FSX-SE Current FSX state of the art, performance-wise?

[Luis Hernandez 564]

Hello everyone. I'm currently on my 3rd attempt ever to use FSX in my laptop (specs on my signature), and the most serious so far. So serious that, after reformat, I've only reinstalled FS9 for troubleshooting, and to a very barebones level. All my flights have been done on FSX-SE since reformat.

I've read applied all known guides for setting up Windows and FSX: NickN's Bible, Avsim's guide and even Mathijs Kok's one. My settings are good enough for flying heavies in some rather secondary airports (SKBO and smaller). I'm not using any add-on airport, just AFCADs, Zinertek airport textures and some AI (airliners and GA 50%; road and boats 0%). All add-on textures mipped and (as possible) no 2048-pixel or bigger textures. Scenery at Extremely Dense, Autogen at Normal (FSX defaulted it to Extremely Dense).

After trying to land at a default EDDL, with these conditions, and real WX (with simple clouds, though), I found performance was way below my expectations: 15 FPS or lower, not smooth at all. This was flying the Wilco A319 Evolution (I have the Aerosoft one and like it better, but it has no 2D panel and the 3D one has a bigger performance hit).

The real question is not if I'm expecting too much (I'm sure the answer is yes), but with a current, state-of-the-art desktop PC, what should I be expecting regarding performance? I mean, with today's (July 2018) PCs, will I be able to land a PMDG 777 at default KJFK (for example), with lots of AI, real WX, autogen and scenery in Extremely Dense, and still be able to keep smooth performance during approach and taxi to the terminal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Luis Hernandez

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

While not a solution to limited hardware capacity turning off the aircraft's shadows will result in considerably fewer poly;s to render and no shaders , this should result in a 25% increase , in your case up to 20 fps

Best CJ

[nealmac 260]

I can almost guarantee that your problem is caused by CPU overheating. Laptops tend to have really poor CPU cooling systems. So when your CPU starts getting too hot, it will intentionally weaken it's performance in order to stop it overheating.

[richstacy 0]

My advice would be get a high end PC and forget the laptop. 

[vortex681 806]

On 17 July 2018 at 9:10 PM, Luis Hernandez said:

some AI (airliners and GA 50%; road and boats 0%)

AI can really kill performance, try turning it off and see what difference that makes - you can always turn it up again gradually.

On 17 July 2018 at 9:10 PM, Luis Hernandez said:

with a current, state-of-the-art desktop PC, what should I be expecting regarding performance?

It all depends on how much money you want to throw at it. Unlike games in other genres, high FPS in FSX doesn't necessarily equate to smooth graphics. Most people aim for a steady 30 FPS which is easily achievable with the best components.

[Luis Hernandez 564]

On 7/19/2018 at 11:42 AM, vortex681 said:

AI can really kill performance, try turning it off and see what difference that makes - you can always turn it up again gradually.

I've been spoiled by FS9, and the 80% AI I kept there (I didn't keep it higher because of the long queues for takeoff). However, since my airport AFCADs (yes, no 3rd-party addons) are outdated,  in FSX I'm getting sometimes full terminals with just 50% AI, which is good for my purposes. Also, I found the sweet spot for my sim: lock at 20 FPS, variations seldom over 1%.

 

On 7/19/2018 at 11:42 AM, vortex681 said:

It all depends on how much money you want to throw at it. Unlike games in other genres, high FPS in FSX doesn't necessarily equate to smooth graphics. Most people aim for a steady 30 FPS which is easily achievable with the best components.

That's my real question: with a current computer (USD 1000, give or take, but this budget needs to include a monitor, a keyboard and speakers... and maybe also a desk and a chair: I'd be upgrading from a laptop), can I keep those steady 30 FPS in these conditions?

On 7/17/2018 at 5:10 PM, Luis Hernandez said:

land a PMDG 777 at default KJFK (for example), with lots of AI, real WX, autogen and scenery in Extremely Dense

 

[Kronovan 14]

Just my own 2 cents, but I wouldn't buy a new gaming PC with the idea of FSX:SE being the target flight sim. In my recent experiences with 32 bit combat sims that have been recently upgraded to 64 bit via fan-made efforts, performance has improved significantly in each one. If I was to consider a new gaming rig with the idea in mind that a GA flight sim would be the most used app, I'd be looking at what would be required to optimally run Prepar3D v4 or X-Plane 11.  For the very reason there's only so much you can squeeze into the roughly 3.2 GB of RAM available to a Win 32 app and there's inherent performance limitations because of that. As an example; 8 GB RAM (provided a 64 bit OS is run) will provide FSX:SE with all it could possibly have an apatite for, but it's far from optimal for either of those 2, 64 bit flight sims.

Don't get me wrong, I think Aces and Dovetail did a terrific job delivering and then tweaking a flight sim that could fly well beyond its expected retirement. I still get lots of enjoyment bush piloting around in it, but IMO the 32 bit ship has long sailed. The specs for my next gaming rig definitely won't be based on the needs of FSX:SE.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Kronovan

[bobbyjack 61]

My suggestions would be these:

Start over. Totally default FSX. It will set things based on your specs that are always well below what your rig is capable of. Leave them there for now. No cfg. tweaks. Remember Nick's settings are for much weaker computers than yours. Set fps at unlimited. Do a test flight. Note frames. Max out scenery settings. Maybe not water, and no shadows for now. Test fly. Raise AI. test fly. Note that this is probably the best fps you will ever get. A few cfg. tweaks might help a little. Sometimes limiting fps helps, sometimes not. It just depends on what looks good to you. Remember that any add on from now on will only drag down performance. It just depends on what you want to put up with.

