Sign in to follow this  
remilton

Proof that FSX can perform with correct hardware.

Recommended Posts

Hi..just wanted to show that FSX can look good and run very well on new hardware. I'm by no means bragging...just wanted to show the nay-sayers it's possible. I am very pleased with my FSX purchase.Settings:FRAMERATE UNLIMITED(i have found that this is a must with good hardware..after much testing..i found locking the frame rate was hurting performance especially the way the terrain was drawn)RESOLUTION 1440 X 900 X 32GLOBAL TEXTURE RESOLUTION:VERY HIGHLEVEL OF DETAIL RADIUS:LARGEMESH COMPLEXITY:100MESH RESOLUTION:10M (i am running justin's 9.6 m North American terrain)TEXTURE RESOLUTION:1MWATER EFFECTS:MID 2XSCENERY COMPLEXITY:EXTREMELY DENSEAUTOGEN DENSITY: DENSEAIRLINE TRAFFIC: 35%GA TRAFFIC: 35%AIRPORT VEHICLE DENSITY: VERY HIGHROAD VEHICLES: 51%BOATS: 10% I have no tweaks installed other than changing 2 lines in the fsx.cfgTEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=275Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.70ksea1.jpgksea2.jpgCore 2 duo 6700 @ 3.5 ghzAbit AW9D-Max MBGeforce 7950 gt2 gigs Corsair pc2-85002 75 gig WD Raptors Raid 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

