Thanks for the test. While not scientific (I've yet to see one scientific FSX benchmark), they support my own findings. I have vanilla installs of both FSX and FSX:SE (I don't use addons - just play missions when I'm bored) and I noticed no significant increase in performance.

 

As for VAS usage I have never used 2048 or 4096 sized textures, and have always kept LOD at default value of 4.5. I prefer autogen over LOD since I fly low and slow mostly. I would be surprised though if Dovetail has managed to change VAS usage at this stage, seeing how long it took the Prepar3D team to get it under some control.

Hi,

 

Excellent report - Forgetting FPS, could you say which one actually ran the smoothest? i.e. least amount of stuttering / tearing if any!

 

Regards,

 

 

Ted.

Interesting report, thanks for putting the time into it.

Thanks for the report.

 

For the fps, did you try running your benchmark in full screen?

 

The FSX-SE picture on the runway from the cockpit might have lower fps because your point of view was a little lower and in FSX-SE you also had a part of the cockpit to draw on screen.

Also, thanks for the report, and ignore the whiners and whingers

Frame Rates reported here seem far too low, for the given scenarios.    I mean for MS FSX and FSX:SE.

 

 

Thanks for the comparative works.  I have never ventured to set my settings that high, plus with a beastly machine spec like yours and had frame rate like 11 and 12 FPS, what's it like when you lowered your settings? And does people actually "fly" with 11-12 FPS? 

 

Exactly.

 

If people choose to use this one single user's exercise as a "conclusive performance benchmark" (bold claim!) then that's absolutely up to them, but I think far more compreshensive and empirical tests would be needed than these, to claim "conclusive performance benchmark" results.

 

I've already done some unofficial ad-hoc personal tests of my own, that suggested FSX:SE was around 10% faster than MS FSX.  That's on an i7 2600k system with Win 7 64bit and a ATI card.

Regardless of the validity of the tests in terms of FPS and screenshots etc, the fact that the regular FSX version OOM'd before the Steam version is quite interesting.

 

Personally, I have never seen an OOM on my FSX installation so this isn't a primary concern for me. I only ever run 1024 textures and my FSX settings are modest, even with reasonably good hardware. LOD is set at 4.5, Autogen at very dense, water at low 2x, no cars etc.

 

Perhaps this is how I avoid ever seeing OOM?

If people choose to use this one single user's exercise as a "conclusive performance benchmark" (bold claim!) then that's absolutely up to them, but I think far more compreshensive and empirical tests would be needed than these, to claim "conclusive performance benchmark" results.

 

The more the merrier -when will you publish your "far more compreshensive and empirical tests" in detail?

Personally, I'd be very wary of any benchmark tests at this point - no offence to the OP - there are just so many variables and factors to consider from one person's installation to another.    

 

I mean, we have this thread here which appears to claim that MS FSX has higher frame rates, but then many other new FSX SE adopters are seeing better and smoother performance (Pete Dowson being one).

 

....and there's a thread in the P3D forum where someone said that FSX SE has better VAS control than FSX or P3D!

 

Who do you trust ?!?!?  :o   :smile:

 

Answer:    Yourself.   I picked SE up in the sale but haven't even downloaded it yet.  Will look forward to testing it and seeing if it will be my new main platform.    But I won't be pushing my findings on to others.   After all, every result we ever see only really applies to our one system set up.

 

and a lot of people want to push their own viewpoints forward as "the holy grail"   - just to justify their own choices (mainly to themselves!).

Whether you think framerates are better or worse in FSX:SE when compared to the original version is not the main point of this discussion. Based on what I read in the original post, it seems to me that there is convincing evidence that the SE version handles VAS better.

 

 

and a lot of people want to push their own viewpoints forward as "the holy grail" - just to justify their own choices (mainly to themselves!).

I have to "respectively" disagree with this statement. Although there may be some who do this, one of the main purposes of forums is to share ideas and experiences, not just ask for help when having issues. It's the same concept with reading reviews of movies or restaurants - yes, individual tastes differ, but I can get a general idea from other experiences.

