Interesting FSX observations

[frankla 44]

what I heard from blogs from the convention, the system was choppy! I hope you are right, but people with Conroe (core duo) can't run it well!

[frankla 44]

Perhaps because the demo was in Juliana instead of a developed area?

[Guest cwright]

That's a very important point. It's obvious frame rates will be far lower when flying over, say, New York compared to the demos.I haven't joined the discussion on performance as I still don't have the retail. But there's one obvious test for someone who has the retail and Demo 2: simply do some frame rate comparisons at Juliana in the demo and the retail. That would clearly indicate any performance differences between the two. Best regards, Chris

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

You are obviously correct, Chris. So, I gave it a try.Please keep in mind my system: AMD 3000+ XP (2.177GHz), 512 MB, FX 5200 -- nothing to brag about and I don't!Global Textures - highTerrain - max (1 meter)water effects offautogen - normalcomplexity - denseno bloom, lens flare, shadows (never used that in FS 9 either)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158176.jpgThat is Lasse Lindh's great Helicycle, a one-person, turbine-powered sport helo in the colors of Mr. Tom Sled's "The Hawaiian" - love that scheme that he based on Hawaiian Aloha shirts!About to fly under the Tour Eiffel (don't try this at home)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158177.jpgSame thing through the Grande Arche - really, don't try this, it is full of guy wires and external elevators!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158178.jpgJust look at the pretty ground textures - 3D!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158179.jpgAlthough I admit it was not always like that, but often blurry, but then consider my system!New York - tough, very tough for my computer. Of course, I haven't done any optimization yet. This is similar to what I got with FS9... until I ruthlessly reduced the size of all textures (clouds, all aircraft, all ai aircraft, all scenery) and converted them all to DXT1 and then was able to fly everywhere with 3D clouds, 100% ai aircraft, and autogen extremely dense with 40-50 frames here and 20-25 in places like NYC.Took off from Teterboro (for those who don't know the area, it is one of the busiest GA airports in the country, located in the Jersey swamps (sorry, the "Meadowlands") just a few minutes from the river.)I reduced Global Textures to 512 pixels and terrain to 2 meters, call it an elementary precaution. No problem flying over New Jersey, about 15-20 frames with clear ground, but the minute I turned over Englewood Cliffs, flew over the river, and turned towards Manhattan, an incredible stutter, about 6 or 7 seconds waiting for all the textures to load:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158180.jpgYuck! And the yellow water class doesn't help either. The ground never was able to clear up while Manhattan was in sight.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158181.jpgThe obligatory picture in front of Libertyhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158183.jpgI did a touch-and-go at JFK - hilarious, a trike doing that at Kennedy Airport. Also, flew up to the Flushing Strip and did the same thing, flew under the Whitestone Bridge and then back to Teterboro.As long as Manhattan was not in sight, I was able to fly, but not well. Lots of micro-stutters, and the ground was rarely clear, until I got back to New Jersey, and out of sight of all those objects and textures.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158185.jpgPretty ground, even at 2 meters (which is 4 times the resolution of FS9 textures!)All in all, I could not fly in New York, but then remember my computer. Yet, I am convinced that once I get FSX and start doing the right stuff, I will be able to get good performance there. You have probably noticed that all objects, not just aircraft, now have specular, bump, fresnel maps and all their textures are 1024 high-res. This is going too far, and I shall probably eliminate the extra textures first to see how that affects performance.Best regards.Luis

[Guest JohnEGPF]

>That's a very important point. It's obvious frame rates will>be far lower when flying over, say, New York compared to the>demos.>>I haven't joined the discussion on performance as I still>don't have the retail. But there's one obvious test for>someone who has the retail and Demo 2: simply do some frame>rate comparisons at Juliana in the demo and the retail. That>would clearly indicate any performance differences between the>two.>> Best regards,> ChrisWas just going to post this same request, I have tried both demo's1st demo had more FPS than the second one.So any retail FSX owners please try like for like test between demo and FSX retail and let us guys sitting on the fence see which way to jump:).many thanksJohn

[Guest htwingnut]

