Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

FSX DOES NOT PEFORM POORLY.

Recommended Posts

Guest Jimbofly

I hear a lot of people whining that FSX performs poorly, so they won't be purchasing it.You're wrong. FSX does not perform poorly. It actually performs extremely well. Why?I have what I'd consider a mid-range machine. It's a 3GHz P4 with HT, and I have 1GB of RAM and an X800XT vid card.I'm running FSX on my machine at an average of 25fps. I have the following settings:Mesh Complexity: 100%Mesh Resolution: 1mTerrain Texture Resolution: 1mLevel of Detail radius: MediumFiltering: TrilinearGlobal Texture Detail: HighScenery Complexity: DenseWater Detail: 2.X maxEverything else is also pretty high with the following exceptions:Autogen Comlexity: NoneAircraft casts shadow on self: OffLight Bloom: OffDespite the fact that I've turned Autogen off, I still prefer FSX over FS9. As far as I can see the sim still looks amazing, a lot better than FS9, and runs really well. The feel of flight is definitely better, even with aircraft ported over from FS9!! I attribute much better atmospheric dynamics to this. Winds and up/down drafts are modelled a lot better in FSX, and also the feel of altitude and scale is also much more prevalent in FSX. Traffic on roads and sea traffic really seems to also add to the immersion you get from it, and the head latency that's built into the engine is the best I've ever seen, and actually seems to recreate that "pit in your stomach" feeling you get when flying through turbulence or diving.Visually it's still much more impressive than FS9 (especially with that water!), yet performs extremely well (25fps, can't complain!). The terrain mesh detail is also light years ahead of FS9, and hills etc just look that much more convincing.So instead of cranking up those graphics then complaining that FSX performs badly, why not do some research and find out what works best for your system. You can't compare it to FS2000 because the engine is far more advanced and the performance you get from it (especially the lack of stutters and general sim "smoothness") is actually very good.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimbo, How about some screenies of your set up? I'd like to see how it looks. I dont have the release code here only late beta stuff. I am specifically interested in what the default aircraft look like with global set to high vice maximum. From what I can gather amongst beta testers, the earlier stuff (what I have) may be running better than the release program. So far I cant agree with your assertion about performance. While I am glad your getting acceptable FR, I think it's readily apparent a lot of folks are not. It is going to be system specific of course. I am really interested in folks who are getting what they think is good performance and how they have set up their sim for the rest of us.Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

> yet performs extremely well (25fps, can't complain!)Yea we need screen shots. Anyone can get 25 fps flying in the bush :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that FSX has some amazing new features. But you have to admit that not being able to turn on autogen, even at lowest setting, is a problem.Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

I do admit that autogen would be nice, and I'm surprised that at the lowest setting it's still so dense that it has a big hit on framerates.I don't have the release version, just the Demo 2. I was under the impression that it was a good indication of the performance I'd be getting from the release version.When I get it I'll let you know how I go.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest camtech

I loaded FSX demo and was impressed on the new make over , and yes out of the box you will get good fame rate on default planes , i turned everything up to see my frame rate and it was a whopping ten fps.but again that was with everything turned up, im a hardcore simmer and i use add-ons and have a eight monitor set up with six coms.what i notice is that they added extra things to turn on and off, i must have my usual things turned up and i know i will have to tweak this and that to get my usual 15 to 17 frames per sec.but i have all of the add-ons that i can muster you know like radar contac, active sky , ground enviroment, etc. etc.But still i love the way FSX looks and feels, so i will taks advantage of the pro,s and con,s you will get with FSX.my server is 3800+, 2 gig mem, vid card 7800 gsos, 80 gig hard drive..........Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure like the FSX water but to see it on my mid-range system at 20+ fps I have to turn the autogen off, no traffic, etc., etc. Truthfully, the only way I can run FSX is with so many sliders turned down FS9 actually looks better. And with FS9 I can run add-on aircraft whereas in FSX I haven't a hope with anything slower than Real Air. OK, I can upgrade the hardware but with little support for multithreading in FSX, folks with high end machines aren't that much better off. So I have to disagree with your premise. As it stands FSX is unplayable on my system. I can only hope things get better with time but I'm not holding my breath. I get better performance with Oblivion!Cheers,Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest camtech

