I had fsx ms installed first on my system then I installed fsx se. I did a test to show VAS usage in both sim using the same exact settings including weather theme at fsdreamteam lax with all the settings maxed out. You can clearly see that the steam version is smoother. I was using the same scenery.cfg file from my fsx ms installation with direct paths.

 

I've since reformatted my computer with just fsx steam. Because of the amount of addons I have with fsx ms I would have to wait at least 10 mins before I could run the sim so I would start it and go plan my flight and if it wasn't ready and I clicked the plane select button sometimes it would crash. FSX se loads much faster.

 

 

FSX Steam is way better as far as I'm concerned.  Pete Dowson, renowned developer of FSUIPC, agrees that FSX: SE is a definite improvement over MS FSX boxed versions.

Link to Pete Dowsons statement please? If you insist, we can continue on this, and I have to repeat again: you can not compare the two sims without giving numbers. "Smooth" is a personal feeling and furthermore, it already happened to me that firing up FSX one resulted in rather laggy gameplay and just exiting and restarting FSX resulted in "smooth" gameplay. Explanations? It is a FACT that DTG did not change ANYTHING to the core engine of FSX for their steam version, therefore it is simply NOT possible that FSX:SE is providing better framerates than FSX out of the box with EXACTLY the same settings. There is nothing such as Vodoo etc., the core engine of both sims are identical. But as I said, it is also a FACT that you can not reproduce two exact identical flights within FSX or FSX:SE, even not if loading a flight saved before and using weather themes instead of real world weather. Besides that, you most probably have NO IDEA about what Dovetail possibly did besides the core engine. Example: if they hard locked for example LOD_RADIUS or FFTF outside the FSX.cfg (as they did for the HIGHMEMFIX tweak), you might have a "smoother" experience with FSX:SE, but not because it is "better", but because there is a significant difference between the two sims which you can simply not reproduce in FSX as you do not know the settings Dovetail integrated...

 

I know, in the end, it is not important to know those "hidden" tweaks if you use FSX:SE, sure, but for a proper comparison, it would be.

 

 

Link to Pete Dowsons statement please? If you insist, we can continue on this, and I have to repeat again: you can not compare the two sims without giving numbers. "Smooth" is a personal feeling and furthermore, it already happened to me that firing up FSX one resulted in rather laggy gameplay and just exiting and restarting FSX resulted in "smooth" gameplay. Explanations? It is a FACT that DTG did not change ANYTHING to the core engine of FSX for their steam version, therefore it is simply NOT possible that FSX:SE is providing better framerates than FSX out of the box with EXACTLY the same settings

 

I visited Pete at the weekend and he showed me the comparison situation he used for both FSX:MS and FSX:SE and there were noticeable improvements in both fps and smoothness. I saw it myself. I did not imagine it.

 

The test involved slewing along a northern taxiway at Aerosoft's Xtended Heathrow at 20kts watching the edges of the screen for how smoothly the ground objects passed by. It was noticeably smoother on the Steam edition than the original with all settings identical on both tests.

 

Whilst Dovetail changed very little in the core program apart from bug fixes they did recompile the program using a modern compiler more able to take advantage of multiple core processors. That is the primary reason why performance is better but it does need a severe test to show it well. You won't see any difference pottering around in a Cessna in the Arizona desert!

What OS are you using OP?

I think the changes they made to code libraries may improve FPS but the changes were to bring FSX forward to use the latest VC libraries rather than recoding the entire thing using them. A statement by them mentioned that they retain VC2005 compaitability so no change at all could of been made to the coding structure beyond implementing Steam.

 

I'm sure some have seen improvements but I would love to see a real test of the same settings, same scenario AND also with both a vanilla FSX SP2 install and vanilla FSX:SE install. I would hazard a bet in this case that the difference would be extremely small.

 

Obviously if some have seen improvements that is great news but I would considering moving to FSX:SE with caution as it already has been shown that it has and will break some addons. Personally, for the hassle it just is not worth it and the following statement shows why it is not really a future proof investment of time and money.

 

"Yes, there have been a few tweaks made that may improve the performance of FSX for some users, but if you already have the simulator we're making no secret about the fact that at this point, what we're offering to you is limited. The people we're hoping to attract first and foremost are those to whom FSX will be a brand new experience, rather than those who have already invested a great deal of time and energy into the hobby."

