Hi,

 

I've downloaded FSX:SE today and have spent the day installing most of my FSX addons in to it.   I saw the other benchmarking thread and so had certain expectations for FSX:SE.    I have also had poor performance issues with another simulator running within STEAM, so was concerned about this too.

 

My results have been very, very surprising to me.

Honestly no agenda here guys - I don't care either way as long as I have the best performing sim on my system! ...... You'll notice I've not used the phrase 'versus' in my title either, as this shouldn't be a competition  just experiments to see who get's the best result from which sim.  (And I dare say people will see very different results, according to their spec).

 

 

Specs:  Intel i7 2600k, 8GB DDR3 RAM, Win 7 64bit, ATI 7850 HD 2GB

 

Settings across both FSX and FSX:SE ;-

 

Frame Rate Lock:  UNLIMITED

Resolution:1920x1200x32 

Bilinear ON in FSX

Global Texture: Max

Advanced Animations: ON

 

Aircraft casts shadow on ground: ON

Aircraft casts shadow on itself: OFF

Aircraft lights illuminate ground:  On

 

LOD:   Medium (3.5)

Mesh Complexity: 75

Mesh Rez:  38m

Texture Rez: 1m

Water Effects:  High 2x

 

SCENERY COMPLEXITY:  Very Dense

AUTOGEN:    Very Dense

 

Airline Traffic:  10%

GA traffic:   30%

Airport Vehicles:  Min

Road Vehicles:  15%

 

VIEW MODE:   FULL SCREEN

 

ADDONS USED IN SCENARIO:   OpusFSX, REX4 Texture Direct, RealAir Duke B60 2.0, FTX Global, FTX Vector, FTX OpenLC EU, Orbx EDVR Rinteln, Germany, FSUIPC.

INSTALL TYPE:   Parallel.  FSX:SE installed after FSX.    FSX still installed.

 

ATI CCC Settings:  AA and AF Overriding FSX, Set at Supersampling mode; 4x AA, 4x AF, No tesselation, no optimizations, Vsync set to : Off unless application uses.

 

TWEAKS:  The only tweak applied to both the FSX.CFG and the FSX_SE.CFG is the [bufferPools] UsePools=0, in conjunction with the Water setting, set to High 2x.

 

 

FSX - VC Internal

 

 

 

 

FSX - VC External

 

 

 

 

 

 

FSX:SE - VC Internal

 

 

 

 

FSX:SE - External

 

 

 

 

I'm genuinely flabergasted at the peformance difference I am seeing.  Everything about FSX:SE seems smoother. There are also other differences such as the fact that I can toggle between full screen and windowed mode without getting black frozen screens.  FSX:SE seems to suit my ATI card more.  It just feels healthier and more responsive, even between menu pages etc.

 

I chose the RealAir Duke 2.0 because I've never been able to enjoy this aircraft in Standard FSX due to low frames everywhere except barren default airfields.   In FSX:SE I have been able to fly it around some Orbx fields (including PNW), with 28-32 FPS.

I'm in my first 12 hours with FSX:SE so it's early days but so far, it's a dream come true for me.

My results have been very, very surprising to me.

Your results are similar to mine -- 20 fps up to 30 in heavy test conditions, and smoother. Like you I was very surprised, so much so I thought I must have missed something which hadn't been enabled. But no, after thoroughly checking, I cannot find anything different between what I am asking FSX-SE to do compared to FSX Accel. All the scenery, texture and aircraft folders are shared. I'm using my FSX.CFG copied for FSX-SE CFG. Even the Gauges and Effects folders are now the same. I don't know what else I can do to make them identical -- the only difference is the code itself!

 

I don't really understand why some are not seeing this. It may be to do with the Frame Rate Limiter, which I have off (ie unlimited), or maybe it's to do with the specific processor type, the architecture? After all, the 2013 version of Microsoft's optimising compilers must have had specific processor designs in mind.

