fsx-se Is it really such a leap when it comes to performance?

[OSJJ1985 134]

I'm not the hardcore Add-On user, but I do use them and don't fly without. The most important ones for me include ASN and Ultimate Traffic 2 and some "light" aircraft add-ons like Overland. I know that ASN doesn't support FSX-SE yet, so if I decide to get it I'll wait for that. How is the general compatibility with Add-Ons and what about AI Aircraft from FS9 (which work fine with the original FSX)

But my main question is, is it worth getting it for the improved performance and will I notice the difference when using it with Add-Ons, which can be FPS-drainer themselves ... I've heard from Simmers that you can even get double the FPS compared to the original FSX.

 

Cheers,

[stans 702]

I do not (yet) have the Steam Edition of FSX, still flying the MS version that I bought years ago.  I do not get hung up in the FPS wars, I'll take 20 FPS and smooth as glass over 60 FPS and choppy, stuttering, pausing to load every time.  From what I am seeing and hearing, add-on developers are quickly getting onto the Steam train.  From the videos I've seen posted, it does look like the Steam version runs a little smoother and loads textures faster than the MS version.

[Burnspot 5]

I moved my FSX platform over to FSX:SE this past weekend and uninstalled my original FSX. The MOST important aspect of FSX:SE to me is that it's now getting updates...something it obviously hasn't had for years (not sure how much they can play with, but it's good nonetheless).

 

Anyway, I'm still moving stuff over, but so far, in FSX:SE I've installed FSCaptain, FSUIPC/WideFS, AS2012 (pending ASN's update), GEX NA & Australia, Aivlasoft's EFB, all of PMDG's 777 stuff, A2A's C172 & C182, Air Hauler, and some Scenery Tech stuff.

 

I've done two 773 flights via FSCaptain, each over 2k miles and used 8x auto cruise here and there - zero problems. I've also done probably 6 100 mile flights with the A2A Cessna's with no problems. Things seem more fluid (i.e. smooth) in FSX:SE and seemingly less problematic (I don't FPS track). I'm use Win 8.1. While I'm sure I'll have a lockup/crash at some point, it seems pretty nice right now.

[ryanbatc 12,775]

Depends on who you ask

 

SE offered me no apparent difference between FSX Deluxe

[Capt Speirs 52]

I got FSX-SE when it was $5 and now I am going to wait till all the dust settles before I install it. Then we'll see if it is what some claim.

[HawkDsl 50]

 

 

The MOST important aspect of FSX:SE to me is that it's now getting updates...

 

As they have stated on this forum, they are not "updating" FSX in any way with the exception of making it work for steam, and multi-player changes.

[B3Burner 0]

My initial concern with FSX-SE has been fatal errors of the UIAutomationCore.dll variety, despite the fact that Steam has included this file in its download (unlike the original boxed version from 2006), and is the same exact one that everyone on YouTube videos from 2011 were saying to download at 3rd party sites to help w/ fatal errors on the boxed version.

 

I'm not sure why the error as so named is occuring... I continue to experiment in an effort to stop it.  I will say it seems pretty darn smooth w/o stutters for me, even btwn 30 & 60 f's... but I can only run it about 10 mins before CTD, so for me it feels like I'm running a "demo mode" that I paid $25 for!  LOL 

 

However despite my initial frustation, I am optimistic and confident I will eventually get it figured out and soldier on.

 

--  John

[AnkH 2,233]

Just think about it: why does FSX:SE perform slightly better on most computers? Is it really because of FSX:SE or simply because of the fact that everybody who uses FSX:SE those days does it with a brand new install? Or because most of the users do not care about tweaking (to death) at all? I simply doubt that there is any difference between FSX:SE and the "old" FSX explaining the performance difference besides the fact that FSX:SE is a new install without unnecessary tweaks and addons.

 

If we would judge this properly, we would have to install both FSX and FSX:SE brand new on a computer, with exactly the same addons. Then we could compare. And I am pretty sure, there would be no significant difference...

[Bunchy 222]

After uninstalling FSX SP2 and doing a fresh FSX:SE install, I must say I'm impressed.

