I appreciate the effort he has expended. I didn't realize that FSX-SE killed the autogen to such a large extent, it looks more like FS9 levels to me.

I appreciate the effort he has expended. I didn't realize that FSX-SE killed the autogen to such a large extent,

 

It doesn't kill anything. I use the same FSX.CFG in both FSX and FSX-SE (just renaming the copy), and I see exactly the same amounts of autogen in both. In fact I can increase the level in FSX-SE and still get better performance than in FSX.

 

My comparisons, already posted, are valid because I am using exactly the same everything in both. The only difference is the code. All the other files are the same files.

 

Pete

More evidence found that those two videos are a simple show off. You can download both .cfg files from the YT links, I did compare them. Differences are:

lol dude you are an idiot if you think I played tricks with the videos. My regular fsx was actually tweaked to make things easier. The autogen count in the terrain section is lower. It's missing from the steam version because its using the default numbers. You noticed that the video did not cut. It showed all my settings. And the multisample section from the fsx.cfg file is there for dx10. When using dx9 it doesn't affect performance and if you read the description in the video I mentioned that this was not about fps, it was about VAS usage. If anything fsx had the advantage because it had a lower autogen count from the the explicit instructions in the cfg file

Edited February 6, 201511 yr by devgrp
Removed excessive quote.

Thanks, Pete. It is interesting that so much time and effort is being taken to tear apart other people's experiential reports, yet no effort whatsoever is being taken to perform one's own testing.

I couldn't perform any testing of FSX-SE even if I bought it; my development computer where FSX resides has no networking connections and is completely offline. I hope someday that the requirement to be online will change, but I think it is part of DTG's anti-piracy effort so I can appreciate that this requirement will likely not change.

 

Instead if wasting your time proving...again, I don't know what you're trying to prove...whatever...spend your time flying your sim you're happy with, and the rest of us will fly what we want, DoveTail or not.  It's about enjoying the sim...not counting how many autogen trees I have in my frame...I'm not that OCD.

 

Did you read the topic title? If you do not like to discuss this here and you want that everybody uses the sim he wants and shut up, then why you give useless comments here? I can spend as much time as I want showing the differences of so called identical settings. If you do not like it, stay away from the discussion, but do not blame me for taking part.

 

If anything fsx had the advantage because it had a lower autogen count from the the explicit instructions in the cfg file

 

And still the video shows the exact opposite, FSX has several times more autogen buildings displayed throughout the video. Explain this, please...

 

It doesn't kill anything. I use the same FSX.CFG in both FSX and FSX-SE (just renaming the copy), and I see exactly the same amounts of autogen in both. In fact I can increase the level in FSX-SE and still get better performance than in FSX.

 

My comparisons, already posted, are valid because I am using exactly the same everything in both. The only difference is the code. All the other files are the same files.

 

Pete

 

Are you sure? I know that you have access to the code, but still something struggles me: obviously Dovetail somehow managed to include the "HIGHMEMFIX" into their FSX:SE without using the config file. So, can you be absolutely sure that they did not also include other things without using the config? As I mentioned, as soon as they reduce some not very obvious things such as cloud coverage, cloud draw distance and autogen numbers, you would instantly gain about 10% in performance without people noticing it. Furthermore it seems that the viewpoints are different for almost every view. And all of us know how the FPS change as soon as you zoom in or out. What can you say about this?

 

In the end, if FSX:SE would provide really that much better performance, they would have advertised it. But they even give statements themselves pointing out that basically nothing dramatic is changed. So what? You get all better performance but still no one showed REAL proof of it. You can tell me here whatever you want, as long as I do not see something close to a fact, I simply regard this as subjective point of view.

... It is interesting that so much time and effort is being taken to tear apart other people's experiential reports, yet no effort whatsoever is being taken to perform one's own testing.

 

Well said! It's the very reason I stopped paying attention to the likes of our friend here many moons ago. 

