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 Binkles

Sweet, I'm sold - that's all I fly :)

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.


simcheck_sig_banner_retro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Manny

Beta tester for SIMStarter 

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


- Chris Jefferies

 

Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    34%
    $8,560.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...