My dedicated FS machine has recently been updated with FSX:SE. I have both the boxed version and steam versions installed. Setting up SE to the identical configuration as the boxed version went smoothly. Loading the NGX showed a slight performance improvement in SE. I always run a liquid 30FPS under NVidia Vsync, and I now do that with both versions. However, to my absolute surprise, when I loaded the 777, the SE version frame rates are all over the place .. 18 to 90 .. unflyable. I went back to the boxed version and found the 777 to be just as I remember, a constant 30 FPS (and I'm talking level-d smooth).

 

I am in no way new to this, and I have tinkered with every HW and SW tweak I've amassed through the years with no luck. There is something in the 777 that SE doesn't like.

 

To go back and forth between two sims that are identically configured with the same airplane and see such drastic performance differences doesn't add up. Again the NGX performs fantastically in both with an edge towards SE.

 

Anyone seen similar with SE and the 777? 

Not me. I get up to twice the fps with the 777 in FSX-SE and much smoother. Like all things to do with FSX it's highly dependent on your system.

 

You might want to try FSX-SE without any tweaks for comparison.

When I had both sims installed I had all sorts of issues. After a disk format and FSX wiped from my system , FSx-se performs like a dream and the 777 is far better in every way (fps and especially vas) on steam.

 

Do you really need 2 sims? if not then bight the bullet with steam

 

 

When I had both sims installed I had all sorts of issues.

 

On the other hand, I've had FSX, FSXSE and P3D installed and running for months for testing without a problem.  Frame rates in FSXSE do look better than FSX because Dovetail applied some of the fixes that they inherited from the Aces team but not much else has been done for the platform.

 

I get the best performance of all three platforms in P3D.

On the other hand, I've had FSX, FSXSE and P3D installed and running for months for testing without a problem.  Frame rates in FSXSE do look better than FSX because Dovetail applied some of the fixes that they inherited from the Aces team but not much else has been done for the platform.

 

I get the best performance of all three platforms in P3D.

Code changes are minimal. The main gains with FSX-SE seem to be because the code has been recompiled. Modern compilers are better optimised. So without changing anything fundamental it runs better and is better at Windows memory management. Hence higher fps and lower VAS.

 

For the average user there isn't much point in keeping both FSX and FSX-SE installed together. A clean install of FSX-SE uses default FSX fiile locations so compatibility with addons improves. There is also the overhead of maintaining two installations. Not every developer has provided dual installers like PMDG. The only reason I can think of to do it is if an addon still won't run on steam. The FSL Concorde X is the only one I have that definitely won't, and it needs code changes from FSL to make it work.

All - What I like about SE is the performance achieved with the NGX was possible with only one tweak to the .cfg, and that's the affinitymask. Every other setting is default and the NGX just about reaches a constant 60FPS (but I run at 30FPS Vsync'ed). And, another thing I like is every third-party developer SW package I use (except one) has created a set-up that makes the installation/execution unique to the respective sim. The only one that doesn't is EZDOK. The executable is a shared resource. But, if this were truly a problem wouldn't the NGX suffer equally?