Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest allcott

Where do I need to set the FSX sliders to have this

Recommended Posts

My FS9 settings and config is as followsI have UT Europe and USA GE FE (megascenery Misty Fjords) FSgenesis terrain mesh. In FE main screen I check all boxes (dxt3 low quality)(I use FE for clouds and ASv6 for online weather)My FS9 settings are as follows,Scenery displayAll maxed except terrain detail at land onlyAircraftAll maxed and checkedHardwaretarget framerate 341280*1024*32Trilinear filtering Render to texture Transf lightning enabledMIP Map quality 4Hw rendered lights 8Global max texture MassiveWeatherSight dist 60 milesCloud draw 40 miles3D cload perc 100Enable detailed clouds at MaximumTraffic90%I run complex addon planesI have very good performence with my system consisting ofAMD Athlon 64 3200+ , Nvidea AGP G6600GT 256M DDR3 , 1 Gb RAMWith the FSX demo I have never seen as much microstutter and stutter as before with all settings maxed out.Question is how do I set the sliders in FSX to get as good or better scenery as I have in my current FS9 setup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it's never going to happen on any machine with DX9 (maybe not even with DX10, but that's another issue). Good reason for folks, like me, who have no intention of moving to Vista for at least a year (maybe more), to stick with FS9 a bit longer.Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will be using FS9 alot more than FSX, i dont see at all how we can fly an avanced plane like the PMDG744 or LDS767 with accecpable performance in FSX, not even on lowest lowest settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You have no chance, whatsoever.>I'm not sure I understand you and that you understood my question. No chance to exactly what? Of course I realise that I can't max out my settings in FSX. My intention was to set the FSX sliders so that the default scenery (witout addon planes) in FSX is as good as the one I now have with FS9 as starting point. To present the same graphic quality shouldn't be harder for FSX than for FS9. But of course improved graphics will strain my system more. Also one thing to point out. When I tried the demo it was on a temporary install on a 60 Gb harddrive without optimastion. Now I got two 160 Gb in raid 0 and my system is optimised for FS9 through the FS GS service. That would improve things to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Agree...sticking with FS9 for now as well.I have been thinking that FS9 is going out within a couple of month or so. I have not bought some addon for FS9 in while because of this.But I just preordered FSX deluxe and the FSX FSgenesis mesh for it. Otherwise I think some new addons for FS9 really looks interesting (like the Reality XP gauges the FSD panther GE Pro). Maybe I should give them a new consideration.And I must admit that even forgetting about the stutter in the FSX demo what I saw was not very much better than what I already have.The clouds and lightning was not better and than I still use low quality clouds with FE.Ground was comparable with what I have with FS9+UT+FSGenesis mesh+GE.The water was better. I think that was the most noticable difference.And that with the FSX settings maxed out.Performence was much worse.But this was the demo. Am I in for the same experience as when I bought FS2000 and tried to run it on a celeron 400 MHz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Autogen in FSX is 6,000 objects per tile max.Autogen in FS2004 is 600 objects per tile max.Max autogen in FS2004 = approx "Sparse" autogen in FSX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Autogen in FSX is 6,000 objects per tile max.>>Autogen in FS2004 is 600 objects per tile max.>>Max autogen in FS2004 = approx "Sparse" autogen in FSXInteresting. Any other comparisons like this? They would be good to figure out a settings baseline in FSX.Many times it has been mentioned that FPS comparisons between FSX and FS9 are like apples and oranges (well maybe pears). It would be nice to get a FS9 point in FSX to work from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, for me, max autogen in FS9 is about a 10% framerate reduction. Sparse autogen, on the other hand, in FSX cuts the framerates by more than half (half of an already much lower framerate as compared to FS9). I still think something is badly broken with the FSX autogen. Or, if not broken, the MS team have made a serious miscalculation as to the impact on the average machine.DougP4 3.2E @ 3.680 (1.385 vCore - 230 FSB)Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (BIOS 1019)2 x 512MB Corsair TWINX CXM3700 (3-4-4-8)1.5 TB of WD HDDATI X850XT PEA-Open 1648 AAP RipperPlextor 708A WriterEnermax 431W PSUInwin Case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