All depends on how you set it up my friend, i use my com for FS9 only, i get rid of all things that are not needed , i dont use the net on my coms because i have a dedicated com for that, if i download software i will use a com that is not connected in anyway to my sim coms, i get rid of all those pop up warning s and such, in fact i take the time to see what is needed and what is not needed, i put as much resoreces to the sim as possible, all that crap in the tool bar i get rid of.one thing i learned over the years with this sim is that it demands cpu attention, and if you use your com for other things like the net . or other things you add-on that may have nothin to do with the sim , you will be amazed at the junk warnings and hidden software, that will affect your com.another thing i leaned is that once you start the sim it will load fast, and each time you load it again it gets slower and slower, that is the nature of the beast, so weekly i defrag with an great defrag program.to me as real pilots check there plane before they take off , i as a simmer check to see if my systems hardware is defraged and ready to go, and i make darn sure there are no hidden junk that will slow me down.Yes FSX is going to be a hog on your system and it demands your strict attention, as i said i have a eight monitor set up with six coms, what im seeing with the Demo is i believe i will get better frame rates as long as i follow my procedures to the letter.as i said before most average simmers use there com for other things, i dont, ( very important in my humble opinion ).i will get the frame rate i need with all of my software loaded into it.even when i reformat and the hard drive is clean , i still will get rid of useless crap that is not needed.It is a challenge but worth it to me.Hardcore simmer..............Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does...Just the fact that it performs okay on the older machines where you are halfway expecting to have to make a compromise in the settings doesn't mean that it scales wel when you go toward the current highend hardware.Just imagine the performance you have now + 5 FPS at exactly the same settings you have now. Thats how well this dog scales.By the way somehow I have a hard time believing you have a constant 25 FPS but I'l give you the benefit of doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.. Load Ultimate Traffic, a Payware airline, Payware airport.Now, whats your FPS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a huge contridiction here,he says FS does not perform poorly, then goes to tell us that most of the 'eye candy' stuff he has got off,why the #### did MS have these features in the game when you have not going to use them?get off your soap box man!geez!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>what a huge contridiction here,>>he says FS does not perform poorly, then goes to tell us that>most of the 'eye candy' stuff he has got off,>>why the #### did MS have these features in the game when you>have not going to use them?> That's what I don't get, like at all. We have cars, animals, traffic, and who knows what else, and maybe 10% of the people will be able to use them on a very limited basis. You build a fancy machine a year or so down the road and add payware and other goodies in the game and you're back to square one. I still can't run full sliders in FS9 mainly because I like complex payware. I can't for the life of me firgure out why MS gets a pass on this code with so much overhead and features you can't seriously use. Is it because MS is the only sim that's worth running because of the payware and freeware contributions? Do these people who defend a flawed product get scared MS won't make FS anymore, thus keep quiet on all fronts? It makes no sense. I honestly think too many people are afraid to hold MS accountable because they fear MS will stop making flight sim and that'll be it.And I can see the responses already. "It works fine on my machine!" or "It'll be perfect once Vista is out and the hardware can catch up!" :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SilverCircle

>Sure.. Load Ultimate Traffic, a Payware airline, Payware>airport.>>Now, whats your FPS?Thats not completely fair.Just imagine, back in 2003 when FS9 was released, what would have happened when using UT, PMDG-747, a high detailed payware airport and ActiveSky6 on a typical system for that time.10fps? Maybe a little bit more if the system was really a highend for 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont get me wrong, i congratulate MS for getting cars etc in the sim, it adds to life, that my personal opinion and sure there may have been better way to improve frame rates, ie like how some other person did with the trees, i mean why didn't ms think of this, they know that fluidity and frame rate friendliness is most important for us hardcore simmers who are gonna use PMDG / PSS products in their FS Sim.Anyways what i dont like is people coming on here saying they can do this and can do that in FS and then tell us half the features are off,its like me buying a brand new BMW and telling you that what a great car i got its so awesome, but the car doesnt have headlights, or doesnt have wipers and therefore cant be driven in the rain on in the dark.crazy!p.s this whole thing is a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>dont get me wrong, i congratulate MS for getting cars etc in>the sim, it adds to life, that my personal opinion and sure>there may have been better way to improve frame rates, ie like>how some other person did with the trees, i mean why didn't ms>think of this, they know that fluidity and frame rate>friendliness is most important for us hardcore simmers who are>gonna use PMDG / PSS products in their FS Sim.>>Anyways what i dont like is people coming on here saying they>can do this and can do that in FS and then tell us half the>features are off,>>its like me buying a brand new BMW and telling you that what a>great car i got its so awesome, but the car doesnt have>headlights, or doesnt have wipers and therefore cant be driven>in the rain on in the dark.>>crazy!>>p.s this whole thing is a mess.I agree. The cars, animals, and other stuff is very neat, but what good is it if you can't really enjoy it? The cars and animals are strange anyhow because you're supposed to be flying, but that's another subject.ACES is great at creating a real eye-candy experience, but at what cost? And why can't ACES streamline their code? The whole part about tweaking all the files is getting old. Remove this BGL, remove this line from the CFG files, edit the XML, and on and on. It's like a beta program that is sold to us to fix at our expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

