This is an update and addition of variables comparing stock C172 VC to other addons, with respect to FPS (represented by PI), VAS used in mb, and FPS variance percentage

 

This is purely in FSX, the setup involves me restarting FSX each time and comparing addons to the default C172 VC.  

 

Vsync off, unlimited fps, no clouds, no ai traffic.  Upon loading I go to the external view, spin around once and go to the VC, spin around once, all avionics are on.

 

I then measure default 172 first, I measure the current VAS, and fps (but the PI is derived from FPS of addon divided by FPS of default c172 - so you're not seeing fps, you're seeing how addons perform relative to c172) along with the fps variance.   I did this part based on the Petraeus Index so a user might see how an addon would compare on THEIR system to their default 172.  Obviously all I have is one source... if more people sent results I could include an average.  The FPS Variance is important because it's a mathematical way to describe stutters. 

 

I'm not excellent with Excel so while I'd like to display all the data on one chart I've done it with two for now.  But I've kept the order of addons so it's easier to look at.

 

It's also pretty clear that lower performing addons use more VAS (logic).  What surprised me is that lower performance doesn't necessarily mean more fps variance.   Higher the variance percentage the more chance of stutters.  But what I have found is that glass cockpit addons have the most cases of stutters.  Which I think we knew already as well....

 

 

Ryan, thanks for your excellent work.

 

It would be superb if there were some sort of standardized reporting method for individuals to submit their results.  As much as peoples systems vary, there's likely a lot of merit in not simply describing a specific FPS, but in describing it as relative to a standard (in this case the default 172).

 

I will admit though, I looked at the fancy chart before reading your explanation, and it took me a minute or two to figure out what the heck was going on! ^_^

Brilliant work Ryan!

I'd also like to see a step by step guide so others could submit their results.

Yeah I didn't label the charts very well!

 

Bad boy!

1)      Setup FSX with unlimited FPS, vysnc off (make sure off at driver level too).  Shift+Z to determine avg fps (you’ll need the min max avg mod – goes in your FSX.cfg):

[TextInfo.X] <<<-----whichever window you want to put it in
FrameRate=1,1
AverageFrameRate=1,2
LockedFrameRate=1,3

 

2)    No weather, no ai traffic will help with a more accurate value.  Pick a default airport in the middle of nowhere…close to no addon scenery if possible.  Load default C172.  Make sure aircraft state is ready for takeoff etc (avionics/engines/systems on).   Go to external view – spin around aircraft to load up the GPU buffer… do the same inside the VC. 

 

3)    Note avg fps after 1 min, note virtual address space from any monitoring program, note the variance % (V: xx.x%).  This is your baseline.  Whatever FPS you get here = 100%. 

 

4)    Restart FSX and load the C172 again, do items 2 and 3 (a default flight with the 172 would be helpful from now on – engines running).  Now load another addon.  Take note of avg FPS.  Divide that by the avg fps you found with the 172 to get your PI.  Example:  you found 200 fps with 172.  You loaded XYZ addon, it got 100 fps.  Your PI is 100/200 = .5 or 50%.  Meaning your addon lost 50% of fps compared to the c172.  Also note the change of VAS from step 3 to loading a new addon.  You might have gone from 1400MB of VAS in 172 usage to 2000 MB VAS with XYZ addon.  Enter 600 MB for XYZ addon VAS usage.  Finally note the FPS variance.

 

5)    Keep repeating for all your addons and remember to restart FSX in between the 172 and addon pair.

 

6)    Record values preferably in excel or other spreadsheet software.

 

7)    Share if you want 

Could I suggest that a specific baseline location might be useful for step # 2?

 

 

Yeah I didn't label the charts very well!

Bad boy!

 

Nope, you labeled them fine, it just presumes a familiarity with the Petraeus Index.  Once you realize that, then it's fine!

 

What would be perfect is a community site / effort where such results could be submitted, tallied and displayed.  However, who has time for that!!  Meanwhile, we simply can just thank you for your efforts!  ^_^ 

I barely had time for this to be honest lol...  but I like to see pretty charts and graphs of stats and stuff... stats have always been interesting to me.

 

Picking a baseline location could be good but assuming you use it each time and you're testing against your default c172 it shouldn't really matter as long as its default-ish

Thanks Ryan! It's amazing how the graphs match general consensus on the forums and personal experience. The ones known for having more stutters show themselves pretty clearly, as do the memory hogs. I'm starting to think that the frame rate variance is even more important than frame rate itself. Nothing ruins an immersive cockpit experience or smooth approach more than stutters.  

The Milviz 350i looks troubling, I hope it gets better before release. I really want this to be the definitive King Air addon.

Thanks Ryan! It's amazing how the graphs match general consensus on the forums and personal experience. The ones known for having more stutters show themselves pretty clearly, as do the memory hogs. I'm starting to think that the frame rate variance is even more important than frame rate itself. Nothing ruins an immersive cockpit experience or smooth approach more than stutters.  

 

Agreed.  Stutters (free) and VAS are more important than FPS.

The Milviz 350i looks troubling, I hope it gets better before release. I really want this to be the definitive King Air addon.

 

They usually include lower-res textures which should help... plus its still a WIP.  I probably should exclude it anyway, it was more or less for personal reasons that I included it.

F

 

Agreed.  Stutters (free) and VAS are more important than FPS.

 

They usually include lower-res textures which should help... plus its still a WIP.  I probably should exclude it anyway, it was more or less for personal reasons that I included it.

Agreed FRAME rates are not really a problem as the brain can  adapt to 12 to 40 FPS

But stutters and VAs are the problems that all have workable solution depending on your specific sytem.

 

Be good if you could put all your computer parameters ie: graphic card and hardware , operating system and also what sim youare flying into a software program which thenchurns out the Graphics settings and or the FSX.cfg for each specific individual system.

 

Be nice - be a lot of happy folks what ever sim your using.....

Didn't have much time so I just tested a few addons quickly. Tested the addons I have that Ryan didn't test/doesn't have so we can get data on more aircraft. All tests had "fair weather" because I forgot to change it to "clear all" (whoops).

 

FPS:

VAS:

Q400 isn't as nice on the system as people say hehe

 

A large issue with measuring fps only is that a lot of people have theirs locked and if it gets 30 they say it's good.

 

This PI method is pretty good.

This is really outstanding work. Maybe this will become something of a standardized method for the community to compare models.

 

Thank you very much.