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)

 

(FSX Steam Edition)

 

 

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)

 

(FSX Steam Edition)

 

 

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?

 

 

Did DTG reduce the ground vehicle density on purpose?

 

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

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

I think that was some well-placed sarcasm.

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.

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

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

...and the beat goes on.

@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)

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.

@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.

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.

 I Just tried mine(steam) set to high as well at the same airport and I can see the cars.

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!

@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:

 

 

 

Here is FSX-SE:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.