 

I too have purchased but not installed FSX-SE. But given that I've recently encountered an issue preventing FS2CREW audios from working (used for PMDG aircraft), and the recommended fix by the vendor is to reinstall W7, I am planning on doing a fresh reinstall this weekend, but then installing FSX-SE. Yes, I know PMDG aircraft will not work (yet), but I have plenty of other aircraft that do. And given that I often encounter OOMs (especially with MegaSceneryEarth and add-on airports), FSX-SE gives me hope, thanks to this post. And if all else fails, I can always go back to FSX from my DVD - only a couple of days lost.

 

Happy Holidays to all!

Idk what's going on with Avsim. A fellow flight simer took time out of his very busy schedule just to have people knock his benchmark comparison? What a bunch of ungrateful people. People here walk around with this "chip" on their shoulders. Get over yourselves and get off your high horses! Lets help each other.

I think you're missing the point. This was not primarily a test of "are the graphic images identical" between FSX and FSX-SE. It was primarily a test of performance between the two versions, and in that regard, i think the OP went to a great deal of trouble to insure that the comparisons were conducted under precisely IDENTICAL circumstances - not "wholly differing aspects and circumstances".

 

Yes, the various screen shots may have been taken from slightly different angles and positions, but the main point was to see how the overall system performance compared between the two sims, while flying identical routes, between identical airports, at identical times and weather settings, with identical graphics slider settings and identical mesh, vector and texture add-ons, in the very same aircraft.

 

Though it might have been nice to have had an actual readout of VAS in use, it really doesn't matter in the end, because the true "proof of the pudding" was the simple fact is that original FSX consistently OOMed before even getting the chance to line up for final approach at the destination airport, while FSX-SE was able to complete the test flights each time without an OOM crash. To me, that is very encouraging result, and is far more important than whether the individual screen shots were taken at exactly the same position, angle, or zoom level.

 

I'd like to thank Bofajking for taking the time to conduct these tests, and for sharing the results with the community in a clear and detailed report!

 

Means alot coming from you. I am happy that you enjoyed it! 

 

Err...according to Microsoft:

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/ms684891%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

 

Some people just dont get it, thanks for sharing that. Its important for people to recognize that there are many ways to gather what is essentially the same data, VAS and Private data are practically one in the same as it relates to OOM's in FSX. 

 

Guys

 

It really amazes me that some people's intent on this Forum, Bofajking was simply making a comparison between FSX and FSX SE, It most likely took him a lot of his personal time to compile his post, then for people to come on and slag him off for it. I enjoyed his post which was informative and comprehensive. The VAS usage will vary from machine to machine as does the frame rates but for me for a general comparison it was a great read    

I appreciate it Vodcoke, cant make everyone happy.  :unsure:

 

more screenshots inside the cockpit would be helpful, no pilot I know flies from the external view, and rendering the cockpit textures as well as all the terrain gives a much bigger footprint. Good start comparison though. I hope more complicated addons like the PMDG will be updated for the Steam edition. I get oom and dll crashes with fsx, and if I do format and start over I may go to the steam edition.

I spent the majority of the flight in the cockpit, but came out just to take the screenies and to put a little extra strain on the system. The external views, in some cases, actually yield higher loads on the system because of the scenery being generated vs the confined FOV of the cockpit.

 

Lewis Im just wondering how you could test for OOMS with Vanilla? I know it was a by product of the benchmark but also equally important as FPS

Exactly, I wanted to represent not only software that I know alot of people use, but also the realities of modern simming. Many people had to "turn down" the eye candy in FSX when Global came out and yield to the restrictions of a 32bit platform as more and more mega airports are released.

 

Thats one of the reasons I call it my "stress test", its supposed to push the sim to the limit to see if half of the stuff we are being peddled as simmers is worth the hype. 

This is very helpful to me.  I just bought a computer that can run FSX.  Now I am trying to decide whether to install FSX or FSX-SE.

 

Thank for all your time Bofajking!

Anyone who posts here with a title "

The Conclusive Performance Benchmark"

Is either very brave or very new to Avsim...or both....welcome to the never ending world of "no good deed goes unpunished", other wise known as the internet experts forum :-)