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

[Afterburner 374]

 

More to the point, taxiing along Heathrow's runways is very much smoother, immediately noticeably so just by looking at the sides of the taxiways where, in FSX-MS, you can see the jumps in the scenery drawing. In turns FSX-MS is awfully jerky, but smooth in FSX-SE.

 

Do you refer to tearing when you use the term "jerky"?  If so, don't forget that FSX-SE does not disable Windows Aero and thus enables Vertical Sync in windowed mode, which keeps tearing at bay. FSX-MS, on the other hand, deactivates Aero, which causes Vertical Sync to disable and results in tearing. (To activate Aero in FSX-MS, one would need to end the process "wmd.exe" in the task manager.)

 

I do believe that FSX-SE may cope better with a very heavy add-on load than FSX-MS, but I don't use a lot of super-detailed giant airport add-ons, because I personally am happy with the default major airports - as long as there is some amount of traffic that makes the airport a lively place. Thus I don't push the FPS to its knees, as I prefer the better performance in exchange for missing details. Don't the KORD or KATL airports look good enough in the previous pictures?  (Especially for one like me who switched from FS9 not so long ago)

 

If you compare your EGLL scenario including the traffic between FSX-SE and FSX-MS, it is now fair to add the entry SmallPartRejectRadius=0 to FSX-SE cfg. I would be interested in the results. (You can expect that the higher display radius of the vehicles would put more load on the CPU compared to your previous tests with a radius value of 3).

[Pete Dowson 558]

Do you refer to tearing when you use the term "jerky"?

 

No, I mean the scenery moves in jerks or stutters. I know what "tearing" looks like.

 

If so, don't forget that FSX-SE does not disable Windows Aero and thus enables Vertical Sync in windowed mode, which keeps tearing at bay.

 

I have Aero disabled in any case on my FS PC, always have. That PC is only used for FS. And I don't use vertical sync. Never have.

 

I prefer the better performance in exchange for missing details.

 

I want the most realistic airports, with the correct gates and taxiways and other details matching my charts, and the right sort of AI using the correct gates, or close. And I want that with good performance. That's what I get anyway with my powerful PC at lesser airports, but now, in FSX-SE, also at EGLL, EHAM, LFPG and EKCH, probably my heaviest four airports.

 

Don't the KORD or KATL airports look good enough in the previous pictures?  (Especially for one like me who switched from FS9 not so long ago)

 

 

Sorry, I wouldn't be able to compare them to reality, unlike most European airports, which I've visited in real life. I don't fly much at all outside of Europe. I have just about all of the best sceneries for the European and nearby airports which see 737 flights normally.

 

If you compare your EGLL scenario including the traffic between FSX-SE and FSX-MS, it is now fair to add the entry SmallPartRejectRadius=0 to FSX-SE cfg. I would be interested in the results. (You can expect that the higher display radius of the vehicles would put more load on the CPU compared to your previous tests with a radius value of 3).

 

Yes, but it would do so in FSX-MS too. I confidently expect FSX-SE to cope better, nonetheless. I'll probably end up still using a value like 3, but I will experiment with 0-2.  I'll accept the lowest value which still gives me the smoothness I now have in these strained circumstances.

 

Pete

[Afterburner 374]

I was curious how the sims would behave with a massive airport, so I downloaded the demo version of UK2000 EGLL and installed it on both FSX versions. (The two sims actually share the same scenery library). I opted for the demo version, because I didn't want to spend over $20 for an airport that I would rarely fly to. I don't know how much the stress on CPU is different between the demo and full version.

 

I set all traffic sliders (including ground traffic) to 100%. Then I positioned myself to the spot shown in the screenshot below, saved the flight and closed the sim. Even though it was in slew mode, the traffic was still active. That save file served as the test template, which I loaded up on each attempt after opening the simulators.

