FSX - Will there be frame-rate issues like FS9?

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

Hi! Just wondering if anybody has heard what kind of frame-rate issues we might anticipate with FSX? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I watched the FSX demonstration video clip using the Vista O.S. and although it was barely noticeable, I think that there was a little bit of video shuttering. It really was insignificant in my opinion, but if this really was the case, I wonder how many FPS will have to be compromised when new addons are purchased and installed in FSX?Your thoughts are appreciated. :)Regards,Mark.

[Murmur 3,941]

>Hi! Just wondering if anybody has heard what kind of>frame-rate issues we might anticipate with FSX? >Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I watched the FSX>demonstration video clip using the Vista O.S.Where can I get that video?Thank you!Marco

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>>Hi! Just wondering if anybody has heard what kind of>>frame-rate issues we might anticipate with FSX? >>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I watched the>FSX>>demonstration video clip using the Vista O.S.>>Where can I get that video?>>Thank you!>>Marco>The video clip was featured at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. FSX was used to demonstrate the performance enhancements and advantages of Vista for serious game playing. I believe the demo was done by Microsoft Group Product Manager Aaron Woodman. The link is located somewhere in the Avsim Forum. I am unsure where exactly, but I think the video got pulled so the link no longer works. Many people have seen it though.Regards,Mark.

[Tristan 1]

It seems that with FS9, even hardware updates can not eradicate the slow performance issues. I read a post where a guy upgraded with stuff like duel-core cpu, 7800GTX vid card and his frames were not that much better then mine, maybe 5 frames or so more. But then again I don't know what his scenery settings were. Presumably the issue is FS9 not accomodating the latest technological advances. In my opinion it's waste of money getting the latest gear for fs9. However, I do think that FSX will utilize the high-end gear on the market now. But maybe two years after FSX has been released, we may see the same issues. CheersTristan

[Murmur 3,941]

>Hi! Just wondering if anybody has heard what kind of>frame-rate issues we might anticipate with FSX? >Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I watched the FSX>demonstration video clip using the Vista O.S. and although it>was barely noticeable, I think that there was a little bit of>video shuttering. It really was insignificant in my opinion,>but if this really was the case, I wonder how many FPS will>have to be compromised when new addons are purchased and>installed in FSX?>>Your thoughts are appreciated. :)>>Regards,>Mark. Saw it. Looooow FPS... x( But probably in demonstrations videos, graphic detail is given more importance than fluidity/smoothness.Marco

[Guest tdragger]

At the risk of opening a can of worms and with all due respect, Mark, I don't know how anyone could adequately answer your question at this point. First, FSX is still far from shipping. If you only noticed a *little* stuttering in the video then you weren't looking closely enough. The build I used at CES had a number of issues and we carefully staged the demo to mitigate them as much as we could. That's what you get when showing work in progress.Second, as many people have tried to explain numerous times on AvSim and in other fora, the issue of performance is not a simple matter. To recap briefly, your performance will be affacted by hardware, settings, and content--both default and third-party. The notion that FS9 suffered from poor performance simply because it didn't take advtantage of the available hardware is over-simplification (and in that I'm being charitable).At the end of the day your *perception* of performance will be a function of what you ask your computer to do (via content and settings) and what it can adequately handle. This is true of all computer programs. Flight Sim provides you so many ways to overtax your machine that many people simply loose sight of this as they tweak and experiment trying to discover the hidden secret of unlimited frame rates. Ask Ponce de Leon about his similar pursuit. ;)Now that's not to say we don't do stupid and inefficent things like mess up our thread usage or make redundant function calls because we do. However, before we release each version we undergo an extended performance testing period where we utilize very sophisticated techniques and (sometimes proprietary) analysis software to track the source of stutters and frame rate drops. We use this information to make our code faster. As we reach that phase of the FSX project I might share more information about it on my blog.Finally try to keep in mind that we don't have a crystal ball that can predict the future. We don't know after we ship the game what sorts of hardware advances there are going to be. If we had known how popular dual-core processors were going to become in 2005 back when we were planning FS2004 (which, keep in mind, was in the summer of 2001--almost FIVE YEARS AGO) we might have selected a different threading model that was more suited to it.We also don't know what the add-on developers are going to do either. For example, it might surprise you that we set polygon and texture space budgets for all our default aircraft. When we tweak performance we optimize to those budgets (with *some* headroom because we know folks will push the envelope). That's why you hardly ever hear people complain about performance when using the defaults. But then there are add-on aircraft that feature double the polygons and 5 times the textures. Should we have tried to account for those? If we did we might have decided not to create the new weather system in FS2004 that everyone seems to like. Everything is related--you can't give more resources to one thing without taking it from something else.So, Mark, I hope this helps you understand some of the issues. But even at this stage there are some things I can tell you. The more you (a) move the sliders to the right and (:( add content the worse performance you'll get.

[Guest tdragger]

Average scenery running at 60 FPS doesn't sell boxes. ;)

[W2DR 1,860]

tdragger opined: "The more you (a) move the sliders to the right and (:( add content the worse performance you'll get." And thus it had always been with MSFS. Nobody I know with a decent system has ever complained (at least not much) about performance with a default FS2004 installation. We bring on the performance issues ourselves. But I'm sure that as soon as I get my new quad-core, multi-GPU, 8GB, 20,000-RPM-HDD box built all those self-induced performance issues will go away :-).Doug

[Guest Surge]

>But I'm sure that as soon as>I get my new quad-core, multi-GPU, 8GB, 20,000-RPM-HDD box>built all those self-induced performance issues will go away>:-).>>Doug No they won't.By that time you'll be running FS12 which will also do slide shows on your box with the sliders set to max. :)Paul