>>You have no chance, whatsoever.>>>>I'm not sure I understand you and that you understood my>question. No chance to exactly what? Of course I realise that>I can't max out my settings in FSX. My intention was to set>the FSX sliders so that the default scenery (witout addon>planes) in FSX is as good as the one I now have with FS9 as>starting point. To present the same graphic quality shouldn't>be harder for FSX than for FS9. But of course improved>graphics will strain my system more. Also one thing to point>out. When I tried the demo it was on a temporary install on a>60 Gb harddrive without optimastion. Now I got two 160 Gb in>raid 0 and my system is optimised for FS9 through the FS GS>service. That would improve things to some extent. I understand your question perfectly, and answered it exactly. There was no need to get into details because you answer your own question:"I have UT Europe and USA GE FE (megascenery Misty Fjords) FSgenesis terrain mesh. In FE main screen I check all boxes (dxt3 low quality)(I use FE for clouds and ASv6 for online weather)"Without installing those addons to FSXyou cannot get anything like an equivalent display. We already know the roads and coastlines are dumbed down in FSX in the same way (but to a slightly higher level) as FS9, the mesh is accurate only in specific areas of the world - check the thrreads on the varying quality of the mesh from the experts. Megascenery and Misty Fjords are area-specific photoreal scenery that are not represented in the default FSX and the ASV6 weather engine is far more advanced than anything in the new sim. GE Pro and FE represent a next level of texturing and are beyond what I have seen in FSX so far.So, before we even get to the positions of sliders, you CANNOT get the same view out the window as you have in FS2004, It has nothing to do with sliders, only the accuracy and completeness of the raw data in FSX. Don't confuse the ABILITY of FSX to read high-res data with the actual inclusion of that data. FSX is, more than any version of Flight simulator before it, a platform for aftermarket addons.If you want FSX to look like FS9 you will need to add UTE, FS Genesis, Misty Fjords, Megascenery and GE and FE Textures, in versions optimised for the new sim. Then turn the sliders way down so that it looks like FS9.Then accept the 3-5fps the sim will give you after you've bolted those complex addons in.You're not being realistic.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> But, for me, max autogen in FS9 is about a 10% framerate>reduction. Sparse autogen, on the other hand, in FSX cuts the>framerates by more than half (half of an already much lower>framerate as compared to FS9). I still think something is>badly broken with the FSX autogen. Or, if not broken, the MS>team have made a serious miscalculation as to the impact on>the average machine.>Maybe we should look forward to a FSX patch? Or maybe a new version within a couple of years where they have finished all work. To me it seems they only made the visuals and forget about the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If you want FSX to look like FS9 you will need to add UTE, FS>Genesis, Misty Fjords, Megascenery and GE and FE Textures, in>versions optimised for the new sim. Then turn the sliders way>down so that it looks like FS9.>When it comes to Megascenery the producersclaim the current versionsalready works in FSX and works better there. When it comes to the rest my impression is that they have not affected performence to a significant degree (well except clouds that seem to affect performence very much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

It cant change the basic principle: If you want the computer to do more, then you need more computer to do it in the same time.One addon might not impact on your FSX fps but put that lot in you you described above and they certainly will. And if you only have 15fps to start with, what are you going to be left with? 3-5 fps, thats what.By all means buy FSX - I see you've now started another thread on the same topic - but don't even think about putting addon aircraft, scenery or a higher quality mesh in it. Your computer will slow to a crawl.Either don't buy FSX and use all the money saved to upgrade the computer now - which as we have discussed here is not a smart move right now, until Vista and DX10 and FSX and patches and hardware pan out, or just use FSX in a default state and keep FS9 with all the complex addons.There is no rule that says you can't have both!Allcott

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...