Sign in to follow this  
ColeThePilot

Performance Is HALF Of FSX:SE

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd try making the switch to Prepar3D Pro since the FSL A320 Pro will be a Prepar3D exclusive, and I'm appalled by the performance I'm seeing given the same exact settings...

 

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I've done something terribly wrong in the set up process. Can anyone think of what that might be? Linked below are in-game screenshots I've taken at KBFI, in-game sliders matched as closely as possible (with the exception of hardware tessellation), fair weather, system time, and the default Maule aircraft. No mods installed on either sim. P3D averages 65 FPS, FSX:SE averages 120 FPS.

 

http://imgur.com/a/gfkIv

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

As pointed out by some other people, Prepar3d sliders are not the same as in FSX-SE, also FSX-SE is more cpu bound while prepar uses both the cpu and gpu heavily and you got way more features available..
you can probaly only compare fsx-se to Prepar3d v1.4, also what are your specs?

Share this post


Link to post

Without your hardware specs and your settings - it gonna be difficult to help. And as P3D settings (and possibilities) are quite different from FSX ones it is not possible to make a real 1:1 comparision.

Share this post


Link to post

Gigabyte Z97X-UD5H-BK

i7 4790k @ 4.6 GHz w/H100i cooling

Reference GTX 970

16 GB DDR3 Memory @1600

Installed on Samsung 840 EVO SSDs in RAID0.

EVGA 1000W Supernova PSU

On Windows 10 Pro x64

 

Just to make sure I'm understanding you guys, I should have lower than 38 m mesh complexity in FSX in order to see something similar to 38 m of mesh complexity in P3D?

 

What possibilities and features are being processed in the sim that are cutting performance virtually in half?

 

Also, isn't increased performance one of P3D's proposed features?

 

 

 

Microsoft© DirectX 11 rendering engine takes full advantage of modern day graphics cards
  • Increased performance, increased realism, and offers the full control over what is displayed

Share this post


Link to post

Turn off tesselation and hdr lightning in P3D as well as basically all shadow options and bathymetry, otherwise a comparison is impossible. But even then, as stated by others above, it is not entirely comparable, but it should be close. Of course, you can also not compare a tweaked FSX:SE with a non-tweaked P3D, for example if you use low FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION values in FSX:SE but none in P3D, you will most probably also see a difference in FPS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Turn off tesselation and hdr lightning in P3D as well as basically all shadow options and bathymetry, otherwise a comparison is impossible. But even then, as stated by others above, it is not entirely comparable, but it should be close. Of course, you can also not compare a tweaked FSX:SE with a non-tweaked P3D, for example if you use low FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION values in FSX:SE but none in P3D, you will most probably also see a difference in FPS.

 

I haven't made tweaks to either version. They're both in their default states with the exception of adjusted sliders. HDR lighting is already off in P3D since it's not an FSX feature. Bathymetry is off by default. Hardware tessellation being off yeilds the same results in FPS even with a restart of the sim.

Share this post


Link to post

And the shadows? Did you make sure that those settings are also the same? Any tweaks in nVidia Inspector or in the nVidia Control Panel? As said, you can only compare those two sims if you take extra care that both use settings as comparable as possible. One other thing: if you use for example the highest LOD ratio value within FSX:SE, this will be 4.5 while in P3D you are up to 6.5, to properly compare you would need to manually turn down P3D to 4.5 again. Autogen densitiy is also higher in P3D using the same settings as in FSX and so on. It is really difficult to do a proper comparison, unless you open both cfgs and adjust the values manually in the p3d.cfg to those you had in FSX...

Share this post


Link to post

Any tweaks in nVidia Inspector or in the nVidia Control Panel?

Let me be clear and preface everything from here on out that I have not altered the sims or the hardware controlling them, aside from tweaking in-sim settings to get them close to each other.

 

 

And the shadows?

I went ahead and turned off all shadows in Prepar3D. I noticed about a 5 FPS increase, about 50 FPS away from our target of getting it to run as smoothly as FSX:SE. Not that I'm okay with running the sim without shadows turned on.

 

 

One other thing: if you use for example the highest LOD ratio value within FSX:SE, this will be 4.5 while in P3D you are up to 6.5, to properly compare you would need to manually turn down P3D to 4.5 again.

This changed things by maybe 1 or 2 FPS.

 

I then went through both FSX.cfg and Prepar3D.cfg side by side. In Prepar3D.cfg I verified the LOD value was 4.5. I verified all values with the same names were identical, especially settings under [sCENERY], [TERRAIN], and [GRAPHICS]. I even completely stripped the SIM of ALL autogen by adjusting the sliders below Scenery Complexity to "None" and I'm holding steady at 77 FPS, still over 40 FPS away from what I achieve in Steam Edition.

 

Sorry, I was under the impression there was a setting within Prepar3D not present in FSX that was known to cause severe performance decreases. If this is considered normal due to all of the amazing features and possibilities of Prepar3D, and I'm going to have to reduce my sim to a level that's visually nowhere near FSX's level, then I don't think it's for me.

