Eaglesoft FPS hit??

[Guest captaindobbin]

I was not being unrealistic. Please allow me to clarify if it seemed so.Optimization to the extreme is one thing because fsx certainly has its limits. The fs engine itself needs an overhaul and will likely get one with fs11 - multicore. Realistic expectations should be that one is able to run a program well when one exceeds the "recommended requirements". But that is another argument and I for one am not so naive to believe such labeling. Yet as Phil Taylor has said, when fsx was initially under development no one could rightly forsee that multicore was the way of the future. So it's not ACES fault that fs needs an overhaul. It simply does. Still, fsx could have been better optimized before release (like knowing where its own files are) and things like bufferpools and widescreen should be in the ui. I never implied that the cirrus should get equal frame rates to default aircraft. Incidentally I don't believe you Geofa about the cirrus only posing a 4-5 frame hit when compared to default non g1000 aircraft even on your system which must be very good. And what default aircraft do you mean? The 747 or the beaver or the ultralight; there is a noticeable gap. I am almost positive that you were exaggerating. The cirrus is more complex so yes it makes sense that the fps hit would be more. I'm not complaining about that per se. And there seems to be a plateau with high scenery around 15 fps in fsx in general which is strange, and might explain what you say Geofa. The ability to decrease the resolution of the avidyne slightly to keep things from dipping below 20fps is not unreasonable, which is why I asked. Unfortunately what Owen suggested does not work exactly, since fsx defaults in magnitudes to 512 or 1024 pixel size. 512 is okay with supersampling enabled but it's too bad that 768 or 728 as Owen said does not set. The liberty to me is not optimized, but it's really just the vm1000. The columbia 400 I hope will run a little better in fsx relatively than it did in fs9. Eaglesoft makes great products Ron - the cirrus is the one add on no one should go without because of avidyne's modern relevance - but they could be better that's all. Everything could be better, not to be philosophical. Though i'm sorry if what I've said is hurtful.

[Geofa 108]

Compared to the default 172 or Baron the Cirrus it is about 4-5 fps slower. Compared to the same aircraft with the g1000 running it is about 1-2. I don't have a multicore processor but a 3 year old p 3.2.My post was not directed particularly at you, but the continual amazement that when adding add on airports, aircraft, ai traffic, new avionics etc. that there is a performance cost.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[N400QW 205]

We are aware of the "facts of life" in terms of improved development and continue to work on all fronts to deliver quality, interesting and fun aircraft to our customers.Geofa is the man to whom you owe an apology since you question the mans veracity with statements like.... "Incidentally I don't believe you Geofa about the cirrus only posing a 4-5 frame hit when compared to default".... The implication that Geofa would somhow lie to you in a public forum stinks of the type of posts that have been allowed here for much to long IMHO. Implication and accusation has been the "flavor of the day" and frankly it poisons the community.Please understand the following facts. Everyones mileage varies with ANY software delivered to the public and while you may not be enjoying a title to the fullest that certainly does not mean that others aren't. The OP tried the aircraft and reported the same thing that Geofa reported...is he being untruthful as well?Why not give it rest and spend some time finding what you can do to enhance your experience with "complex addon aircraft".

[Guest bjablonka]

Thank you Ron. I didn't even want to answer the accusations that frame rates have to drop drastically when using the Cirrus. I am sorry that I do not see any changes in FSP (give or take 1-2 FPS)and that this does not fit into the preformed expectations some people have here. Why would we lie?

