Sign in to follow this  
Afterburner

I have better FPS on FSX-SE at large airports - and I have figured out why

Recommended Posts

OK, so I made a fresh install of the original FSX DVD and the Steam Edition on my computer to be able to better compare them with each other regarding performance. The display settings in both sims were as follows (anything not mentioned is switched off):

 

- Unlimited FPS, 1280x1024 resolution, Anisotropic filtering, Anti Aliasing on, Lens Flare on, Advanced Animations on.

- Aircraft Landing Lights illuminate ground

- LOD large, Mesh Complexity 100, Mesh Resolution 38, Water Effects Low 2x, Land Detail Textures on, Scenery Complexity extremely dense, Autogen density very dense, Special Effects detail high.

- Cloud Draw Distance 60mi, Cloud Coverage Density maximum, Dynamic weather off.

- Airline Traffic Density 25%, GA Traffic Density 15%, Airport Vehicle Density high, Land and Sea Traffic all 40%.

 

No tweaks were made to the fsx.cfg file in both sims, and the global texture resolution was set to 1024 in each case. The weather was set to clear with a 20 mi visibility. No add-ons were installed.

 

I was quite surprised to see that at the default KORD airport, I got 100FPS on the Steam Edition and only 70FPS on the original edition. The improvement was tremendous, given that there was little visual difference, as illustrated by the following screenshots taken at the same spot:

 

 

(Original FSX Edition)

sfxoc8.jpg

 

(FSX Steam Edition)

2rrupt3.jpg

 

 

But then I moved around the airport a bit and noticed that the Steam Edition generated much fewer ground vehicles than the original DVD version despite the same density settings. In the following you see shots taken from the two sims with a look at the whole airport building during the slew mode:

 

(Original FSX Edition)

33kc1fb.jpg

 

(FSX Steam Edition)

2rzq62b.jpg

 

 

As you can see, the Steam Edition shows a significantly higher FPS, but especially on the left-sided terminal it is noticeable that that version renders much fewer ground vehicles than the DVD version, although the density settings are "high" in both sims. You can even better identify the difference if you save the images and go back and forth in your image viewer. I have checked other bigger airports and observed the same pattern: Higher FPS with the Steam Edition, but lower density of airport cars and trucks. The visual airplane density seems to be similar (the airplanes are repositioned in FSX-SE, but their number seems to be the same). Note that this is with the default traffic. In this situation, it is no surprise any longer why FSX-SE performs better, as ground traffic is known to be a huge FPS hog.

 

Do you make the same observation?  I had uninstalled both versions before installing them fresh (and deleted the folder of the cfg file) to ensure that no file leftovers would be broken or corrupted. And if you observe the same pattern, is this the reason why some people see higher FPS with FSX-SE?  To make a test, I did set the ground traffic density to zero in both sims, and voila - FPS were pretty much identical. Did DTG reduce the ground vehicle density on purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

 

 


Did DTG reduce the ground vehicle density on purpose?

 

Of course they did so that there would be a "hidden" performance increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they did so that there would be a "hidden" performance increase.

 

Nonsense. There is absolutely no difference. My airport traffic, supplied by FS or UK2000 or GSX is just the same.

 

You speak as a person who has never even tried FSX-SE. Why do you persist in being so obnoxious?

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof is in the OPs screen shots. There are less airport vehicles being generated in the SE version compared to the MS version. Count the actual numbers and you will see. And as the OP stated he does not mean the AI traffic, which is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof is that if you compare both sims with no traffic FSX-SE is still the smoothest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof is that if you compare both sims with no traffic FSX-SE is still the smoothest!

...and the beat goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:@Vincent

 

 


You speak as a person who has never even tried FSX-SE. Why do you persist in being so obnoxious?

Very true,  difference is though,   Our Jim does it with a certain sassy style  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP,

 

Can you double check your SE and see if ANY ground traffic are showing?

 

I just did as you suggested: opened your two shots up in different tabs and flipped between them back and forth and to me it looks like there are no ground vehicles at all. That terminal on the left goes completely empty in SE, which is why I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:@Vincent

 

 

Very true,  difference is though,   Our Jim does it with a certain sassy style  B)

I don't know what style you are referring to, must be some U.S. thing. Pete is right, this chap has been trying to find fault with Steam since it came out. I wish he would shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

Do you not agree that there seems to be less trucks and ground vehicles in the SE shot? That is the only thing I am basing my comments on here, the comparison of the screen shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground traffic moves, you won't ever get the same picture on both sims. A better test would be compare it over a period of time. Doing it like this is meaningless.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jim: If you look closer at the picture, you will notice that there are some cars at KORD in FSX-SE. They are just not very well visible, because their distance is far away.

 

I have tried another default airport, Atlanta Hartsfield (KATL). In both sims, I have set the ground traffic slider to maximum, as shown here:

 

2itovat.jpg

 

 

Here is FSX-SE:

 

2lnesnk.jpg

 

 

And here is FSX-MS (I created a save file when using FSX-SE, and then opened it in FSX-MS):

 

2edzhq1.jpg

 

 

 

As you can see, there are still cars in the SE version in the front, but their overall density across all gates (especially in the back) is considerably lower!  Again, I have set the slider to maximum in both sims.