Share this post


Link to post

P3d is not going to give you results like you had with FSX SE, why are you trying to achieve these massive fps instead of focusing on smooth fps with no OOM`s and great looking graphic`s, turning all your sliders and features off defeats the purpose of changing over in the first place, you do not need all the fsx tweaks in P3d, AM is the only tweak i find useful and running in 4k DSR with no NI, but every system is different of course.

 

if you leave behind all your FSX expectations and enjoy P3d for what it is i`m sure you will have a blast.... good luck

 

my 2 cents

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Why are you aiming for 60+ FPS? I think most of P3D (and FSX ?) users are happy with 20-30 fps as long as it is smooth in visual performance and you can get your wanted settings and your addons working properly.

Share this post


Link to post

If I were to load up ORBX scenery, and fly over it in the NGX with traffic, weather, and REX textures using FSX:SE I'd drop from 100+ FPS down to 30-40 FPS. That's doable.

 

Considering my performance in P3D is half that, I'd be dropping down as low as 15 FPS. Lower in bigger cities. No, I'm not happy with that. And no, that's not massive FPS. I'm not about to start shooting slide-show approaches in a $200 sim that behaves virtually identical to FSX but runs at half the speed. Obviously something has to be wrong with my set up somewhere. I'm sure there's tons of people out there running the sim on high settings without issues. This would be an extremely common complaint if every i7/900 series GPU owner started feeling like they were in 2007 again.

Share this post


Link to post

"If I were to load up ORBX scenery, and fly over it in the NGX with traffic, weather, and REX textures using FSX:SE I'd drop from 100+ FPS down to 30-40 FPS. Considering my performance in P3D is half that, I'd be dropping down as low as 15 FPS. Lower in bigger cities."

 

I am not sure if your 1:1 calculation(assumption) will meet reality. To much variables in play...

 

I can only speak for myself: With all FTX titles except some airports, UTX, FSDT, FB,  FT and some AS mega airports, MyTraffic6, ASN, REX SC, PMDG, Dash 400, A2A 172, I enjoy smooth experience (20-25 fps) in most situations. For sure, flying PMDGs T7 over FTX NCA or SCA to KSFO or KLAX needs significant reduced settings or switch off FTX regions (via SimStarter) to reach 18-20 fps. But it is still acceptable in my opinion.

 

My system: i73820 @ 4.85, GTX 780, W10, P3Dv3.2

Share this post


Link to post

Can you post your actual P3D settings?

 

If you mean my settings you can find it here: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=119706

 

I am using mainly those profiles depending on scenery/addons demand. Only, as described above, I have to reduce settings further (or switch off FTX) when over NCA/SCA KLAX/KSFO with T7 or  NGX.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh sorry, I referred to ColeThePilot's settings...  Should have mentioned that.

Share this post


Link to post

The near double frame rate difference is massive for such similar settings. I agree there is some large underlying cause for such a difference. Please let us know what you find out.

Share this post


Link to post

If I were to load up ORBX scenery, and fly over it in the NGX with traffic, weather, and REX textures using FSX:SE I'd drop from 100+ FPS down to 30-40 FPS. That's doable.

 

Considering my performance in P3D is half that, I'd be dropping down as low as 15 FPS. Lower in bigger cities. No, I'm not happy with that. And no, that's not massive FPS. I'm not about to start shooting slide-show approaches in a $200 sim that behaves virtually identical to FSX but runs at half the speed. Obviously something has to be wrong with my set up somewhere. I'm sure there's tons of people out there running the sim on high settings without issues. This would be an extremely common complaint if every i7/900 series GPU owner started feeling like they were in 2007 again.

Just an old farts query...could it be that we Caint see the king is Nekit??

 

Chas

Share this post


Link to post

Thought I'd try making the switch to Prepar3D Pro since the FSL A320 Pro will be a Prepar3D exclusive, and I'm appalled by the performance I'm seeing given the same exact settings...

 

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I've done something terribly wrong in the set up process. Can anyone think of what that might be? Linked below are in-game screenshots I've taken at KBFI, in-game sliders matched as closely as possible (with the exception of hardware tessellation), fair weather, system time, and the default Maule aircraft. No mods installed on either sim. P3D averages 65 FPS, FSX:SE averages 120 FPS.

 

http://imgur.com/a/gfkIv

 

Make sure Dynamic reflections are off.

 

I'd try first old nvidia driver 353.62 as a starting point.

Then try to maximize tesselation slider, then minimize to zero : which one gives you the best FPS reading ?

If nothing improves, try disabling volumetric fog. Did FPS improve ?

Share this post


Link to post

You should be getting great performance in P3D. I never go below 25 FPS in Seattle with almost exactly same hardware specs, with almost all graphic settings maxed out (shadows and dynamic reflections included).

 

In fact, I was flying around Orbx's YMML last night in the F1 B200 (G1000 is a FPS killer) and only dipped below 30 FPS when I upped the weather.