The eye candy I have on still looks better than FS9. The only thing that's different is that autogen is off.One thing I definitely noticed is that after playing FSX for about half an hour then playing FS9 I noticed a definity feeling that the graphics were "dumbed down" in FS9, even though FS9 had autogen and everything up almost 100%.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

That's exactly right. And how many payware airports employ reflective windows and bump-mapping?James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Langeveldt

I'm very happy with my FSX beta performance on a dated rig, providing Autogen is turned off.. It also looks darned good with the high res terrain textures.. Performance with dense clouds have been improved beyond mention, but not many people seem to be mentioning this benifit? I'd personally take the good cloud performance over the autogen.. My main gripe with Autogen being that even with sparse settings, it still appears really dense! I only want a few houses and trees, not a thick jungle!I look forward to two years time "Yeah but in FSX I could turn on terrain textures, now I'm just looking at a blocky mess! I can't believe you guys who arent sticking with FSX! Fools!"PPL - Algoa Flying Club (Port Elizabeth, South Africa)FS5, FS98, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX user :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,The original poster said he based his entire claim on the demo 2. In other words, this is a useless uninformed post. We all know that demo 2 is all water, lets see this user make the same claim when he is flying around Seattle with a bunch of land and mesh. We are all sitting here debating someone who hasn't even used the final version yet. How in the world someone could come on to the forums and make such a definitive claim without even seeing the Final Version is a bit beyond me but hey what do I know...Maybe we could have started this post by stating that he does not even have the RC so he is basically guessing... Man you would think when someone posts in all caps that they really KNOW what they are talking about!And I quote"I don't have the release version, just the Demo 2. I was under the impression that it was a good indication of the performance I'd be getting from the release version.When I get it I'll let you know how I go."-Paulhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158175.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Guys,>The original poster said he based his entire claim on the demo>And I quote>"I don't have the release version, just the Demo 2. I was>under the impression that it was a good indication of the>performance I'd be getting from the release version.>>When I get it I'll let you know how I go.">Okay, the last beta. With my old rig (Athlon 1900XP), which is almost five years old by now, I couldn't even finish loading the program, which I kind of expected.Last Friday, I picked up a new CPU, and then wondered if I should have spent more for dual core, etc. In the last few days, I've spent some time around Seattle, and quite a bit out of KSFO. Always liked climbing out of KSF0 in FS9 with an F-16 for the scenery.I'm keeping mesh and terrain settings on the higher ends. Water is off. I preferred water off in FS9. I've gone back and forth between auto-gen off & at sparse. It doesn't make a lot of fps difference on my system. However, auto-gen off looks great in some of the city areas. For mountains only, I can turn auto-gen up & still get very reasonable fps. Flight around mountainous areas is actually my preference, and this sim looks great for that! Traffic is still at default, and was surprised to see lots of traffic including semi's & busses while on a taxiway at SFO.Frame rate limiter is set at 28. Takeoffs out of both KSEA & KSFO are smooth with both the default 737 & Lear. Most of the time they range from 20, to the max of 28. Lowest has been 11.As much as I liked the looks of the KSFO climbeout in FS9, FSX just looks much better with it's high detail textures, and included mesh that's as good or better than FS9 with mesh addon's. FSX also appears to run smoother with much less stutters in high density areas.After reading a few reviews Friday evening, I had wondered if I should have spent hundreds more, for even better CPU upgrades. But after spending a couple of days with FSX, I'm quite surprised! At altitudes above the Seattle & San Francisco areas where I can see a lot of land mass detail below, the frame rates stay close to my limiter at 28, and ther sensation of flight is very smooth. All of the land mass looks better than it ever did in FS9, and makes FSX worth it for that very reason. FS2002 had the stutters, FS9 had less, and FSX appears to have even improved on that.FWIW, some are doing better with the fps at un-limited. My setup runs much smoother with the fps limiter set, as it started to stutter with un-limited and my graphic settings. I'll try for 35 fps when I get around to it.Athlon 3800, Geforce 7600GS 256MB, 1 gig ram, 1600*1200 res, 250gigHD. Saitek X-52 stick, Saitek rudder pedalsL.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was driving at with my post is that there are some significant diffferences between the last beta build and the demo and release builds. I think from what I can tell, the final gold build has something much different with the way autogen is working. We did not have the autogen hit in beta three that folks are seeing now.Hornit

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...