While the evidence supports that it benefits turboprops only to be external, I would hope that finding a solution to making it work for jets continues on for the benefit of such an increase in FPS. We have optimized machines to run it, yet FSX while seemingly runs fairly well, is still bumping up on so many limits thus making it very volatile not just in a CTD, but the flying experience overall or lack thereof. 

 

Of course all this would be conjecture if we really knew what the next best big sim will be to overtake, thus spending time and resources in it would be futile. 

The External FDE does NOT significantly increase FPS. The real FPS saver is the texturing and modelling. The Majestic Dash 8 FPS is due to 2048 textures at 1024 resolution - let me elaborate.

 

The texture quality is really only at 1024 resolution, but applied on a 2048 texture sheet so that it can load twice as fast, resulting in a significant lower draw call and higher FPS. That is what I know. The upcoming twin otter extended also feature such technology, and you will see such high FPS despite the high detail in the passenger/cargo area. Conclusion, no, External FDE dont significantly increase FPS. All credits go to the modelling and texturing.

To add another point:

Without some form of external FDE, things like true VTOL for fixed-wing aircraft or flying outside the earth atmosphere (like at 1.000.000 ft) wouldn't be possible in FSX.

 

Rob

 

 

The texture quality is really only at 1024 resolution, but applied on a 2048 texture sheet so that it can load twice as fast, resulting in a significant lower draw call and higher FPS. That is what I know. The upcoming twin otter extended also feature such technology, and you will see such high FPS despite the high detail in the passenger/cargo area. Conclusion, no, External FDE dont significantly increase FPS. All credits go to the modelling and texturing.

 

Why doesn't PMDG do the same, would have been awesome to have the NGX and J41 perform as good as the dash 8. After getting the dash 8 I have a hard time going back to flying PMDG because I have to lower a lot of settings to get close to the same performance(even then it doesn't run as smooth). The textures in dash 8 looks just as good as PMDG I think... This plane is a revolution in the FSX world, wish other complex planes would follow up and perform as good as this one.

 

 

Why doesn't PMDG do the same, would have been awesome to have the NGX and J41 perform as good as the dash 8

 

Glad they didn't. I like using it with all my addons and my VA's Acars system. Good enough in the realism department for a gammer/simmer!

 

 

Glad they didn't. I like using it with all my addons and my VA's Acars system.

 

I'm not talking about the external FDE but the way textures is implemented to save performance as Joshua explained(he said the external FDE is not what makes the Dash8 perform so well, but it's the way the textures is implemented). Why would implementing textures the way majestic did interfere with other addons?(look away from the external FDE for awhile and imagine it wasn't there)

I'm not talking about the external FDE but the way textures is implemented to save performance as Joshua explained(he said the external FDE is not what makes the Dash8 perform so well, but it's the way the textures is implemented). Why would implementing textures the way majestic did interfere with other addons?(look away from the external FDE for awhile and imagine it wasn't there)

I am sure PMDG have their own reasons for not doing so, I am not PMDG so I wouldn't know lol.

 

 

I am sure PMDG have their own reasons for not doing so, I am not PMDG so I wouldn't know lol.

 

I asked because I was hoping they would chime in and explain their reasons LOL. It sure was nice getting the Dash 8 and finally get the performance I was looking for in FSX without removing to much eyecandy. I will buy everything they come up with from now.

I am sure PMDG have their own reasons for not doing so, I am not PMDG so I wouldn't know lol.

Why didn't Aerosoft use this method with their Airbus X then? The performance of the Airbus X is far worse than that of the Majestic Q400

Majestic is doing a whole lot more than just proper management of textures and polygons. The avionics and systems (glass cockpits being pretty resource intensive) are in entirely separate threads. FSX is pretty much just one big single thread program and as such, traditional methods of drawing gauges and handling systems in FSX have a effect on framerates since the thread has to perform all those extra instructions before it can put the image on the screen. Take all those things out of the FSX thread, and they will have zero impact on framerates(I know. I have done it myself) since all that the FSX thread will be doing is drawing polygons and textures etc...That is IMO one of the biggest reasons why the MJC Q400 is so much more friendly on frames. I would guess the reason why multi threading is not more common is because it isnt exactly a simple task of just making an extra thread. Especially when it comes to simulators where everything is linked together in some way or another. If 2 threads try to do something with the same memory space at the same time absolute havoc can occur. It took me a while to plan my route with some of my projects to prevent this from happening. And the more complex the project, the tougher this job becomes.

 

 

Take all those things out of the FSX thread, and they will have zero impact on framerates(I know. I have done it myself) since all that FSX will be doing is drawing polygons and textures etc...That is IMO one of the biggest reasons why the MJC Q400 is so much more friendly on frames.

 

So your saying the good FPS has something to do with the external FDE, and Joshua says it isn't the external FDE but the modelling and texturing. Hmmmm If you're right I guess my question some post above would be irrelevant.

 

So your saying the good FPS has something to do with the external FDE, and Joshua says it isn't the external FDE but the modelling and texturing. Hmmmm If you're right I guess my question some post above would be irrelevant.

No. Even if the FDE wasnt running in its own thread there wouldnt be too much of a loss of frames. Unlike P3D, you cant stop the FSX FDE from being calculated in the background. You can prevent it from applying its effects to your aircraft so you can overwrite it with your own but taking control away is not the cause of the good frames. Read my post again. There are 2 major contributers to bad frames. Too many materials/textures and the drawing of glass gauges. Put the external FDE calc(again, the internal FSX FDE is still being processed) and systems into their own threads would give an improvement of maybe 2-3 fps but not much. Put the drawing code for the displays in their own thread however and you will free up FSX  to handle just polygons/textures/animations and the like.

Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding  your explanation. Anyway, it seems like Majestic have done some magic and I wish other devs(PMDG) would follow up and try to achieve the same performance. I'm being spoiled by the great performance in this plane and it's hard to go back flying the PMDG birds...

JoshuaC wrote:

 

I am sure PMDG have their own reasons for not doing so, I am not PMDG so I wouldn't know lol.

Why didn't Aerosoft use this method with their Airbus X then? The performance of the Airbus X is far worse than that of the Majestic Q400

That's because the "technology" is new, it came after the AAX modelling and texturing was done.