an european airport, where Airbus is predominant.

 

AI traffic is a major FPS killer in FSX and is the reason I believe that there is still no HW solution available to run FSX under that specific scenario.

 

My thoughts exactly. Traffic is one of the biggest FPS killers if not the biggest.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

We should be carefull stating that FSX is running full AI traffic, for some this means over 100 visible planes on screen, for others it's a couple of World of AI packages. It's also different running full AI traffic in an american airport (where the majority of planes are Boeing, which have FSX native AI models available) vs an european airport, where Airbus is predominant.

 

AI traffic is a major FPS killer in FSX and is the reason I believe that there is still no HW solution available to run FSX under that specific scenario.

 

I agree, stating running full traffic could be misleading since one persons "full traffic" could be way less than another persons. FWIW, when I said it, I am running about 350 or so WOAI packages in my sim at the moment, plus some custom built stuff which is all FS9 native. However, in Zurich there isn't a whole lot of other stuff around as far as complex buildings (besides the airport) and city scapes, and I dont get an AI FPS hit from other airports since there is nothing major near by. Plus every gate at Zurich isn't always filled. I've noticed that since I run all my AI with mips and did the alpha channel tool/fixer, a load of AI in a place like that doesn't cost me a lot of FPS like it would in a place like JFK, EDDF, or KSEA, even though they aren't FSX native models. I also dont run any a/c shadows (unless taking screen shots), bloom (except ENB), or building shadows, so that could explain why my FPS are good.

 

Although in a place like JFK or LAX, I can still get a good solid 25 FPS in the NGX with about 80% AI and car/boat traffic in the off position. The only thing that hurts me to be frank is that I run an 32 bit OS with only 2GB of ram which can make texture loading a little slow in places like that when I switch to external views and pan around, although FPS are usually not an issue. Luck must be on my side :-)

[Dr Vesuvius 22]

I agree, stating running full traffic could be misleading since one persons "full traffic" could be way less than another persons.

 

I've just had this point rammed home to me. Up until a week or so ago I was running Just Flight's TrafficX (in FSX), and with traffic turned down to 50% at EGCC, would typically have 6-12 aircraft taxiing and holding short at any given time and would often struggle to get a word in edgeways with ATC. This was my image of a busy airport. With the upgrade to Traffic360 the volume of traffic dropped dramatically, so that even with the traffic turned up to 100% I'm only getting 2-3 aircraft on the move at any given time. Comparing departure volume with the departures listed on Flight Aware suggests this to be a more accurate representation of real-world traffic.

 

So my current 100% traffic is less than half what I was getting before at 50%. And that's using the same brand of traffic package. So clearly not all 100% traffics are equal.

 

Dr V

 

(PS for the record, in FS9 I use World of AI, and with every airline visiting Manchester installed, I'm getting traffic volumes comparable to T360)

[FSMuseum 39]

I've just had this point rammed home to me. Up until a week or so ago I was running Just Flight's TrafficX (in FSX), and with traffic turned down to 50% at EGCC, would typically have 6-12 aircraft taxiing and holding short at any given time and would often struggle to get a word in edgeways with ATC. This was my image of a busy airport. With the upgrade to Traffic360 the volume of traffic dropped dramatically, so that even with the traffic turned up to 100% I'm only getting 2-3 aircraft on the move at any given time. Comparing departure volume with the departures listed on Flight Aware suggests this to be a more accurate representation of real-world traffic.

 

So my current 100% traffic is less than half what I was getting before at 50%. And that's using the same brand of traffic package. So clearly not all 100% traffics are equal.

 

Dr V

 

(PS for the record, in FS9 I use World of AI, and with every airline visiting Manchester installed, I'm getting traffic volumes comparable to T360)

 

Exactly. Different traffic programs have different ways of running. Some are better on FPS than others are.

[Reason 20]

My oldest hardware was released in 2009 Q2. My CPU was in Q1 2011 and so on, still FSX seems like a brand new platform that requires a futuristic specification to run it well.

 

I got to compromise and make some balancing in settimg the sliders. To me, mesh details and generic scenery details are everything thus I turn the cars and boats off and reduce the water details to Low so that I can comfortably set Custom and Generic Scenery densitiy to Very Dense/Very Dense. I can get a jumpy 23- 55 fps using my fs9/fsx P 51 mustang with clouds set to 5 (ASE 2010). I also install my FSGFS9/FSGX2010 that eats 25GB of my drive space

 

I have tried Word Not Allowed's, Nick's and Bojote's works. To me they are genius! but the the tweakings have screwed my head..!!! I have had enough with bufferpools and nvidia inspector, so I turned to work on the sliders.

 

I heard one turned his Autogen to OFF just to get smooth initial climb and approach on a complex airport with NGX, and he got monstrous rig, you know.. that overclocked i7 thingy with a $300 Video card. I ain't gonna overclock my CPU and I'd rather to invest more in GPU later, simply the longevity of my cpu is the first priority.

 

Although Im running i5 2500K (at stock speed), my drawback is my 9800GT. If that i7 guy still had difficulty, It is crazy not to set lower standards.

 

FSX is a masterpiece or a total flop, why? because a 6 year old software still outperforms all the latest hardware they say. I have to agree with this. I remember someone said that FSX was meant to be 'heavy' on the system in order to catch up with fututre hardware developmen so we could explore in the future thus it made fsx as an neverending adventure. I don't buy that, though I understand why the were defensive.

 

My BDOaviation CGK airport is also compatible for fsx. After I installed it with 40% default traffic, I got a dramatic drops in my fps. Can you imagine how the fps will be if all the gauges in NGX are on, on a complex airport with 50% traffic and REX?

