FSX-SE Further FSX and FSX:SE benchmark test

[Fi5kuS 57]

What do they mean by "changed HIGHMEMFIX"? And increasing texture max load is just going to push an OOM even earlier...

[Pete Dowson 558]

FSX:SE seems to come optimized out of the box. I mean some serious .cfg 'tweaks' are already implemented by default, in addition to the 2013 compiler used.

 

Vanilla FSX on the other hand comes.., well, we all know how. Maybe the people that already have a tweaked FSX do not observe significant/any difference, but the people who haven't tweaked FSX get 'gobsmacked' ^_^ by FSX:SE.

 

Just a theory though...

 

However, to make sure everything was equal, and as I said in my reports, I used my FSX CFG for FSX-SE (renamed of course), as well as my SCENERY.CFG and SimObjects. Everything was the same in both FSX and FSX-SE except for the code itself.

 

No placebo, no vanilla install, nothing but direct comparison using my normal heaviest test -- full AI traffic at EGLL.

 

Pete

[vr-pilot 11]

 

 

I used my FSX CFG for FSX-SE (renamed of course), as well as my SCENERY.CFG and SimObjects Everything was the same in both FSX and FSX-SE except for the code itself.

If the "new" FSX:SE code itself really produces this positive difference in performance, than the community (developers and users) might have a great time because of a (probably significantly) growing number of FSX users all over the world.

 

Maybe shared cockpits and flights with crews from all places may become a reality over this platform... :rolleyes: 

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Here's a link to a saved flight. It should work for everyone.

 

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F3950C5BBD2BCFA1%21819

 

This is Heathrow. It can be unzipped and copied to your FSX and FSX-SE directories in your Documents folder.

 

For me, there is no significant difference in FPS for stock FSX or stock FSX-SE. My harddrive has been defragged. I have no addons and my CFG files are identical, so I am comparing apples to apples.

 

Dick

[~Craig~ 10]

Yes, you might be correct; the fact remains that it's a difference which (to my mind) invalidates the example.

 

Oh come one.... :smile:  ...... you think that a small angle change invalidates that level of performance differential ??    :blink: 

 

My two comparisons here can be accepted, rejected, skepticised (is that a word?) by anyone; I'm not attached to FSX:SE and will jump at the next version of the sim that improves performance! .... there's no loyalty - I'm just posting an anecdote of an experience I had.

 

Stick with what you have, if all is good in the garden. :wink:

[Bofajking 0]

What do they mean by "changed HIGHMEMFIX"? And increasing texture max load is just going to push an OOM even earlier...

In FSX this us true. But in FSX SE there are no OOM's.

[Fi5kuS 57]

In FSX this us true. But in FSX SE there are no OOM's.

 

You're just throwing out a whats considered the holy grail in the flightsim community. No OOMs? I think I safely can say that, without having tested the steam version myself, there certainly are OOMs in this version as well. As previously stated - its NOT something evolutionary, as an OOM-free FSX would be. 

[Bofajking 0]

You're just throwing out a whats considered the holy grail in the flightsim community. No OOMs? I think I safely can say that, without having tested the steam version myself, there certainly are OOMs in this version as well. As previously stated - its NOT something evolutionary, as an OOM-free FSX would be.

I find it amusing that you make that statement after admitting to not owning the software. But none the less, if you can find me one thread or post to the contrary of my claim I will happily concede. I have thoroughly tested my claim and I stand by it. In fact, you will see a video posted from me shortly supporting it.

[Fi5kuS 57]

I find it amusing that you make that statement after admitting to not owning the software. But none the less, if you can find me one thread or post to the contrary of my claim I will happily concede. I have thoroughly tested my claim and I stand by it. In fact, you will see a video posted from me shortly supporting it.

