Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

Recommended Posts

Guest Len

Alright, I've purchased every version of this series way back to Bruce Artwick and my C-64. Bought the Deluxe Edition yesteday.1. Loading up is very slow.2. Forget running this on scenery settings which are maxed. Even with autogen cut to low, traffic density 50% (as well as leisure craft, etc.), air traffic + ga 15%, at 1280x1024 it was a dog's breath 2-3 fps on the tarmac of KSEA. Unflyable.I then cut all my scenery settings back 1/2 including water leaving autogen at low and I might have gained about 2 frames. Unflyable.This may be worst coding ever for this series. It's bloated. As you will see below I have a decent system which has now been brought to its knees by this unflyable version. Not without totally stripping the version down to a shell of what it excels at can I fly this thing. What's the use of beautiful water and, mesh, etc. if in the end it must get sliced and diced out?The most disappointing version yet. The potential is lost completely in the implementation.P4, 3.6 GHz, 800 Mhz fsb, 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you try it with the default settings, that were set after the installation? You guys go run and immediately jack stuff up and then start complaining. ACEs told us that low to med settings were fs9's max. So why do you insist on cranking this thing up well past that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to defrag your hard drive. FSX's installation "scatter shots" files all over the bloody drive... This should gain you a few more fps in performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but after all the griping about performance recently....this slide show should be of no surprise to anyone and this is with default scenery and aircraft. Wait until you all try to fly 3rd party stuff in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Glidescope

We're not all gripping... I've only just only begun tweeking the settings but I've already got very resonable frame rates with FSX :)I'm sure once FSX is more available and people have a chance to experiment with the cfg files and settings things will improve even more. I'm definatly one happy FSX flyer :)As far as addons are concerned, well that remains to be seen, but if FS9 is any indication I'm not worried.Regards,MarkP4 @ 3.3 Ghz1GB DDR PC3200 400 RAMFX7800 AGP 256MB video card250GB SATA HD >I'm sorry but after all the griping about performance>recently....this slide show should be of no surprise to anyone>and this is with default scenery and aircraft. Wait until you>all try to fly 3rd party stuff in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

You guys go run and immediately jack stuff up and then start complaining. ACEs told us that low to med settings were fs9's max. So why do you insist on cranking this thing up well past that?I beg to differ. Every version I've used I began at the max and THEN worked my way down. No different here except this one: numerous settings at the start I lowered (such as traffic and autogen) but kept the scenery settings maxed...then I worked from there. I've run the last two versions of FS at 1600x1200 32 bit everything maxed (except traffic and cloud density, draw distance) and that too I had to lower to the resolution I've noted with the settings now halved. The air traffic is the lowest I've ever put it on the FS series.Defrag Issue: did this at the outset expecting the worst and believe me it has delivered.The only thing I like about this version so far is online registration so I don't have to leave the disk in the drive!lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JIMJAM

Autogenbuildings ect seem to be the biggest fps eater at least for me.If I turn it all off the sim is smmoth and fast even with everything else maxed including my cards settings.Just bumping it up 1 notch though takes a big fps hit and stutters begin.This may be the first and most important thing that needs to be looked into and solved.Until then its back to night flying where I do not miss all the eye candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

Ok, here's quote I'm taking from one of thelinks:Putting the slider situation another way:If you put FS2004 and FSX head-to-head with equal perceived performance values (smoothness and frames), FSX looks superior. Improvements have been made to landclass and roadways, texturing, the feeling of flight (flight models), environmental effects, autogen, weather, and a host of other things - all of which make for a better experience. Sure, your sliders in FS2004 may be 100%, but the equivilant setting in FSX may only be 50% or less! The position of the slider doesn't matter, its what is being driven by it that counts.With all the additions I've put to FS2004, ultimate terrain, mesh upgrades, texture upgrades, clouds, 3rd party addons galore (particularly PMDG, EagleSoft planes..) etc. running FS2004 at 1600x1200, 32 bit, the ONLY thing FSX has going for it is the water which is impacting. Any gains achieved by FSX are diluted to the point that the benefits are lost or minimal just to get a flyable level at lower resolutions. Something's wrong with this picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people had a reasonable expectation that with sliders mid way or lower, autogen would not bring a P4 3.6 ghz computer to frame rates of 4 to 8. I get very good (mid 20's) without auto gen, but I do miss the trees. :)I am sure someone will offer a method to keep the trees and can the houses for now. Bob..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Coneman

