The Q400 is light on frames because it doen't make FSX calculate significally more things than for a default aircraft. All the complex calculations about systems and FDE are made outside FSX and don't affect the fps. The visual model and textures are also highly optimized (we are from old FS9 school where every saved polygon was precious). Adding 2D panels will not affect the fps, just few milliseconds more for loading panel bitmaps for the first time. I know what I'm talking about - I had 2D panels in Q400 before (we removed them just before the release of PILOT edition) - and haven't notice any fps difference.

 

BTW, if the addon A makes 25 fps, the addon B makes 30 fps and your sim is limited to 30, you can't state that B has 5fps better performance than A. If you set unlimited fps, A will still make 25 fps while B can make mabye 75.

 

 

It robs the sim of absolutely nothing, leaving it at default robs the sim. It seems like you were just using the wrong number for your setup.

 

Again, nonsense.

 

FSX will use all available cores for the terrain loader. By setting the mask you are robbing FSX of one of those cores.

 

As NIckN quite rightly points out in all of his guides, the only reason you need the AM setting is if you have the system poorly optimized or you hammer core 0 with other addon programs.

 

I can assure you that AM=14 in my setup does nada, zero. (and yes, its the right number for my HT disabled 2600k). In fact, if anything, setting AM14 for my system increases the chances of blurries at various times.

 

To say that AM is a 'must have' tweak is bad advice. As with many of the miracle tweak list its required to evaluate on your own setup first. Its certainly not one of the ones that should be just thrown into the .cfg regardless.

I have removed AF for my chip also, and have not noticed any real difference at all. That is with all addons, not just a select few.

 

I am not sure if it is because my OC and new GPU, but none the less, I think the less things in the config the better.

 

Right now, I changed the one texture setting? setting to 120, wide view, HIGHMEMFIX, and LOD to 6.5. 

That is it. I have no issues with the NGX, Q400 or any Orbx/FlyTampa stuff I have.

 

I didn't believe it either, until one day I was FORCED to make a new config, due to me completely doing a number on it that I couldn't fix..lol...Set those first, tried the Sim, and have not looked back.

 

Oh, also, for my clouds, I have TML:4096

BTW, if the addon A makes 25 fps, the addon B makes 30 fps and your sim is limited to 30, you can't state that B has 5fps better performance than A. If you set unlimited fps, A will still make 25 fps while B can make mabye 75.

 

Very true. What I certainly noticed from the first minute, in almost every "heavier" scenery, be it FTX or the heavier airport addons, was that the Q400 was much smoother. This was totally irrespective of the weather. I have nigh on exact same performance in blue, cloudless skies and full overcast courtesy of OPUS FSX.

 

I am bowled over by the Q400. I love it. It is fun, challenging! All I want from FSX addons. These are great days...

 

A

Im locked and pegged at 30FPS in Orbx land (even at addon airports) with the Q400 which is pretty much unheard of for complex aircraft addons.

 

For example, with the J41 im getting 23-25 in the same scenario.

 

Certainly the Q400 appears very FPS freindly in my system.

No offence, but how can write off so many other users' views as "new product fever" ?

 

Why would people artificially state very positive FPS performance, if they weren't seeing it.

 

On my end (i7 2600k, 16GGB DDR3, HD 7850 2GB Win 7 64bit), the difference in FPS performance between the NGX and the Q400 is dramatic.

 

Here's a quick and dirty comparison :-

 

UK2000 EGCC, Opus Weather, Medium to high FSX settings, low AI settings, FSX FPS Unlocked (just for the test):-

 

NGX:   averages 24 FPS

 

Q400: averages 38 FPS

 

No 'new product fever', just how it is.

 

I accept that not everyone is seeing the difference, but equally, others should accept that some are.

 

Thanks for the comparison.  Is HT enabled or disabled on your processor?  I'm starting to think available threads has quite the effect on the MSQ400.

 

As for my use of the word "fervor".  It was said tongue in cheek.  Simply a poke at the excitement surrounding any big release such as this one.  ^_^ 

Yes Howard, it was the first job I did.

It's very easy, just move the throttle to where it looks right and enter the value given to the proper box.

The only thing to note is I cannot get the perfect off throttle. My 0 reading is 382, but that put the Q400 a bit into beta, just a bit.

When you load the aircraft you have to move throttle forward and back and you will see it then stops in the right place.

 

Hey Dave, got the throttle sorted. I had forgotten to disable the throttle assignments I had originally tried to assign in FSUIPC :blush:  

 

 

The Q400 is light on frames because it doen't make FSX calculate significally more things than for a default aircraft. All the complex calculations about systems and FDE are made outside FSX and don't affect the fps.

 

As someone who finds the Q400 extremely light on frames, this makes perfect sense.  It also explains a lot of the perceived smoothness.

 

Like I've said previously, I don't have the NGX, but comparing it to the GA stuff I have, the statement that it's only a few frames off of a default plane holds true for me.  It impacts my system less than almost all of my other add-on planes, other than a few really simple ones such as the Carenado C185.  For example, for me the Q400 gets better noticeably better framerates than the Lancair Legacy or the Milviz B55, and neither of those are all that bad.

 

To be honest, it's completely in the realm of 'shut the frame counter off, don't care, not needed'.  :lol:

Hey Dave, got the throttle sorted. I had forgotten to disable the throttle assignments I had originally tried to assign in FSUIPC :blush:

What are you like? Anyway glad you sorted it Howard