"I'm by no means bragging...just wanted to show the nay-sayers"Nay-sayers?Hmmmmm... So you have a hot shot PC and Overclocked at that and you have managed to run the default FSX. So? Been there...done that.You must be in another world.. The world without Ultimate Traffic, Fly Tampas, flight sceneries, Aerosofts and PMDGs. Not in a world that looks at MS Fsim as a canvass where addon vendors do their magic but a in world of mediocrity. ;)Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was to show that FSX can run good out of the box. Seems alot of people are having problems doing just that. I guess i'm just saying that your not gonna get 30-40 fps at KSEA without good modern hardware. As stated many times by Aces..the game was not designed to run "balls out" on today's average hardware. That's what alot of people are trying to do..and getting very frustrated doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not done one tweak with FSX, except for sliders. I'm having a blast with FSX, considering my main interest in flight simming is topography mesh. The high res textures of FSX make it tough for me, to use FS9 anymore. But that's my personal story, and certainly doesn't fit everyone's use of a flight sim. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't intend to change this to a negative thread. I am happy to tweak and use as is. Knowing not a lot about programming I was just wondering if it is even possible for the sophisicated add ons to make use of the other core and hence balance the workload a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days they'll make a cray for XP OS and then even I can show great frame rates.You have a good system but please get the perspective right. Nobody ever said that under certain instances you dont get good FRs. The point is on full cockpit view bank on KSEA with the same traffic setting and show me some FR snapshots!!With every $ spend on one core you are loosing equivalent $ on another core sitting idle and no...no add on maker can ever use that core!!Ultimately one day we'll get a PC which will run FSX at 30 fps everywhere stutterless but on that day contemprorary software of the same genre will run at 100 fps on the same machine! That is the reason for unhappiness!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good FSX can do well on a lot of computers. Just use common sense and the sliders. Looks like your computer is doing very well with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I'm by no means bragging...just wanted to show the>nay-sayers">>Nay-sayers?>>Hmmmmm... So you have a hot shot PC and Overclocked at that>and you have managed to run the default FSX. So? Been>there...done that.>>You must be in another world.. The world without Ultimate>Traffic, Fly Tampas, flight sceneries, Aerosofts and PMDGs.>Not in a world that looks at MS Fsim as a canvass where addon>vendors do their magic but a in world of mediocrity. ;)>>Manny> I looked at FS9 as a canvas because I had no choice since there were things missing that I wanted and some 3rd party guys delivered. It was the "painting" of this canvas that lead to performance issues in FS9.Personally I want the best default experience I can get. It will save me money , help on performance and keep me from worrying about compatibility for future versions.Hopefully one day we won't have the "need" to add 3rd party addons.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Hopefully one day we won't have the "need" to add 3rd party addons.">>There are two groups of people in the fsim world. Thats for sure.ACES focuses on the 14,000+ airports and thousands and thousands of cities. Their priorities are how to build the entire Flight sim. I look towards the ACES team to do things like what they did with the water for instance. I prefer the ACES do that than get addons for such things. But I cannot expect them to do detailed airports since there are just too many of them.Obviously, there are people like you, who may not care for Flight Scenerie's Portland scenery or Fly Tampa's Seattle and Aerosofts Frankfurt Maine airport, Ultimate Traffic AIs etc. or hoping that the default fsim would one day provide for this.... and the addon vendors would not have the competative advantage of focusing on a single airport rather than 14,000. (They are not actually competitors) But there is another group of flight simmers...that do expect these from addon vendors and do look at flight sim as a canvass. And this group knows, the day we won't have the "need" to add 3rd party addons will never come. Thats expecting the impossibility.And if the ACES team does not accomodate this group.. Then to that degree they will lose this group...as we have seen here. But then the ACES team is not abandoning this group. They seem to have responded positively to them. They do not call this group the naysayers and whiners. They are going back to the drawing board. This is the group...that has helped carry the flight sim all this time.MannyEdited to Add: It would be good to have a Poll here to see..how many from each of this group haunts the AVSIM forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope you are getting good FPS with that E6700 humming along at 3.5Ghz!!! (and a 7950GT to boot!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to change thisFiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.70To thisFiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.33You are using a lot of your cpu that can be used for other areas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a very irrelevant post, 1% of us can afford the system you got and you come on here saying that FS can run at 50+ fps on a system most of us can't afford.Doesnt make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Developmental Tragedy:This thread (among many many many many other threads) is why FSX should have been developed for the XBOX 360. Then we would ALL be FLYING instead of TWEAKING, creating, and responding to forum threads. Not to mention spending $1000's upgrading our Now UNDERPOWERED PCs.WHAT AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF TIME AND FOR MANY OF US, MONEY! I would be glad to spend $400 on a console, instead of $$$$ on new motherboard, processor, memory, and Video CARDS!SHAME ON YOU ACES and MICROSOFT!I REST MY CASE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, well, well, not my fault if your PC is slow,,,, If you want a sophisticated simulation it is going to cost you... B y the way I have Fs9 with really a lot addons(30+),,, and since FSX due to the change in flight dynamics it is just so boring for me to fly it now.. Yes, also on my computer fps not often go over 20 FPS,( I checked perfomance poor on the survey) but flying on rails is boring. I just gotta upgrade again. I know it sounds arrogant, but why limit the product for the ability to run it on a mediocre hardware. If you check the forum here, most simmers have far beyond average hardware. Yes FSX is not a performance wonder, and MS could have made a better job in optimizing FPS, but well I'm just going to upgrade once a year!. Since OCtober 17 I used FS9 two times, in both cases to use the oustanding PMDG 747... but hey even that was kind of boring, as the plane hardly ever moves...not very real,,,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say to this is thank goodness it wasn't developed for the xbox 360. Mine just gave me the rings of death last week blinking an unknown hardware error. 139 dollars to fix it as the 90 day warranty is over. I now have a 400 dollar paper weight (we may use it as a small table) and 200 dollars worth of games I can't use. No way I'm paying MS 139 bucks to fix it.Needless to say my son is going through withdrawal and I need a DVD player for my 2 year old, me, I'm flying on the PC.No more consoles for me, keep it on PC.Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You may want to change this>Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.70>>>To this>Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.33>>You are using a lot of your cpu that can be used for other>areasI tried playing with the Fiber frame.. setting it as low as 0.15 and as high as 0.70 For some reason...at a lower setting(like the default 0.33) the terrain gets a very small case of the blurries in isolated areas and you can see some of the autogen "popping" in at a distance. Setting it to .70 makes it crisp and popping free as far as the virtual eye can see. I'm guessing that because of the almost 1 gig overclock...my cpu has no problems with this setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say. Name me other computer games that once released run crappily in 99% of the existing computers. How would they do? I agree, next time release MSFS for an Xbox, so to develop you use a hardware available for most human beings, and when sold, none of us have to buy a 2k dollars PC to run it.My system is a FX55, X1900XTX, 2G Ram. FSX, with every single tweak runs well over 20... at rural areas. As soon as I enter a city, or even parked at any default airport, fps drop to 11. Scenery and autogen at their middle, water 2x low, no traffic at all. Nice, Hu!BTW, I can take pictures that look that good or even better in FS9 at 24fps, locked at 25.Check this onefs9bl9.jpgLeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS on Xbox? What a stupid suggestion. This forum is getting more ridiculous by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>this is a very irrelevant post, 1% of us can afford the>system you got and you come on here saying that FS can run at>50+ fps on a system most of us can't afford.>>Doesnt make sense.I see nothing wrong with showing the result on high end PCs. Those are the standard of tomorrow.Btw - i get a similar performance:Conroe E6600 @ 3.6 Ghz water cooledFSB 1600P5WDG2 WS ProfessionalF2-8500PHU2-2GBHZ CL 4-4-4-55 x WD 2500 KS 16 MB S-ATA2 (4 x in RAID 10)Enermax Galaxy 1000 WattX1900XT @ 690/1600 Mhz water cooled19" Samsung 970P 6ms LCD Monitor1280x1024x32 resolutionCreative SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme MusicSuper Pi 1M - 13.9 sec @ 3.75 GhzI am satisfied with running FSX on default after applying some tweaks, but i hope for an optimized coding for upcoming CPU intensive addons. Of course a more powerful GPU would be necessary to run settings like light bloom, ground shadows and dense traffic. Well, the time will come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way MS bloats up programs if FSX comes in Xbox it should be renamed as XLBox! Winzip came to this world essentially to compress those bloated doc files in MS Word-remember those days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure it is stupid. As stupid as releasing a game that won't run decently in 99% of computers.Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this info. I am always interested to know what performance others are getting with their new Core 2 Duo

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