 

Do not assume FSX-P3D settings are the same. Start with the default P3D settings and then work your way up from there. The sims are so far apart now in how they use your hardware and what the graphics settings actually do that you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to set them up similarly.

 

Are you using some super-magical FPS killing AA settings?

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, watch out for antialiasing in heavy cloud conditions. P3D doesn't do those two particularly well simultaneously.

 

I've had similar experiences where the P3D performance would be about half of that in FSX:SE. It really had nothing to do with sliders and even image quality. It was just P3D's poor performance in heavy overcast when AA was enabled.

 

Couple of comparison (older) images below.

 

This was a slideshow in P3D:

pWBBPXw.png

 

And this was butter smooth in FSX:SE.

 

jG3tPzb.png

 

In these tests, it didn't really matter what the sliders were set to in P3D. The antialiasing was just drowning the GPU irregardless. I could have probably burnt my coffee on my GPU that day.

 

Anyways, my experience with P3D in lighter cloud conditions were quite pleasant. Good solid performance.

Share this post


Link to post

Do not assume FSX-P3D settings are the same. Start with the default P3D settings and then work your way up from there. The sims are so far apart now in how they use your hardware and what the graphics settings actually do that you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to set them up similarly.

 

Are you using some super-magical FPS killing AA settings?

I was only trying to set them up similarly because I could tell after a fresh install that my performance shouldn't have been so low. That's when I started trying to set them up with the same scenery complexity, mesh resolution etc.

MSAA is off, the in game AA setting was turned up a bit. I don't believe Nvidia control panel had changed anything by itself. I hadn't messed with that yet.

 

The only in game setting I've found (so far) that gets me up near FSX's performance is the scenery complexity, which when turned to its lowest setting gets me up to about 90-100 frames.

 

I'll post my settings later tonight, as well as my CFG file. I'm leaning towards something CPU/sim complexity related, since hardware tessellation being off doesn't make a noticeable difference, and in game AA/AF settings do not make a noticeable difference either.

 

Though I could be completely wrong. AviatorMoser - I'll check all of that tonight and report back with those screenshots and CFG file.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen reports of poor performance in P3D with systems with hyperthreading on, Try turning it off if it's on in your system.

Share this post


Link to post

The initial comparison is extremely misleading - who cares if you get 60 or 120 fps..

 

Set the sim to 30 fps and fly it into the areas you are concerned about.

 

If it is smooth, you are good - if it gets jerky, you have a problem and will have to reduce some settings.


I've seen reports of poor performance in P3D with systems with hyperthreading on, Try turning it off if it's on in your system.

 

Really..?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Here is what I can tell you from my experience:

 

Let's suppose that you run identical settings and that you initially have all shadows deactivated in both sims.

If you monitor the FPS immediately after loading the simulator, FSX:SE will display a considerably higher frame rate than P3D. However, if you switch views and start moving the view angle from the spot view, the FPS in FSX will drop and move closer to P3D (though it will be still higher).

 

On my system, as soon as I approach a more complex airport, the FPS in FSX drop even more compared to the initial loadup (sometimes by over 50%), while P3D maintains a more consistent frame rate during that stage. So I don't think that your expectation that P3D's FPS will drop by half during approach will turn out to be true.

 

Now here is where you gain from P3D: As soon as you start enabling all kinds of shadows (aircraft, VC, autogen, scenery objects, etc.) and water effects, the FPS in FSX will drop dramatically, because these features are very CPU-heavy (even under DX10), while your GPU is bored to death. This gets even worse with CPU-intensive airplanes (PMDG). In P3D, it's your GPU that is taxed, which will give your CPU still enough breathing room and leave you with more FPS despite better visual quality.

 

So in a nutshell: If you keep the eye candy deactivated, you are able to achieve higher FPS in FSX than in P3D. However, these FPS are not very consistent, since they can drop heavily during an approach. As soon as you activate shadows and water effects, P3D will win big over FSX in terms of FPS.

Share this post


Link to post

The initial comparison is extremely misleading - who cares if you get 60 or 120 fps..

 

Set the sim to 30 fps and fly it into the areas you are concerned about.

 

If it is smooth, you are good - if it gets jerky, you have a problem and will have to reduce some settings.

 

Umm...I care? For me, flying around at 12 FPS isn't acceptable. The reason I'm able to get acceptable frame rates in FSX is what we're trying to address here.

 

It's not misleading at all. Telling me I'll maintain 30/ "smooth" frame rates with GSX, addon scenery, PMDG aircraft, traffic, and complex weather scenarios when FSX just barely handles that and is performing better for me is what's misleading.

 

 

On my system, as soon as I approach a more complex airport, the FPS in FSX drop even more compared to the initial loadup (sometimes by over 50%), while P3D maintains a more consistent frame rate during that stage. So I don't think that your expectation that P3D's FPS will drop by half during approach will turn out to be true.

You may be on to something with this. I'll load up some addons and see if my assumption turns out to be true. Maybe it won't scale the way I'm thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this