FSX - Slow, slow, slow/Unflyable" can we continue this from the other thread....

After flying the Deluxe version for the last 4 days I would state the following:1. Lower considerably your expectations. I have an uppper end non dual core system. I have HT but it appears it isn't being used (who knows?).2. This version is NOT like the jump from FS2002 to 2004. When I was posting for FS8-9 I stated that the seminal change was the volumetric clouds. If those were set to the highest setting then it would drag your system down. It was my belief that there wasn't a huge difference between FS8-9 except for the volumetric clouds, at least in terms of fps. I was running a P4 2.8 GHz ATI 9700 128 mb card then. When I moved to FS9 the clouds were hugely impacting if set to their highest density. As it turns out, shortly after the release of FS9, a less demanding (bit-wise) version of clouds came out which helped considerably. I then purchased my present P4 3.6 GHz HT machine and was able to max every setting (although keeping the default clouds at max density and settings was still a significant drag on the system so I stayed with the friendly fps version of clouds and purchased Flight Environment). Hence I was running FS9 at 1600x1200 everything maxed except AI traffic (50%). Using Ultimate Terrain and FSG 38m mesh and texture changes I could fly a PMDG 747 into a busy airport (usually an addon like SimFLyers or FlyTampa) with fairly fluid fps.3. FSX must be run at minimum in default mode right off the bat otherwise you may as well be doing something else. That, in and of itself, is a significant difference from any previous version I've owned. When I had FS2002 I had the P4 2.8 GHz machine. I could pump everything up to max except AI traffic. With addon planes I started to experience performance problems though. When I moved to FS9 with the same machine again, I could run FS9 at near or close to near settings EXCEPT when I would set the volumetric clouds to anything denser than 30% and a draw distance greater than 40 miles or so + I was experiencing further performace problems with new addons (planes or airports). Since I thought FS9 was ABOUT the flight environment and I wanted to enjoy that environment plus a number of exciting new addons I moved to my present system (amongst other reasons to buy a new system). FSX is a whole new ballgame though and it doesn't look like the present dual core systems with better cards will make a whole lot of difference.4. So now I have the specs for FSX set as noted below and considerably lower expectations.5. What I like in the stripped down settings:- tow vehicles and airport traffic (albeit set to a low 15%)- general road traffic (set to a low 15%)- default terrain, mesh, landclass particularly in the city. I would note there is not a real difference when you get into the mountains between FSX and a boned up FS9 (UT, FSG 38 mesh, etc.)- those nice wet runways and tarmacs- reflective glass (default)- wing view (took the Airbus out and I liked that wing view)- Ability to access numerous approaches from ATC- the stripped down water is still nice but a disappointment that I can't enjoy it for what it is - I guess unless I do GA flying outside of populated areas the fps won't be as crushing.- head latency- spacebar mouse panning 6. The list of what I don't like:Everything I can't use and enjoy with FSX because of fps (and that's a lot)P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb card with latest ATI drivers 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%

>Texture " - 7 cm (see my comments above on this)I thought anything less than 1m does nothing at the present time, since the FSX terrain is 1m...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

I thought anything less than 1m does nothing at the present time, since the FSX terrain is 1m...Could be. It's the only one I set full right in any event without any apparent degradation in fps.

>>P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb card with>latest ATI driversRAM RAM RAMYOU NEED RAMI saw a usage of 1,75 Gig max when using FSX and it usually rests at 1,5 G usageallen

I saw a usage of 1,75 Gig max when using FSX and it usually rests at 1,5 G usageYep. Looks like that'll be next. An extra gig of ram isn't expensive and with Vista coming out the extra ram won't hurt.I did some more experimenting.Flying the Beaver. I turned autogen on extremely dense and water Max2.x (both furthest right). I placed the floater in Funter Bay, Alaska (by PANR). Amazingly looking at my frames sitting in the water: 15fps (varying to 20 but that was about ave.). I then took her up and it was fairly smooth. Turned towards the forest and it went down to ave. 8 fps (expectantly of course given the autogen). And no, I don't want to fool with the autogen. The only dramatic hit and stutters came when I approached PANR and the town. This was consistent with my belief above that GA flying away from populated areas may not be all that bad. Gorgeous views by the way but the mesh appears to be 78m. Is that correct? FSG 38m mesh or better would look far better.

I installed the demo off of the PC Gamer November DVD. Cranked everything up to the max + maximum clouds, etc., autogen max, and got about 13 fps in the CRJ 700 on the ground. I'm sure with some tweaks acceptable frame rates can be achieved; what bothered me most was the cartoonish look of the environment. Felt like a first person shooter rather than a simulation. Until the major addons are either developed for or ported to FSX, I'm taking a pass. ricardo

I think autogen will be improved with Direct X 10 to make this more playable. Direct X 10 eliminates the overhead when sending objects to the GPU to be displayed. That's why I think ACES put the minimum the same as FS9's MAX.Anyway, I hope this gives you hope that you'll be able to enjoy this more. BTW, I think autogen is more of a problem now because it's tied in with the trees and texture of those trees. Later,John

Hi Len,Your results look a bit better than yesterday - some more encouragement.I don't recall, did you install the Autogen fix file from Matt yet?He posted it in a thread in this forum.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54861&mode=fullAlso, do you see an increase in FPS with Water turned down to Low2.x or High1.x? I know, it doesn't look as good as Max2.x, but on my PC the FPS was the same with both Low2.x and High1.x, but the FPS were a good improvement 2-4FPS I think compared to Max2.x.JerryG

Your results look a bit better than yesterday - some more encouragement.I don't recall, did you install the Autogen fix file from Matt yet?He posted it in a thread in this forum.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...54861&mode=fullAlso, do you see an increase in FPS with Water turned down to Low2.x or High1.x? I know, it doesn't look as good as Max2.x, but on my PC the FPS was the same with both Low2.x and High1.x, but the FPS were a good improvement 2-4FPS I think compared to Max2.x.Yes, they are better with the sacrifices noted.As long as I could keep the density of the autogen in GA bush flying then I would try the fix. But I'm at the stage that I want to keep that which is native to FSX as much as possible (I'll likely exchange the clouds for lighter bit ones though like I did for FS9). So, the extremely dense autogen is beautiful and particularly with those fall colors. Without question though, when you approach airports, but more particularly towns and cities you will see a significant frame drop with the autogen on.Again, I've maxed the water for bush flying and it works just fine: High 2.x. Taking off from cities, when I fly heavy iron, I won't use autogen since the photoreal textures are just marvelous and the autogen is a big fps killer. The water I bring down to either Low2.x or High1.x.I NEVER use light bloom because that is a huge frame killer.