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

[agood 12]

What would really interest me, but haven't seen an answer yet (and too lazy to find out myself, tbh): What specific files contain whatever improvements have been done to SE?

 

Because I'd like to just copy these over to my boxed install, should work like a charm (as  long as it's not config files, where obviously path entries would have to be modified).

[tf51d 284]

What would really interest me, but haven't seen an answer yet (and too lazy to find out myself, tbh): What specific files contain whatever improvements have been done to SE?

 

Because I'd like to just copy these over to my boxed install, should work like a charm (as  long as it's not config files, where obviously path entries would have to be modified).

The changes are in the actual code, so you can't just simply move a file or 2 over and get the same result. In fact with the recompile with the newer libraries, you would probably break the box version if you tried.

[SteveW 1,792]

That FSX:SE has much improved VAS management is the one demonstrable fact that is not afflicted by subjectivity.

One?

 

These graphs are from FSX-SE and FSX with as near to identical setups as is practicable on the exact same system. They represent a pretty good and fair comparison of both sims on the same PC.

 

 

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

Since you can install FSX Steam to be identical to FSX, ie fsx.cfg file not fsx-se, etc, does that mean addons like Reality-XP GPS can work or do they all still have to be updated by the developers?

[agood 12]

The changes are in the actual code, so you can't just simply move a file or 2 over and get the same result. In fact with the recompile with the newer libraries, you would probably break the box version if you tried.

 

Uh right- if they recompiled then it's not a good idea (or replace everything binary and dll, but not willing to try that at the moment)

[barrel_owl 304]

Hi Steve,

I assume you performed these tests yourself, right?

 

Anyway, this pretty much matches the performance improvement I noticed on my system.

[tf51d 284]

Since you can install FSX Steam to be identical to FSX, ie fsx.cfg file not fsx-se, etc, does that mean addons like Reality-XP GPS can work or do they all still have to be updated by the developers?

If they used Simconnect or (now) FSUIPC or followed the SDK probably if a single installation, If though they used custom code directly  addressing  calls then probably not as the address locations would have changed. A dual installation would generally require a new installer

[SteveW 1,792]

Hi Steve,

I assume you performed these tests yourself, right?

 

Anyway, this pretty much matches the performance improvement I noticed on my system.

Hi, Yes, used clear skys theme with that comparison.

[Boeing or not going 578]

My oom test yesterday failed. Aerosoft EDDP to Sim Giants LIMC to T2Gate VHHH, OOM on landing in Hong Kong. Unless there is a memory leak in LIMC... Next weekend I am forced to transition to DX10, if that doesn't work then I will go Steam. But not having Reality Xp is close to a deal breaker to me.

[Fi5kuS 57]

I can absolutely confirm the VAS handling is better.

 

 

Are you using DX10? Out from FlyTampa Copenhagen Im getting a drop of 200 MB VAS. Nowhere near the amount you are getting. Im flying with DX10 mode though.

[smakar 0]

But not having Reality Xp is close to a deal breaker to me.

If you do go to Steam, I have found the GTN750 to be an OUTSTANDING replacement for Reality XP. I know that there are planes where you can configure the GNS into the panels, but I personally LOVE the GTN750 and have grown completely accustomed to using it as a pop-up.

There is one negative, and that is the default maps that it comes with (U.S.). But purchasing the full set of maps from Garmin cost me another $25 USD, and the GTN750 manual has instructions how to update the maps (took me a couple of minutes).

But don't take my word - search the forum for other opinions.

Cheers!

[n4gix 4,947]

One?

 

These graphs are from FSX-SE and FSX with as near to identical setups as is practicable on the exact same system. They represent a pretty good and fair comparison of both sims on the same PC.

Steve, you and I both know these facts, yet even these can and have been challenged. "Yeah, but..."

 

On the other hand, the single number provided by FSUIPC citing the 'free VAS' remaining cannot be challenged.

 

Perhaps I should have bolded the text: "the one demonstrable fact..." B)

There is one negative, and that is the default maps that it comes with (U.S.). But purchasing the full set of maps from Garmin cost me another $25 USD...

Not "maps" but rather the "terrain database". The sad part is that I too bought the CD for $25 + postage and handling = $38 total...

 

...and within a few weeks new versions of the GTNs will be released using the newest Garmin Trainer, which comes by default with the complete world-wide terrain database. <sigh> :(

[netshadoe 144]

Are you using DX10? Out from FlyTampa Copenhagen Im getting a drop of 200 MB VAS. Nowhere near the amount you are getting. Im flying with DX10 mode though.

I did both with my tests. DX9 does shed VAS, but not as much as DX10 does...on my system.

 

I use mainly DX10 like you do. The DX10 fixer is the beez-neez!

 

When you say you get a 200MB drop, from what level are you dropping from? My test was extreme, so the drop was extreme.

 

If I start up a normal flight, it usually starts with about 2.8-3.2 VAS depending on the weather and where I am. It pretty much stays there for the whole flight until I get to approach where I usually end up around 3.3-3.4MB, or if the scenery is more complex, 3.5-3.6MB.

[devgrp 1,233]

It's weird that it doesn't affect everyone.  I was just wondering if you had a dual install because I have SE only, so I was wondering if that might have contributed to something.  I guess not!

 

Hopefully Dovetail can get something out that will sort this out for you and the others dealing with this.

I'm only running FSX SE

[minimums retard 0]

Looks like FSX:SE is a clear winner. Now all we need to know is how does FSX:SE VAS usage compare to P3D...

Forgive me if I should already know...