FSX-MS FSX low fps (low cpu gpu usage)

[RAdE0nEXE 2]

Hello, it's me again.

Recently I have issues with FSX fps, I'm getting like 9 fps in ImagineSim KATL, the GPU (intel hd 620) is actually sleeping (20% usage) also cpu (i5-7200U 3.1GHz, 40-60 usage).

In the most payware addon scenery I'm gettin like 15 fps or more and it's pretty flyable, (I should get above 20 cuz I exceed minimum sys req), I use dx10 fixer which increased performance a bit (few fps). I use FlyTampa, T2G, All ORBX sceneries (OpenLC, Vector and Global)

I don't like the low usage, cpu0 is intense used, cpu 1 2 3 are idle. All other games are actually eating my iGPU (ex. Assassin's Creed III, 99% gpu use, 40-100% cpu use, getting like 30-60 fps on med to high settings, such nice for a low performance intel iGPU). In mid flying, or when using default I'm getting above 20 fps and it's smooth. Just with payware A/C.

AF is set to 14, HIGHMEM is set to 1 and texture band mult is 30.

The fps is the same while using payware A/C, PMDG 737, 747, js41, QW 757 787 avros and BAe, Carenado s340, B200, etc etc.

I'm running windowed mode with resolution set to something like 1024xXXXx32 (I think is 720 in the middle, I'm not remembering). I turned hyperthreading off, no performance gain/lost, (actually lost performance in all other games) so I activated it again. HDD is degragged very often. All traffic is off, even with it on (100%) the fps are the same, just 1or 2 loss maximum. 

I just wasted my money on payware sceneries that don't run smooth on my laptop. No possible PC upgrade because I am very low on budget rn. I just added 4gb RAM.

Full specs: CPU: i5-7200U 3.1 GHz turboboost, 2C 4T with hyperthreading, GPU: Intel HD 620 (1gb), RAM: 8gb DDR4 2133MHz in DualChannel, 500gb HDD from Seagate, 1366x768 screen, Windows 10 Home v2004 all up to date including drivers, FSX SP2 in use.

Fun fact: I am getting better performance than my friend which has an ryzen 5 (dont know exact model), GTX 1650, 8gb ram, 2 SSD. He has 5 fps in KATL from ImagineSim and constant crashes (he doesnt like aviation, I requested his permission for a test, just a failure, so for him is not a problem).

Hope I can find a solution, honorable mentions: FlightBeam KSFO it's actually damnnn goood, above 20fps, as expected, a pleasure to fly into. Also Aerosoft EDDF, LPPT, and Dublin, Corfu and Juliana airport (I think is FlyTampa but nvm XD), sometimes above 20 fps 😍

I am realistic and I didn't expect 40-60 fps on such low end laptop, but expected above 20 on relative nice settings. I tried lowering settings to low, autogen off, scenery complexity off, all sliders left side, same low performance. It's strange, usually lowering settings and turning off shadows increases fps (in most games), but yeah, FSX is weirdo XD. Now I am using a combo to get a nice graphical settings and performance, autogen dense, scenery comp dense, all sliders almost full getting nice performance on default scenery and some paywares.  

Thx for reading all this, maybe I'll solve it somehow, or I will just uninstall paywares that are underperforming if I cant find a solution. I think I misspelled something in this post, but that's another story, I'm not english native (I'm actually from Romania, hello to all romanian guys here, if this site has romanian people).

Edited December 8, 2020 by RAdE0nEXE

[Brisafresca 58]

@RAdE0nEXE

Hello

1º FSX is a simulator dependent on the cpu, uses much the cpu and very little the gpu, it is normal that FSX uses little gpu and other games use it much, it is normal that a cpu is stressed and other relaxed, so is FSX.

2º The minimum or recommended requirements of FSX are not real, believe me. Using FSX in a low performance laptop will limit you a lot, it is normal, it is highly recommended to use a desktop pc.

You must be consistent with the characteristics of your laptop, you can't have all the settings at maximum or all active.

3º The more add ons you use in FSX the less FPS you will get.

4º The more payware scenarios you have activated in the library of scenarios the less fps you will get, you just need to have only active the scenario of the airport of departure and arrival.

5º With DX10 you don't get better performance, you get better image sharpness, better graphics. With DX9 you will get better fps, believe me.

6º FSX Steam edition, includes improvements that make FSX more compatible with today's equipment.

7º FTX Vector drastically reduces the performance and therefore the fps, I recommend not to use it

What I recommend:

1.- OPTION

1º Use MSI Afterburner with rivatuner. In rivatuner there is an option to block the fps, you block the fps to 20 and of course monitor them thanks to MSI afterburner while you play.