 

The good thing is.. I could always buy those Carenado birds and enjoy that fancy autogen from 5000ft, set the weather to clear, at night above Manhattan with Miles Davis playing in the cockpit. For jets and altitude, FS9 is still my 1st choice, even without Miles or Coltrane.

[FSMuseum 39]

My oldest hardware was released in 2009 Q2. My CPU was in Q1 2011 and so on, still FSX seems like a brand new platform that requires a futuristic specification to run it well.

 

I got to compromise and make some balancing in settimg the sliders. To me, mesh details and generic scenery details are everything thus I turn the cars and boats off and reduce the water details to Low so that I can comfortably set Custom and Generic Scenery densitiy to Very Dense/Very Dense. I can get a jumpy 23- 55 fps using my fs9/fsx P 51 mustang with clouds set to 5 (ASE 2010). I also install my FSGFS9/FSGX2010 that eats 25GB of my drive space

 

I have tried Word Not Allowed's, Nick's and Bojote's works. To me they are genius! but the the tweakings have screwed my head..!!! I have had enough with bufferpools and nvidia inspector, so I turned to work on the sliders.

 

I heard one turned his Autogen to OFF just to get smooth initial climb and approach on a complex airport with NGX, and he got monstrous rig, you know.. that overclocked i7 thingy with a $300 Video card. I ain't gonna overclock my CPU and I'd rather to invest more in GPU later, simply the longevity of my cpu is the first priority.

 

Although Im running i5 2500K (at stock speed), my drawback is my 9800GT. If that i7 guy still had difficulty, It is crazy not to set lower standards.

 

FSX is a masterpiece or a total flop, why? because a 6 year old software still outperforms all the latest hardware they say. I have to agree with this. I remember someone said that FSX was meant to be 'heavy' on the system in order to catch up with fututre hardware developmen so we could explore in the future thus it made fsx as an neverending adventure. I don't buy that, though I understand why the were defensive.

 

My BDOaviation CGK airport is also compatible for fsx. After I installed it with 40% default traffic, I got a dramatic drops in my fps. Can you imagine how the fps will be if all the gauges in NGX are on, on a complex airport with 50% traffic and REX?

 

The good thing is.. I could always buy those Carenado birds and enjoy that fancy autogen from 5000ft, set the weather to clear, at night above Manhattan with Miles Davis playing in the cockpit. For jets and altitude, FS9 is still my 1st choice, even without Miles or Coltrane.

 

Good to hear you've tried some tweaking, but it can get confusing. FS9 rarely requires such advanced tweaking and/or system hardware. I think FSX is a masterpiece and a flop for its time. Its so complex it can outperform most of todays hardware, making it a masterpiece, but a flop because it has so many bugs and errors that appear after addons are introduced.

[RWFeldman 159]

because it has so many bugs and errors that appear after addons are introduced

 

Mine doesn't. I mus a got a premium cut version.

[FSMuseum 39]

Mine doesn't. I mus a got a premium cut version.

 

Guess you're a lucky one! XD

[garydpoole 183]

Steps on how to make FS9 look like FSX

1. Get ultimate terrain USA and Europe

2. Get zinertek water and night environment pro

3. Get ground environment pro

4. Get rex and then get Over Drive with it

5. Get some custom airport lighting and better effects

6. Get world of Ai traffic

7. Get AES

8. Get ASe

9. Get flytampa and fs dream team airports

10. Profit?

 

But don't expect to get rid of the blurries...

[WingZ 547]

I am wondering if the blurries problem is not solely WIN7 related?

That list won't hurt a decent setup.

I run FS9 under WIN XP with 2.4GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, 250GTS graphics, and have never had this issue.

I don't recall reading complaints from those that do, either.

 

I think I'll leave this box as is for FS9, and when it falls over, take up golf again...

[Sara Louise Capon 21]

One thing a lot of people forget to state is the resolution they run at,

running at 2560x1600 on a new rig, or running 1280x800, using DX9 or 10

 

How many addons etc....

 

There are so many things effecting FSX.

Even with an i7 990X with 5 cores on FSX 4.7GHz at 2560x1600 with an ATI6990 It is easy to bring FSX to a crawl.

at london heathrow with UK2000 airports, play sims photoscenery, aerosoft london, pmdg 737 ngx,

It can slow to 7fps, although that is still flyable and steady.

 

So very much depends what you are doing, flying, addon, have running in the background

 

In naked FSX fps is through the roof.

[WingZ 547]

In naked FSX fps is through the roof.

Yes, X-Plane runs very well in the FS9 forum, too!

[FSMuseum 39]

Yes, X-Plane runs very well in the FS9 forum, too!

 

XD That made my day. I think he meant on a pretty good rig its through the roof. Well, if you consider 20 through the roof...

On my rig I can get about 30 FPS in a crowded new york on my settings

[Sara Louise Capon 21]

7fps is flyable if it's steady.

 

was using it more as an example. It's better with Aerosoft London off when flying the big stuff, and not going into town, and turning viewing distance down,

don't always need to see what's happening in the East of London when your further out west lol.

 

It's good to stress your computer out, see what it can do.

 

Until we get 8GHz Computers on Air cooling, FSX in 64bit version (as if lol), it will be impossible to have Max Addons, Most detailed aircraft, and All sliders at Max. on Max. resolutions.

 

There will always be compromise in FSX.

 

I think he meant

and I'm a she lol

[buzzbee 53]

Still heavily invested in FS 9 - Have 10 installed and some tweaks performed, but at this time, I haven't purchased any additional add on's PMDG or Accusim. We'll see where it goes.