 

I know people have already said they've gotten OOMs. I mean, isn't this just FSX in a new wrapping paper? But by all means, if you can PROVE or support or whatever that FSX:SE are without OOMs, well then truly something extraordinary amazing has happened? I'm deeply skeptical until proven otherwise, sorry but thats just my nature. Sorry if I came off as something different. Its just that the the OOM phenomenon is something FSX and Prepar3D users hate the most. 

[n4gix 4,947]

I mean, isn't this just FSX in a new wrapping paper?

No, it is not. There have been some significant changes made under the hood. If you cannot accept the word of Pete Dowson, who's long history of probing the depths the MS flight simulator's guts for over a decade now have surely earned him some credibility, then possibly nothing will ever change your intractability.

 

On the other hand, I do agree that it is entirely possible to encounter an OOM. It is possible to saturate any program's VAS allocation, although it may well take a whole lot more in FSX:SE than with FSX:MS.

[WfordJr 1]

 I have 65 hrs on FSX-SE with numerous aircraft and scenery and havnt come close to exhausting VAS. Havnt got below using 200K. Have no way of knowing for sure but I almost believe its dumping old scenery freeing up VAS.  FYI. I can force OOMs' in X-Plane 64 as far as that goes. There NEVER will be a perfect scenario.

[Bofajking 0]

I know people have already said they've gotten OOMs. I mean, isn't this just FSX in a new wrapping paper? But by all means, if you can PROVE or support or whatever that FSX:SE are without OOMs, well then truly something extraordinary amazing has happened? I'm deeply skeptical until proven otherwise, sorry but thats just my nature. Sorry if I came off as something different. Its just that the the OOM phenomenon is something FSX and Prepar3D users hate the most.

I would be interested in seeing the sources that state they got OOM's as I have been following these topics closely and am yet to see any. It is not just fsx in wrapping paper. There are almost no visual differences to be seen but the underlying code, as proven by Pete Dawson, is significantly different. Also, they have made enhancements to the way vertex buffers are managed, the way that scenery cache is flushed, and the compiler itself is arguably the most efficient to ever be seen. Trust me, I was horrified to first have heard that Dovetail was involved in the project, but for $5 I decided to try it for myself before putting it out to pasture and I can say with all certainty that this is a huge improvement over standard FSX. It's not a whole new program, it doesn't look any different, and it certainly is not "next gen" but it has created a feasible stop gap until we get that next evolution in simming.

[Fi5kuS 57]

Ok then I hope someone will provide definite prove that FSX:SE better deals with VAS than FSX. Up til now, it has only been comparison of pictures showing differences in FPS. 

 

This little argument has gotten me very excited over FSX:SE, believe me! 

[nikaslan 9]

However, to make sure everything was equal, and as I said in my reports, I used my FSX CFG for FSX-SE (renamed of course), as well as my SCENERY.CFG and SimObjects. Everything was the same in both FSX and FSX-SE except for the code itself.

 

No placebo, no vanilla install, nothing but direct comparison using my normal heaviest test -- full AI traffic at EGLL.

 

Pete

 

Pete, I understand that the FSX.CFG is the same in both versions, but my point was: what tweaks were present (or not) in your FSX.CFG file? 

 

UsePools=0?

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15?

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=?

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=?

Or any other tweak that can substantially improve frame rates?

 

I mean, if you 'super' tweak your MS-FSX then maybe FSX-SE cannot really offer better performance, but compared to the average vanilla MS-FSX setup it really brings serious performance increase..

 

I bought it but haven't installed it yet to my main flightsim PC, so I cannot directly compare it for the moment. Anyway, it seems that results are mixed, and without all the system and .cfg data we probably cannot pinpoint the reason for these mixed results.

[~Craig~ 10]

I agree with Bofajking, that it is amusing just how many examples his thread and my thread here have brought of words like;    

 

"I've not tried it yet, but I believe X, and I'm skeptical of everything else".

 

:smile:

 

All of the skeptics should have skeptically spent $5 and bought it - your views would then be credible because you'd have actually tried out the thing.