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

[Pete Dowson 558]

Ideal Flight 10 Augmented Pack. http://www.codelegend.com/idealflight/default.htm

 

Ah. Thanks!

 

Pete

[AviatorMoser 353]

AviatorMoser, Screenshots from outside views is always going to give higher framerates. I want to see the PMDG 777 on the ground at EGLL in the virtual cockpit with AI traffic and cloudy weather.

 

Anyone can tweak FSX and FSX:SE to get good framerates on the outside view. And I noticed you didn't show a framerate count with the picture of the 777 in clouds

 

Oh, you people are insufferable sometimes. Those previous pictures were taken on different days with different intentions! I only quickly slapped together what I could show off.

 

Don't own the 777. Money better spent else where! If you get crap frames with the PMDG 777, I guess that's on you.

 

However, I can do what you ask with a TriStar and a 767  with lots of AI, REX clouds, rain, Orbx, and max scenery settings, plus a LOD10 mesh. This took about 15 minutes. Had to fickle with REX weather to get me dense clouds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

You struggle to get mid 20 framerate, with a light aircraft addon. You prove my point. More complicated situations show the same type of bad performance as vanilla fsx. I use PMDG as an example but any complicated addon sees the same problem. Why you took a dig at PMDG I do not know.

[AviatorMoser 353]

You struggle to get mid 20 framerate, with a light aircraft addon. You prove my point. More complicated situations show the same type of bad performance as vanilla fsx. I use PMDG as an example but any complicated addon sees the same problem. Why you took a dig at PMDG I do not know.

 

Ok, this is just becoming too weird for me.

 

HUH? Light aircraft? These are heavy aircraft. Unless you mean complex modeled aircraft, then I'll let you know I get the same frames with the iFly 737 NG and the PMDG MD-11 which are decent, complex situations. I chose the TriStar and 767 models because their virtual cockpits are pretty well-modeled and should be able to tax the rendering engine. I really don't want to have to grab more screenies if you aren't satisfied.

 

Mid-20's = bad performance? I consider that great performance. Considering the amount of AI, the weather, the texture set, the aircraft, the 8X antialiasing, 16X anisotropic filtering, airport vehicle density, car traffic, the maxed out Orbx autogen, texture, and mesh details, and the urban environment, I think mid-20s while at the airport is pretty good to me. Heck, I struggled with VAS in the old FSX, and that usually drained my FPS to 15-20 FPS on takeoffs, and I had less addons installed back then and even had to dial back the sliders. I don't understand the whole "struggling" context. Compared to what I'm used to, this is "excelling".

 

You're point is what exactly? It runs like FSX? Of course it does. They are both the same simulator! They share the same name. Gee whiz, you'd think you'd get similar framerates -- actually my frames are much better around airports..15-20 FPS to 20-25 FPS without any VAS OOM-- not bad! Must be the new compiler and libraries?

 

My point is pretty clear. FSX:SE doesn't kill off autogen, cloud density, and AI. Why would it have to if its basically the same engine? I don't understand the logic behind that one.

 

Oh wait, now I get it. FSX:SE has to actually perform worse than FSX: Gold because DTG now publishes it, and DTG has to secretly cover up the negative performance by killing off AI, autogen, and clouds, right? Totally, my bad. I forgot we were being serious. Can we do something about the fluoride in our water now?

 

A dig at PMDG? Huh? What are you talking about? I love my MD-11. It runs absolutely great.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

 

 

You prove my point. More complicated situations show the same type of bad performance as vanilla fsx

 

Any comparison of FSX and FSX-SE with no add ons really makes no valid points, since hardly anyone runs their sims that way. Although I agree that the improvement is somewhere between 10-15% in frame rates, if the improvement is from 20 fps to 22 or 23 fps, does that really matter? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck (and no offense meant to Scruffy Duck).

[AWACS 12]

HI Daniel,

 

I'm with you, FSX SE is better, as subjective as it sounds, it's true, but your results are not subjective, they are real and quantifiable. 

