Just' wanted to ask what settings do you use, when flying the PMDG 737NGX from/to major hubs like FSDT's KJFK, KLAX, KORD etc. I think I have a quite decent system which should allow to fly at least with 20 fps. I have GEX NA, Ultimate Terrain US installed and I'm using MytrafficX or UT2 for ai traffic. Do you reach 20 fps or more?

 

Harry

I have a decent system, where I always run UT2, ASE, AISmooth, TrackIR, and EZCA when I fly the NGX. At those airports I get about 15 fps (which is the limit I set in UT2). If I set my UT2 limit to 20 fps, there is barely any AI traffic.

Seems like reaching 20 fps is not possible?

TURN. YOUR. SLIDERS. DOWN.

 

(T.Y.S.D)

TURN. YOUR. SLIDERS. DOWN.

 

(T.Y.S.D)

 

Thanks for this helpful comment

(TFTHC)

It's definitely possible, but it's all about eye candy management, or as Scarlett so elegantly put it T.Y.S.D ^_^ . LAX for me is the best out of all of those, at least in my opinion. Whenever I go in and out of there, I'll give the autogen, scenery complexity (a little bit), and AI traffic a toss down, then after I'm out of the area I'll bring them back up. It's all about just finding that sweet spot. It takes some testing to figure it out, but it's well worth it.

 

I don't use any limiter, and will leave the FSX limiter at unlimited, and can definitely get a 25-30 average with Autogen Normal, Scenery Complexity Very Dense, and AI 15/10 with MyTraffic Pro 5.3b. (i7 2600 3.4ghz, nothing to write home about, but I work with what I have.)

TURN. YOUR. SLIDERS. DOWN.

 

(T.Y.S.D)

 

Another wasteful immature post

TURN. YOUR. SLIDERS. DOWN.

 

(T.Y.S.D)

 

If you go DX10 you can...

 

T.Y.S.U.

 

If that's immature then I'm a happy bunny

Seems like reaching 20 fps is not possible?

Considering how rapidly personal computing is advancing, I would imagine that very few reasonable FSX performance concerns/desires (e.g., I want a consistent 30 frames/s, not I want a consistent 120 frames/s) will not ultimately be resolved/fulfilled by future technology. Currently, as others have mentioned, acceptable performance can generally be achieved by compromising and reducing settings, tweaking, and experimenting.

 

Another wasteful immature post

Perhaps you could have further contributed to this discussion. While I do not appreciate the capitalization, color, or size of the text you are referring to, I do not see how your own remark is not "another wasteful . . . post".

My remark was a comment directed at a poster who is clogging up these forums with immature nonsense. It's not a wasteful post to point that out. Or I could just babble on about "future technology" which means nothing because FSX is still coded with old technology in mind. You can overclock to 5ghz, run a gtx680, and get above 20 fps. There's nothing in the future that will add much more, a GTX680 is no better than a GTX580. You can buy a chip now that oc's to 5ghz. You don't need the future.

Not possible I am afraid. You will have to accept less eye candies for a smooth flight experience with no OOM or CTD. Those airports are nice, but they disappeared after 5 minutes of climb, and when you land it's the runway you are looking at anyway. I would give the new DX10 work by Steve (see the DX10 forum a try) The drawback is that many of the complex airports add-on do not support DX-10 properly. The solution to that is to only fly with the add-ons that do.

 

OOM and CTD bother me too much that now only fly with normal autogen, no road traffics and only 10% AI. I want a smooth fly experience, not stuttering.

My remark was a comment directed at a poster who is clogging up these forums with immature nonsense. It's not a wasteful post to point that out. Or I could just babble on about "future technology" which means nothing because FSX is still coded with old technology in mind. You can overclock to 5ghz, run a gtx680, and get above 20 fps. There's nothing in the future that will add much more, a GTX680 is no better than a GTX580. You can buy a chip now that oc's to 5ghz. You don't need the future.

 

First, I would probably put a ton of more effore into this reply if I really gave a rat's behind about what you think. But clearly this is the *second* time you have posted after ME, and posted *another wasted post*. Like you are some sort of child? NO post here at avsim is "worthless". We all make a community together of what we all post. Weather it is opinions or not! So stop following me please., good day to you.

 

Thanks for this helpful comment

(TFTHC)

 

Oh, your so welcome.

My remark was a comment directed at a poster who is clogging up these forums with immature nonsense. It's not a wasteful post to point that out.

If it really bothers you, please ask politely, contact the moderators, start a different thread, and/or use personal messaging. Regardless, your original post was less relevant to the discussion than her's was.

 

Perhaps you could have further contributed to this discussion.

"future technology" which means nothing because FSX is still coded with old technology in mind. You can overclock to 5ghz, run a gtx680, and get above 20 fps. There's nothing in the future that will add much more, a GTX680 is no better than a GTX580. You can buy a chip now that oc's to 5ghz. You don't need the future.

From this, you clearly do possess an opinion that you could have shared in your original post.

 

I am not an expert, but it seems that FSX performance is only going to become better with future technology, similar to how it has been becoming better up to now.