Mate of mine did the exact same thing using MSI Afterburner. His results were pretty much the same as yours with regards to the frames, that being that the differences were minimal or that the Steam version only minutely underperformed the non-Steam version. Certainly seems like a placebo effect to me.

 

I'll be picking it up once they work out the bugs and kinks.

 

As for the colors popping more, I don't see a difference. Except maybe that you took them at differing distances which would account for altered ambient lighting and other facets.

 

Side by side - http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/105500

I think the shot above KLGB is a better example.

Probably not important how he measured VAS since the pings and crash is the big hammer and what really matters. Thanks for the test.

Probably not important how he measured VAS since the pings and crash is the big hammer and what really matters. Thanks for the test.

 

Exactly. 

 

I have done this flight another 3 times since I originally posted in various weather and lighting settings and decided to take the road traffic up to 100 at dusk just to see if it could still be done. 

 

Needless to say the results speak for themselves.

 

I am a little afraid to tinker with LOD settings but those tests are coming next. 

I think the shot above KLGB is a better example.

 

This is fundamentally flawed logic and wholey inaccurate to state that one version has this over that based upon wholly differing aspects and circumstances.

 

You can't say that a verifiable difference exists unless the images in question are exactly the same, which they're not in the KLGB screens or any example you've posted. The only way to do it properly is to go to a specific location, save the flight and export it to the Steam version as well, set a custom EZDok parameter camera location for that aircraft, and take seperate screens for the versions while paused.

 

It's like saying these photos of the U.S. Capitol building are the same, but without regards to aperture, ToD, weather, location, height etc etc etc.

 

 

This is fundamentally flawed logic and wholey inaccurate to state that one version has this over that based upon wholly differing aspects and circumstances.

 

You can't say that a verifiable difference exists unless the images in question are exactly the same, which they're not in the KLGB screens or any example you've posted. The only way to do it properly is to go to a specific location, save the flight and export it to the Steam version as well, set a custom EZDok parameter camera location for that aircraft, and take seperate screens for the versions while paused.

 

It's like saying these photos of the U.S. Capitol building are the same, but without regards to aperture, ToD, weather, location, height etc etc etc.

 

 

 

You may have noticed that there was only about 10 words in the entire review discussing the color. Its not the point of the comparative review but I wanted to mention it as it is very obvious in that shot. Sims don't use apeture, it was the same time of day, and there isnt a difference in lighting, weather, or anything else that would have changed the shot fundamentally, infact in most shots you can see that the weather is exactly the same across both sims. So I'm not sure what the relevance of the real life photography reference was.

This is fundamentally flawed logic and wholey inaccurate to state that one version has this over that based upon wholly differing aspects and circumstances.

 

You can't say that a verifiable difference exists unless the images in question are exactly the same, which they're not in the KLGB screens or any example you've posted. The only way to do it properly is to go to a specific location, save the flight and export it to the Steam version as well, set a custom EZDok parameter camera location for that aircraft, and take seperate screens for the versions while paused.

 

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!

The capacity of the Windows Task Manager to show VAS usage is absolutely zero.  You need to use Sysinternals Process Explorer to reliably display VAS usage.

 

Please report back.

The capacity of the Windows Task Manager to show VAS usage is absolutely zero. You need to use Sysinternals Process Explorer to reliably display VAS usage.

 

Please report back.

This isn't a VAS usage thread. It's a benchmarking test and as you can see the bench mark was completed and results were documented for fps and stability. If you want to do a VAS test feel free but I am willing to bet your OOM results will be similar.

No, it's not.

 

Really...Seriously???

 

Is this what you are going to do with your entire holidays???

 

I am on Holiday too and this is what I am doing:

 

 

I am just saying

Errr.... working set is physical memory, ie RAM (simple answer).  You wanted to show virtual address space, you need Processor Explorer, or VMMAP, then select "virtual size"

 

RAM has ZERO to do with OOM's in FSX.  

 

Anyway, thanks for the fps comparisons.

 

Err...according to Microsoft:

 

The working set of a program is a collection of those pages in its virtual address space that have been recently referenced. It includes both shared and private data. The shared data includes pages that contain all instructions your application executes, including those in your DLLs and the system DLLs. As the working set size increases, memory demand increases.

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

I'm using a much lower spec machine, and the improvement in FPS is more noticeable for me, from 12-20 before to consistently around 30 FPS now
 

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    

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.

Great test and thanks for taking the time, hopefully you wont mind these comments. As a now former IT professional involved in benchmarking in the past some things caught my little OCD'ness

 

Its worth noting here that a consistent 15FPS is better looking to us Humans than a 15-30 mix. Remember TV's/cinemas tend to operate below 30FPS but on a constant FPS in conjunction with Hz, and without those numbers to tell your brain otherwise.

 

I'd personally like to see the test done vanilla, as with add ons to dilute it (Add ons are simulations in themselves and many times will be doing different things even when ran twice in the same conditions as described in the test)  as I cannot call it a controlled test and therefore not a benchmark. I also see no mention of background tasks, services etc which also all have a role to play and why benchmarks always always always run vanilla systems

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