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

 

From one of my earlier posts:

 

"... Fresh install of both the OS and FSX. Framerate at 3W5 on Rwy 7 shows 208 FPS. Add ORBX global - 202 FPS. Add ORBX Vector - 163 FPS. Add ORBX PNW and 3W5 - 97 FPS. Add ASN 65 - FPS. Add Turbo Duke with GTN 750 - 45 FPS. Are we having fun yet?........."

 

So, yes the ORBX Regions, and other stuff, are what's affecting the frame rate. In this case it's a drop in FPS of over 50% for the PNW Region alone (Vector isn't loaded with the PNW Region). But it varies by region. With NCA the drop I see is closer to 30%. And much depends on the specific system. There is no way to predict what any give computer will do. All I know is that, with both FSX and P3D, more CPU cycles are always better.

 

Doug

And, although many can differ, I still believe a solid 60 fps is the minimal stable and adequate for a flight simulator.

 

In Aerowinx PSX I get 72 fps, and in FSX:SE I always try to lower any sliders, or not use any add-ons that will lower fps bellow 30, or 60 if using it with PSX for visuals.

And, although many can differ, I still believe a solid 60 fps is the minimal stable and adequate for a flight simulator.

 

Don't agree with this at all! Whilst it's probably true for many other games, FSX doesn't seem to need high frame rates to run smoothly. I have mine capped at 30 FPS and it runs very smoothly. With my old graphics card it looked smooth in the low 20s. The obsession some people have for high frame rates means that they don't get to appreciate the extra realism of higher autogen levels, AI and road traffic. Forget the FPS and just aim for smooth visuals.

vortex681,

 

it all depends in what you're up to... If sightseeing is what you're after, then ok...

 

If smooth display of your instruments, and performance of the FDM is more important then, in FSX, just as in X-Plane, something has to be lowered on the candy side of the simulation....

Don't agree with this at all! Whilst it's probably true for many other games, FSX doesn't seem to need high frame rates to run smoothly. I have mine capped at 30 FPS and it runs very smoothly. With my old graphics card it looked smooth in the low 20s. The obsession some people have for high frame rates means that they don't get to appreciate the extra realism of higher autogen levels, AI and road traffic. Forget the FPS and just aim for smooth visuals.

I go along with jcomm on this. In fact, I bring it up all the time. With a new setup, just about a year ago (3960x 980 graphics card), I really picked up some good frame rates. FSX can even run smoother & fluid than X-Plane 10, or the reverse can be true. Never the less, the difference is highly noticeable. I like seeing FPS in the upper 40's, and through the 60's.  Have even hit over 200...........although I'm sure my eyes are not actually detecting those upper fps rates.  I do have an obsession for high fps, as well as all of the eye candy I can cram in. I flew real planes throughout the western USA................just for the eye candy. It was magnificent !!!

I love flying through the valleys and canyons of PNW at 150+ FPS. But then reality sets in and I have to remind myself that it's not visually possible to exceed the monitor refresh rate. So 60 FPS is the "real" number for me but it sure is fun seeing the FPS counter occasionally hit 250+. Kind of reminds me of the FS98 days at FAAA...turn all the sliders down, go to spot view, look straight up and easily get 500+ FPS...wow, those were the days...LOL

 

Doug

I'll try a video comparison tonight at FSdreamteam KJFK with the Aerosoft Airbus 320 since I have it and most of the same addons installed in both sims. The only reason I keep FSX SE around is because I'm to cheap to re buy the PMDG NGX and 777 at the much higher p3d price

Really guys? Frame rates in the hundreds? What are you guys using? Cray supercomputers?

 

Moe

Really guys? Frame rates in the hundreds? What are you guys using? Cray supercomputers?

 

Moe

 

For me, it's just the stuff shown at the bottom of the post. But frame rates over 100 are not all that common. And everything depends on the scenario. Most of the time I'm in the 40-70 range with the default Cessna, sliders full right (except Traffic and Water off), and ORBX scenery. But it's fun to leave the slider set to unlimited and get surprised once in a while.

Doug

What screen resolution are you running at? Is this DX9 or DX10?

DX10

Autogen performs better with DX10 than DX9 for me. Still drops quite a bit though, but it doesn't go below 25-30 FPS with all autogen and scenery complexity maxed out.

What screen resolution are you running at? Is this DX9 or DX10?

 

1920x1200 on dual monitors with DX10

Ok so here are my test results these tests were conducted with the same weather and time of day.

 

FSX Steam DX10 at FSDT's KDFW,flying the Aerosoft A320,REX4 Mytraffic 2013 at 21%

Frames inside VC

When stopped 37-40FPS

When rolling 29-35FPS

When airborne 39-45FPS

 

Frames in spot view

When stopped 45-50FPS

When rolling 43-50FPS

 

 

 

Prepar3d V3 at FSDT's KDFW,flying the Aerosoft A320,Rex 4, No traffic addon, traffic at 0%

Frames inside VC

When stopped 24-28FPS (heavy stutters)

When rolling 19-25FPS

When airborne 19-27(heavy stutters)

 

 

Frames in spot view

When stopped 31-37FPS

When rolling 28-32FPS

 

Basically if you want to fly large jets and get good frames stick to FSX DX10. This is why I have only used prepar3d with GA aircraft and keep my frame hungry airliners in FSX

Thats interesting David. I am actually surprised to see around 10ish FPS difference between FSX SE and P3Dv3 (considering P3Dv3 has no AI). 

If you have traffic in both at 0% what was your vas management like flying in both sims ?

 

Did you ever come very close to OOM with or without the binging sound in either of the sims ?