Yeah well according to the video info he has this configuration:

 

PC Specification:
Windows7 x64
i7 2600k @ 5.2Ghz
8Gb (2x4Gb) Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz
1 x KFA2 GTX580 @ 2Gb
500Gb Dedicated FSX SATA Drive
1200w Corsair PSU

 

I have quite similar system, with I7 2600k clocked at 4.4ghz and Radeon 6990 card. My fsx.cfg seems to have ProcSpeed=8309 and I'm perfectly happy with performance with most sliders set to very high settings, just autogen set to normal. 

Not happening...and you can see it in the video, would be nice though.

 

The LOD RTQ tree algorithm ( Really a modified - "restricted quad tree triangulation") is limited to 8.5 or 8.9, and perhaps is it was 9.5  would have to dig that up, but its one of the two/three.

 

Also its not much use unless you correctly set up the video driver for -LOD and very high Aniso.

 

But when you do, it is a beautiful sight, but 32 is just is not available in the FSX.exe and since it is not in the EXE will revert to a user selectable setting of 2.5 or 4.5

 

 

 

...And in the video comments he says " will revert back to 5.1GHZ when the LN runs out in about a week"?  What does he have a tanker parked outside? LOL

ProcSpeed=10491, shows a pc which is nothing more than mediocre, with those quoted settings being sufficiently crippling as to bring that pc to it's knees.

 

The entry in the cfg will also change everytime you delete it or reinstall it! If I recall correctly, Phil Taylor or one of the Aces team said that the number generated is compeletly irrelevant in the sim itself and was simply used to set FSX sliders at the first install as a yardstick and nothing more.

 

In fact here it is....

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/01/sp1-tweak-of-the-week-or-not.aspx

Then tell me why all of these follow that same "theory", Glen. 

 

Add a better GPU - it goes up: change the cfg for easier load - it goes up: oc to a higher number - it goes up: go from a 2600 to a 2600K - it goes up. In every case, as the FSX pc or settings are improved - it has gone up.

 

 

 

the number generated is compeletly irrelevant in the sim itself and was simply used to set FSX sliders at the first install as a yardstick

Correct - it is a yardstick.

 

The procspeed and information about your graphics hw contributes to your default PerfBucket setting. Customizing your settings moves you out of the default PerfBucket setting, but there is no "number" for that. They are not used beyond default settings, and we do not "read" the values back out of the config - they are "write only". We use them internally in our labs as extra verification of hw, there is no use in changing them. If you think that changing them is doing something, its not.

 

Been there, done that, Glen. The bucket setting isn't even a qualifier anymore, as every modern proc falls into the "7" - top, bracket, but I do use the ProcSpeed number as an extra verification of hw: it's still a valid indicator of performance, and stays true in each case where the load gets lighter, or the hw is improved. 

 

 

(Sorry about the two or three "edits", but the "Post editing" seems broken when it comes to making a quote when it contains two or more sentences.)

I knew it would cripple my PC but I gave it a try.  Notice how long it takes for the terrain to load?  I then got a message that I have never seen before "FSX has run out of virtual memory..." I agree with Paul Procspeed way too low to render frames like he does and the settings are way out in some cases.

 

It looks as though he recorded the video from a camcorder because you can see the refresh lines come through, that may be real but he is providing a bogus .cfg.

Then tell me why all of these follow that same "theory", Glen. 

 

Add a better GPU - it goes up: change the cfg for easier load - it goes up: oc to a higher number - it goes up: go from a 2600 to a 2600K - it goes up. In every case, as the FSX pc or settings are improved - it has gone up.

Already bolded shows that whole procspeed value is based on nothing, or at least its algorithms can't define it properly with modern hardware. There is no difference between those processors in terms of performance, if they are at stock speed. If FSX rates them differently, it works completely erroneusly. Reason may be anything unrelated to performance: perhaps FSX hates VT-d or something.

 

I just checked my values. FSX shows 10125, Prepar3D 10134. If I remember correctly my old setup two years ago with [email protected] 6GB and GTX480 scored more. My current setup is far better (and it can been seen in every possible software, including these sims) and qualifies to more than mediocre PC. Whole value is meaningless and I wouldn't make one single conclusion based on it. Like someone said before, it has tendency to change if you remove it.

 

What comes to video, it is clearly rendered frame by frame, as are many other gaming videos. CFG and whole LOD setting posted on video is just rubbish.

Ok I looked at the fsx.cfg on my second PC and this is what I got:

 

I5-3350P @3.10ghz, GTX 670 and 8GB of RAM

 

Procspeed: 13692

 

And then this one:

 

I7 2600k @ 4.4ghz, Radeon 6990, 8GB RAM

 

ProcSpeed=8309

 

 

Now it's obvious that the second system runs FSX with way better performance thanks to higher clock speed, yet it scores way less.

 

I don't think Procspeed really is any reliable at all when comparing system performance with FSX.

The video really doesn't deserve the attention or inquiry that it's getting.

