As with dx9. MS's way of doing things didnt changed on dx10 preview mode. We approach it the same way.

 

@sesquashtoo:

Please don't ask for people to set a specific value on their settings. Each computer is different and -despite your approach is correct,that's how we visualise the app to work- the settings user may be pleased with, differs too.

how does this software play with dx10?

Like a glove engulfing a baseball...that's how!

As with dx9. MS's way of doing things didnt changed on dx10 preview mode. We approach it the same way.

 

@sesquashtoo:

Please don't ask for people to set a specific value on their settings. Each computer is different and -despite your approach is correct,that's how we visualise the app to work- the settings user may be pleased with, differs too.

Quite right...but thought to give them a 'start'... ^_^   As per your request, no further recommendations

I still think perhaps that my i7920 2.7 Ghz is too old (IE just doesn't have the processing power) to take full advantage of this utility.  I survive because I have a ton of RAM and a 1.7Gb video card, along with a bazillion tweaks.

 

It appears that a higher processor is able to provide good results.

 

I, like Bert, have decided for me, at this time, to park this utility, and when I get my new system perhaps this winter I can give it a try, if needed, again.  I just turn down some sliders in heavy demand areas.

 

I wonder what type of computer specs the developer is using, when they developed this utility, it would be interesting to know if they tried their utility on a range of computers or did they themselves only develop and try on a higher end system?

 

Bryan

I, like Bert, have decided for me, at this time, to park this utility, and when I get my new system perhaps this winter I can give it a try, if needed, again.  I just turn down some sliders in heavy demand areas.

 

But, effectively, that is exactly what the utility is doing, adjusting some values in FS in order to try to match the requested frame rate. I would have thought it would be even more effective on a lesser system than on a super system as a really fast system would rarely if ever need such tweaking. In my case I find it only truly useful in the very worst and most demanding situations, and then only because i like so many things turned up high -- especially, in my case, AI traffic. I like realistic levels at EGLL, and that really is a lot! Outside places like EGLL, EHAM, LFPG, it really isn't doing anything as there's no need.

 

In other words, it saves me going into the menus and turning things down, just because i'm approaching a heavy airport. 

 

Pete

Boy! What a thread! There ain't no "gray area" here, only like or hate.  But I have deduced that unless you have  a top-of-the-line water-cooled 8-core screamer with 32 gigs of RAM and a mega-bucks graphics card (or two or three), this thing might be good for the rest of us.  I have a puny quad-core running at 2.8Gb with a GTX 560 w/1Gb, and 8Gb of RAM, and I have actually got FSX to run fairly decently with the PMDG 737NGX and the 777. Unless I switch to a lot of external views, I can fly a 4-hour flight with absolutely no problems.

 

Now, how the frame rate works is another problem, and I have FSX set to 30FPS and nVidia Inspeector set at 'unlimited'.  I also run MegaScenery Earth in the state where I live (I like to fly around my patch and check out the scenery), and I also run GTX and several FSDT airports (KFLL, KDFW, KJFK), so I have these areas where the drain occurs.  If this works like all of you supporters claim (and I respect all of you), then it is worth the money spent.  I was going to download the demo and run it, but never got around to it.  Now, however, I will just purchase it outright and use it.

 

And lastly, I beg to differ with those who think FSX is washed up.  Half the fun is tweaking it and making it better. I will not pay $200 for another 32-bit sim that would end up costing me even more in duplicate aircraft with extra licensing fees and such.  My machine, as it is, runs very nicely with FSX, and until I hit the lottery and can afford that mega-machine mentioned earlier, FSX it will be.  I fly both the tubeliners and GA aircraft, including the A2A P-51 and Cessna 172, and enjoy what I have.

I need this for P3D. The only few times I am on FSX is to fly the PMDG 777 and I fly them in some remote areas like Princes Juliana or VABB to OMDB  so performance is quite adequate in those areas. 

But, effectively, that is exactly what the utility is doing, adjusting some values in FS in order to try to match the requested frame rate. I would have thought it would be even more effective on a lesser system than on a super system as a really fast system would rarely if ever need such tweaking. 

