FSX-SE FSX:SE - wow, wow and WOW

[udidwht 139]

With all due respect:

 

Pete Dowson - FSUIPC developer, respected developer of a program that actually hooks into FSX.  He has delved into the guts of both FSX and FSX-SE.

 

or...

 

Some guy with nickname "udidwht" with not even 20 posts (your next one with be the big milestone) telling us Pete is wrong.

 

I don't gamble, but I know what horse I'm betting on.

 

EDIT:  And yes I do own both, and SE out performs in memory management hands down.  (I lock my FPS, so I could care less about those).

 

And dismissing everyone else with as much experience with FSX is about as asinine as your post. 

 

Who mentioned anything about Pete? Pete the only one with FSX experience? Hell no (no offense)...not by a long shot, silly to even vaguely suggest that.

 

I don't gamble at all but if I did I sure wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket.

Pete - thanks for injecting some good sense and positive information back into this thread. I'm with the OP on this one. SE really is a wow - it is everything we were all hoping for back in 2009!!!

You mean 2006.

[netshadoe 144]

And dismissing everyone else with as much experience with FSX is about as asinine as your post. 

 

I don't gamble at all but if I did I sure wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket.

 

No need to get nasty or hostile. 

 

My point is, Pete has provided evidence in many other posts on this forum and his about fixes and improvements employed in FSX-SE.  He has provided his proof and has not spouted his "facts" without evidence. 

 

Others here have asked you how you came up with your "facts".  Nothing has been provided. 

 

My eggs are just fine.  I use FSX-SE with zero problems.  It doesn't stutter like FSX-Boxed did.  It performs better than FSX-Boxed.   I have tested and actually watched VAS drop by 800MB on a flight from KJFK to KLAX using the NGX, FTX Vector and Global, and about 260 traffic files at 100%.  My FSX-Boxed on the same flight and settings failed before I got off the ground.  Those are my facts.

 

I'm not saying SE is the end all and be all, but it isn't FSX-Boxed.

[tf51d 284]

 

 

Who mentioned anything about Pete? Pete the only one with FSX experience? Hell no (no offense)...not by a long shot, silly to even vaguely suggest that.

 

He's probably the one with the most in depth knowledge of the inner code of FSX (and FS2004, FS2002...) short of the original developers that there is, so yes, I think he has more knowledge in this area then you, me or anyone else around here.

[netshadoe 144]

 

 

Pete the only one with FSX experience? Hell no (no offense)...not by a long shot, silly to even vaguely suggest that.

 

No, he isn't.  I don't recall ever saying he is the only one.  He IS the only one with that kind of experience in this thread.  He is more credible as he has been working with DTG to have bugs corrected...and yes, DTG has been fixing long living bugs in the FSX code (G3D.dll for example).  They are allowed to do that.  What they can't do is add anything new to the code.  Big difference.

 

So you're suggesting you have as much in depth FSX experience as Pete or others?  I'm trying to understand were you got your facts (your words, not mine).  I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong (no offense).

[udidwht 139]

No need to get nasty or hostile. 

 

My point is, Pete has provided evidence in many other posts on this forum and his about fixes and improvements employed in FSX-SE.  He has provided his proof and has not spouted his "facts" without evidence. 

 

Others here have asked you how you came up with your "facts".  Nothing has been provided. 

 

My eggs are just fine.  I use FSX-SE with zero problems.  It doesn't stutter like FSX-Boxed did.  It performs better than FSX-Boxed.   I have tested and actually watched VAS drop by 800MB on a flight from KJFK to KLAX using the NGX, FTX Vector and Global, and about 260 traffic files at 100%.  My FSX-Boxed on the same flight and settings failed before I got off the ground.  Those are my facts.

 

I'm not saying SE is the end all and be all, but it isn't FSX-Boxed.

Hostile? Nothing in that post is remotely hostile. A mere statement.

 

I have been with FSX from the get go and also own the Steam version. Between the (2) I see no discernible difference in performance. My FSX install is over 111 GB. FSX in the end is about smoothness (which I don't lack) to many translate FPS into smoothness in FSX. That is the first problem/mistake when one raises a performance issue with FSX. Stop focusing on the FPS counter...focus on smoothness. With FSX and the right system one can run the boxed Gold version at 13fps and be absolutely smooth.

[netshadoe 144]

I have been with FSX from the get go

 

Ditto...actually been simming since Sublogic (yeah, showing my age)

 

 

 

Between the (2) I see no discernible difference in performance.

