Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest davewins

FSX - Retail - Performance impressions

Recommended Posts

Guest guyjr

My system specs - Athlon XP 4000+, 2 GB RAM, GF6800 Ultra w/256MB, Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS. This machine was close to top of the line a year ago (when I built it).FSX, out of the box, at KATL, flies great - 20 FPS. On pretty much the absolute lowest detail settings... no airport buildings, hardly any autogen, no traffic. mmm k, time to up the ante a bit...I have it set on pretty much normal everything, no water detail, no ground traffic, 40% airline, 15% GA, high res clouds, 80 mile draw distance, 1280x1024x32 w/bilinear filtering, no AA.I get a staggering 7 FPS sitting on the tarmac at KATL with the Baron 50 (non-glass cockpit). If I turn on cars, 6 FPS... turn on water detail to high, 5 FPS.I've tried getting the sim to look as close to FS9 as I can, and that FPS counter is not going anywhere near 10 FPS.By comparison, in FS9, with GEPro, Ultimate Terrain, and the PMDG 747, all settings to the max, I get around 20 FPS at the exact same location.I'd like FSX to be all it can be on my machine, but for now, I just don't see it happenin'... especially with any add-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FxF3

I thought my geforce ultra was a good graphics card untill I installed my ATI X1800xl. Then I saw that it really had problems no headroom for AA just no match at all for the newer stuff from ATI and Nvidia.I would also turn down Global texture res it makes your plane and the world look great but its a frame rate killer if you have not done so.You may need to just go in and turn all the sliders off then start out slow one notch at a time till you get it down to where you like it and the FPS are good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest odog

Locked and rock solid at 23fps There's plenty of head room that's for sure, but with medium high settings it's BEAUTIFUL and silky smooth.sorry to hear you cant get it running right. I think you need a 7 series card.gotta go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest odog

you're right Clayton, I had no problems running then, none now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok ok...take it easy, lets not get started up over this...it was obvious from the 1st demo that upon retail release there were going to be a ton of users feeling let down due to poor performance, and of course there will be more than a few who will be happy with it once adding in the add-ons and tweaking for hours if not weeks on end to get it running well like that.We already know the sim runs like a pig so dont expect it to be so flyable with addons on a mid range or lower machine...its even been bringing the high end machines to their knees in tears. In time folks will discover settings and cfg adjustment to let them run it the best they can and that will be that until cpu's start running at higher clocks...do not expect to be running complicated panels/planes in the sim just yet, youd be better off in fs9 for now....but folks, what i dont understand quite simply is why...oh why do you go out and actually buy the game after finding out that the demo runs like crap on your machine (mine included) and then moan about it?...you will NOT get better performance (or anything else) from the retail version no matter how much you wish it :-)....in fact you might even get worse results depending on the scenery of course!...for cryin out loud, if you havent done so yet...go install the latest demo and see how it runs BEFORE buying it!Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>what did i tell you, nothing improved from the first beta.I see a very sizable improvement here between the beta and retail code... Wish you'd stop with these pointless posts man, they're in almost every FSX thread on this forum. We get it, you hate FSX - don't buy it then and let the rest of us talk without interuption...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guyjr

I'm definitely going to start over from square one with everything turned off, when I get the time. Given the numbers of people who expect eye candy and great frame rates though, I seriously think there is a market opportunity for another flight simulator besides FSX or X-Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nels

>Locked and rock solid at 23fps>> There's plenty of head room that's for sure, but with medium>high settings it's BEAUTIFUL and silky smooth.>>sorry to hear you cant get it running right. I think you need>a 7 series card.>>gotta go...>>Exactly my experience too, with the new build demo. I expect it'll be the same in the retail version. I'm completly bowled over by how well (30+FPS locked) this runs on my machine and the immersion is fantastic. Thank you ACES!Birds, cars, people, missions, beautiful water, lovely boats, scenic sunrises and early morning take offs. Drenched runways with soaked landings and high altitude clear blue airways - Awesome experience.Nels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried the latest demo. It's convinced me that I simply can't run autogen on my system. Even turning it on with sparse results in a slideshow. Bloom and traffic are also big hits. Eveertying else I can fiddle with and not take too much damage (around 25 fps locked at 1600x1050).The thing is, no autogen is kind of a deal-breaker for me. I like the sharper landscape textures, but not having that sense of depth, even though autogen is scaled oddly, just kills immersion at low altitudes (where I typically fly).My system is getting old but I haven't really been compelled to upgrade. Everything I've bought recently, even some demanding games, has run fine.I think I'm just going to wait this out a year or two. Otherwise, I'll just spend all my time fiddling with settings and tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 777LR