 

Pete

 

True...this is why I partly would like to hear about the developers system.  I have to say I only suspect that my PC is so "low end" by todays standards that it can't do for me what others are benefiting.

 

I think I mentioned that I do get the smoothness under the very demanding area but unfortunately the blurries become so severe that it takes all the fun away from one of the best parts of FSX...landing at a mega airport.

I need this for P3D. The only few times I am on FSX is to fly the PMDG 777 and I fly them in some remote areas like Princes Juliana or VABB to OMDB  so performance is quite adequate in those areas. 

 

I fly the 777X into KLAX, KSFO, CYVR, KORD and KJFK just to name a few... I need all the frames I can get! Even with a fast overclocked system. I am keeping an eye on this program and might buy it in a few weeks if people still seem satisfied.

I am keeping an eye on this program and might buy it in a few weeks if people still seem satisfied.

 

Try the demo if it works  than purchase it

I still think perhaps that my i7920 2.7 Ghz is too old (IE just doesn't have the processing power) to take full advantage of this utility. I survive because I have a ton of RAM and a 1.7Gb video card, along with a bazillion tweaks.

 

Hi Bryan

 

I have the same processor as you but have overclocked mine to 4.2ghz, have you though about doing this yourself? I have very minimal computer knowledge but managed it myself. It makes a heck of a difference!

 

Gavin

I duffed out by using the five limited demos, so have not really had enough time to check it out properly :blush:

I have a question - I have an external frame limiter (can't recall which right now). Will that cause problems for this tool ? Does it need to be disabled ?

These days, in my own particular case, FPS has become less on an issue. It can go down to the mid to high teens using complex addons such as PMDG 777, ORBX regions, ASN and frame rate heavy airports such as UK2000 EGLL extreme v2 and FSDT JFK v2. What matters is the fluidity and the smoothness regardless of what the FPS counter says.

 

That being said, out of memory errors due to VAS exhaustion is different matter. these are harder to prevent and I'm sure has already become a real handbrake for developers in terms of adding more complex functionality to an obsolete 32bit platform such as FSX. So, considering this will only get worse in the future, does FSX Fiber tweaking of the sim internals help in any way to optimize VAS consumption?

Hi,

 

Some answers:

 

About our PCs

the application was developed with PCs: Old celeron core2duo 2GB ram winxp, an Intel Pentium 4 @ 3.40GHz win7, i3 [email protected] win7 16GB ram, Intel i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz 32GB ram , win7 64 and win 8.1 , with various configurations on joysticks, graphic cards etc etc.

Plus tested on a home cockpit built (would be too lengthy to put full description of that).

 

Of course the beta team also adds a long list on the above. (In all cases computers - on their settings - were able to deliver a minimal 13fps output , below that we classify the PC-FSX settings combination as "slideshow".)

-----------

 

@DickB: Never tested with external frame limiter. There is no need to use one with Fiber, however.

 

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

 

A (multiple written before) note I will have to make:

 

Fiber Accelerator IS NOT an "FPS generator" . All depends to your current configuration of FSX.

If you had made a FPS targeted fsx.cfg it will give you smoothness and better graphics (without losing frames).

if you had made a graphics targeted fsx.cfg it will give you better frames. 

If you had made an all around fsx.cfg it will give you both better frames and smoothness.

There is exactly where Fiber's power is: Dynamically changing the visual output while flying, without need to enter the FSX menu to change settings or close fsx - edit fsx.cfg - restart fsx, resume to change other settings.

 

If you really understand this concept you will find out what Fiber's benefits are to your system, and then look for them accordingly...

 

 

So, considering this will only get worse in the future, does FSX Fiber tweaking of the sim internals help in any way to optimize VAS consumption?

 

Off topic, but we are into it. Nothing definitive  yet , but September may come with some good news.

Thanks for responding, Looking forward to that. Now that would bring some fresh air into FSX, best of luck!!!