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/msi-afterburner-beta-download.html

2º Deactivate all payware scenarios in the scenario library, leave only the default ones active in FSX.

3º In settings, put all settings to the left and set a target frame rate of 21 fps.

bloom, AI traffic, high density clouds, high cloud draw, high water effect, high Level of detail, shadows, high mesh complex and resolution, high special effects, high scenery complexity and high autogen are the settings that most degrade the performance in FSX.

4º Make a long test flight with a default FSX plane, not payware, and check if it maintains 20 fps throughout the flight, from takeoff to landing, of course observe through MSI afterburner how your laptop behaves, make this same test with both dx10 and dx9.

5º If you manage to keep the 20 fps, go up gradually the fsx settings but keep using only default planes/scenarios. but never exceed this:

bloom off
shadows off
LOD: Medium
Mesh complexity: 30%
Mesh resolution: 76m
Texture resolution: 1m
water effect: off
scenery complexity: dense
autogen density: none
ground scenery shadows: off
special effects: off
Cloud draw distance: 60nm
detail clouds: medium
ai traffic: off

It is now that you must adapt the FSX settings to your laptop to constantly achieve at least 20fps.

If you get those 20 fps you go adding add ons little by little, but not in excess, for example using at the same time at most, departure and arrival airport scenario, global ftx and an airplane payware.

 
2.- OPTION

1.- Uninstall all your add ons and FSX SP2, remove any rest from the previous installation, make sure to search program data, appdata, program files, in C/: ..... etc, a clean installation of FSX.
Use ccleaner to clean the registry as well.

2.- repeat the previous steps of option 1

regards

brisafresca

[HighBypass 2,339]

3 hours ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

All other games are actually eating my iGPU (ex. Assassin's Creed III, 99% gpu use, 40-100% cpu use, getting like 30-60 fps on med to high settings, such nice for a low performance intel iGPU).

That's because all other games are not a broken flight sim which came out in 2006 and couldn't even run DX10 properly and hadn't even heard about the specifications of your computer..

[RAdE0nEXE 2]

The problem isn't solved at all.

If I get FSX SE or p3d v2 my addons for FSX SP2 will work?

Or what computer I really need for this old word not allowed fsx? 

An i3 9100F and gtx 1650 will be enough?

Edited December 9, 2020 by RAdE0nEXE

[Brisafresca 58]

@RAdE0nEXE

1 hour ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

1.- The problem isn't solved at all.

2.- If I get FSX SE or p3d v2 my addons for FSX SP2 will work?

3.- Or what computer I really need for this old word not allowed fsx? 

An i3 9100F and gtx 1650 will be enough?

1.- then you need a desktop PC
By the way, to be ruled out: have you checked your laptop for viruses?  
On the other hand, if you use an antivirus, have you tried disabling it while using FSX? Maybe it will free up the cpu.

I recommend a clean installation of fsx

2.- Almost all FSX SP2 add-ons work in FSX SE, except for a few.

I do not guarantee that your add ons work in P3Dv2, anyway you are who knows what add ons you have, check in the shop where you bought them if they are compatible with P3Dv2.

However, flying P3Dv2 doesn't have much meaning anymore, except for V4 or V5.

3.- You need an economical desktop PC and buy FSX SE, so you can forget about many problems.

You need at least:

a) an Intel CPU with at least 4 physical cores and 8 threads, with HT, with turbo boost and with a high base frequency, For example: i3-10100F

b) A fan for the CPU, (if the CPU box does not have a standard one) For example: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO V2

c) A cpu-compatible MOBO, for example a basic H410

d) 2x4GB DDR4 2666MHZ CL16

e) 1 SSD SATA3 of 120Gb for W10 or other programs

f) 1 HDD of 1TB 7200rpm for FSX SE

g) 1 gtx1650 gddr6 4gb so that you are not limited with other games or applications.

h) a generic PSU 450W-500W 80+ Standad

i) A micro ATX or ATX format box with at least two fans

This could be an economic proposal of around 400 euros without taxes, flight simulation is an expensive hobby.

Regards

Brisafresca

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by E69_Brisafresca

[Luis Hernandez 570]

21 hours ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

Full specs: CPU: i5-7200U 3.1 GHz turboboost, 2C 4T with hyperthreading, GPU: Intel HD 620 (1gb), RAM: 8gb DDR4 2133MHz in DualChannel, 500gb HDD from Seagate, 1366x768 screen, Windows 10 Home v2004 all up to date including drivers, FSX SP2 in use.

I had this system (but with a GT940MX discrete GPU), and I could not get good FPS in most default airports with the Aerosoft Airbus (should be close in FPS impact to the 787). The 757 and 146 are lighter. I ended up returning to FS9 until I could afford my current rig. A trick: try reducing or disabling turboboost.