 

Anyway, on the results I'm getting, I'm certainly seriously considering changing over from FSX to FSX-SE when the few extras I need are working with it -- ASN being the prime one. This is after I only downloaded SE in order to make FSUIPC4 work with it!

 

Pete

Are you sure about this?   Can you please do another test? If there really is a difference, then I know what else I'm buying for Christmas!

Your results are similar to mine -- 20 fps up to 30 in heavy test conditions, and smoother. Like you I was very surprised, so much so I thought I must have missed something which hadn't been enabled. But no, after thoroughly checking, I cannot find anything different between what I am asking FSX-SE to do compared to FSX Accel. All the scenery, texture and aircraft folders are shared. I'm using my FSX.CFG copied for FSX-SE CFG. Even the Gauges and Effects folders are now the same. I don't know what else I can do to make them identical -- the only difference is the code itself!

 

I don't really understand why some are not seeing this. It may be to do with the Frame Rate Limiter, which I have off (ie unlimited), or maybe it's to do with the specific processor type, the architecture? After all, the 2013 version of Microsoft's optimising compilers must have had specific processor designs in mind.

 

Anyway, on the results I'm getting, I'm certainly seriously considering changing over from FSX to FSX-SE when the few extras I need are working with it -- ASN being the prime one. This is after I only downloaded SE in order to make FSUIPC4 work with it!

 

Pete

 

Yes I agree on the importance of keeping the FSX Frame Limiter to UNLIMITED.  I also have identical addons installed and in play here.   The only difference is that my original FSX installation has FS Global 2008 installed but not activated.   

 

It's really surprising for me because when I saw the Steam announcement, I completely poo-poo'd it   .... as past experiences I have had with sims running in Steam were awful (Train Simulator 2014 and OMSI bus simulator)..... so I had no interest in FSX within Steam but couldn't resist giving it a go at the low price.

 

I'll leave both FSX versions installed for now, but certainly I'll think seriously now about migrating to "FSX:SE only".

 

Another huge difference in performance I've seen is when flying the Carenado PC-12 in heavy thick OpusFSX clouds.  In FSX, frames drop to upper teens and become choppy.     In FSX:SE, there's just no drop at all, just cruises a long in the mid 30s upwards.    Truly gobsmacked by this today.

I'm frankly astonished at some of these early reports, and at the current price it's tempting to try expect that... The RXP Garmins are in virtually everything I fly, and there's a 0% chance that they'd ever get modified to work in FSX-SE given the state of RXP.

 

One thing you mention here does surprise me, and that's your comment about the V2 Duke.  I have a fairly modest system, but have never had any performance issues with the Duke, and I fly it heavily into payware airports and over Orbx regions with ASN wx.  Still, it's hard to discount the many positive comments on both performance and VAS management that are beginning to come out.

 

It is encouraging to hear some of these very positive early impressions.

 

Scott

One thing you mention here does surprise me, and that's your comment about the V2 Duke.  I have a fairly modest system, but have never had any performance issues with the Duke, and I fly it heavily into payware airports and over Orbx regions with ASN wx.

 

Scott, the graphics card I had before my current ATI jobbie, was a modest GTX295 and I had no issues in the RealAir with that.  But the card died and I had limited funds so had to settle for the 7850 2Gb; which has generally proven very underwhelming for FS but it does the job.    But the Duke 2.0 it always struggled with (although it's fine with their Legacy).

 

 

Very fair point about the Reality XP compatibility.   That will be a dealbreaker for some.   

 

 

RXP Garmins are in virtually everything I fly, and there's a 0% chance that they'd ever get modified to work in FSX-SE given the state of RXP.

 

That a bummer, what about the GTN 750, is it likely to work?

Ive always been skeptical of frame rates alone for judging performance. I can have 60 fps in P3D and have a stuttering mess. I simply judge by smoothness and FSX-SE has be considerably smoother in fact almost flawless even in heavier weather and complicated aircraft. Of course I dont have Asn yet to try.

