FSX challenge. . . let's settle it?

[Guest Logan826]

Someone here said something to the fact of a 6th grade playground..."push me....push me again.....push me again....." LMAO. Somebody asks you to do something that you state you can do, but you back away. What's this saying............that you are lying and just fooling yourself ????? Don't get me wrong, i'm not a FSX cheerleader, or a basher. The sim is acceptable to me for now. Would I like better performance, ofcourse I would. This is like the guys at the range that don't have their guns with them and say " ####, I can shoot a tight group then that, but I don't have my gun here" Well bring it and prove it.....It's in the shop and I won't get it out until next week.....pfft, walk away from, or put up or shut up.

[Guest Jimbofly]

*YAWN*James

[greengriffon 51]

Hmmm...how thought-provoking.Anyway, I think the point is that no matter what any of the pro-FSX'ers "put up", none of the anti-FSX'ers are going to "shut up".The proof lies in the fact that there have been several posts I have seen personally where people provided system information and screenshots displaying their FPS, and it made no difference whatsoever in the intensity of the argument.So, like others, rather than waste my time and effort on trying to placate people who seem unreasonable and typically argumentative, I would prefer to cruise around the skies in FSX and leave them to their own devices.

[Guest Karybdis]

basic psychology. If there's even a bit of ambiguity in the results of something, people on both sides of the argument will find THEIR side strengthened, often considerably; this is with the two sides being polar opposites.Screenshots by definition, videos etc cannot settle this argument. The only thing that could settle it without creating a new argument would be objective factual proof that the sim is in fact better in every way than FS9... Since that can't exist by definition, being a subjective topic, the topic cannot be settled, and people will just move on, or argue, or do whatever they want until they get tired.That being said, I've noticed that nobody actually DID answer the challenge in here with a screenie of the requested situation. Not saying anything about that, but just an observation.I've also noticed, that generally speaking, people seem to be very angry at the product for not running in worst case scenario locations if they are angry at all. There are probably 5-10 such locations in the world that run as bad as Seattle out of 24000+ (Random guess that some of the others are Manhattan, Heathrow, possibly Tokyo). There is a location in FEAR that runs at 1 frame per 5 seconds on my computer, and the game still runs perfect in other places. Such locations exist and don't necessarily ruin the final product for everyone.Don't take this as either cheerleading or bashing as its written in a deadpan mood. The sim has its problems and its good points, like everything else.

[FTD1949 0]

Smarti, Perhaps you should change your name. Framerates do not equal smoothness. Perhaps your babysitter explained it to your wrong. Respectfully, Craig

[Guest Rake7575]

5 shots below:Basic params: 50%AI/1x med water/autogen normal/2M terrain res/max complexity/applied tree tweaks/trees 2000/cell/bldgs 1000/cellKept original .dds texture 1024aircraft: Default King Air/3D cockpitPics1) KSEA runway with real-world weather (3nm vis/rain showers) = 22fps2) Downtown Seattle (@6500feet/230kts)using cold front weather theme = 28-33fps3) More Downtown area = 28-30fps4) Pitch back south toward KSEA/with Boeing field in view = 24fps5) A look at Seattle/Tacoma from Mt Hood = 45fpsRakeAMD FX-60Nvidia 7950 GX2 (1GB) video--overclocked 615Mhz GPU speed4GB ultra low latency RAMRaptor 150GB (10000rpm) HDDell 24" (1950x1200x32bit resolution)

[Guest FxF3]

Seems like its settled hope this makes tingoose and others happy. It has me.:-)

[Guest Len]

I don't know what or how it works - but I have smoother flights, panning in the VC and landings in FSX than I have in FS2004 for the same FPS.Frankly, I cannot stay ahead of the aircraft and land smoothly at KSEA with anything below 30 FPS in FS2004.I don't. Full of stutters in FSX even with several of the changes or tweaks suggested. KSEA in FSX is the tell all of this incarnation. It is a worthless exercise in frustration trying to get any kind of smooth flight without removing that which makes FSX different from any previous incarnation.Only place where flying is different and worthwhile is in bush flying. That makes this half of a flight simulator.P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe

[greengriffon 51]

Full of stutters in FSX even with several of the>changes or tweaks suggested. KSEA in FSX is the tell all of>this incarnation. It is a worthless exercise in frustration>trying to get any kind of smooth flight without removing that>which makes FSX different from any previous incarnation.>>Only place where flying is different and worthwhile is in bush>flying. That makes this half of a flight simulator.>>P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIeI have almost the exact same specs as you do, and your experience doesn't appear to be even remotely close to what I'm getting out of FSX performance-wise.With the infinite variables at work on any one desktop, the fact that two people with the same hardware get vastly different performance leads me to believe that you can't simply blame the software alone.

[Guest Len]

I propose the following in the spirit of genuineness and fair play. I say this because I have been a FSX critic.I would like to see from someone who says they can run FSX and preferably someone who says they are satisfied with FSX, a screenshot with FPS showing, of a flight over Seattle with the following, some cloud weather, some autogen, and some visible AI, some water detail, no blurries. In short a shot to look something like the quality of the Aces screenshots we all saw a month or two ago. This seems like a good and fair way to settle some of the heated debate we have going at the moment. Can anyone provide such a shot?Here's default Baron. 30% airline traffic. Low 2.x water. No autogen. Real weather. All other traffic 15% (default).Scenery complexity to dense. Low bit clouds with high cloud coverage. See that:that's 2.2 fps. Well going from 2.2 to 5.5.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Len...aronfsxksea.jpgNext two are with several tweaks TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=2000TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1500Added to fsxcfg:FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.33Located default.xml in the Autogen folder and renamed it to default.bak.I then turned on autogen to dense with scenery complexity to dense, water low 2.x - 7.4 fps looking AWAY from KSEAhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/ksea1fsx.jpgThat's 6.3 fpshttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/ksea2.jpgNext.Turned water and autogen off completely. All traffic on default. Fluctuated between low 7 to 8 fps to high 13-14 fps. Two captures below are 11 and 13.5 fps with stuttering and some blurries:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/ksea5fsx.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/Lent1/ksea3fsx.jpgThis would be an accurate reflection for most people with a system like mine which is a better than average non duo core system:P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ddr ram ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe video

[Guest Len]

With the infinite variables at work on any one desktop, the fact that two people with the same hardware get vastly different performance leads me to believe that you can't simply blame the software alone.My computer has been defraged regularly and plays any game you can throw at it such as Call of Duty 2 1600x1200 everything on full bore. Don't accept your conclusion at all.

[greengriffon 51]

Ah, I just noticed something. That looks like you're using the default AI traffic, which I am not. At a large airport like KSEA, I have to imagine that there will be more than a few aircraft around. Since those AI aircraft are the same as the player models with regard to polygon complexity, your framerate is probably getting slaughtered.I would suggest backing up your default FSX traffic file (forget where it is, but it's a bgl file) and go grab the new World of AI installer. Download some of their packages for the airlines that fly in and out of KSEA (I don't fly there so I'm not sure which ones to use), and see if your framerates jump up. Very shortly I'm going to import Ultimate Traffic into FSX, but I haven't had the chance to do it yet.I can tell you definitively that my framerates improved drastically once I started using 3rd-party AI instead of the defaults, and I almost exclusively fly in the New York City area. KLGA, KJFK, and KEWR....you almost can't get any busier a place than that.

[Guest Valkyrie321]

I would just like to mention that this post, and the challenge presented... frankly, I don't think it solves anything. There will always be doubts about all of this. Who cares?

[Guest Len]

Yes, but my AI is so low that any real benefit I'm looking for has to be in the 60%+ area. There's no way I can get this even with more polygon friendly planes, not without making KSEA look like a waste land.

[greengriffon 51]

Those default AI plane models are absolute FPS-killers, even with only a few of them around.When I had default traffic, I think I kept my airline traffic at about 20 or 30%. Now that I'm using WOAI traffic, I have it turned all the way up to 70%, and I could probably go even higher without taking much of a performance hit.I'm only suggesting you try it because it made such a huge difference for me, and we have the same specs.