[N400QW 205]

Blonka, you are correct. The majority of the feedback we have for the SR22 FPS hit in FSX ranges from your 2 to 5 FPS based on user settings and hardware/driver setups.We see no reason for anyone to lie or be accused of lying over a $ 30.00 product....:-)Hope this helps:-)

[Guest captaindobbin]

Ron,You need to stop being so sanctimonious. Poison in the community, what is this the 13th century? I thought Geofa was directing his comments towards me and they certainly were inclusive of me if he thinks so or not given the thread, and I responsed bluntly with what I thought. Default aircraft, which ones? I wondered. He was and is exaggerating although he may not realize it. The point is the cirrus will dip below 20 fps often, namely on turns, and while one may achieve 20-25 normally and not notice it all that much, if one achieves more, say 30-35, then they certainly will notice it. As I said, fsx seems to have a kind of plateau at 15fps, the breaking of which will take much strain. But under 20 still makes it very difficult to do realistic maneuvers, in my opinion. The eaglesoft cirrus in no way performs slightly worse than the default cessna or more demanding baron; that's simply not true. Get real. Nor on a pentium 4 3.2 ghz (I have a pentium 3.8 ghz and a very good graphics card, with very slim xp). It's much more complex and therefore requires more resources. If I think someone is making a product look like a miracle and not treating it realistically - meanwhile Ron you are encouraging that misconception - then I will say so. If you want to call it trolling then fine, but most serious users I gather are not happy with dips under 20fps. Nevertheless, they look at it as a compromise for either advanced aircraft or scenery. I offered my criticism to perhaps lead to some mitigation of that impact regarding the cirrus and the liberty. I am not out to bash your products or other people but potential customers should know what they're buying, the compromises involved, etc. Again, I'm sorry if what I say is hurtful, but it's true as far as a I can see. Ron, you're not some guardian of the community just because you developed a very good fs product and have fans.

[Geofa 108]

This is getting downright silly.Locked!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[N400QW 205]

You need to undestand the simple facts as outlined previously..."everyones mileage varies...etc. etc."You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are very high numbers of satisfied SR22 FSX users.Intimating that they are liars and intimatating that only YOUR experience is the "benchmark" in FSX is in IMHO, not in good taste.If we need further input from one who refuses our offer of support in our own forums, accuses others of dishonesty, and is not a member of Team Eaglesoft we will be sure to contact you...Until then, please let this go:-)

[Guest bjablonka]

captaindobbin, please tell me why you think that we are not able to realize any changes in FPS? I can name you several add-ons where the impact on FPS is severe on my system, such as the 757 (not to name the developer). With that plane, I had a drop from 24 FPS to 5-7 FPS. This experience just holds not true with the Sirrus - sorry. Don't you also think that the impact actually depends on the system you are running a particular plane on?

[jcmissionary 6]

Hmmm.... Says it's locked, yet we can still post to it. Heh. :-)

[Guest captaindobbin]

Ron, I actually completely disagree with what you said literally, though not the spirit of it. Sure, mileage varies to a point but what fsx demonstrates most is similar results but varying responses to those results. Some people are happy with one standard, others are happy with another.With that said, it is a plain fact that the cirrus performs with less framerate than the simple default GA aircraft. As someone else has stated here, one doesn't get something for nothing.Bjablonka, I think this and what I mentioned in my previous post answers your question. I know what I intimated Ron. Believe me, if I thought Geofa was outright lying I would have said so. I never called him a liar, did I? Straight up lying is a difficult thing to do; people are bad at it. I did and do think that he was misportraying a reality and belittling my points, however unintentionally.I refused your support Ron since you dimissed my comments, as I made your product look not like the holy grail. I tried Owen's suggestion and it did not work. Turning down traffic, turning off autogen, fiber frame, yada yada. Tried all that. I await sp 1 and the directx 10 update with high hopes.

[N400QW 205]

Edit: Yawn, seems the thread has run its course.....Continued badgering to inflame seems to be the primary motivation for at least one person here and I commend the mods for locking the thread.I am confused that we are still able to post but that is up to the Avsim staff:-)

[Guest captaindobbin]

I also want to add that I agree the cirrus does perform better than a lot of other complex add ons. But it still takes its toll. Clearly Eaglesoft did optimize things beyond the sr20. Perhaps they can optimize things further? edit: since fsx gives less room than fs9. Ron i just noticed what you posted. You may think the thread has run its course. No need so say "yawn". How can you claim that I operate in poor taste, poisoning the community and so forth, yet blantantly mock my statements. Hypocrite. Besides, the first part of my last post was new as it represents an opposite perspective to the one you introduced.