FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable

[Geofa 108]

If you haven't-try setting your fps on unlimited-makes a huge difference on my rig.3.2 P IV,gf5700 512 meg, 1 gig mem.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[JerryG 1]

Wingnut,But, with the Retail version, there are people running FSX with good frame rates - http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54896&mode=fullEDIT: Oops, looks like the original poster said he was running Demo2 and not the RetailSo ... does it look like there is a decrease in performance in the Retail compares to Demo2?Perhaps we could collect a benchamrk type .cfg file that everyone could use (obviously the video card entries would differ)?JerryG

[FTD1949 0]

No Len...not directed at you. Directed at the majority that complain but give no specific info. Craig

[Guest Len]

If you haven't-try setting your fps on unlimited-makes a huge difference on my rig.I'm going to give this a try right away.

[Guest camtech]

Thats the problem they want to complain and not deal with it, even if they show you specs , they still complain , me i cant wait for the new sim because i will make it work. but i am wondering about the age brackett in here, im wondering if some of these good folks complaining in here have to ask there parents for a new rig , because they are ###### that they might say no just a thought:).hobbies can be exspensive and i know that i will loose alot in moving up in sims, thats the nature of the beast.i love flying to much to worry about it, my kids are grown up and i have all the time to play my passion.if this hobbie is getting to much for you fellas that cant handle the truth then by all means stick with what works for you.Me im moving up.........hardcore simmer....................Robert

[JerryG 1]

OK Len,I need to get the Retail version of FSX. I saw your post below about - "Flew the demo and wasn't too bad (7-8 frames around airports and 12-15 looking into the ocean lol!)"For me (again - Demo2), I'm getting no lower than 18 and highs in the low 40 FPS. So, I'm getting about twice the FPS as you with the same Demo2 build.Again, please see my post at - http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54123&mode=fullThere may be something in the .cfg or one/more of my setting thay may help your FSX config.JerryG

[Guest Len]

I need to get the Retail version of FSX. I saw your post below about - "Flew the demo and wasn't too bad (7-8 frames around airports and 12-15 looking into the ocean lol!)"JerryBasically all I can say is that the demo is a non-issue at this point. As you can see in several of the subsequent posts I've been trying various settings based on the default settings (always with autogen off). Remember of course, we're dealing with a larger land mass at KSEA where I'm testing from (other than water) plus a significantly denser area in terms of mesh, traffic, etc. I'll wait until you get the purchased version and then we can compare notes.

[JerryG 1]

Len,Try unchecking Light Bloom. For me, it kills the FPS.JerryG

[Guest]

>If you haven't-try setting your fps on unlimited-makes a>huge difference on my rig.>>I'm going to give this a try right away.>This gives me a terrible case of the blurries. It seems that the higher you set your frame rate to be, the game tries to compensate for not being able to deliver this frame rate by dulling and blurring the scenery which in turn improves your framerate. I set mine to 27 and i get the best compromise between looks and performance. If i set it to 35 for example my textures start to blur after minutes and the game looks bad. Just know that this will increase frame rate but only at the expense of looks.

[spilok 1,139]

You know, Robert, you just may have something there about the age of the people doing most of the complaining. Could be wrong, but, I still remember a post years ago where some of the AVSIM members identified themselves and some included pictures. I was amazed, because I'm 59 years old, just how young some of these members are.I've been simming now for over 13 years, and I know that, based on experience, we will get this sim to run relatively smoothly. Because some of us can, we will just get the appropriate hardware along with some of the necessary tweaks.I may have to ask my wife (JUST KIDDING!) instead of my parents, but I will get what I need...that's for sure.

[Toys_R_Us 0]

I've come to the conclusion it's going to take about $1566 to make this dog even begin to bark. Add $285 if you want 1 gig of video memory instead of 512 mb. Spec'd below is a fairly decent unit, set up for 2 monitors. This is delivered price with discount.http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/HOT NEW! X-Discovery Mid-Tower Case 420W W/ WINDOW & LCD Temperature Display (Silver Color)Power Supply - Upgrade to 500 WattsCPU: (Sckt775)Intel

[Guest Len]

Since I started this thread I believe I have a responsibility to be as circumspect as possible and hopefully with less hyperbole. So here's where I'm at now the third day with the Deluxe Edition in terms of settings, etc.Set fps to 25: I tried unlimited and I didn't like some of the blurring and other visual issues. I originally locked it at 20.1280x1024 32 bit. 2 AA, 4 AF, mips at mid level on my ATI settings. Specs of my machine on first post.Bilinear FilteringGlobal Texture res. - HighLens Flare - checkedLight Bloom - Off (I'll have something to say about this below)Advanced Animations - checkedAircraft: Ultra High and all checked (panel transparency off)SceneryLevel of detail - MediumMesh complexity - 70Mesh resolution - 10mTexture " - 7 cm (see my comments above on this)Water effects - Low 2.xLand Detail textures checkedScenery Complexity - DenseAutogen - NoneGround Scenery shadows - checkedSpecial effects detail - high70 mile cloud drawDetailed Clouds at High cloud coverageAirline and GA density to 15%Airport vehicle density - lowLand and Sea traffic all set to 15%The motorized trike sitting at 34R at KSEA WITH LIGHT BLOOM OFF - Ave 13fps. With LIGHT BLOOM ON - Ave. 8.5 fpsSo you can see that one of those nice visual additions to FSX severely compromises your fps. I initially played with it in the air glibly as noted before but this time I applied and watched closely as has been posted by two others above in their suggestion.I then took her into the air heading NNW towards Seattle. The fps roughly approximate runway fps 13-15 fps. Heading east towards Mt. Rainier fps WITHOUT light bloom around 20-25 fps WITH light bloom ON easily take 4-5 fps off the top.Now I must say, as I've set it above, without autogen, FSX looks quite fine indeed. It is the equivalent of flying FS9 with UT, Mega series additions, and the best addon textures available (either FSScene or Ground Environment). However, this is not without severely marginalizing additions which were also intended to set FSX apart from FS9 and with severely compromising your AI traffic to a point unaceptable to most who enjoy a modicum of activities at airports. And again this is with the paltry gauged motorized trike. I suspect that PMDG and other addons would be a HUGE burden on this version stripped down as I've done just so I can get the thing in the air at a decent framerate with visuals achieved minus autogen.

[frankla 44]

As I said this many times before, I think ACES has misjudged the direction of techonology. The advances in Hardware are in multi-cores CPUs and multi GPUs! FSX will not take advantage of either technologies! There is no hope of doublings of clock speeds in the next 2 years as used to be the case 5 years ago! The clock speed on my computer of 3 years old is 3.4 ghz! CPUs have not gotten much faster since then. So when the PC-12 of ACES tells us that FSX was designed to take advantage of future systems, I say how? By dividing the work load on Quad cores? or by taking advantage of Quad GPUs?

[frankla 44]

As I said this many times before, the advances in hardware are in multi-cores CPUs and multi GPUs! FSX will not take advantage of either technologies! There is no hope of doublings of clock speeds in the next 2 years as used to be the case 5 years ago! The clock speed on my computer of 3 years old is 3.4 ghz! CPUs have not gotten much faster since then. So when the PC-12 of ACES tells us that FSX was designed to take advantage of future systems, I say how? By dividing the work load on Quad cores? or by taking advantage of Quad GPUs?

[frankla 44]

Amen too! lol