if i am flying over a small city 20% is nothing, but downtown L.A. and 20% is quite a bit

If there are no roads with traffic it won't affect performance! Try it out over large cities like Tokyo, Seattle or New York and you will see the effect.

 

In my #2 post, I stated I had moved my car slider up to 100% and saw no affect on performance. That was in LA with MegaScenery SoCal installed. I was testing this with my DX10 settings as one of the forum members had indicated DX10 causes some graphic anomalies on the car traffic and was having problems seeing the anomaly so increased the setting up to 100% and sat out in the middle of the freeway. Tons of traffic but no affect on FPS (and I did see the anomaly). I'll have to try in downtown LA but I think there are other issues in these areas which affect fps.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Hmmmm, I tested it above the city (GEX), and it's hard on fps. GEX provides lots of streets in urban areas, so it must be hard on fps for sure. Without vehicle traffic fps - 33, with vehicles on 14% - 22, so i'ts a no go for me.

Ships, Feries & Leisure boats also kill your FPS I think....

In my #2 post, I stated I had moved my car slider up to 100% and saw no affect on performance. That was in LA with MegaScenery SoCal installed. I was testing this with my DX10 settings as one of the forum members had indicated DX10 causes some graphic anomalies on the car traffic and was having problems seeing the anomaly so increased the setting up to 100% and sat out in the middle of the freeway. Tons of traffic but no affect on FPS (and I did see the anomaly). I'll have to try in downtown LA but I think there are other issues in these areas which affect fps.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

That's the beauty of FSX. Sometimes it is the combination of things more than the single thing that causes a drop in fps. Traffic is a killer on my PC around large cities that's for sure. I use a clean FSX though with no utilities or addons installed.

I just went back to LA and tried it again with car settings at 10%, then changed it to 100% and saw no noticable changes in FPS. I then turned ships and cruise ships up to 100% and saw a noticable change in frames (from around 50% to 29%). This might be caused by FSX loading all the ships around the world though so probably not a fair test. It's just interesting to see the effects on traffic on fsx at various locations around the world.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Hmmmm, I tested it above the city (GEX), and it's hard on fps. GEX provides lots of streets in urban areas, so it must be hard on fps for sure. Without vehicle traffic fps - 33, with vehicles on 14% - 22, so i'ts a no go for me.

 

A set of ground textures will have no effect on traffic within FSX. Traffic is generated through vector lines, compiled into BGL files. None of which are included with the ground texture replacement product mentioned.

 

Add a scenery program that adds a lot of new roads, with traffic assigned to those roads, because just having roads does not mean there is traffic assigned to them, and crank things up and the FPS hit will appear. I recommend trying UTX and flying along the 405 freeway by KLAX at 100% road traffic. It almost brings back some unpleasant memories... :mad:

Sorry, I meant UTX Europe. Lots of streets in urban areas.

Wow, not a lot to talk about these days :lol:

I just went back to LA and tried it again with car settings at 10%, then changed it to 100% and saw no noticable changes in FPS. I then turned ships and cruise ships up to 100% and saw a noticable change in frames (from around 50% to 29%). This might be caused by FSX loading all the ships around the world though so probably not a fair test. It's just interesting to see the effects on traffic on fsx at various locations around the world.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

Does it affect fps more in DX9 for you? I use UTX under DX9 and enabling even 10% traffic in London causes an unacceptable drop in performance for very little visual improvement. I almost wish they had just left it alone =(.

I just tested the traffic on 100%, and 10% as well, and i saw no difference. Pe11e, I just notied that you have a Q9505 Processor, and the rest of us either have i5 or an i7 processor. Could it have something to do with this?

 

I think I'll keep traffic on 17% and see how it goes from there.

I recommend trying UTX and flying along the 405 freeway by KLAX at 100% road traffic. It almost brings back some unpleasant memories...