 

Performance wise...I agree.  Like I said, memory management (VAS) is much improved which is more of a background thing.

 

 

My FSX install is over 111 GB.

 

I'm at about 200GB myself.

 

 

 

FSX in the end is about smoothness (which I don't lack) to many translate FPS into smoothness in FSX.  That is the first problem/mistake when one raises a performance issue with FSX.

 

Again, I agree.  You may want to re-read post #118 when I said "(I lock my FPS, so I could care less about those)."  Yet, in my experience, SE was stutter free (smooth) at a higher FPS than the Boxed version in my tests.  I could never get rid of micro-stutters with FSX-Boxed.  I don't get them at all on FSX-SE.

 

To put this to rest, like I said, I'm not saying SE is the end all and be all, but it isn't FSX-Boxed at all.  It works great for me and hopefully others can use information I have put up ( and what others have taken the time to post ) in other threads to make their own decision.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I have been with FSX from the get go and also own the Steam version. Between the (2) I see no discernible difference in performance.

 

you have your feelings, some other people have facts backed up by proof. thanks for adding your biased and not educated opinion!

[udidwht 139]

I'm at about 200GB myself.

I'm probably right at about 200+GB as well if you take into account my mesh FS global 2010, GEX (all of them), UTX (All of them) etc...

 

Windows 7 64bit itself manages the memory great...far better than XP did.

 

My simming days go way back to the Commodore 64...well probably further than that hahah!

you have your feelings, some other people have facts backed up by proof. thanks for adding your biased and not educated opinion!

1. It's anything but biased.

 

2. Opinions are far from facts.

 

3. Watch and listen carefully...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4-eiwSDRS0 straight from the horses mouth.

Edited May 1, 2015 by n4gix
Removed excessive quoting.

[udidwht 139]

No, he isn't.  I don't recall ever saying he is the only one.  He IS the only one with that kind of experience in this thread.  He is more credible as he has been working with DTG to have bugs corrected...and yes, DTG has been fixing long living bugs in the FSX code (G3D.dll for example).  They are allowed to do that.  What they can't do is add anything new to the code.  Big difference.

 

So you're suggesting you have as much in depth FSX experience as Pete or others?  I'm trying to understand were you got your facts (your words, not mine).  I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong (no offense).

The G3D.dll fix was a fix offered by Pete via FSUIPC sometime back not one offered by DTG.

Here's a look at my log from FSUIPC...I run locked at 20fps with a plethora of add-ons

 

********* FSUIPC4, Version 4.939e by Pete Dowson *********

Reading options from "D:\Flight Simulator X\Modules\FSUIPC4.ini"

Running inside FSX on Windows 7

Module base=5F4C0000

User Name=""

User Addr=""

FSUIPC4 not user registered

WIDEFS7 not user registered, or expired

       47 System time = 24/04/2015 15:35:02

       47 FLT path = "C:\Users\udidwht\Documents\Flight Simulator X Files\"

      343 Trying to connect to SimConnect Acc/SP2 Oct07 ...

      343 FS path = "D:\Flight Simulator X\"

      686 LogOptions=00000000 00000001

      686 --- CONTROLS timer memory location obtained ok

      686 --- SIM1 Frictions access gained

      686 --- FS Controls Table located ok

      686 --- Installed Mouse Macro hooks ok.

      686 --- Wind smoothing fix is fully installed

      686 --- G3D.DLL fix attempt installed ok

      686 SimConnect_Open succeeded: waiting to check version okay

      686 Trying to use SimConnect Acc/SP2 Oct07

     3963 Running in "Microsoft Flight Simulator X", Version: 10.0.61637.0 (SimConnect: 10.0.61259.0)

     3963 Initialising SimConnect data requests now

     3963 FSUIPC Menu entry added

     3994 C:\Users\udidwht\Documents\Flight Simulator X Files\Student pilot.FLT

     3994 D:\Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\C172\Cessna172SP.AIR

    93335 D:\Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Airbus_A321\Airbus_A321.AIR

   145471 D:\Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\CS_B767-300\B767-300GE.AIR

   269086 System time = 24/04/2015 15:39:31, Simulator time = 15:35:07 (22:35Z)

   270038 Starting everything now ...

   271223 Advanced Weather Interface Enabled

  1894991 Sim stopped: average frame rate for last 1626 secs = 19.5 fps

  1904117 Weather Mode now = Theme

  1904117 C:\Users\udidwht\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSX\Previous flight.FLT

  1939779 System time = 24/04/2015 16:07:21, Simulator time = 15:35:05 (22:35Z)

  1939779 *** FSUIPC log file being closed

Minimum frame rate was 15.3 fps, Maximum was 19.9 fps

Minimum available memory recorded was 1744Mb

Average frame rate for running time of 1626 secs = 19.5 fps

G3D fix: Passes 18752, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0

Memory managed: 742 Allocs, 742 Freed

********* FSUIPC Log file closed ***********

[tf51d 284]

