Addon developers will find a way to overload any system.. They just keep adding more and more detail until the CPU/GPU cannot display it in real time.

 

They publish the screen shots with waving palm trees, moving gangways, photorealistic "HD" textures.. and on and on..

 

And then you are surprised that your computer cannot handle the load..  :unsure:

And now they are adding interiors to their add-ons?  :rolleyes:  oh boy...

At some point, we in this community are going to have to understand and accept the fact....or at least I think it is a fact.....FSX is not going to get any better. It is old and has been pushed far more than was ever planned and expected. I don't care if they add SE behind it or DX-10. The improvement that we used to enjoy are mostly hard work by Developers of addons. They have been able to cram 15 pounds of stuff into a 5 pound bag. We are not going to see another trick that will up that to 16lbs. You can own the very best Hunting dog that has ever lived and he will be of no use to your hobby or sport if he is so old that he can't get off the front porch. If you want new cutting edge stuff then you are going to have to get a new pup. Prepar3d or enter the x-Plane world.

 

 

To the OP, I'd like to call you by name, but that seems to be missing from your post.  Using Carenado aircraft can cause "fps abuse".

 

You're absolutely right Jim, my apologies. It's in my signature now.  And yep, I've learnt about Carenado's issues the hard way. Although my first one from them was the C185 and it manages to keep good frames pretty well. With the Beech C90 not so much, it's another type of beast...

 

 

I stayed firmly planted with flying GA aircraft and loaded up on tons of ORBX scenery, tweaked my system to the max and got some good results...until I flew around a heavily urban area and then tore my hair out.

 

Being there right now! 

Light props and tprops are my thing (don't see myself changing anytime soon). Just not getting close to a big city, usually there's a big airport there!  

 

 

1. FSX is heavily CPU dependent, so modern GPUs are asleep most of the time.
2. CPU manufacturing has hit a brick wall where performance improvements are concerned.
3. Multiple monitor super high resolution setups don't help.

 

Those two first points are the key.... so not much can be done really. We'll have to enjoy our sim as it is... Regarding the 3rd point, I'm not even trying !

 

What I do find odd is that MS (ACES) didn't see it coming in 2005-2006. I imagine that what they were thinking was that in 2-3 years CPU speeds would be about 5Ghz or more... They completely missed it there.

 

 

Thanks to everybody for the replies! 

 

 

And yep, I've learnt about Carenado's issues the hard way. Although my first one from them was the C185 and it manages to keep good frames pretty well. With the Beech C90 not so much, it's another type of beast...

 

I still hadn't learned.  I got sucked in and purchased three aircraft, probably because I didn't know of any other good quality GA aircraft to buy, maybe I was holding out on hope that the aircraft would fly well.  The B1900 isn't too bad on frames but the grand Caravan and CT206 just kill my frames...shame, they look soooo good on the showroom floor.  Oh well, PMDG more than makes up for the loss.

 

-Jim

What I do find odd is that MS (ACES) didn't see it coming in 2005-2006. I imagine that what they were thinking was that in 2-3 years CPU speeds would be about 5Ghz or more... They completely missed it there.

 

I think, the real issue is a bit askew here. It is not that FSX (or P3D or XP) have been implemented inefficiently. A sim has to be CPU dependant, its main purpose being the application of mathematical models to approximate the real world. But as the semiconductor CPU tech has reached its limits, there is only so much you can do. Parallel computing you say? Wont really work in a visual simulation, where everything has to happen perfectly in sync. Throw everything at the GPU? Wont help a bit when the sim is asked to run 50 AI planes believably when at the same time manage countless clickspots in a fully moveable VC and at the same time calculate an accurate FDE plus wind and moisture plus... well, you get the picture.

 

As all sims are performing about the same, I conclude that it is not the software that didnt keep up... its the hardware that got stuck. Pretty pictures, that they can do the multicores and monster GPUs. But crunching numbers in a single core is about the same as 10 years ago... Gotta respect ACES, they managed to build a platform that is so massively configurable and expandable that it still humbles PC builders 10 years later... And Intel of course, who managed to keep the illusion alive, that every new CPU generation is a quantum leap...