I've got to agree. Everyone seems to be so eager to spend big bucks on computer upgrades, while never questioning why the autogen performance is so horrible. Anyone remember the issue with FS9 when it came out? The performance hit with the autogen is ridiculous, even on low settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Len,While I've not been able to purchase FSX yet (I will when it's available locally on 10/17/06), I've been playing with the latest Demo 2 build.We've been told by ACES that the Demo 2 and Retails versions of FSX are about the same as far as performance.While I have more RAM than you, you have a faster CPU.Try playing with some of the sliders (as a specify in the link below) and see if that helps. Some have reported that eliminating Autogen and lowering Water is the best. I agree, Water at High 1.x and no Autogen will increase your FPS.Finally, check out the "FSX RTM blurries and FSX.CFG tweak" post and add the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 entry:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54221&mode=fullCheck out my post at -http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54123&mode=fullJust trying to help ...JerryG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the default settings for the demo 2 on my PC, were 800x600 res yuck!! 800x600 on a 19in monitor looks pretty baaaad. The default settings are horrible. Might as well toss it. I had to turn up some settings. I have my demo running pretty well now, but personally, the default settings are baaaad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

Try playing with some of the sliders (as a specify in the link below) and see if that helps. Some have reported that eliminating Autogen and lowering Water is the best. I agree, Water at High 1.x and no Autogen will increase your FPS.JerryI can assure you putting the autogen to sparse (as I started with because of hearing some issues with autogen in the first place) and pulling everthing back to 1/2 (air traffic 15%, mesh 53, mesh resolution 10m, water down now 1/4 on the slider (grrrr) etc.) gives a marginal but not flyable increase. As I stated, a boned up FS9 (with the exception of the water) easily beats FSX stripped down to a flyable level (which I've been increasingly pulling down sliders even now coming back to this forum - lowering various scenery sliders to 25% up). Thus the whole purpose of FSX is defeated. On prior occasions with previous versions I knew my system needed upgrading and took the strain on the system in stride. I have a decent system and know it shouldn't have to labor with a properly coded program. This is just poor, bloated, code. My posting is not novel as I've seen various experienced flight simmers on this board with the same justifiable refrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can beg to differ if you want, but the fact of the matter is that MS *specifically* said that in this version, it is best to leave sliders where they are after install, and then test and move them up gradually to see where your system stands performance-wise.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

You can beg to differ if you want, but the fact of the matter is that MS *specifically* said that in this version, it is best to leave sliders where they are after install, and then test and move them up gradually to see where your system stands performance-wise.You don't seem to undertand my post. So I tried it the opposite way? In the end the result as I post below has gone to the extent that a boned up FS9 is far nicer than a stripped down flyable FSX. Furthermore, MS also notes on the box 'system requirements' - processor 1.0 GHz.' LOL! I've now slaughtered mesh, texture, etc. down to 25% - yuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest firehawk44

Len,I have the exact system as yours (Dell Generation 3) and have excellent graphics and FPS with the FSX Demo (2nd Version). I have my scenery settings set to Global Medium High; traffic at 15% (including traffic density); aircraft at Ultra High; and weather at Global High. My target frame rate is 100 and I rarely see FPS below 20. I hope you can find a tweak that works for you.Best regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

You need to get the real deal fsx (or maybe you shouldn't as I can't recommend it). I could run the demo not badly but this is a different ballgame. Try taking off from KSEA with those settings. But there are numerous settings you haven't noted which would require a substantial decrease in those settings as well. Maybe at some point I'll take a screen shot of the skeleton remains I'm left with once I can get off the ground without juttering to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest david W.