[W2DR 1,860]

:-)

[Manny 1,293]

>>But I'm sure that as soon as>>I get my new quad-core, multi-GPU, 8GB, 20,000-RPM-HDD box>>built all those self-induced performance issues will go away>>:-).>>>>Doug >>No they won't.>By that time you'll be running FS12 which will also do slide>shows on your box with the sliders set to max. :)>>Paul>Thats right..This one is really like asking.. "Can we solve world Hunger"?:(

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>At the risk of opening a can of worms and with all due>respect, Mark, I don't know how anyone could adequately answer>your question at this point. First, FSX is still far from>shipping. If you only noticed a *little* stuttering in the>video then you weren't looking closely enough. The build I>used at CES had a number of issues and we carefully staged the>demo to mitigate them as much as we could. That's what you get>when showing work in progress.>>Second, as many people have tried to explain numerous times on>AvSim and in other fora, the issue of performance is not a>simple matter. To recap briefly, your performance will be>affacted by hardware, settings, and content--both default and>third-party. The notion that FS9 suffered from poor>performance simply because it didn't take advtantage of the>available hardware is over-simplification (and in that I'm>being charitable).>You answered my question largely.:-) I can appreciate the issues that come into play when developing or improving a product that must appeal to a wider market than just the aviation enthusiasts. To sacrifice certain key selling features, (nice esthetically pleasing clouds, realistic weather, AI traffic, etc.), exclusively to obtain a frame-rate increase however slight or significant has to be carefully weighed. Tough decisions are made. Obviously, your products success has been built and maintained on many of these combined factors. >At the end of the day your *perception* of performance will be>a function of what you ask your computer to do (via content>and settings) and what it can adequately handle. This is true>of all computer programs. Flight Sim provides you so many ways>to overtax your machine that many people simply loose sight of>this as they tweak and experiment trying to discover the>hidden secret of unlimited frame rates. Ask Ponce de Leon>about his similar pursuit. ;)>>I concur. To be fair, I really noticed the performance issues only after having installed tons of third party scenery and aircraft. Prior to that, there were not any remarkable frame-rate drops. If I fly using just FS 9.1 as is, I can in fact slide everything to the maximum setting and still enjoy decent fluid motion. I only added third party scenery because I like to fly VFR more than IFR. I, much to my own lack of knowledge, presumed that I had almost unlimited capabilities with a Radeon X- 800 Pro Video Card, 1.5 GB of DDR RAM on a 3 GHz dual core P-4 system. Evidently, such is not the case.>Finally try to keep in mind that we don't have a crystal ball>that can predict the future. We don't know after we ship the>game what sorts of hardware advances there are going to be. If>we had known how popular dual-core processors were going to>become in 2005 back when we were planning FS2004 (which, keep>in mind, was in the summer of 2001--almost FIVE YEARS AGO) we>might have selected a different threading model that was more>suited to it.>>We also don't know what the add-on developers are going to do>either. For example, it might surprise you that we set polygon>and texture space budgets for all our default aircraft. When>we tweak performance we optimize to those budgets (with *some*>headroom because we know folks will push the envelope). That's>why you hardly ever hear people complain about performance>when using the defaults. But then there are add-on aircraft>that feature double the polygons and 5 times the textures.>Should we have tried to account for those? If we did we might>have decided not to create the new weather system in FS2004>that everyone seems to like. Everything is related--you can't>give more resources to one thing without taking it from>something else.>I hear you. Given all those variables, would it be a feasible and wise investment for The MS Team to provide or sell us an upgrade via the internet during the first year in order to ensure that FS takes full advantage of the technology, (Video Cards, etc.), that is current at that time? I know that I for one would be happy to purchase upgrades if it improved any performance issues after third party add-ons were installed.:9 >So, Mark, I hope this helps you understand some of the issues.Sure does! Many thanks,Regards,Mark.

[Guest]

There is a group of people who will never be content... If they get a thousand fps running everything flat out with aircraft and scenery that are right there at the limit that FS can support they'd still complain it was slow.Those are the framerate junkies and there are more of them than you think.They're the people claiming they can actually SEE the difference in performance between 100 and 101 fps (without using the framerate counter)... They can't of course because your computer display has a refresh rate that's only a quarter or so of that number, but they still believe they can and nothing will ever convince them otherwise...And there are more of them than you think, many of them extremely violent towards anyone pointing out that they're not working on anything that will ever let them enjoy the product.I've been one myself, but when I figured it out (in time to prevent myself from being permanently disgusted with FS) I vowed to not use that fps counter ever again and I haven't.I don't now miss it, I just enjoy what I have and it is good. Whether 20 or 30 or 100 fps, it hardly matters as long as your animation is fluid (and that can happen at any number of fps, just as you can have stutters at 100 fps).

[michal 44]

> wonder how many FPS will>have to be compromised when new addons are purchased and>installed in FSX?Have you heard of something that is not a compromise? If there were no FPS problem then you would be complaining that scenery is not pretty enough or that there are no clouds in the skies. Use your sliders and set your own compromise. :-rollMichael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>> wonder how many FPS will>>have to be compromised when new addons are purchased and>>installed in FSX?>>Have you heard of something that is not a compromise? No. Compromise is inevitable. The question was how much of a compromise in FPS?>If there were no FPS problem then you would be complaining that scenery>is not pretty enough or that there are no clouds in the skies.Precisely. Hence the reason for this topic.However, I prefer to call it a requisition for progress rather than a complaint.:-) As you know, FS 9 has been out for a while now. It is quite acceptable to expect some improvements in an updated version of a consumer product. In fact, the trend of successful companies is to explore new methods to maintain their status or gain the lead on the products they sell. If everyone had decided to be content with