 

I would like others to compare a freshly installed FSX-MS and FSX-SE to see if they also observe different ground traffic patterns, or whether something went wrong with my install (I don't think so, since I keep the folders where they are installed and where they harbor the cfg file separately). If others can observe the difference, then something must be different with the code or with the ground traffic files, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the pics,   yes there are certainly less vehicle's in the Steam Edition 

 

 

I don't know what style you are referring to, must be some U.S. thing. Pete is right, this chap has been trying to find fault with Steam since it came out. I wish he would shut up.

 

Ah not at all,  Jim tells it how it is.

 

 

When hes not  FSX, 

16816540627_3e6934522a_c.jpgxp10.jpgh by *poppet*, on Flickr

 

I heard hes an X-Plane fan,  you should ask him,  from a safe distance though   :Big Grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are nitpicking here. The difference in density of default vehicles is negligible. I bet that if you use any traffic addon we won't be able to tell them apart. The fps difference however is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like I came closer to the truth: FSX-SE seems to have a lower rendering radius for ground traffic!  If I move forward in slew mode, the ground cars simply pop up at a short distance, but beyond that distance, there is almost no ground traffic at all. FSX-MS, on the other hand, displays all ground traffic at a much larger radius, hence the lower FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insert in Scenery section:

 

[sCENERY]
SmallPartRejectRadius=0

 

and suddenly you can see all. evenboats.

 

cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like I came closer to the truth: FSX-SE seems to have a lower rendering radius for ground traffic!  If I move forward in slew mode, the ground cars simply pop up at a short distance, but beyond that distance, there is almost no ground traffic at all. FSX-MS, on the other hand, displays all ground traffic at a much larger radius, hence the lower FPS.

 

Question: are you using the same CFG file in both FSX-MS and FSX-SE, as I am? If not, that's what you need to do before doing these comparisons.  Also check add-ons which have added or altered ground traffic like AES and GSX.

 

There is really no way DTG have turned anything down at all.Why should they? To earn more £4.99's in the sales?

 

You are not doing the comparison on an equal footing.

 

There is no reason for them to turn anything down. The recompiled code is much more efficient on today's processors, compared with the old compiled code made over 9 years ago using a compiler which was over a year older at the time! The code optimisations to suit threading and parallel pipes has come on a long way, taking better advantage of today's processor architectures.

 

I can now run at dense airports with all scenery sliders at max (excepting Autogen which I still keep one notch down), and MyTrafficX airline traffic at 100% -- I could not use UK2000 or Aerosoft Heathrow at any higher trsfic settings than 40% and 55% respectively in FSX-MS, and both versions of Heathrow gave jerky performance in any case, not so in FSX-SE.

 

Why don't those who doubt all this not even try it? Vested interests? In what, exactly? Why not accept that is performs better all round, both frame rate-wise and smoothness. There are enough FSX-SE users now who say so, and the doubters are mostly those who've not even tried it (and one prominent one in particular).

 

And DTG's programmers are working hard on it too. The current private Beta, for developers to get ready for, is the 7th version since the release. Each has had both some newly introduced bugs fixed AND, more importantly, a number of original FSX-MS bugs, like those in G3D (of which FSUIPC used to have to shield users from but one) and in Terrain, some of which were, admittedly, caused by slightly over-zealous attempts to free up VAS too early).

 

Personally I feel DTG have given FSX a real new lease of life and I am over the moon with how my cockpit is now performing.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the same topic was discussed few days ago on the Steam forum and the problem was solved with the same solution suggested by abranpuko:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/0/618457398971552821/

 

Thanks. That helps seeing AI in the air, for sure. Now I can see them a lot further away than I could in FSX-MS! So now I need to see if there's any impact at Heathrow (my test location)!

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disable the ground traffic in both sims, the performance should match if your hypothesis (re: ground traffic fps impact) is true. Can you test that case? I lack the "SE" part for that.

 

Besides, it's always encouraging to see folks testing and questioning certain aspects of, at times, "given" knowledge. Doesn't have to be successful all the time. It's the thought that counts. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Jim does it with a certain sassy style

 

 

Ray%20Liotta%20Laughing%20In%20Goodfella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like adding the SmallPartRejectRadius entry brings back the vehicles, but gone are the FPS gains.

 

17sbvt.jpg

 

It is good to know that at least the vehicles are not completely gone in FSX-SE, but only obscured beyond a small radius. This is something I even appreciate, since I don't need to see service vehicles from a far away distance during taxi or landing if I can trade that for more FPS and/or less stress on the CPU. I felt kind of... cheated... by FSX-SE when I first saw the FPS gains at seemingly no difference in visual quality. Only further investigation revealed that there was no magic at play, after all.

 

By the way, I have played around with the fsx.cfg of the DVD version and found that adding SmallPartRejectRadius=3 or 4 also hides the vehicles in the distance (and consequently increases FPS to levels comparable with what I previously saw in FSX-SE). Having the opportunity to modify the distance per the entry in the DVD version, the improvement in FPS as a result of hidden vehicles farther away is nothing exclusive to the Steam Edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this