I've just installed three simulators on a clean Windows (64bit) PC:

 

FSX Accell

FSX-SE

P3Dv3

 

All that's been added to each installation is my FSGenisis mesh.

 

Before I start adding software, anyone want any side-by-side tests running?

fps wise i don't think there will be big differences, more over you can't compare P3Dv3 with FSX-MS e FSX-SE

So the comparison left is about VAS, and that should show FSX-MS being the worst. FSX-SE have some changes to the VAS that will become evident only after flying around (mostly about the memory taken by autogen) and P3Dv3, if i am not mistaken, other things VAS-related regarding the scenery actually loaded.

 

Since I fly with Autogen at 0% (slider full left), scenery detail at 100% (slider full right), using ORBX FTX Global and ASN + Rex Soft Clouds... I believe I will experience more or less the same performance with added stability when flying the PMDGs in FSX:SE, I guess...

 

I don't have p3dv3. I regret having spent my money in p3dv2 :-( - get the same joy with fsx:se + dx10 fixer....

I'd love to see this one:

 

Set the C172 on KMRY 28L. Move the sliders for Water and Traffic all the way left. Move all the other sliders full-right.  What do you see for FPS?  Thanks for the offer...

 

Doug

Since I fly with Autogen at 0% (slider full left)

 

Why? I'd like to know

Not a lot of point FSX is fine without add ons and most things maxed out. The trouble starts when you add all the other programs to enhance the sim.

With a devils canyon @ 4.8 you can run FSX or P3D almost Fully maxed and get good FPS its only when you add ORBX and AI you start killing FPS. But it adds so much to the visuals.

I'd love to see this one:

 

Set the C172 on KMRY 28L. Move the sliders for Water and Traffic all the way left. Move all the other sliders full-right.  What do you see for FPS?  Thanks for the offer...

 

Doug

 If I remember when I get home, I will check this also. I have FSX and P3Dv3 installed.

Because I need it to be as smooth as possible, in my old rig ( i5 2500 3,3 GHz ) running as a visuals generation platform for my 744 simulator - Aerowinx PSX - running both on the same PC.

 

ORBX FTX Global, using full right scenery detail slider in the FSX:SE Graphics / Scenery options, is already very "detailed" in the way it paints the ground details for me, and what really matters is when you're landing.... Weather and it's effects, that's another story..., and to make it as close as possible to reality, I have to save on other items...

I'd love to see this one:

 

Set the C172 on KMRY 28L. Move the sliders for Water and Traffic all the way left. Move all the other sliders full-right.  What do you see for FPS?  Thanks for the offer...

 

Doug

 

OK Doug here you go.

 

So I have a pretty fast system 4690k @ 4.8 w/ 2933 ram and a GTX970

 

Weather was set to fair on both.

 

Prepar3d v3 /No config tweaks

I was not able to use the C172 as P3Dv3 does not have that plane. So used the kingair 350. And normal textures I think 1024x1024

Everything and I mean everything Maxed out with NO traffic and NO water. Forward view NO panel.

Using V-sync I was holding a solid 60fps Yes thats right 60fps.

 

FSX-Acceleration /No config tweaks other then wideviewaspect=true

Again using the kingair 350 with everything maxed everything including max water (DX10 and NO traffic were the only items not checked) 

8x AA and AF + 2x SGSS, using V-sync again I was holding 60fps.

 

Now before you say that's not possible remember this is no traffic or add-on scenery.

 

Once I add ORBX to this it drops to 35-40 fps.

 

Once I add full traffic (planes/cars/airport stuff/boats) which you would NEVER do because 100% car traffic would be crazy (unless you live in portland and then it would be considered normal, but that's another topic) sorry back on track. It drops it down to 20-25 fps. And stutters and OOM's.

 

Now which one is smoother? If you dial down the scenery/traffic and use the 1/2 refresh, no question FSX. (If you dont use the 1/2 refresh, P3d wins)

But which one looks better. No comparison. Prepar3d looks so much better and with only small hit in smoothness. Once all my ORBX scenery is compatibly with v3 I will probably say good by to FSX forever.

Because I need it to be as smooth as possible, in my old rig ( i5 2500 3,3 GHz ) running as a visuals generation platform for my 744 simulator - Aerowinx PSX - running both on the same PC.

 

ORBX FTX Global, using full right scenery detail slider in the FSX:SE Graphics / Scenery options, is already very "detailed" in the way it paints the ground details for me, and what really matters is when you're landing.... Weather and it's effects, that's another story..., and to make it as close as possible to reality, I have to save on other items...

Interesting, i have the same CPU as you have, and I'm able to run ORBX land with Dense Autogen, weather, traffic, but GA aircraft...

OK Doug here you go.

 

So I have a pretty fast system 4690k @ 4.8 w/ 2933 ram and a GTX970

 

Weather was set to fair on both.

 

Prepar3d v3 /No config tweaks

I was not able to use the C172 as P3Dv3 does not have that plane. So used the kingair 350. And normal textures I think 1024x1024

Everything and I mean everything Maxed out with NO traffic and NO water. Forward view NO panel.

Using V-sync I was holding a solid 60fps Yes thats right 60fps.

 

FSX-Acceleration /No config tweaks other then wideviewaspect=true

Again using the kingair 350 with everything maxed everything including max water (DX10 and NO traffic were the only items not checked) 

8x AA and AF + 2x SGSS, using V-sync again I was holding 60fps.

 

Now before you say that's not possible remember this is no traffic or add-on scenery.

 

Once I add ORBX to this it drops to 35-40 fps.

 

Once I add full traffic (planes/cars/airport stuff/boats) which you would NEVER do because 100% car traffic would be crazy (unless you live in portland and then it would be considered normal, but that's another topic) sorry back on track. It drops it down to 20-25 fps. And stutters and OOM's.

 

Now which one is smoother? If you dial down the scenery/traffic and use the 1/2 refresh, no question FSX. (If you dont use the 1/2 refresh, P3d wins)

But which one looks better. No comparison. Prepar3d looks so much better and with only small hit in smoothness. Once all my ORBX scenery is compatibly with v3 I will probably say good by to FSX forever.

 

Thanks. I'm seeing about the same thing and just wondered if it was about right. The FPS here are a little higher with P3D (63) and bit lower with FSX (58). And, like you, I see similar drops with ORBX (38) and traffic (29). I agree about the overall smoothness of P3D.

 

Doug

One you add ORBX FTX Global to any of the sims, or just to FSX?

 

What about FSX:SE ? Could you test it too, or you did and noticed no difference from standard FSX Gold?

 

Thx

I have Global installed in P3D and see no change in the framerate. Same with FSX. I no longer have FSX SE installed but with an earlier version I saw no difference with Global installed there either.

 

Doug

Thx Doug, so, the difference appears to be the selected ORBX Regions, right ?

Thx Doug, so, the difference appears to be the selected ORBX Regions, right ?

ORBX will drop the FPS a good bit and when you buy the smaller airports INSIDE the regions it will drop further. but with that said its the only places I fly due to the great scenery. 

 

Another note about P3D is it by default, has much improved scenery tiles. Some maybe ok with out ORBX at all. And with out it you can really crank the scenery in P3d.

 

One thing I noticed is lowering scenery dose not really allow the FPS to sky rocket as you would expect. On the flip side to this you can turn on ALOT of eye candy with out much FPS hit.