That a bummer, what about the GTN 750, is it likely to work?

Nope. at least I highly doubt it as the RXP gns doesnt work.Though F1 would be way more likely to make compatible than RXP. Im using the Mindstar GNS at the moment..All I have to say about that.

 

 

But the card died and I had limited funds so had to settle for the 7850 2Gb; which has generally proven very underwhelming for FS but it does the job.

 

Ah, that probably explains it.

 

 

 

Very fair point about the Reality XP compatibility. That will be a dealbreaker for some.

 

Don't get me wrong - I wish it were otherwise as the early results are certainly encouraging enough that I'd be giving it a shot myself if it weren't for that.

 

 

 

zoran, on 23 Dec 2014 - 5:33 PM, said:

That a bummer, what about the GTN 750, is it likely to work?

Nope. at least I highly doubt it as the RXP gns doesnt work.Though F1 would be way more likely to make compatible than RXP. Im using the Mindstar GNS at the moment..All I have to say about that.

 

The difference is that F1 are in active development of their gauges, while RXP's developer appears to be completely out of the picture.  While the F1 stuff may not work now, it probably will sometime soon.

 

Scott

I just love the FS9-like smoothness i'm getting when panning around (in any view) 

Hi,

.....

 

ADDONS USED IN SCENARIO:   OpusFSX, REX4 Texture Direct, RealAir Duke B60 2.0, FTX Global, FTX Vector, FTX OpenLC EU, Orbx EDVR Rinteln, Germany, FSUIPC.

 

INSTALL TYPE:   Parallel.  FSX:SE installed after FSX.    FSX still installed.

.....

Did you have to do anything special to get FTX Global to install into SFX-SE on your dual FSX/FSX-SE system?

I thought Orbx was still working on an installer to do that.

Thx,

Al

I just love the FS9-like smoothness i'm getting when panning around (in any view) 

 

I wish I could get FS9 to run smoothly! I can get better frame rates with it c.w. FSX but I just can't get the smoothness.

Your results are similar to mine -- 20 fps up to 30 in heavy test conditions, and smoother. Like you I was very surprised, so much so I thought I must have missed something which hadn't been enabled. But no, after thoroughly checking, I cannot find anything different between what I am asking FSX-SE to do compared to FSX Accel. All the scenery, texture and aircraft folders are shared. I'm using my FSX.CFG copied for FSX-SE CFG. Even the Gauges and Effects folders are now the same. I don't know what else I can do to make them identical -- the only difference is the code itself!

 

I don't really understand why some are not seeing this. It may be to do with the Frame Rate Limiter, which I have off (ie unlimited), or maybe it's to do with the specific processor type, the architecture? After all, the 2013 version of Microsoft's optimising compilers must have had specific processor designs in mind.

 

Anyway, on the results I'm getting, I'm certainly seriously considering changing over from FSX to FSX-SE when the few extras I need are working with it -- ASN being the prime one. This is after I only downloaded SE in order to make FSUIPC4 work with it!

 

Pete

 

 

Yes I agree on the importance of keeping the FSX Frame Limiter to UNLIMITED.  I also have identical addons installed and in play here.   The only difference is that my original FSX installation has FS Global 2008 installed but not activated.   

 

It's really surprising for me because when I saw the Steam announcement, I completely poo-poo'd it   .... as past experiences I have had with sims running in Steam were awful (Train Simulator 2014 and OMSI bus simulator)..... so I had no interest in FSX within Steam but couldn't resist giving it a go at the low price.

 

I'll leave both FSX versions installed for now, but certainly I'll think seriously now about migrating to "FSX:SE only".

 

Another huge difference in performance I've seen is when flying the Carenado PC-12 in heavy thick OpusFSX clouds.  In FSX, frames drop to upper teens and become choppy.     In FSX:SE, there's just no drop at all, just cruises a long in the mid 30s upwards.    Truly gobsmacked by this today.