[stans 703]

There are tons of threads in this forum on computer requirements for FSX and how to get it to run smoothly.  In a nutshell, you need a 4 or 6 core CPU capable of running all of its cores at or over 4 GHz.  You need a video card capable of good filtering and maintaining good performance based on your screen resolution.  An Nvidia card with the last two digits of 40 is not likely going to do it, it's a budget line card.  Last two digits of 60 is barely going to do it, trust me, I know.  Card model numbers ending in 70 are usually more than adequate.

[RAdE0nEXE 2]

Now it's actually working very fine on 30 fps, all paware scenarios are disabled. I'm getting like very nice 20-30 fps inside the PMDG 777 X (the fps killer). I just completed a flight from KSFO to RJTT and it was very fine.

Tried to disable turboboost, it made things worse because without the TB the cpu speed decreased to 2.5 GHz instead 3.1 as usual with it enabled, so it's not a good point.

I'm also planning to get a ryzen 3100 with a gtx 1660ti and 8gb of ddr 4 ram. Hope that's gonna do fine of performance to this old fsx (happy 14th XD).

Thank you everyone for help, seems the issues are done until now. Also got AC 4 black flag, running very nice on low-med settings on this office laptop.

[Luis Hernandez 570]

2 hours ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

Now it's actually working very fine on 30 fps, all paware scenarios are disabled. I'm getting like very nice 20-30 fps inside the PMDG 777 X (the fps killer). I just completed a flight from KSFO to RJTT and it was very fine.

Good news. There are some tips for reducing further the impact of the PMDG 777, they are in the PMDG subforum here. That's why I decided to avoid addon airports.

2 hours ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

Tried to disable turboboost, it made things worse because without the TB the cpu speed decreased to 2.5 GHz instead 3.1 as usual with it enabled, so it's not a good point

The rationale behind this is that, with Turboboost on, you may exceed either temperature or power limits, your CPU will throttle (as designed), and you'll end up with an even lower speed. But if your laptop cooler is able to keep the 3.1 GHz contiunuously without any issues, I envy you. I ran FS9 and FSX with TB downgraded to 3.8 GHz, P3D4 with TB downgraded to 3.5 GHz. Temperatures never go over 78­ºC in summer (for a laptop, is beautiful).

[RAdE0nEXE 2]

Never had above 73­ºC, even with the most intensive games, the cooler it's doing a good job maintaining a very nice temperature. In 4 years of use I never exceeded 75­ºC  which is amazing in my perspective of view. 

Also fsx is running good rn, until I get a new PC I'm kinda satisified, but it's sad seeing all the paid scenery sitting on an USB storage and not being used...

[Brisafresca 58]

15 hours ago, RAdE0nEXE said:

Now it's actually working very fine on 30 fps, all paware scenarios are disabled. I'm getting like very nice 20-30 fps inside the PMDG 777 X (the fps killer). I just completed a flight from KSFO to RJTT and it was very fine.

Tried to disable turboboost, it made things worse because without the TB the cpu speed decreased to 2.5 GHz instead 3.1 as usual with it enabled, so it's not a good point.

I'm also planning to get a ryzen 3100 with a gtx 1660ti and 8gb of ddr 4 ram. Hope that's gonna do fine of performance to this old fsx (happy 14th XD).

Thank you everyone for help, seems the issues are done until now. Also got AC 4 black flag, running very nice on low-med settings on this office laptop.

@RAdE0nEXE

Great!!!, I told him the more add ons the worse the performance.

On the other hand, you may want to try it in the fsx.cfg:

Fiber_Frame_Time_Fraction=0.33

you must add it under ''Main'' Section, by default its value is 0.33 .

A value of 0.33 offers a clear scenario, but less fps.

values farther away and lower than 0.33, for example, 0.01, 0.13, 0.26, etc... offer a more blurry scenario but improve the fps.

You may get extra performance by adding it. I suggest you read the AVSIM guide for FSX settings: https://www.avsim.com/files/file/41-avsim-basic-fsx-configuration-guide/

In relation to the PC, ryzen 3 3100 is also a good choice, but it seems to slow down the performance in games, better option would be ryzen 3 3300X for a little more money, as long as it is for 1080p, to get the best performance combine it with DDR4 3200mhz ram memory.

I leave you information of both:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3100/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-3100-vs-Intel-i3-10100F-vs-Intel-i5-7200U/3715vs3863vs2865

 

Finally, the GTX1660Ti is a very good option, if you do not get it, the GTX1660 Super has the same performance.

I leave you information of both:

https://videocardz.com/80100/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-review-roundup

https://videocardz.com/82464/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-super-review-roundup

 

Regards

Brisafresca