Get real. You post that FSX is "slow slow slow/unflyable"You first complain that LOADING is slow. (When has that even been an issue before)Then you complain you can't run FSX with everything maxed, and only get 2-3 frames on the ground.Are you new to flight simulations? Do you really expect to be able to max everything on a brand new flight sim (that is worth anything). I only have a 3 year old P4 3.0Ghz 1 gB RAM Geforce FX5600XT 256MB and the FSX Demo 2 is very flyable at the default settings. Only 2-3 frames? There is something seriously wrong with your computer. Something must be choking it. It probably is not set up correctly, or you have major hardware/software problems. Because with your systems specs, FSX is very flyable.A friend of mine has the identical system to you, except his is only a 3.4Ghz and your is 3.6Ghz.He easily gets 25 frames, and it is very flyable. I saw it in action today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,I had similar performance marks with the File Planet Beta and demo. For whatever reason, the retail version is tougher on my system. With auto gen off, I get very fluid motion and nice frame rates (steady 20). With auto-gen set to sparse my frame rates drop to below 12 and the jerkiness shows. What video card/drivers are you using?Dell P4 XPS 3.6ghzRadeon XT8900 pro with 256mb1 gig Dell memoryCatalyst 6.9 with the control panel installed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

Then you complain you can't run FSX with everything maxed, and only get 2-3 frames on the ground.Are you new to flight simulations? Do you really expect to be able to max everything on a brand new flight sim (that is worth anything).Buy stock in MS? A bee in your bonnet? As noted above I've been flying these versions for years. I have a CH flight Yoke and Pedals which I have'nt been able to use yet with this version because I've had to incessantly lower the sliders to a shell of what this version is suposed to give. As I stated, I START high and work down as I have on all the series I've purchased. What's left with this version so far is a far cry from what it can offer at marginal frame rates.I only have a 3 year old P4 3.0Ghz 1 gB RAM Geforce FX5600XT 256MB and the FSX Demo 2 is very flyable at the default settings.Flew the demo and wasn't too bad (7-8 frames around airports and 12-15 looking into the ocean lol!) but my settings did not have to be sliced and diced as they are with the full version. You're still flying the demo I see.Only 2-3 frames? There is something seriously wrong with your computer. Something must be choking it. It probably is not set up correctly, or you have major hardware/software problems. Because with your systems specs, FSX is very flyable.No, there's nothing wrong with my system. I've been playing around with computers maybe since you were in diapers.A friend of mine has the identical system to you, except his is only a 3.4Ghz and your is 3.6Ghz.He easily gets 25 frames, and it is very flyable. I saw it in action today.Yeah, let's start with the anecdotal stories. Right.Loads of guys out there now have FSX but yours seems to be the only "unflyable" post, with your rig that is better than most others here have.Please. Give me a break. You got some pecuniary interest in saying nice things about FSX? And it's not the "only" post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the fact MS insists on making a product that has way too much overhead. People seem to accept the fact each simulator contains features only a very small minority will ever be able to use. It's ridiculous that MS is given a pass on this each and every cycle. I've enjoyed FS9 a great deal, however, it took a lot of tweaking and system building to get to that point. I simply don't understand the mindset of a development team who choose to make a product in this fashion, and at the same time ignore the community who asked for ATC and AI improvements, among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have been flying since the commodore 64 (as I also have) then you must remember at maximum you got 1-2 fps on fs1. Were you upset then too or did you simply acknowledge that the software pushed the machines of its time to the limits-as it always has? I remember being elated when the first 3d video cards came out and I could get fs4 to run at 8-12 fps.Of course that was pre "sliders"-what you got you accepted. Is choice (sliders) really a bad thing?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

If you have been flying since the commodore 64 (as I also have) then you must remember at maximum you got 1-2 fps on fs1. Were you upset then too or did you simply acknowledge that the software pushed the machines of its time to the limits-as it always has? I remember being elated when the first 3d video cards came out and I could get fs4 to run at 8-12 fps.Expectations were not high back then. Secondly, maybe it was above or another post I've stated that I expected my systems on previous versions to be challenged and adjusted accordingly. I have a decent system in my opinion now and it has floored it. Sure I can slice everything to make the thing look like a version of FS9 but FS9 with a full assortment of addons (UT, FSG mesh, etc.) running at 1600x1200 32 bit (and running well I might add) makes a stripped down FSX look like a poor cousin.

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...