 

That's exactly what I have been doing and I see no affect on fps whatsoever. I have UTX installed too and that's the freeway I've been flying over. To be fair, I do not have many of the UTX options turned on. I am also flying over photoscenery and not all the roads in MegaScenery have vehicles on them. Just mainly the freeways. My fps stayed somewhere between 29-55. I then relocated to Orbx/FTX KSEA with traffic at 100% and the fps stayed mainly above 30 and that's about the same if I move the slider down to 10%. It must be another setting or scenery or aircraft that is causing your low fps.

 

Does it affect fps more in DX9 for you? I use UTX under DX9 and enabling even 10% traffic in London causes an unacceptable drop in performance for very little visual improvement.

 

Just tried in DX9 and no change between DX9/DX10. FSX with 100% traffic runs about the same. I do know that London is a FPS killer. I don't think developers have been kind to the English. I bought Aerosoft's London and London City and the frames were so bad it just was no fun to fly in the area. It's nice looking scenery though. I think I would have an issue flying around JFK and New York City as I have Aerosoft's Manhattan and FSDT KJFK installed. I have to agree with Meshman (and others) that given the right circumstances with new roads and maybe with UTX cranked up, you'll see some major losses in frames.

 

I am going to continue using FSX with car traffic cranked up to 100% and see what happens. I think Summer1 is correct in stating it could be the CPU installed as FSX is more dependent on the CPU than the GPU and the technology has definitely gotten better. Testing our theories here is basically useless though as everyone has a different system configuration, some sliders maxed, some not and many different configurations regarding scenery addons. The only solution would be to run the same program many ran in the Hardware Forum where they tested the various performances associated with Sandy Bridge with a fresh install of FSX and no overclocks. Not worth the effort IMHO as it would mean a clean install.

 

Best regards,

Jim

That's exactly what I have been doing and I see no affect on fps whatsoever. I have UTX installed too and that's the freeway I've been flying over. To be fair, I do not have many of the UTX options turned on. I am also flying over photoscenery and not all the roads in MegaScenery have vehicles on them. Just mainly the freeways. My fps stayed somewhere between 29-55. I then relocated to Orbx/FTX KSEA with traffic at 100% and the fps stayed mainly above 30 and that's about the same if I move the slider down to 10%. It must be another setting or scenery or aircraft that is causing your low fps.

 

 

 

Just tried in DX9 and no change between DX9/DX10. FSX with 100% traffic runs about the same. I do know that London is a FPS killer. I don't think developers have been kind to the English. I bought Aerosoft's London and London City and the frames were so bad it just was no fun to fly in the area. It's nice looking scenery though. I think I would have an issue flying around JFK and New York City as I have Aerosoft's Manhattan and FSDT KJFK installed. I have to agree with Meshman (and others) that given the right circumstances with new roads and maybe with UTX cranked up, you'll see some major losses in frames.

 

I am going to continue using FSX with car traffic cranked up to 100% and see what happens. I think Summer1 is correct in stating it could be the CPU installed as FSX is more dependent on the CPU than the GPU and the technology has definitely gotten better. Testing our theories here is basically useless though as everyone has a different system configuration, some sliders maxed, some not and many different configurations regarding scenery addons. The only solution would be to run the same program many ran in the Hardware Forum where they tested the various performances associated with Sandy Bridge with a fresh install of FSX and no overclocks. Not worth the effort IMHO as it would mean a clean install.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

Hmm... while I didn't really notice any lower frames, while flying with traffic 100%, I did notice that my frames seem to jump more. I have set my frames to unlimited, and with traffic enabled, my frames jump radically, like from 23-60, while with no traffic, they seem to less frequently jump so low, usually like 40-60.

 

Jim, do you notice this also?

my frames jump radically, like from 23-60, while with no traffic, they seem to less frequently jump so low, usually like 40-60. Jim, do you notice this also?

 

Yes.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Road traffic contains a serious memory leak bug. Traffic is created but not destroyed, so eventually FSX will run out of memory.

 

Be sure you are running the latest FSUIPC as well - it contains a hot-patch that prevents a certain type of CTD in FSX (NULL pointer exceptions). Kudos to Pete Dowson for that.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Try AS Amsterdam Schiphol and turn on car traffic on all highways and roads.

You will get a severe framerate hit.

 

Not when being on the ground, but try flying around the airport.