 

 

 

After loading the flight, I started measuring time with a stopwatch for exactly 7 minutes until exiting the flight simulator. Here are the results for different sims and configurations:

 

The first measurement was done on FSX-SE with no entry of the SmallPartRejectRadius in the cfg.file:

 

 

********* FSUIPC4, Version 4.939j by Pete Dowson *********
Reading options from "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\Modules\FSUIPC4.ini"
Running inside FSX Steam Edition on Windows 7
Module base=61740000
User Name=""
User Addr=""
FSUIPC4 not user registered
WIDEFS7 not user registered, or expired
       31 System time = 05/04/2015 00:48:01
       31 FLT path = "C:\Users\[username]\Documents\Flight Simulator X Files\"
       47 Trying to connect to SimConnect Steam ...
       63 FS path = "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\"
      187 LogOptions=00000000 00000001
      187 --- CONTROLS timer memory location obtained ok
      187 --- SIM1 Frictions access gained
      187 --- FS Controls Table located ok
      187 --- Installed Mouse Macro hooks ok.
      187 --- Wind smoothing fix is fully installed
      187 --- G3D.DLL fix attempt installed ok
      187 --- TERRAIN.DLL fix attempt installed ok
      187 SimConnect_Open succeeded: waiting to check version okay
      187 Trying to use SimConnect Steam
     4041 Running in "Microsoft Flight Simulator X", Version: 10.0.62608.0 (SimConnect: 10.0.62608.0)
     4041 Initialising SimConnect data requests now
     4041 FSUIPC Menu entry added
     4072 FLIGHTS\OTHER\FLTSIM.FLT
     4072 simobjects\airplanes\Aircreation_582SL\Aircreation_582SL.AIR
    29063 Weather Mode now = Theme
    29063 C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSX\Previous flight.FLT
    35646 Weather Mode now = Custom
    35646 c:\users\[username]\documents\flight simulator x files\EGLL.FLT
    97360 System time = 05/04/2015 00:49:38, Simulator time = 09:18:06 (08:18Z)
   102477 Starting everything now ...
   103632 Advanced Weather Interface Enabled
   518423 Sim stopped: average frame rate for last 420 secs = 25.9 fps
   524382 System time = 05/04/2015 00:56:45, Simulator time = 09:25:06 (08:25Z)
   524382 *** FSUIPC log file being closed
Minimum frame rate was 21.8 fps, Maximum was 29.5 fps
Minimum available memory recorded was 1398Mb
Average frame rate for running time of 420 secs = 25.9 fps
G3D fix: Passes 27058, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0
TERRAIN fix: Passes 1268, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0
Memory managed: 190 Allocs, 190 Freed
********* FSUIPC Log file closed ***********

 

 

The second measurement was done on FSX-SE, but with the entry "SmallPartRejectRadius=0" added in fsx.cfg:

 

 

