maybe try taking a break from all the tweaks and headaches AND try flying something else like: DCS World 64bit, XP10 64bit :ph34r:  or buy Prepar3d which is FSX updated to be more stable and smooth.  I Love P3D!

Traffic is I suspect the main performance killer around KSEA and KJFK. Between the road, sea and air traffic, you've got a lot of stuff going on you don't see much of. Practice tweaking down until you get smoothness around those areas, and you'll have a good set point to work with. You can then adjust upwards from there.

 

Both airports have lots of other airports nearby, adding to the performance hit (since each airport is running ground and air traffic as well).

I was having a lot of problems with FSX on my high end computer.  I had low FPS and persistent OOMs after trying every tweak I thought I could find, but the problem is that tweaks are not universal to every system. What may work for one person will tank for someone else.

I was very fortunate in that Ryan Maziarz from PMDG took a lot of his personal time one evening, and went into my computer changing my settings and tuning FSX.  PMDG has the greatest support for their products of any developer, but what Ryan did for me was far beyond what is expected from PMDG support.  

Now FSX works perfectly on my system.  I had purchased FSDT's Vancouver airport when it was released and never got to see it on my system until Ryan tuned FSX for me.  Now I can fly into Vancouver with the NGX without any problems and with great (around 28) FPS.

Below is a post that Ryan made on the PMDG forum that explains what he did when he tuned my FSX.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ryan Maziarz

 

Ok just to give everyone the rundown - I spent several hours on Bob's machine tonight with him and we think we've solved the issue.

 

Primary VAS driver:
Numerous active Megascenery Earth 2.0 photoscenery states

Most of the eastern US states were installed and active. VAS was at nearly 3.8GB already with the NGX just sitting at the gate at FlightBeam KIAD cold and dark. Turning the airplane on and beginning to program the FMC almost immediately crossed the 4GB VAS barrier and crashed the sim. Disabling the photoscenery using Scenery Config Editor freed up over 1GB of VAS sitting at the gate. FSX allocates VAS to scenery *even if it is not visible and you never fly over it or within visibility range of it.* This is completely counter-intuitive and I have no idea why MS did this, but it appears to be a major cause of the OOM problems. If you must use photoscenery like this with the NGX (and the 777 when it's out) I highly suggest only enabling the states you're going to be flying over and not everything - it will almost certainly OOM if you have everything active. I think this type of scenery is better suited to low and slow VFR flight in GA aircraft that don't have the kind of VAS overhead a complex airliner does.

Secondary VAS driver:
4096 REX textures

We reduced these to 2048 (and set the texture max load in the cfg to 2048) in an attempt to further reduce the VAS load. I personally don't see any visual difference vs. the 4096 ones, especially at 1920x1080/1200, so it makes sense to me to do what reduces the VAS load. Remember that because textures are measured as a square, doubling the resolution actually *quadruples* the total number of pixels. 2046x2046 = ~4 million pixels, but 4096x4096 = ~16 million pixels. That's pretty significant, especially for (to me at least) such a small visual change.

We also ran his fsx.cfg through ******* Altuve's tool and set Nvidia Inspector for 8xS + 2xSGSSAA + FXAA. I was actually incorrect earlier - video card settings do not appear to affect VAS, it all happens internally on the card and the extra memory used by higher AA levels does not appear in the fsx.exe process VAS. I tested this myself last night and the VAS never changed regardless of what settings I used on the card. So that's good at least.

All other addons were left active including the Orbx regions. The Orbx stuff does hit VAS but nowhere near as much as photoscenery because it isn't applying a totally unique texture to every single LOD cell in the region the way that photoscenery does. Textures get reused and that lowers the VAS usage comparatively by a lot.

============

To measure VAS, get Sysinternals' Process Explorer here:
http://technet.micro...s/bb896653.aspx

Run it and right click in the area where the column names are. Go to the Process Memory tab and check "Virtual Size", which will give you a new column - this is a direct measure of VAS. (I move it over next to the CPU column - click it to sort the column by descending VAS) "Working Set" is the parameter most closely associated with the actual amount of physical RAM the process is using. Virtual Size is pretty much always going to be much bigger than Working Set. Watch the FSX.exe process as you do things in the sim and it will show you how those things affect VAS. If you can reliably finish flights without it going over 4GB, you're going to be stable and shouldn't ever see a crash from VAS exhaustion.

• 7

Ryan Maziarz

I fly the sim not the fps counter, thats makes it fun for me.

 

One of the things you can do to help your fps in those big payware airports is to turn off wideview and edit the cameras.cfg and change the default zoom level to 0.4 as it looks the same as using wideview but with a nice fps boost

 

I dont fly to big airports like EGLL, i try to stick to the regional payware airports as the fps tends to be a lot better

 

My FSX works quite well even though I do get the occasional stutter.  This is the first time I have heard of this tweak, does it work with EZDok or will I have to change all of my current camera zoom settings ?

I'm copying the link for this thread for those FSXer's that continue to ask why some of us still use FS9...

My FSX works quite well even though I do get the occasional stutter.  This is the first time I have heard of this tweak, does it work with EZDok or will I have to change all of my current camera zoom settings ?

