Sign in to follow this  
FlyingsCool

How will addons run???

Recommended Posts

Here is the dilima...We know most payware addon planes ran in FS9 well, but not as well as the default. Most payware planes ate a lot of FPS (not like a bad thing, but it's just because they were superior to the default models). How in the world are these same ones going to run in FSX when we already only have 5-10-15-20?? FPS in FSX? For example, I love my LevelD 767 for FS9....but in the VC, it definitely taxes my PC, dropping FPS by about 20 no matter where I fly.... In FS9, I had 40FPS at my hometown airport, of KGFK (rural area). I got about 18-20FPS in the VC with the LvlD. How the heck will I be able to run that in FSX?????? I don't even have 20FPS to start with in some locations. LOL. I'm pretty sure they won't be making the payware planes even more FPS-friendly...will they? If anything, they will have more of a FPS hit. All the bump mapping, lighting, reflections, etc etc, self shadowing. I mean, some of the FSX stock aircraft own my system lol!Has anyone else worried about this?Or is it just me?Comments?

Share this post


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

its already been discussed to death on this forum...do a search to see lots of opinions...which basically are of the same line of thought as yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am worried too. I hope either an FSX patch is forthcoming that drastically improves baseline performance (especially around cities and complex airports) or a miracle occurs on the hardware front that unleashes FSX's true potential. I reckon the former is more likely and if that doesn't happen there'll always be FS9 for heavy iron work!Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not LVLD or PMDG, but flew my good trusty Carenado Piper PA-28 tonight, and couldn't feel any difference from the stuck FS planes and the Piper. AMD2400+ 2Ghz768 mb ramNvidiaGeforce FX5200 128 mb (yeah, LOL)---------------------------------------Kasper BehrentzsDenmarkhttp://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4853/bannerigifru8.gifALL NEWS FROM FSX COLLECTED AT ONE PLACE!MY SITE, http://www.xflightx.piczo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone else said: fsx is for bush/ga flyers and fs9 is for heavy iron/into city flying, at least for the extended future. I'm telling you though, that portland from flightscenery is the most spectacular thing i have ever witnessed though and it is all i really ever want to fly in any more. It's way better than anything in fsx and it runs like a top in fs9, at least compared to fsx default framerates. I love flying around town in the r22 just admiring how beautiful and photorealistic it is. MS should hire that guy for all their scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i didnt see it discussed anywhere, I saw a lot of posts wondering when xxx company will update their aircraft for FSX, but I didnt see "how will they run in the new system"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been very surprised. Specifically the Aeroworx B200 King Air runs far better in FSX than FS9 for me. I manually transferred the B200 and it is about 95% complete concerning all systems and lights working. The B200 VC gives me around 18 to 20 fps in rural areas and a much smoother flight. I never got above 15 or 16 in FS9 in the VC and stutters with textures delayed in drawing were common. None of that in FSX. The subtle movements of the wings from outside air changes is translated far superior than FS9. The night sky is incredible and much improved.Here is the King Air 2D panel view with a FPS around 29FPS. That same view in the VC was around 20 FPS. I assume that when the new and improved B200 for FSX is released, we will see equally good performance. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161024.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh cool, hopefully....i usually got 20-30 in the vc depending on where i flew in fs9...maybe ill port it over to fsx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your comment. What does "stuck FS planes" mean? Are you saying the default planes have horrible performance, and so does the Piper? Both the Carenado Pipers and their Mentor work awesome on my machine. Better than in FS9 in all respects.As you already know, FSX will not like your rig at all. I highly recommend upping to 2GB mem. You will notice a difference.I am running on a Dell D810 Lattitude laptop 1.83 GHz Pentium M, 2 GB mem (just upgraded the mem yesterday, works way better), 64 MB ATI X300 Mobility, and, scenery complexity issues aside (I'm still working on that), in my opinion, the planes (FSX and FS9 payware and freeware), fly more smoothly and better in FSX than they did in FS9. I'm still running them side by side.But due to the scenery issues (I have to run autogen quite low (although the red bull mission looks awesome and runs fine, my regular scenery does not look as lush though)), I am still using FS9 in my classes at the moment.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

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