********* FSUIPC4, Version 4.939j by Pete Dowson *********
Reading options from "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\Modules\FSUIPC4.ini"
Running inside FSX Steam Edition on Windows 7
Module base=61810000
User Name=""
User Addr=""
FSUIPC4 not user registered
WIDEFS7 not user registered, or expired
       16 System time = 05/04/2015 00:59:26
       16 FLT path = "C:\Users\[username]\Documents\Flight Simulator X Files\"
       31 Trying to connect to SimConnect Steam ...
       31 FS path = "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\FSX\"
      156 LogOptions=00000000 00000001
      156 --- CONTROLS timer memory location obtained ok
      156 --- SIM1 Frictions access gained
      156 --- FS Controls Table located ok
      156 --- Installed Mouse Macro hooks ok.
      156 --- Wind smoothing fix is fully installed
      156 --- G3D.DLL fix attempt installed ok
      156 --- TERRAIN.DLL fix attempt installed ok
      156 SimConnect_Open succeeded: waiting to check version okay
      156 Trying to use SimConnect Steam
     2137 Running in "Microsoft Flight Simulator X", Version: 10.0.62608.0 (SimConnect: 10.0.62608.0)
     2137 Initialising SimConnect data requests now
     2137 FSUIPC Menu entry added
     2169 FLIGHTS\OTHER\FLTSIM.FLT
     2169 simobjects\airplanes\Aircreation_582SL\Aircreation_582SL.AIR
    18003 Weather Mode now = Theme
    18003 C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FSX\Previous flight.FLT
    23120 Weather Mode now = Custom
    23120 c:\users\[username]\documents\flight simulator x files\EGLL.FLT
    24290 System time = 05/04/2015 00:59:51, Simulator time = 09:18:06 (08:18Z)
    73867 Starting everything now ...
    75255 Advanced Weather Interface Enabled
   492885 Sim stopped: average frame rate for last 420 secs = 21.4 fps
   498751 System time = 05/04/2015 01:07:45, Simulator time = 09:25:05 (08:25Z)
   498751 *** FSUIPC log file being closed
Minimum frame rate was 18.8 fps, Maximum was 24.7 fps
Minimum available memory recorded was 1403Mb
Average frame rate for running time of 420 secs = 21.3 fps
G3D fix: Passes 27054, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0
TERRAIN fix: Passes 1266, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0
Memory managed: 191 Allocs, 191 Freed
********* FSUIPC Log file closed ***********

 

 

The third measurement was done on FSX-MS with also having "SmallPartRejectRadius=0" added in the cfg:

 

 

********* FSUIPC4, Version 4.939j by Pete Dowson *********
Reading options from "D:\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Modules\FSUIPC4.ini"
Running inside FSX on Windows 7
Module base=67140000
User Name=""
User Addr=""
FSUIPC4 not user registered
WIDEFS7 not user registered, or expired
       15 System time = 05/04/2015 01:17:32
       15 FLT path = "C:\Users\[username]\Documents\Flight Simulator X Files\"
       31 Trying to connect to SimConnect Acc/SP2 Oct07 ...
       31 FS path = "D:\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\"
      156 LogOptions=00000000 00000001
      156 --- CONTROLS timer memory location obtained ok
      156 --- SIM1 Frictions access gained
      156 --- FS Controls Table located ok
      156 --- Installed Mouse Macro hooks ok.
      156 --- Wind smoothing fix is fully installed
      156 --- G3D.DLL fix attempt installed ok
      156 SimConnect_Open succeeded: waiting to check version okay
      156 Trying to use SimConnect Acc/SP2 Oct07
     2308 Running in "Microsoft Flight Simulator X", Version: 10.0.61637.0 (SimConnect: 10.0.61259.0)
     2308 Initialising SimConnect data requests now
     2308 FSUIPC Menu entry added
     2324 D:\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\FLIGHTS\OTHER\FLTSIM.FLT
     2324 D:\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Aircreation_582SL\Aircreation_582SL.AIR
     9282 Weather Mode now = Custom
     9282 c:\users\[username]\documents\flight simulator x files\EGLL.FLT
    24960 System time = 05/04/2015 01:17:57, Simulator time = 09:18:06 (08:18Z)
    49514 Starting everything now ...
    50653 Advanced Weather Interface Enabled
   468159 Sim stopped: average frame rate for last 420 secs = 19.0 fps
   473650 System time = 05/04/2015 01:25:25, Simulator time = 09:25:06 (08:25Z)
   473650 *** FSUIPC log file being closed
Minimum frame rate was 14.8 fps, Maximum was 24.8 fps
Minimum available memory recorded was 1322Mb
Average frame rate for running time of 420 secs = 19.0 fps
G3D fix: Passes 26280, Null pointers 0, Bad pointers 0, Separate instances 0
Memory managed: 192 Allocs, 192 Freed
********* FSUIPC Log file closed ***********

 

As expected, the (average) frame rate in FSX-SE was reduced after the small part reject radius of zero was added to the cfg. However, it looks like the Steam Edition is still performing around 10% faster with respect to the average FPS than the original edition under the same reject part radius setting (=0). That shows that the Steam Edition performs somewhat better under heavy scenery and traffic load than the DVD version, though personally, I can accept that difference in exchange for maximum compatibility with all add-ons that the original version delivers. On the other hand, it was not possible for me to measure the "smoothness" in all scenarios, as I was in slew mode all the time. FSX-SE is most likely also having an advantage there.

