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! 

 

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

 

Hi,

 

Sorry, I didn't state it in the 'tweaks' section, but yes [HIGHMEMFIX] is present in my FSX.CFG.

 

 

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 didn't have to do anything special, when I ran the Orbx installers, they just automatically found and pointed to my /Steam/Steamapps/common/FSX directory.

 

As far as I've read, it's just the ObjectFlow that isn't working in FSX:SE yet.    But you're right, they are looking at a new way to install between regular FSX and FSX:SE.   I think Jon Venema mentioned a possible app that 'toggles' between installing in to FSX, or FSX:SE.

 

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

 

That's a good comparison - that's exactly how the fluidity feels to me too.

Flight1 has updated the GTN 750 & 650 and they are now compatible with FSX SE according to the product page

Flight1 has updated the GTN 750 & 650 and they are now compatible with FSX SE according to the product page

 

This is FANTASTIC news! ....... Merci for the H-U, Jean-Paul!

==================================

 

I've done a further benchmark comparison between two identical scenerios, in FSX and FSX:SE this morning...

 

(I'd encourage others to do some if they can, even if they don't get the same results that some of us here are getting. The more info the better).

 

 

This time I used identical scenarios in the Razbam Metroliner, at the Cargo area of FlyTampa Vienna.   I used the Razbam because it can be a little taxing on FPS in my experience, when in payware airports.

 

All specs are the same as in the first post.

 

 

FSX - External View

 

 

 

 

FSX - VC Internal View

 

 

 

 

 

FSX:SE - External View

 

 

 

FSX:SE - VC Internal View

 

 

 

...what this proved to me, is that the first result wasn't a fluke! ..... In fact I am seeing considerably smoother game play and higher frames in all scenarios tested so far in FSX:SE.

 

Now that the Flight 1 GTN750 is compatible with FSX:SE (and can therefore be used in the Flysimware C441 and A2A C182), I will definitely be retiring my RXPs, and moving to FSX:SE as my sole platform.

If you had a reasonable new Nvidia GPU instead of that old AMD my guess is you wouldn´t notice any difference!

 

15 FPS is really low, even with AMD..

 

 

Now that the Flight 1 GTN750 is compatible with FSX:SE (and can therefore be used in the Flysimware C441 and A2A C182), I will definitely be retiring my RXPs, and moving to FSX:SE as my sole platform.

 

Another C441 fan    Im doing the exact same thing.

If you had a reasonable new Nvidia GPU instead of that old AMD my guess is you wouldn´t notice any difference!

 

15 FPS is really low, even with AMD..

 

Really? ...... a 100% difference.  

 

Maybe! :wink:

 

The thing is though, I'm using "that old AMD" graphics card with both FSX and FSX:SE, so whichever way you look at it, there is a major difference between the sims, on the same hardware and software.   

stevefx d10 fixer and tree environement x boosted fsx se, made a difference for my system ... ,

If you had a reasonable new Nvidia GPU instead of that old AMD my guess is you wouldn´t notice any difference!

 

15 FPS is really low, even with AMD..

I'm seeing a similar doubling of performance between FSX:MS and FSX:SE, and I have a GeForce GTX550Ti 1GB card in my development computer.

Fr.Bill, what tweaks do you have in your FSX-Disk version .cfg file right now?  I too am puzzled by the low fps reported by ~Craig~ with the FSX disk version.  With a glance at his computer and his reported settings, at that sparse looking airport, I would have guessed +40 fps, with the relatively friendly Duke, with even 2 RXP units running, so it is puzzling to see him down in the low 20's, as his benchmark.   Those are the kinds of FPS I would get taxying amongst the traffic at Heathrow in the FSL Concorde.

 

@~craig~ thanks for taking time to do these tests

Fr.Bill, what tweaks do you have in your FSX-Disk version .cfg file right now?

Aside from the HIGHMEMFIX, none whatsoever. Given that, having somewhat lower demands than FSX:SE has by default, performance differences are even more astonishing.

FSX has lower demands than FSX-SE, by default?  What do you mean? 

FSX has lower demands than FSX-SE, by default?  What do you mean? 

Max texture size for one. FSX:MS is 1024, FSX:SE is 4096...

 

My 'test aircraft' is the Milviz C310R which has 4096 textures by default.

System Requirements:

                                    FSX-MS                             FSX-SE

Computer processor:  1.0 gigahertz (GHz)          2.0 Ghz or higher (single core)

Memory:                      512 MB RAM for Win7      2 GB RAM

Graphics:                     32 MB DirectX 9               256 MB DirectX 9

 

Looks like SE isn't as easy on the hardware as MS.

There are visual differences between your first and second pictures in the first example.  Look at the control tower, the glass is opaque in the FSX version but transparent in the FSX-SE version, is there a reason for that? 

System Requirements:

                                    FSX-MS                             FSX-SE

Computer processor:  1.0 gigahertz (GHz)          2.0 Ghz or higher (single core)

Memory:                      512 MB RAM for Win7      2 GB RAM

Graphics:                     32 MB DirectX 9               256 MB DirectX 9

 

Looks like SE isn't as easy on the hardware as MS.

 

Wouldn't read too much into that, the MS spec's were always....shall we say optimistic.

Nah, it's just that DTG are more honest with their minimum hardware requirements! B)