Hi everyone im new to this forum so... i will introduce myself hehehe, my name is Fernando, im 20 years old and im from Venezuela, i fly regularly in Flight Simulator X with the PMDG 737NGX and Jetstream 41, and now i recently installed an old software i had around which was originally developed for FS9 but adapted to FSX, its the Fly The Maddog by Leonardo SH but i noticed that in comparison to PMDG's 737NGX the Maddog has very but veeery low frame rates (around 5 FPS) with everything low in the setup tab within the configuration manager, in fact it happens with almost every aircraft which was originally developed for FS9 and adapted for FSX, for example the F1's superb ATR 72-500 the panel graphics and virtual cockpit model is very frame rate friendly in FS9 but after i used the FSX updater to migrate it from fs2004 and tried to make a flight with it i simply couldnt, frame rates were veery low (again, 5-6 fps), it also happened with Majestic's Dash 8 but every other aircraft like the Super 80 professional for fsx had a frame rate of 20+ fps, any idea of why is this happening? please help, sometimes its very frustrating because the most realistic addons are fs9 based aircraft.. Thank you in advance!

 

My specs are:

 

Intel i3 2.26Ghz clock 

Nvidia 310M Video card

4GB Ram

500GB Hard disk

 

 

Please take note that in most FSX-based aircraft i have very good performance (like 20+ fps) so i know my setup is fairly good enough for FSX within my pocket size lol.

 

Your problem may be the FSX updater to migrate software addons from FS2K4 to FSX. There's a FSX version for the ATR 72-500. I don't think the Dash 8 for FS9 is suitable for flying in FSX. This is why the developer is working on a FSX version to be released this year or next. I don't know about the other aircraft but believe they were all updated to FSX too.

 

You also have just a barely adequate laptop for FSX. Not sure what version of Windows is installed (i.e., Windows 7, 64 bit or 32 bit). If 32bit, you will have to employ the /3GB switch so FSX can use more than 2GB's. If 64 bit, FSX will see up to maybe 3GB and use the rest of your 4GB's of RAM for the operating system services.

 

With your laptop, I would stay with FS9 and FS9 addons or just the default stuff in FSX.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Hi!, thank you for replying to my post, well the FSX updater i used was the one you download from Flight1's ATR 72-500 main product page, after you download it it will start copying the FS9 files into FSX, and yes, FSX default planes run very smoothly in comparison to other addons, what i hate or i get angry to is that some FS9 planes have such a poor performance when compared to PMDG's 737 for example or the MD-11, could this be related to the texture format used by FS9 planes? (.BMP, DXT3 but not .DDS?) I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit OS. Thank you!

1. Model is not optimisedfor FSx, cant be corrected without original files.Need to be rebuilt with FSX SDK.Ant that isnt that simple. Model will need recoding.

2. Most gauges wont work and again not optimised for FSX, use different coding.

3. Most, not all texture issues can be fixed. but it is usually the above 2 that cause the issue.

4. The FSX converter cannot fix the above 3 problems.

5. There are pleny of really good FSX freeware out there why use FS9 files.

Alright then, i will download repaints and other stuff for FSX taking note it must be FSX native so it will have nicer frame rates, also look up if there is any FSX ready version of a nice payware to purchase, thank you guys!

Also turn off the Hi-Res 3D cockpit option in the FSX settings. That's where I get the largest boost.

Hi!, thank you for replying to my post, well the FSX updater i used was the one you download from Flight1's ATR 72-500 main product page, after you download it it will start copying the FS9 files into FSX, and yes, FSX default planes run very smoothly in comparison to other addons, what i hate or i get angry to is that some FS9 planes have such a poor performance when compared to PMDG's 737 for example or the MD-11, could this be related to the texture format used by FS9 planes? (.BMP, DXT3 but not .DDS?) I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit OS. Thank you!

I didn't know about that converter for the ATR. I'm not sure why you are not downloading and installing the FSX version as you can use the same key you had for FS9 (unless you have the CD version). I don't understand why the FS9 version was 149 MB's and the FSX version is 85 MB's. I still would download the FSX version though (that's what I have) and see if that works better. Glad you have Windows 7 64 bit though. That helps a lot but you still will have to watch your system memory as FSX is resource hungry.

 

Best regards,

Jim

I didn't know about that converter for the ATR. I'm not sure why you are not downloading and installing the FSX version as you can use the same key you had for FS9 (unless you have the CD version). I don't understand why the FS9 version was 149 MB's and the FSX version is 85 MB's. I still would download the FSX version though (that's what I have) and see if that works better. Glad you have Windows 7 64 bit though. That helps a lot but you still will have to watch your system memory as FSX is resource hungry.

 

Best regards,

Jim

I used the updater because i have the CD Boxed edition of the ATR and i bought it on a local office max in Mexico so no F1 lic key.. Maybe the difference in size is because FSX uses another type of texture compression or maybe they are in DDS format but i dont know, i would need to purchase the FSX version to check.