 

As has been said, there are FS9 tweaks in that CFG, that don't even apply to FSX, and with a resolution of 1280x768,  anything he is getting is irrelevent to most simmers these days any way.

 

Cast this thread to the dungeons I say! :lol:

Almost all those HD, super smooth FSX videos running the latest addons, traffic, effects....even this guys "TV noise" effect are all manufactured. 

 

Meaning, FSRecorder will give you the ability to record, but it only records coordinates. You can play back any recording with any weather in any plane. After recording, you then go back, press play recording, and then render it via the addon menu...it will then render the video frame by frame, which is why the outcome looks so smooth. Problem is, the rendering is not real time, so there is no sound! You will almost always know when you run across these videos on the net, because they will either 1.) Have "RW" sounds of the Aircraft, or 2.) Have music playing.

 

When you go back to Play the recording, before you press render, you can move sliders/traffic/LOD, whatever to where you want, maxed out. Then you hit render, and it will go frame by frame, the the FPS limit you pick ( You can go as high as your GPU lets you) and it will take its time, more than likely over an hour for the video above, to render it literally frame by frame.

 

Your final product is a maxed out looking FSX movie, max sliders, traffic, and all the effects you want to add to it in a movie editor after.....and the beautiful part is, a 7 year old computer can make it look like its from NASA.  BUT....it won't give sound. You have to use Fraps, or something else to capture sim sound if you want, or, use RW sound, or just mash in some music.

Ok I looked at the fsx.cfg on my second PC and this is what I got:

 

I5-3350P @3.10ghz, GTX 670 and 8GB of RAM

 

Procspeed: 13692

 

And then this one:

 

I7 2600k @ 4.4ghz, Radeon 6990, 8GB RAM

 

ProcSpeed=8309

 

 

Now it's obvious that the second system runs FSX with way better performance thanks to higher clock speed, yet it scores way less.

 

I don't think Procspeed really is any reliable at all when comparing system performance with FSX.

It scores less because of the Radeon 6990.

I have had mine set to 9.5 (same as Word Not Allowed's recommendation some time ago) and it worked well for a couple of weeks then saw OOM's. The Affinity Mask setting is way out of line too.  FS9 days.  Old computer setting.  It will drain all the resources out of his/her system too!

 

Best regards,

Jim

Hey Jim, so you don't use the Affinity Mask tweak in your cfg file why ?

Whatever his settings, the image quality in his video is mediocre IMHO.

He should try these setting for videos.

 

how about the mipbias tweak? that does indeed make everything crispier.

can someone shed light on this setting?

I just read in the previous page that it is outdated.

It scores less because of the Radeon 6990.

 

Also,these days many processors are running at very slow idle speeds (addressing non 24/7 OC) and would guess that the fact they all don't boost to full load when FSX takes its query probably also explains some mismatches.

 

For instance, Haswells are very powerful, yet even though this one is OC to 4.4 with a fairly decent 670 GTX my fs.cfg ProcSpeed=9516...wasn't at full speed when FSX wrote that cfg?

 

But...it doesn't matter, as was said it just the initial setup measurement...

 

 

Also,these days many processors are running at very slow idle speeds (addressing non 24/7 OC) and would guess that the fact they all don't boost to full load when FSX takes its query probably also explains some mismatches.

For instance, Haswells are very powerful, yet even though this one is OC to 4.4 with a fairly decent 670 GTX my fs.cfg ProcSpeed=9516...wasn't at full speed when FSX wrote that cfg?

But...it doesn't matter, as was said it just the initial setup measurement...

 

Exactly

 

 

 

Hey Jim, so you don't use the Affinity Mask tweak in your cfg file why ?

 

Only use the affinity mask setting if you need to. As Nick N has said many times and I have confirmed with my own setup, unless you are hammering core 0 with addons that need it there is no benefit at all to putting this in your cfg

 

In fact, if you dont need it, by adding it you are actually robbing FSX of a terrain loader thread. I have zero benefit from AM on my 2600k so I dont use it. It is absoloutely not a tweak that should be applied without question.

You guys did an excellent job inspecting his fsx.cfg. With that being said. I have been running mine with old radius set to 8.5 a majority of the time, even in FTX regions and airports and I get a pretty consistent fps of 30fps running at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor. My textures are set to 4096 and I have UT2 traffic at 100%, my sliders in FSX are set according to the FTX recommendations. I have FS Global Ultimate for meshes and it recommends you to set the lod radius to 8.5 which is how I got that number in the first place. I am using 2048 cloud textures in REX and OpusFSX for weather. So I think I'm pushing FSX pretty hard and yet my frame rates are surprisingly good with these insane settings. But I'd like to do some more tweaking on my end to see if I can make it better. I usually have to go in and change my lod radius back down to 4.5 when flying to and from extremely heavy urban areas such as KLAX or KJFK. Since I have quite a lot of add ons in those regions. If not I'll start to hear FSX "ding" noises in the background and shortly after that OOM.

 

So you guys think I should keep my textures at 2048 then instead of 4096? Not sure if you'd be able to tell a difference on a 30" monitor at 2560x1600.