I have been surprised at the low specs of some so called "gaming computers". Don't be fooled.

[vortex681 806]

On 23 July 2018 at 5:23 PM, Luis Hernandez said:

USD 1000, give or take, but this budget needs to include a monitor, a keyboard and speakers... and maybe also a desk and a chair

The harsh reality is that $1000 isn't going to buy you a great gaming system! And that's before you use part of it for the peripherals (monitor, keyboard, speakers, chair). If you want something which will last a while and will give you plenty of computing power, you're probably looking at spending at least $1500 on just the PC. You could spend less but you'd probably want to upgrade sooner rather than later so saving now and buying a better system would actually work out cheaper in the long run.

Edited July 25, 2018 by vortex681

[Luis Hernandez 564]

Thank you very much, Vortex. This may sound like bad news, but actually this was the kind of response I was expecting. Now I'm more sure that I'm asking rather too much from my laptop for FSX (but I can and I am enjoying with what I have right now).

Just one further question: assuming I'll be assembling the computer, what would I be getting with these $1500 regarding CPU, RAM, GPU, storage, etc?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Luis Hernandez

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Thank you very much, Vortex. This may sound like bad news, but actually this was the kind of response I was expecting. Now I'm more sure that I'm asking rather too much from my laptop for FSX (but I can and I am enjoying with what I have right now).

Just one further question: assuming I'll be assembling the computer, what would I be getting with these $1500 regarding CPU, RAM, GPU, storage, etc?

In todays' world... an 8700K on a quality motherboard with 2X8GB of fast RAM, and a GTX1070. 

This will run either FSX or P3D.

For FSX only, you can get 2X4GB of RAM and a GTX1060.. but why not get the whole thing.. you may need it in the future.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Bert Pieke

[Jim Young 2,356]

On 7/17/2018 at 4:10 PM, Luis Hernandez said:

The real question is not if I'm expecting too much (I'm sure the answer is yes), but with a current, state-of-the-art desktop PC, what should I be expecting regarding performance? I mean, with today's (July 2018) PCs, will I be able to land a PMDG 777 at default KJFK (for example), with lots of AI, real WX, autogen and scenery in Extremely Dense, and still be able to keep smooth performance during approach and taxi to the terminal?

With my just built system (see specs) and P3Dv4.3, here's what I got for a flight from FSDT KLAX to FlightBeam KPHX over Orbx SoCal, MSE Arizona, and using ASP4, UTLive, and the QW787:

As taken from FSUIPC.log for each flight -

Minimum frame rate was 13.5 fps, Maximum was 72.7 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 3307 secs = 37.3 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 301 aircraft

A flight from KLAX-KSFO in the QW 787 over MSE SoCal and NoCal, using ASP4 and UTLive:

Minimum frame rate was 18.8 fps, Maximum was 89.3 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 3512 secs = 46.5 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 272 aircraft

In the PMDG 777:

Minimum frame rate was 18.5 fps, Maximum was 69.8 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 3424 secs = 47.3 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 268 aircraft

And finally in the CS757 (ASP4 turned off; default SoCal/NoCal:

Minimum frame rate was 14.5 fps, Maximum was 54.0 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 2393 secs = 32.7 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 279 aircraft

When I had FSX installed, I got similar frame rates.  Just rebuilt my system so have not reinstalled FSX yet.  P3D settings are mostly max but no autogen and some of the other eye-candy settings.

13 hours ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Just one further question: assuming I'll be assembling the computer, what would I be getting with these $1500 regarding CPU, RAM, GPU, storage, etc?

If you look around you can find some good deals on parts.  For instance, I'm getting ready to sell my "old" i7 7700K with the Maximus IX Hero MB, and 16 GB's of 4200MHz RAM in one bundle for around $500 (you can get an i7 8700K bundle from Newegg for $700 plus).  You would still need a case - $100; a cooler like the Corsair H100i Pro for about $125; a sound card for about $50 (and less); and a video card for less than $350 (like the GTX 1060).  You will need Windows 10 ($99) too.  Logitech Z506 5.1 speakers for $57; Mouse and Keyboard for less than $50; Power Supply like the EVGA 750W for less than $60.  That brings the total cost to around $1345.  That leaves about $150 for a new or used monitor and that would cost less than $150.  You are now at $1500.  You would still need a couple of 1TB HDD's and those can be had at $45 each (an SSD would be nice but the performance difference would not really be that significant and they cost more, a lot more).  Maybe you could add one next year...  Not sure you could get this in your country but I found most of these prices via Google. 

[vortex681 806]

This would give you a good system for less than $1500: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zJ3tKBq. You could probably save a little more by looking for the CPU with a motherboard bundle. You'd need the OS (buy cheap as an OEM copy) and the monitor, keyboard and mouse (bundle) so you might bust your budget slightly but it'd be worth it.

[Luis Hernandez 564]

Thanks a lot, Vortex! Your direct link did not work (error 404). However, I've been having fun making some system setups there.

[vortex681 806]

Try this one: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zJ3tKB