 

I honestly think it is about how much load is on the simulator. When I fly into less complex scenery or into a fairly basic airport my FSX SE frame rates sky rocket past FSX. But when I am in highly complex areas they seem to be on a more level playing field. May be a bandwidth ceiling of the old sim, but under moderate flying conditions FSX:SE is the clear frame rate winner. 

 

What seals the deal completely for me is the lack of OOM's. Its like some kind of witch craft! 

Hi,

 

I've downloaded FSX:SE today and have spent the day installing most of my FSX addons in to it.   I saw the other benchmarking thread and so had certain expectations for FSX:SE.    I have also had poor performance issues with another simulator running within STEAM, so was concerned about this too.

 

My results have been very, very surprising to me.

 

Honestly no agenda here guys - I don't care either way as long as I have the best performing sim on my system! ...... You'll notice I've not used the phrase 'versus' in my title either, as this shouldn't be a competition  just experiments to see who get's the best result from which sim.  (And I dare say people will see very different results, according to their spec).

 

 

Specs:  Intel i7 2600k, 8GB DDR3 RAM, Win 7 64bit, ATI 7850 HD 2GB

 

Settings across both FSX and FSX:SE ;-

 

Frame Rate Lock:  UNLIMITED

Resolution:1920x1200x32 

Bilinear ON in FSX

Global Texture: Max

Advanced Animations: ON

 

Aircraft casts shadow on ground: ON

Aircraft casts shadow on itself: OFF

Aircraft lights illuminate ground:  On

 

LOD:   Medium (3.5)

Mesh Complexity: 75

Mesh Rez:  38m

Texture Rez: 1m

Water Effects:  High 2x

 

SCENERY COMPLEXITY:  Very Dense

AUTOGEN:    Very Dense

 

Airline Traffic:  10%

GA traffic:   30%

Airport Vehicles:  Min

Road Vehicles:  15%

 

VIEW MODE:   FULL SCREEN

 

ADDONS USED IN SCENARIO:   OpusFSX, REX4 Texture Direct, RealAir Duke B60 2.0, FTX Global, FTX Vector, FTX OpenLC EU, Orbx EDVR Rinteln, Germany, FSUIPC.

 

INSTALL TYPE:   Parallel.  FSX:SE installed after FSX.    FSX still installed.

 

ATI CCC Settings:  AA and AF Overriding FSX, Set at Supersampling mode; 4x AA, 4x AF, No tesselation, no optimizations, Vsync set to : Off unless application uses.

 

TWEAKS:  The only tweak applied to both the FSX.CFG and the FSX_SE.CFG is the [bufferPools] UsePools=0, in conjunction with the Water setting, set to High 2x.

 

 

I'm genuinely flabergasted at the peformance difference I am seeing.  Everything about FSX:SE seems smoother. There are also other differences such as the fact that I can toggle between full screen and windowed mode without getting black frozen screens.  FSX:SE seems to suit my ATI card more.  It just feels healthier and more responsive, even between menu pages etc.

 

I chose the RealAir Duke 2.0 because I've never been able to enjoy this aircraft in Standard FSX due to low frames everywhere except barren default airfields.   In FSX:SE I have been able to fly it around some Orbx fields (including PNW), with 28-32 FPS.

 

I'm in my first 12 hours with FSX:SE so it's early days but so far, it's a dream come true for me.

 

One thing I did notice is that there is no HIGHMEMFIX applied to your FSX. I would recommend that for an even playing field. 

Please note that FSX-SE has this additional line in it's CFG file (at least it does for me, without doing anything but installing it from Steam):

 

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=160

 

Whether this matters or not is subject to debate, because different hardware probably react differently to it.

One thing I did notice is that there is no HIGHMEMFIX applied to your FSX. I would recommend that for an even playing field.

Good idea