 

 

If you do not like it, stay away from the discussion, but do not blame me for taking part.

 

If you don't like someone pointing out that you're nitpicking every little detail, you feel free to stay away also.  You like to do what you call "constructive criticism", well I'm trying to understand what your motive is.  If you offer an opinion, expect others to comment on it...it's not exclusive.

 

 

 

You can tell me here whatever you want, as long as I do not see something close to a fact, I simply regard this as subjective point of view.

 

You made my point from a few posts above...if you like what you have, then stick with it.  But don't crisitise and tear apart someone who took their own time and effort to make a, in your estimation, unscientific comparison.  I think what Devgrp did was fair for a quick overview of the differences.

 

Two leading developpers (Pete from FSUIPC, and John from ORBX) endorse FSX-SE.  Other developers are quickly adapting their products to work with FSX-SE. 

 

I've been simming with MSFS for nearly 30 years, and I do know the in's and out's of this hobby...I've been with AVSIM since before the forums started counting the years...and never have I seen the venemous attacks on members since the FSX, FSX-SE and P3D debates started, sprinkled with a bit of XPX on top.

 

In the end, what difference does it make if there are 100 or 1000 less autogen??!?!  If you think Dovetail cut down of autogen, maybe they saw something that make MS-FSX flawed...might be one of the reasons VAS is handled much better.  It your opinion that autogen has been cut, but I disagree.  Like Pete, I haven't notice any evidence or difference....but would I really while I'm busy flying?  You're noticing things on picture stills...but would you really notice this while flying...be honest with yourself with this question.

 

 

 

I can spend as much time as I want showing the differences of so called identical settings.

 

Well, put your money where your mouth is and do a comparison for the community...one that is as controlled as you are demanding.  I'm sure if you wait a bit, you can get the FSX-SE version for a small sum of 5 bucks when Steam puts it on sale again.  Then you can set up your system with two programs, take the time to set them both up perfectly, record relevant pictures and videos that are exactly the same and post it here for everyone to tear apart.

While I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up, but for me, It has really helped in the VAS dept. It is also most definitely smoother too. I got it for $5. I have removed the MS FSX version. 

 

Obviously, FSX:SE kills off AI traffic to boost performance.

 

 

Obviously, FSX:SE kills off clouds just for the heck of it.

 

 

Obviously, FSX:SE neutered autogen to give me 58 FPS.

 

Conclusions: FSX:SE is just one giant placebo pill. It's not actually there. You didn't purchase it for 5 placebo dollars. You took the blue pill instead of the red pill, and now the last two months has been a power trip inside the Matrix because we prefer bliss and ignorance over reality. The machines won.

 

 

Conclusions: FSX:SE is just one giant placebo pill. It's not actually there. You didn't purchase it for 5 placebo dollars. You took the blue pill instead of the red pill, and now the last two months has been a power trip inside the Matrix because we prefer bliss and ignorance over reality. The machines won.

 

lol! 

 

 

Conclusions: FSX:SE is just one giant placebo pill. It's not actually there. You didn't purchase it for 5 placebo dollars. You took the blue pill instead of the red pill, and now the last two months has been a power trip inside the Matrix because we prefer bliss and ignorance over reality. The machines won.

 

+1. I was starting to feel the same way. Lol

Conclusions: FSX:SE is just one giant placebo pill. It's not actually there. You didn't purchase it for 5 placebo dollars. You took the blue pill instead of the red pill, and now the last two months has been a power trip inside the Matrix because we prefer bliss and ignorance over reality. The machines won.

I've marked this as "Best Answer" simply because it summarizes with terrific humor the entire discussion...

 

...which is not do diminish the contributions of some of the posters who actually also have provided some experiential data for consideration.

If according to AnkH, the so called "built using a VS2013 compiler, which improves the overall performance" by Dovetail is all bs then?

I think AnKH is installing FSX-SE. He may not be back