[Pete Dowson 558]

 it was not possible for me to measure the "smoothness" in all scenarios, as I was in slew mode all the time.

 

I do the main tests in slew mode too, but with the aircraft turning constantly at about 200 feet up over Terminal 1. That way it goes through 360 degrees covering all parts of the airport and constantly having to redraw scenery and AI. I think a static view is not going to show such variable performance and give a realistic measure..

 

During that 360 degree turn I see the fps go from its lowest value (looking West, over towards the tower and Terminal 5), to its highest, looking South East where there is less going on. But more importantly I can see if the slow turn is jerky or smooth.

 

Then, for a real test of smoothness with the simulation actually running, rather than in Slew mode, I taxi at normal taxi speeds along the main Northern East-West taxiway from start to finish, finally turning into Terminal 5A's parking taxiway where most bays will be full of BA (and maybe some Iberia) airliners.

 

During that taxi run, watch the grass verges at either side, and the lines in the concrete/asphalt, and also the aircraft parked at terminal 1 on the left. Here, in FSX-MS, these parts of the image noticeably jump, not smoothly move along the screen and out of view. In FSX-SE they are much smoother and you have to watch very very closely indeed to detect a sign of stutter.

 

And turning into Terminal 5 s a big test. In FSX-MS that's really jerky. Not so FSX-SE.

 

I am so much impressed by the improvements that I cannot see myself going back to FSX-MS, though it is not yet uninstalled (and probably never will be, because of testing needs).  HiFi are very prompt getting out updates for the Betas DTG are releasing. I've had to change over from using AES where possible to using GSX exclusively, and sometimes the updates to AddOnManager (incorporating BGLMANX and COUATL) are a little tardy, so I have then to use FS's pushback and do without a Follow-Me for a few days, but apart from that all the other add-ons I use work perfectly well and need no updating or changes (oh, except FSUIPC, but i can handle that! ;-) )..

 

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

Afterburner,

 

I can see you're a Concorde fan from your forum name and photo. I too fly the FS Labs' Concorde and it's frustrating that they will not be looking to make it FSX:SE compatible until after the A320 is released.

But once they do would you not then see that as the moment to switch to SE? The improved VAS handling would surely make the decision an easy one.

 

That is probably the only reason I'm currently staying with FSX:MS which will never have its faults fixed.

[Afterburner 374]

Yes, I have been a Concorde fan for many years and like flying the FSL ConcordeX. If it was compatible with FSX-SE, then I would indeed see no reason NOT to switch to that platform, as it would not run worse in the worst case, but better most likely. I am eagerly awaiting the release of the FSL A320, so that the team can focus on the update of ConcordeX. But I am afraid it is not going to happen anytime soon - I hope I am wrong. Two years ago already it sounded like the Airbus was about to be released soon, although this time, they have announced the upcoming beginning of the beta test stage.

 

It is not only the compatibility with FSX-SE that needs to be fixed, but also other bugs, such as the veering off the runway at crosswinds (which has been documented by forum users), as well as the rudder oversensitivity. FSL once announced that they would implement some improvements into ConcordeX that they had learned while developing the Airbus. Hopefully our patience will not be overstrained.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

AB,

 

The length of time the A320 has been in development is depressing. Over 2 years and still no release. I suppose if people have day jobs that will impact things but it does seem excessive.

 

There is talk of a further bug fix most importantly to reduce the size of the panel memory consumption plus the things you mention. Too few people with too much to do I suppose.

 

We live in hope.