>>The comments about dual core sounds more like an excuse>than>>an opportunity to get it done right. Programmers, especially>>Microsoft, should be at the forefront of this technology>>(multi-core / CPU) considering they've made OS's (Win2000,>>Server 2003, etc) that manage multiple CPU's.>>>>Programmers better get used to it because this technology>>isn't going away, if anything it is going to get more>complex>>with quad cores coming to fruition real quickly. I'm tired>of>>excuses, and for once would like to see a developer who is>>charging the customer a decent sum of money to actually>>deliver something that works well out of the box.>>>>In this case with FSX, just running the autogen as a>separate>>thread sent to a separate core would have probably greatly>>improved overall performance. And the developers had to know>>that was the bottleneck, but made a bad decision, if it was>>even a consideration to have been a decision to make!>>>>That being said, I like FSX because FS9 ground textures>looked>>like crap. I am hoping that autogen issues will be addressed>>by MS in short order. I can't imagine that changing ground>>textures as someone had stated, would improve performance>>because that is strictly a video card task, and my video>card>>isn't being taxed much by FSX.>>Very few other titles, at a sub $100.00 price point retail,>try to model as much of a 3D world as MSFS does. Surely most>programs will be expected to do multi-threading as we move>forward, but we have to accept what MSFS is presently trying>to do - model as much of the world as is posible. This is a>very ambitious undertaking.>>You suggest that the developers offload autogen to another>thread/processor... as this activity is largely an I/O>intensive activity related to loading textures, you should>re-read what tdragger said on the matter: texture I/O is sent>to a different thread(fiber).>>I haven't been the beneficiary of beta testing, inside>sweetheart deals or leaked street-date copies, so I don't know>how FSX works "out of the box." However, my guess is that we>have been given good value for the money.>>I think the developers were pretty straight with us in>discussing the pros and cons of breaking tasks apart onto>multiple processes/threads/fibers. There are coordination>costs which suggest that extreme multi-threading is not the>only answer to this problem.>>Multicores will be great and will improve many aspects of>computing, but multi-cores aren't some magic which will make>every program instantly speedy. If anything, this release may>have been too ambitious, but I don't think anyone if purposely>duping us with poor planning or laziness.>>But hey... I could be wrong.>>I've dealt very briefly with Microsoft in an academic capacity>and they can be strange company at times. Like most large>companies, they have a left-hand/right-hand coordination issue>at times. Maybe, just maybe, a Holiday 2006 release was more>important than doing some tweaking and optimizing? I don't>know if this is the case or not. Perhaps the promised>Vista/DX10 version will bring about the opitimizations? I>don't know this either.>>In any case, the title attempts to deliver a lot and is likely>configuble enough to bring enjoyment to each of us on a level>appropriate for our resources.>I am thoroughly impressed with Falcon 4: Allied Force. This sim is nearing eight years in age from release (based on original F4), and probably 12-13 years from initial development.Dual core in F4AF GREATLY improves frame rate. No it doesn't have scenery running through a separate thread, but the campaign is run apart from everything else (flight model, AI, avionics, etc). It just proves the point that smart design is possible, and allows for positive use of techonology. Heck, at the time F4 was conceived, dual procs was a thing for geeks with very deep pockets, yet it was supported out of the box. Microsoft has much deeper pockets than Microprose ever did.With respect to it being I/O intensive, it appears to be CPU intensive that I can tell. At least monitoring CPU useage with and without autogen activated.I am really really hoping that it can be tuned with a patch, otherwise what "upgrade" will be able to improve the performance??? I doubt any technology out there, especially if it is I/O limited? PCI-Express is new, and with integrated memory controllers in CPU dies, what else can be done?I can run all settings with very high detail with AA and Aniso at 1024x768 or 1680x1050 with 40+ fps with autogen off. Turn autogen on, turn down detail ab it, and it runs about 20-24 fps for the most part, but 10-12 at times with congested areas and at detailed large airports. this is simply unacceptable.I never made the investment for any add-ons to FS9, but at this point I probably should have. From all the great things I heard about FSX I figured I'd live with FS9 as it as (as I only had it for less than a year) and pick up FSX when released.

[Guest htwingnut]

>I think the point you miss is that the $6000 Velocity PC will>not cut it! Thats the whole point. ACES tells us that this>is designed to grow for future generation PCs. The problem>is that the advancement in future pcs are in multicores (quad)>and in multi GPUs (Quad SLI). So it doesn't matter if you>have $30,000 to throw at it, the next generation computers>that can handle FSX are not on the horizon! :(Not to mention that it currently is not GPU limited, so throwing a fatter video card won't help at all.