 

And... I certainly appreciate the time and effort you spent trying to answer peoples' queries. 

 

Apparently, you need to buy every payware addon, then download and install every freeware addon, then set up the flight exactly to everybody's specific requests in both sims mind you and then take pictures and maybe a video or two, then make sure you log everything, then sign a form and have it notarized, then post your results.  Oh, and I almost forgot, buy every combination of hardware the exists that can run FSX as well, just to be sure.

[HawkDsl 50]

Ever notice the really fun threads read like a "reality T.V." script?

 

 

Interesting post by all.

 

Personally,  I think Microsoft was a little jealous of X-plane having all those versions out there giving Dev's a pain in the neck... and thought to themselves.. "I see your version, and raise you one. We can make Dev's just as crazy as you!".

 

Stick together... we are but a few amongst FPS warriors.

[jcomm 5,889]

AviatorMoser,

 

all of your posts were EXCELLENT in showing exactly what FSX-SE offers. I  couldn't be happier with this release, re-birth of FSX, by far the most stable, and smooth I have ever used with any add-ons I have / had.

[Wobbie 938]

Guys, I read these postings with much interest, BUT, me, at the age of 62 next week, with my eyesight, I cannot even see the clouds, the distant AI planes & autogen scenery, never mind any differences between them. 

You gotta put an age limit on this forum, you youngsters are great, but us old timers need a flipping magnifying glass to see what you are talking about.

 

Great work to all here, & thanks for the info, well, that which I can see!

(lol..)

 

Hee, hee, for some of us older folk, the only differences we can see between FSX, FSX:SE & FS2004, is trying to remember that the FSX's have 'A' & 'S' views!, never mind what you lot are talking about.

[W2DR 1,859]

_{Wait until you get to be my age. I don't worry at all about the clouds, the distant AI planes & autogen scenery. I just hope my monitor stays on between trips to the bathroom....}

 

_Doug

 

_{I have no Idea why this came out in mouse-type...sorry...}

[Wobbie 938]

Yup, I'm with you there. When I go there, my monitor, not only enters screen saver mode, but often goes into hybernation. The oldies here will understand about the time pit-stops take when you our age! But.. also try make head 'n tails of distant auto gen scenery & AI planes whist wearing bi-focal specs. That makes simming very mmm, fun! Thank goodness for zooming. At least we have not yet a zooming comparison between the sims!

[mmann 72]

 

 

At least we have not yet a zooming comparison between the sims!

 

At my age, that at least would be something useful. I sure as heck can't see the difference between 20 FPS and 30 FPS (unless the frame counter is showing).

[Wobbie 938]

I get so excited when my FPS's hit 27'ish, I gotta go change me daiper!

Shall we ask for zoom testing? I think that there is a large community of our age out there that would love to know the differences between the sims.

Discrimination against Seniors?

  :p0503: :t4020:

We'll be back!!

[AnkH 2,233]

However, I can do what you ask with a TriStar and a 767  with lots of AI, REX clouds, rain, Orbx, and max scenery settings, plus a LOD10 mesh. This took about 15 minutes. Had to fickle with REX weather to get me dense clouds.

 

 

I think you still did not get the point. It is useless to show screenshots from inside FSX:SE without comparing it to FSX. As a matter of fact, to show you what I mean, here a screenshot I took from Aerosoft Heathrow Scenery with 50% AI traffic (UT2), REX soft clouds, REX Essential Overdrive, FTX Global, FTX Vector, SceneryTech Landclass, bad rainy weather theme and pretty high settings. I got 30 FPS by flying above EGLL in those conditions, and even if it is only in the VC of the Robinson, what does that prove? Right, nothing, as it is not compared to FSX:SE...

 

 

So, I appreciate your efforts showing that you get good FPS with FSX:SE, but without comparison, they do not help that much in this discussion, as you can get good FPS easily as well with FSX. 

[smakar 0]

 

 

Shall we ask for zoom testing?

That's why I'm grateful for RAAS - it ensures I'm taking off or landing at the correct runway (the numbers being a blur <g>).