FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[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.

[mrfuni 0]

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?

[n4gix 4,947]

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.

[Guest pem227]

Len, Please read this. http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archi.../08/454952.aspxhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=347467&page=2Phil.

[B777ER 2,486]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[BobP 56]

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..

[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.

[JerryG 1]

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

[ryanbatc 12,867]

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.

[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.

[Mace 1,929]

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.