Link to Pete Dowsons statement please? If you insist, we can continue on this, and I have to repeat again: you can not compare the two sims without giving numbers. "Smooth" is a personal feeling and furthermore, it already happened to me that firing up FSX one resulted in rather laggy gameplay and just exiting and restarting FSX resulted in "smooth" gameplay. Explanations? It is a FACT that DTG did not change ANYTHING to the core engine of FSX for their steam version, therefore it is simply NOT possible that FSX:SE is providing better framerates than FSX out of the box with EXACTLY the same settings. There is nothing such as Vodoo etc., the core engine of both sims are identical. But as I said, it is also a FACT that you can not reproduce two exact identical flights within FSX or FSX:SE, even not if loading a flight saved before and using weather themes instead of real world weather. Besides that, you most probably have NO IDEA about what Dovetail possibly did besides the core engine. Example: if they hard locked for example LOD_RADIUS or FFTF outside the FSX.cfg (as they did for the HIGHMEMFIX tweak), you might have a "smoother" experience with FSX:SE, but not because it is "better", but because there nis a significant difference between the two sims which you can simply not reproduce in FSX as you do not know the settings Dovetail integrated...

 

I know, in the end, it is not important to know those "hidden" tweaks if you use FSX:SE, sure, but for a proper comparison, it would be.

You must be delusional if you believe that FSX-SE isn't better than FSX-MS in terms of performance and VAS usage. You're just in a denial. The results speak for themseIves. I have FSX-SE and with the same settings and the same addons it performs much better and smoother than the original one. The same behaviour is remarked by many FSX users. If you can't stand the truth then do us the favor and don't judge something you clearly have no insight into.

 

 

 

 

Clearly, the amount of autogen in these videos are insane. Especially at the landing at the end of the second movie. Just watch. You could never do that while getting around 17-18 FPS on approach in vanilla FSX. 

 

But as far as I know, FSX:SE do not take more advantage over GPU, am I right?

Link to Pete Dowsons statement please?

 

You want any more...sheesh!

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458370-review-of-fsx-se/?p=3141871

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/460355-side-by-side-testing-fsx-vs-fsx-se/?p=3160837

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/460329-fsx-se-a-dead-end/?p=3160674

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/460329-fsx-se-a-dead-end/?p=3159396

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/458336-further-fsx-and-fsxse-benchmark-test/?p=3140932

 

 

If you can't stand the truth then do us the favor and don't judge something you clearly have no insight into.

 

+1

Thank you for the links. Now that is what I call evidence. A person actually looking into the code and pointing out the differences. Not personal experience like "it feels smoother" and "with the same settings". I am not that stubborn that I can not be conviced of a opinion different than mine, but so far, hard evidence is (was?) lacking. Sure, the newly compiled files might be one of the explanations for the observations, this is clear now to me.

Have a look here:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/461293-important-re-sdk-seems-dtgsteam-have-mis-sold-the-product/

 

I saw that on another site & thought it would be of interest to the community.

FSX:SE comes without the SDK. So, read what users & developers have to say there.

As we know, Dovetail is releasing DLC's. I think, maybe that this is the route they are going, targeting the newbie/Steam market that want a plug-&-play game & add-on setup.

Us oldies know, well, most of us do, how to add scenery, planes etc.

 

So, my thoughts are that maybe they would prefer FSX:SE to be a 'closed' sim, with about 3 DLC's available for the new market.

Reading on the above mentioned site, some developers are really complaining about the stringent terms, non disclosure terms etc. IF they go the DLC route.

Yes, they do have the option of releasing add-ons the usual way as they always have, & DLC's is their other route to go

 

My concern is what is going to happen when Dovetail releases their own sim. Will it be different to the 'older' sims (& P3D) by being a closed sim with add-ons ONLY via DLC's?

 

 

My concern is what is going to happen when Dovetail releases their own sim. Will it be different to the 'older' sims (& P3D) by being a closed sim with add-ons ONLY via DLC's?

 

This one has already been beat to death elsewhere.   This topic is about performance, so please try to stay on point.

No problem, I just thought maybe performance can be enhanced by using SDK's, and also to highlight to those that may not be aware, of the limitations imposed by the lack of a SDK. (Interesting that an on-going forum of 8 pages now, has been beaten to death. The devs do not think so) Anyhow...

How is the lack of an add going to limit performance. I'm still getting great performance and I've never once looked or ask about an sdk. This is not of any importance to those who just wants to fly. I'm sure if someone wants to develop for fsx they'll know where to get the sdk

Clearly, the amount of autogen in these videos are insane. Especially at the landing at the end of the second movie. Just watch. You could never do that while getting around 17-18 FPS on approach in vanilla FSX.

 

But as far as I know, FSX:SE do not take more advantage over GPU, am I right?

no it's still more dependent on the cpu

OP,

 

Performance is subjective. There is enough evidence to say VAS management is much better, but frame rate rendering performance is probably going to remain subjective. I'd recommend you just try it out to see yourself.