You mention matching the published tweaks to both FSXSE and MSFSX cfgs.  I'm wondering if there are unpublished tweaks in FSXSE, that can also be made (and have been made by many) to their MSFSX cfg files and achieve similar results.  The only thing they mentioned was HighMemFix, apparently hard coded, but I'm wondering if there are more that they didn't mention.

.........

Apparently there are other tweaks 'built in' to FSX-SE. 

 

See http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458477-auto-applied-config-tweaks-in-fsx-steam/

                      

Al

Come, come now Ethan. You don't want to be lumped together with me and some others now, do you? Science and logic can only take you so far.

Oh wow, Ark.  Thanks for pointing out JRBarret's post.  I'm not familiar with the Coutl add on manager and if it provides a comprehensive list of all parameter settings, but this begins to answer the question I raised. I was specifically interested in the MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES and BUILDINGS_PER_CELL settings, wondering if they had lowered the autogen density for the same slider setting, but it appears that this still defaults to the same thing according to JRBarret.

The COUATL add-on manager doesn't show ALL applied config settings, but it does highlight some of the more significant ones - and provides a means to quickly change them with sliders (such as the trees and buildings per cell settings).

 

Of course, the main function of the manager is to provide activation management for add-ons using the COUATL engine - mainly FSDT airports, GSX, QualityWings aircraft and some others. If you already own any of these products, you will have the add-on manager available via the FSX menu.

 

Although you could install the manager as a stand-alone, without actually owning any of the products that depend on it, I wouldn't recommend doing that just to provide a graphical interface to the FSX.CFG parameters.

Oh wow, Ark.  Thanks for pointing out JRBarret's post.  I'm not familiar with the Coutl add on manager and if it provides a comprehensive list of all parameter settings, but this begins to answer the question I raised. I was specifically interested in the MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES and BUILDINGS_PER_CELL settings, wondering if they had lowered the autogen density for the same slider setting, but it appears that this still defaults to the same thing according to JRBarret.

 

In my other thread, you can see the screen shots side by side and see that Autogen has not decreased in density at all. 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458260-ms-fsx-vs-dt-fsx-se-the-conclusive-performance-benchmark/

Is anyone NOT seeing a performance difference?  I've only installed a vanilla install but so far with rough calculations I see no real difference in default areas.

What I don't understand is: Why is it not possible to copy the files DTG changed from a FSX SE installation to an original installation?

 

That would be very important for me, because I don't want to have to reinstall all addons...

Is anyone NOT seeing a performance difference?  I've only installed a vanilla install but so far with rough calculations I see no real difference in default areas.

 

It might be that the major differences between FSX and FSX-SE, whatever they are, show up best under high load (high stress) flight scenarios. On a crowded, busy city street you may not see much performance difference between a standard sedan and a race car (and that scenario might even favor the sedan slightly), but out on the interstate ........

 

What I don't understand is: Why is it not possible to copy the files DTG changed from a FSX SE installation to an original installation?

 

That would be very important for me, because I don't want to have to reinstall all addons...

Because the recompiled code likely uses different memory locations for flight variables, aircraft parameters, software routines, etc, and so the remaining original FSX routines would not know where to find the data they needed. In short, recompilation "shuffles the deck" a bit. That is why, for example, Pete Dowson had to create a new version of FSUIPC.

Al

Come, come now Ethan. You don't want to be lumped together with me and some others now, do you? Science and logic can only take you so far.

 

Fine by me, Jim. Besides, this is a hobby filled with computer builders, geeks, developers, pilots, and aviation nuts... we all got to this point one way or another by using some science and logic along the way. I'm sure the numbers will pan out eventually and reason will prevail, whatever the ultimate outcome is.   

My gains were more modest, FSX-SE running about 10% faster than FSX.  Both had just MyTrafficX and UK2000 Manchester, I'd only just started out rebuilding my FSX system from scratch.  In FSX, I had the changes as per Bojote, bufferpools=0 being the most significant FPS gain in both simulators.Interestingly setting FFTF=0.1 in FSX-SE did not make any difference to FPS, that's different to my experience in FSX and requires further investigation.

 

Simon

I only have one comment for this thread.........If you can't get an OOM in FSX (DVD version) with a LOD Radius of 8.5, then you aren't trying very hard.

It would be nice if someone from DTG chipped in to this forum topic and actually inform us FSX veterans....and we are all familiar with the workings of the CFG file....and explain what they have actually tweaked or changed..at a more technical level.

 

Then it would clarify why user are seeing differences....

 

Will that happen.......who knows!

 

Enjoy what ever you fly!

 

 

Then it would clarify why user are seeing differences....

 

It is not just about the .cfg file,

The programs code has also changed internally and has been compiled on a newer compiler that recognises and uses the instruction set of the newer processors in a more efficiant way.

Think of it as FSX SP3 and it is still evolving (two recent silent updates)

I only have one comment for this thread.........If you can't get an OOM in FSX (DVD version) with a LOD Radius of 8.5, then you aren't trying very hard.

 

I agree, i read some of the people on here, claiming the most...unlikely scenarios.  Somebody saying that the they running all sliders to the right with a LOD of 8.5, PMDG 777 and the UK2000v3 EGLL and have never seen an OOM.  I run a LOD of 3.5 and frequently start sweating after 2 hours.  

 

If FSX-SE can help with this then i will convert tomorrow.

I only have one comment for this thread.........If you can't get an OOM in FSX (DVD version) with a LOD Radius of 8.5, then you aren't trying very hard.

I don't and I fly 15 hour flights on a routine basis, and I use the dreaded DX 9 mode.