The G3D.dll fix was a fix offered by Pete via FSUIPC sometime back not one offered by DTG.

 

As Pete already stated, The G3D.dll fix was introduced in FSUIPC for FSX-Box and the initial versions of FSX-SE, The latest version of FSX-SE fixes the problem internally within FSX, so FSUIPC no longer needs to do this. It still does though for FSX-Box.

 

Stability Updates:

• Potential causes of the terrain.dll crashes experienced by some users has been corrected. A theoretical deadlock where a game may hang for several minutes before either crashing or being terminated by Windows has been corrected. This is a potential cause of the terrain.dll crashes experienced by some users.
• Some compatibility issues encountered by third party add-ons that use SimConnect have been resolved
• Fixed crash in G3D.dll caused by certain add-ons
• Fixed crashes in UI.dll
• Kneeboards & Checklists now display correctly
• The configuration file AFFINITYMASK value is now correctly calculated for all Core i3, i5 and i7 generation Intel CPUs.

[Pete Dowson 558]

There is a small improvement, but from my testing this is attribute to the the SmallPartRejectRadius  set to 1, when I set it to 0 or take it out all together, I see the same performance as FSX-Box, and if I set it to 1 in FSX-Box, I get the same improved frame rate as FSX-SE. That said FSX-SE is butter smooth compared to FSX-Box.

 

I have always set the SmallPartRejectRadius parameter explicitly in FSX and I used the same CFG file (and SCENERY.CFG file, and SimObjects paths) for both FSX and FSX-SE. But then I started moving sliders up in FSX-SE. I can now run MyTraffic5 (now 6) at 100% and get better smoother performance at UK2000's or Aerosoft's EGLL than I got with FSX-MS with traffic down at 60%

 

In situations where I am not loading FS up till it becomes almost unflyable, the frame rates are similar between the two (though smoother in SE), it is when it's really under load that the improved performance really shines!

 

Pete

[chumley 0]

So, let's say if they can't add to FSX but can fix errors. If that is the case are they able to and going to fix the error that causes the VC panel eyepoint to move incorrectly as it does in larger airliners?

[netshadoe 144]

So, let's say if they can't add to FSX but can fix errors. If that is the case are they able to and going to fix the error that causes the VC panel eyepoint to move incorrectly as it does in larger airliners?

You'd have to ask DTG Andy. I'm not sure how deep they want to get into FSX. However, I'm in complete agreement with you on this one!

[Bjoern 1,188]

It's as if Microsoft had decided to continue developing FSX after all these years, at a rapidly accelerated rate too, and the improvements are significant., even if you do prefer to bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

 

In MS' defense, they would have at least supplied a working, updated SDK. And bugfixed some default aircraft. *Runs and hides*

 

(But DTG's improvements are also significant.)

 

 

 

Some serious Manhood stroking going on here  :o

 

Looks more like compensating for something.

[tf51d 284]

I have always set the SmallPartRejectRadius parameter explicitly in FSX and I used the same CFG file (and SCENERY.CFG file, and SimObjects paths) for both FSX and FSX-SE. But then I started moving sliders up in FSX-SE. I can now run MyTraffic5 (now 6) at 100% and get better smoother performance at UK2000's or Aerosoft's EGLL than I got with FSX-MS with traffic down at 60%

 

In situations where I am not loading FS up till it becomes almost unflyable, the frame rates are similar between the two (though smoother in SE), it is when it's really under load that the improved performance really shines!

 

Pete

 

I agree, and said so, Frame rates are similar, but overall smoothness is starkly improved in FSX-SE. I have a relatively weak system (a 3Ghz C2D still running Vista 32 bit OS) so I can notice and appreciate the difference probably better then those with more powerful systems. While looking at the numbers (FPS)  are relatively similar the look and feel is vastly better and more flyable in FSX-SE.