>>Locked and rock solid at 23fps>>>> There's plenty of head room that's for sure, but with>medium>>high settings it's BEAUTIFUL and silky smooth.>>>>sorry to hear you cant get it running right. I think you>need>>a 7 series card.>>>>gotta go...>>>>>>Exactly my experience too, with the new build demo. I expect>it'll be the same in the retail version. I'm completly bowled>over by how well (30+FPS locked) this runs on my machine and>the immersion is fantastic. Thank you ACES!>>Birds, cars, people, missions, beautiful water, lovely boats,>scenic sunrises and early morning take offs. Drenched runways>with soaked landings and high altitude clear blue airways ->Awesome experience.>>NelsSorry but I don't believe your '30 fps' claim unless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nels

>>>Locked and rock solid at 23fps>>>>>> There's plenty of head room that's for sure, but with>>medium>>>high settings it's BEAUTIFUL and silky smooth.>>>>>>sorry to hear you cant get it running right. I think you>>need>>>a 7 series card.>>>>>>gotta go...>>>>>>>>>>Exactly my experience too, with the new build demo. I expect>>it'll be the same in the retail version. I'm completly>bowled>>over by how well (30+FPS locked) this runs on my machine and>>the immersion is fantastic. Thank you ACES!>>>>Birds, cars, people, missions, beautiful water, lovely>boats,>>scenic sunrises and early morning take offs. Drenched>runways>>with soaked landings and high altitude clear blue airways ->>Awesome experience.>>>>Nels>>Sorry but I don't believe your '30 fps' claim unless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a dell xps with a p4 3.6 non dual core processor, 2 gb ram, and a 7900gt with a matrox triplehead setup at 3840x1024 and i get 25fps smooth flight everywhere except for major cities. I dont think there is a machine that can run this thing in new york city maxed out but even my midrange box runs the fileplanet beta at totally playable and fairly smooth frame rates. I'm a frame snob too and the game is more than playable and i have the sliders all about 3/4 of the way up and with 2xAA and 4xAF. Sometimes when near water it bogs down but not always for whatever reason? If i turn off the AA and AF the frame rates are even much smoother. My dad has a fx-62 with a 7950gx2 and his frame rate is well over 30 at the same settings and remember that this is at 3840x1024 here. At 1280x1024 my midrange machine chews up fsx like its nothing. Not sure why the guy with the core2 and 7900gtx is having problems running this game but he might want to check his machine to make sure its running right. That machine should run fsx like glass at 1280x1024 and if it doesnt then you've got something setup very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed,I have the demo and will look into the tweaks and 'magic' settings when they are posted but with the current performance indiccated by the demo I won't buy FS-X without a major hardware upgrade .Thats my experience on my fairly new AMD X2 4400+ with 2 Gb mem and ATI800XL graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR there are things in the FS-X code that cause this on perfectly tuned machines... ever considered that? Maybe a little variation in FSB speed can have a major impact in the results you get.I Still have to try the new demo on my old machine. (Thats an AMD XP2700 with a lowbudget AGP NVidia 6200). Guess what? The old demo actually did perform beter on this machine than it did on my X2 4400+This might be caused by the 0,17 Mhz higher clock of the XP2700 (2,17 Mhz) core against the 2x 2 Mhz cores of the X2. Maybe the 333 Mhz FSB speed on the mainboard agrees more with FS-X. Maybe the NVidia driver are beter in this particular instance. Or maybe the insane amount of slow memory on the aircooled NVidia 6200 (512MB) actually made a difference? Who knows. The only thing I can tell you now is that FS-X might have some problems on some setups and it might be caused by the way the program works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly from the Avsim Conference. A Microsoft evangelist stated that FSX run at "MEDIUM" settings is for high end computers of today, while settings of "HIGH" and above have been implemented for systems within the next 1 - 2years from now.Suggestions, were to install FSX and run it as is for a while before starting to tweak settings. As the old FS9 did, it search for the optimum setting based on your hardware (well as we all know, that is never usually good enough....lol)Interesting.....at least it sounds like M$ is looking into the somewhat future for FSX. Most of this I am sure has to do with the fact that DX10 cards will be available by next year, which with Vista, will really require most of us who want to enjoy FSX in its full glory to start upgrading our hardware accordingly in the next year or two.I know many of us are going to want to crank this baby up when we unleash her onto our OLD, MID-RANGE, or HIGH-END rigs, only to be disappointed when we are brought to our knees, by undying demand for CPU and GPU power.Time will tell....and may we all enjoy the joys and woes of tweaking this new animal when she is let out of the cage. I probably have to wait abit longer than the 17th since it has be shipped from the Avsim store. ;(Kroswynd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BOPrey