 

I have all my addons back in apart from MyTraffic 5.4c, F1 Mustang,  and ORBX libraries (Object flow dll's are being fixed apparently)

 

So, with ORBX global, vector, EU landclass, FS Genesis mesh it is far from a virgin install.

 

I have not noticed an increase in frame rate, I lock mine at 30 fps anyway, but the smoothness is very noticeable, the stutters are pretty much gone.

 

The only mod I've done to the cfg is up the LOD to 6.5.

 

I'm happy.

 

Just need F1 to fix the Mustang and ORBX to fix object flows and I'm back to where I was with FSX boxed. (Both are in the pipeline)

 

Stu

[~Craig~ 10]

Performance gains from FSX-SE, over MS FSX are claimed by some users (including myself) and contested by others.

 

I saw a definitive increase in performance when using FSX-SE, mainly in terms of higher FPS and smoother performance (I use TrackIR so the latter is more noticeable when panning around).

 

I also found that flying through thick clouds did not pull down performance as much as it seemed to in MS FSX.

 

Others have claimed they saw no performance increase at all.

 

So really it's a case of trying it for yourself.

 

 

If we would judge this properly, we would have to install both FSX and FSX:SE brand new on a computer, with exactly the same addons.

 

I did exactly that, and saw a small but noticeable increase in performance with FSX-SE.

 

Both installs had the same two tweaks [buffer Pools] and [Affinity Mask], plus the MS FSX install had [HighMemoryFix] too, of course.

 

Both installs had the following installed, only :-

 

FTX Global

FTX Vector

FTX OpenLC EU

FSUIPC

OpusFSX

Zinertek Ultimate Weather (textures)

+ RealAir Duke B60 2.0.

[AnkH 2,233]

And did you test the exact same conditions? I doubt, as this is simply not possible, you can even not reproduce twice the same exact conditions within FSX or FSX:SE due to the fact that the numbers of clouds and the selection of cloud textures are different every time you fire up FSX. That is also the reason why it is basically impossible to benchmark FSX properly, all you can do is taking the average of several runs and compare those numbers.

[airernie 263]

Those who have done comprehensive testing have all found improved VAS usage.  That's significant if you are flying over large areas in a detailed aircraft with detailed airports and scenery.

 

Probably not so much if you're like me in a Cessna, over the midwest with only the FTX freeware airports and a few updated afcads.

 

As for FPS, the results seem mixed. Some get more with FSX-SE, some not as many.  However, the results don't seem be significantly different.

[~Craig~ 10]

And did you test the exact same conditions? I doubt, as this is simply not possible, you can even not reproduce twice the same exact conditions within FSX or FSX:SE due to the fact that the numbers of clouds and the selection of cloud textures are different every time you fire up FSX. That is also the reason why it is basically impossible to benchmark FSX properly, all you can do is taking the average of several runs and compare those numbers.

 

Uhm, no I have a life, and I really wasn't interested in placating cynics.   

 

The question asked above was about Fresh clean installs and the use of the same programs within them.    If you want to get down to each differing rendering of a cloud, it's all yours ........  :rolleyes:

 

...but it's neither realistic, sensible nor reasonable.  We're all trying to enjoy a simulator here, not conduct laboratory experiements.

[AnkH 2,233]

Well, that is your opinion. To make a statement like above that FSX:SE is better regarding performance compared to FSX, you have to test that. You can not make statements based on personal experience like "it feels more smooth" without hard facts. And the question of the thread addresses this, a question which can be answered only by giving numbers and kind of conducting those "laboratory experiments".

 

But yes, we should rather enjoy flying than discussing around some FPS in one or the other version of the sim.

[flyingscampi 2]

I built a new rig over Christmas with Win 8.1 and I couldn't cope with the amount of CTD's I was getting with FSX Deluxe so I stripped it off my system and started again with SE.

 

As I've changed my core system (i5 4690K from i5 750) I can't compare performance, but I finally have a rig that runs FSX smoothly with all my add-ons.

 

All my add-ons came over with the exception of ASN (nearly at beta), the 737 NGX (waiting for the new installer) and the Reality XP GNS (which I replaced with the GTN).

 

I'm not bothered about the debate whether SE  has been, or is going  to be improved by DTG, as I'm getting value for money by simply having a sim that runs stably on Win 8.1 with all my add-ons.