I think, the real issue is a bit askew here. It is not that FSX (or P3D or XP) have been implemented inefficiently. A sim has to be CPU dependant, its main purpose being the application of mathematical models to approximate the real world. But as the semiconductor CPU tech has reached its limits, there is only so much you can do. Parallel computing you say? Wont really work in a visual simulation, where everything has to happen perfectly in sync. Throw everything at the GPU? Wont help a bit when the sim is asked to run 50 AI planes believably when at the same time manage countless clickspots in a fully moveable VC and at the same time calculate an accurate FDE plus wind and moisture plus... well, you get the picture.

 

As all sims are performing about the same, I conclude that it is not the software that didnt keep up... its the hardware that got stuck. Pretty pictures, that they can do the multicores and monster GPUs. But crunching numbers in a single core is about the same as 10 years ago... Gotta respect ACES, they managed to build a platform that is so massively configurable and expandable that it still humbles PC builders 10 years later... And Intel of course, who managed to keep the illusion alive, that every new CPU generation is a quantum leap...

 

What you're saying then implies that not only legacy FSX but current/future versions of Prepar3d, XPlane or any other sim are pretty much limited (doomed for a better word?) with the current or foreseeable technology - at least if we want them with all the bells and whistles that require insane mathematical calculations instantly. We'll gonna need an actual quantum leap in computing (if that ever happens !)

 

Anyway, pretty clarifying Nuitkati! Thanks for the explanation. Usually one does not stop to think about all the stuff poor old FSX has to be "crunching" when you're just landing that pretty Carenado plane in the fancy LEBL with photoreal scenery around, AI aircraft, real weather, etc, etc, etc.. and probably Mediterranean moisture too.. !  

Simulators render a lot more than your average program.

 

I agree with the hardware being the limiting factor.

In 2006 you could get a 2.5GHz CPU. My "new" CPU bought last year is 3.4GHz.

 

In the preceding decade speeds went up ten fold. Hardly surprising then that FSX does not improve with age.

In 2006 you could get a 2.5GHz CPU. My "new" CPU bought last year is 3.4GHz.

 

In the preceding decade speeds went up ten fold. Hardly surprising then that FSX does not improve with age.

 

Actually it was the 3Ghz E6800 Extreme C2D which could be  OC'd to about 3.3Ghz with the unlocked multiplier (Some was able to punch it up as high as 3.6Ghz). I have the E6850 C2D which was next  and also  3Ghz but it's multiplier was  locked, so OC'ing it was manual which was more dangerous and my computer manufacturer (Dell) also locked out. So I'm still at 3Ghz.

I bought a Pentium 4 back then, that ran at 3.4 natively, no OC.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps talking about Ghz. It's about as useful as comparing RPMs in engines.

 

I have a 3Ghz Broadwell in my Macbook. Despite being lower clocked it'd blow that Pentium out of the water on any task. Don't even get me started on power consumption.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Because, for FSX, clock cycles make the biggest difference out of all possible variables.  Other measures of performance or efficiency really don't matter with respect to this sim.

All I want to be able to do is land in egll in the pmdg 777 without an oom.

All I want to be able to do is land in egll in the pmdg 777 without an oom.

You can try the Steam Edition of FSX, Dovetail Games did a little code optimization so that FSX better manages it's 32-bit limited virtual address space.

 

Set your graphics sliders to the left side.

 

Eliminate all add-on airports except EGLL.

 

Limit your flight time to less than 1 hour.

 

 

 

Let's face it, FSX was released in 2006.  It's now 9 years old.  MicroSoft disbanded the ACES team so there will be no patches or further development from MicroSoft.  Dovetail Games has slightly improved FSX, but what FSX really needs is a full overhaul and made into a 64-bit program.  Until then, enjoy it for what it is.