Over clock you e6600 to 4ghz, you should get hugh performance increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we're giving reports from all kinds of computers, here one for the FULL demo, which is based on the older build. Retail no available here yet.I have FS9 and FSX on both computers.2 computers:Pentium 4 2.4MHz1.15 Gig of RAM9600 RADEON 256M AGP8XBiggest problem is the slow clearing of the fuzzy terrain if you move along very fast. Frames rates are barely useful, in most cases - 5-12 usually with 4-18 outside. Yes, autogen kills it fast as does road traffic, but I had some very nice flights with 14-16 FPS with Beaver off NC coast WITH moderate amount of autogen trees ON. Most sliders were mid or slightly lower. I consider this level of computer only somewhat useful, but still, with certain limitations can give some good fun with FSX.Athlon 4600+ dual core 64x22 Gig RAM7300 GeForce 256M PCIexpressMUCH better. (Yes, I know FSX doesn't use both CPUs by design.)Still somewhat challenging, but almost everything flies with 9-25 FPS which is acceptable to me. Sliders are even a bit higher, like "heavy" autogen, 17m terrain, etc. Even some larger cities did pretty well. Photoscenery did not gain, though (same scenery compared to FS9 on Pentium 4: Alaska, Pacific NW) ... but was still fine. There seems to be a critical point in equipment ... the 4600+ duo can be had for near $700 at one chain. I consider this level the bottom of good standard operation of FSX.What worries me, is that clouds and addons will pull this down some, but I agree with many posters on "tweaking" configurations, etc. And, who knows what will happen with Vista and DX10 - I've seen opinions ranging from it will supercharge FSX, to, it will do "nothing" at all in speed and little in quality (since it was created with XP and DX9). We'll just have to see.Only an observation and opinion, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest camtech

Im not a computer expert but i do know computers and it seems to me that the Intel boys,the Amd boys , the nvidia boys and the ATI fellas, could care less about us hardcore simmers.because all i see is there benchmark test on first person shooters and such games .you all have seen them you know 175 fps versus 172.6 fps on games that does not really work a system.Now we have to go out and buy super duper triple core systems with all the fixins, with hard drives so big i can move in on.Maxed out Ram and suped up cpu's, you know computers so powerful when you turn them on you can see the lites in your house dim.All so that i can get more frame rates.Bottom line is that we are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to those wonderful companies i mentioned, i can care less about 3d Benchmarks and all those high numbers the com gets when you test your system.Because as soon as i load up FS9 and all of the fixins, my com boggs down to a wonderful 17 fps, and that is in good weather, and im the only plane within miles. And if im lucky to get to 20 fps im thirty thousand feet in the air.And when i try to land in a busy city and the weather is bad, i get a whopping 10 FPS.But you see folks im a hardcore simmer, and i will wait for FSX and load it and deal with all of the headaches that comes with it.yeah im going to go out and get all of the latest hardware, and software so as soon as i get it home it will be old hardware.Yeah im going to cuss and fuss and get mad and holler and scream when my camera will get better frame rates than my com does.I will continue this Hobby because i love it so much.Just imagine i will go out and buy a five hundred dollars vid card so i can get a better frame rate , just to find out that my cpu is to slow and im talking a 3800+ amd, then i will go out and buy a faster cpu , and mother board , and more Ram , and more whatever it takes to have more frame rate. Just so i can keep it at between 15 to 20 fps.Because you see im a hardcore simmer and i will do whatever it takes to injoy this game.I Love This Sport.................Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even on my mediocre PC (Ahtlon XP 2800, 1.5GB RAM, Ati 9800 PRO) I get smooth performance in the second demo with the settings from this thread: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...5&page=2#352702only thing I did change was the target framerate. It was choppy at unlimited, but smooth at 18 frames.The retail version will probably more taxing to my PC, and it will become even slower once the addons start coming, but I am quite pleased sofar.Allard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloom and shadows and 2x water require two passes on every frame. It will kill your performance. Do not expect to run with these on. If it works, great, but please don't complain that it kills your performance. We know.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...