 

 

You might need to make adjustments to ezdok zoom levels as well, i do own ezdok but i dont have it installed.

 

The other good thing about not using wideview is no fisheye effect and no geometric distortion on the vc.

My FSX works quite well even though I do get the occasional stutter.  This is the first time I have heard of this tweak, does it work with EZDok or will I have to change all of my current camera zoom settings ?

 

You'll need to change all your current zoom settings in EZDOK or OpusFSX. 

 

From my experience with wideview=true x0.80 zoom equals wideview=false x0.55 zoom FPS-wise.

 

Besides, wideview on looks better.

 

Dirk.

Some folks will say that 20-25 FPS is fine, but try landing a jet by hand with those or lower FPS:  cant be done.

I'm copying the link for this thread for those FSXer's that continue to ask why some of us still use FS9...

Prepar3d is a better FSX :good:

I find it interesting with all these people here complaining about 15-20 fps. With my system I'm lucky to get that at a big airport. I've never really upgraded either, so I've been flying with low fps for a number of years, and I'm totally used to it. I have no issues controlling an airplane in low fps because I'm simply used to it. I do however enjoy faster frames when I do manage to get some.

I find it interesting with all these people here complaining about 15-20 fps. With my system I'm lucky to get that at a big airport. I've never really upgraded either, so I've been flying with low fps for a number of years, and I'm totally used to it. I have no issues controlling an airplane in low fps because I'm simply used to it. I do however enjoy faster frames when I do manage to get some.

Wow, simming truly doesn't have to be this way...

 

Those using X-Plane get better results than this.

 

I hope P3D 64Bit solves most of these performance problems. Is it true that some Aces team members are on the Lockheed P3D development team?

I'm copying the link for this thread for those FSXer's that continue to ask why some of us still use FS9...

 

I wonder why people still use FS9.

It has been almost an year I am using FSX with all new setup that I tried... All the money I invested in my card and cpu

My rig is i7 @ 4.2 Ghz , GTX 680 8 GB RAM DDR-III . And What not I have tried to make FSX run smooth(Kostas Tweaks,FSX Guide,DX10 patches) BUT it still suffers at airports like UK2000 EGLL , ORBX YMML . For me FPS is very important in flying and if you go below 25 it will ruin it totally.

I want to know how you guys still manage to enjoy FSX within major airports (using NGX,REX,Traffic,Complex airport-ORBX YMML,UK2000)?

 

Forgive my bluntness, Sid, but 4.2 GHz is not going to make you happy, as in order to get those "smooth at 30fps" you will have to roll back most of the nice graphics which your 680 could give you. How many times have we read - "FSX is processor-bound"??? 

 

A 680 matched to a slow 4.2 gig proc will allow Bufferpools=0. That's all.

 

If you will - please - put your hardware specs into your profile (at left, under your Avatar) and then copy your fsx.cfg here as "sidh_fsx.txt" (using the "More Reply Options - bottom-right) so that we can make a better guesstimate as to what direction is appropriate. We could use your Inspector settings, too, please.

 

Thanks.

I wonder why people still use FS9.

:ph34r: I hear Dillon coming :lol:

sidh, on 02 Jul 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

 

Hello everyone,

It has been almost an year I am using FSX with all new setup that I tried... All the money I invested in my card and cpu

My rig is i7 @ 4.2 Ghz , GTX 680 8 GB RAM DDR-III . And What not I have tried to make FSX run smooth(Kostas Tweaks,FSX Guide,DX10 patches) BUT it still suffers at airports like UK2000 EGLL , ORBX YMML . For me FPS is very important in flying and if you go below 25 it will ruin it totally. If I remember FS9 days it was smooth as hell with good visuals except ground texture resolution.

 

I want to know how you guys still manage to enjoy FSX within major airports (using NGX,REX,Traffic,Complex airport-ORBX YMML,UK2000)?

 

1) 25 is not a magic number in FSX. Smooth, stutter free gameplay starts to happen at around 20 FPS. FSX isn't and has never been like other games when it comes to FPS. So don't be overly concerned with that. Is your game smooth? Then don't worry about what the FPS are.

 

2) If it's not smooth, then that can be fixed and you have the hardware to do it.

 

Give me an actual FPS number you are getting at YMML in the NGX. Tell us what your settings are for AI traffic and what program you use (pretty much every setting on that whole page from Airliners to airport vehicles to cars is important).

 

What's your autogen at? If you have it maxed out then you are just asking for trouble in the Orbx regions you have. Their autogen density is off the charts.

 

Are you trying to use HD clouds and water with REX? If so don't bother. They are frame killers and the visual difference is almost unoticeable. Use water 2.0 low (if you are using med-high you are costing yourself 5-6 FPS just from that). Do not go higher. It's not worth it and low gives excellent performance balanced with visual effect.

 

Finally, post your .cfg and let us take a look at whether you are mix and matching too many "tweaks" that may actually be hurting you.

 

I have an I5 2500k at 4.6ghz, 8 gigs of ram, and a GTX 570. Nothing special at all and it takes me all of 5 minutes to apply the tweaks I use. And I fly the NGX everywhere, including YMML with full AI traffic as you are trying to.