Sign in to follow this  
boshar

FSX -- What performance mods can I do next?

Recommended Posts

I have completed all the tweaks that I know of. The only thing left is to use a smart close program to get rid of all unnecessary running apps and processes. So what else can be done? Is there different cloud and other scenary based textures (DXT3??) that are just as "eye candiesh" but are smaller in size, thus making the scenary engine more efficient? What about terrain mesh (North America from FS Genesis), it is just more accurate, doesn't necessarily do anything for FPS?Buildings around the airport seem to be FPS hogs as well. Can anything be done about buildings and their textures? Does Autogen have ANY purpose at all? As I have renamed the XML file.I optimize and defragment my hard drive on a regular basis.Since I have installed a few third party A/C, and AI traffic manager (more A/I planes), my FSX load time has increased signficantly.We are going on almost 6+ months since the release of FSX, and where are all the add-on products, especially scenary wise? And patches for our current planes we have received very few. Thanks for the help...

Share this post


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

It's definitely been very dry for fsx addons. I think most devs are taking a wait and see attitude until SP1 is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in a holding pattern for SP1. If the patch gives performance increases then you can see things pick up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like SP1 is a critical success factor for FSX. I hope Phil and company take this SP1 very seriously. Because if SP1 doesn't increase performance, then I am afraid FSX is going to be compared to FS-2000 which in many people's mind was a complete failure. (And we all know what happened to that development team, no pressure Phil).There is a tremendious amount of pressure on the ACES team (I hope they feel that way). But come on, performance and FPS have always been the #1 issue. And they had a three year development cycle, which for most games is usually one year or less.Good luck, ACES lets Get 'er DONE!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Because>if SP1 doesn't increase performance, then I am afraid FSX is>going to be compared to FS-2000 which in many people's mind>was a complete failure. I had no problem jumping to FS2002 while leaving FS2000 in the dust; but at the same time, FS2000 was a massive leap in "realism" compared to FS98. I often wonder, as to "whose" minds considered FS2000 as a "complete failure"!FS2000 brought us a vast "real life" improvement in the topography, airport, and navigation data-bases, not to mention a tremendous jump ahead in the flight dynamics department, as well as improvents to the virtual cockpit. To consider that a "failure", is something that I just don't understand. IMO, the most welcomed improvement in FS2002 over FS2000, was the elimination of "extreme" morphing, in which the FS2000 topography mesh was in constant and annoying elevation changes.As everyone seems to know, FSX's main problem is the lack of overhead for complex addons, or even it's built in high res textures with sliders to the right. Other than that, much is improved, and I see it everytime I'm using FS9 for all those addon goodies, that are still coming out. But after five months of FSX, I'd never go back to FS9 full time, nor would I give up FS9 for full time FSX.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's all in a holding pattern for SP1. If the patch gives>performance increases then you can see things pick up again.>Quality addons take awhile, up to a year is not uncommon now. Personally I would rather wait for a FSX specific model than an FSX compatible model.Check some of your fav FS9 addons, I have more than enougn none default addons to enjoy the sim with.Regards, MichaelKDFWNot anti FS9, just pro FSX!

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Adamson,24 + years of development should amount to improvements. In fact I think the Flight Simulator series is the longest running development cycle for any application or game written for the PC. MSDOS might be there on a technicality. There is a command.com that ran in every windows environment. Although, the command prompt is not how you typically interface with a Windows based computer...You forgot to mention on key element of FS 2000, horrible performance. At the end of the day this is what is all about! There is no flight model or awesome scenery in the world that you can enjoy at 5-8 FPS. It is a mute point. FPS is the key to a good simming experience, period. And setting everything to the minimums or on the low side is not acceptable either.That is what I was referring to as far as "being a failure", purely performance, which is where ACES is today! SSDY (Same s--- ( situation), different year).Good comments regarding FS 2000. Every version has had its innovation, that is for sure. But now the performance and the FS engine is more obsolete with every release and needs to be re-engineered and re-written. But I guess it is like the United States ATC system, just too complex to start a re-write from scratch, lets just keep patching it to death.I just wonder how a development team with a budget and three years couldn't re-write FS from the ground up.In closing, I will say that I appreciate FS and the enjoyment I have received over the years and really how the sim has developed over the years. My expectations are a little higher I guess.Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with byoung, the fs engine needed a complete rewrite and for whatever reason, that didn't happen. People learn from their mistakes though and if we're lucky the next version will be written from scratch with a focus on performance and useful features. I'm hopeful about SP1 since at the moment fsx simply is not playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Mr. Adamson,>>You forgot to mention on key element of FS 2000, horrible>performance. At the end of the day this is what is all about!> There is no flight model or awesome scenery in the world that>you can enjoy at 5-8 FPS. It is a mute point. FPS is the key>to a good simming experience, period. And setting everything>to the minimums or on the low side is not acceptable either.>>:-lol Don't know what CPU's you've been using, but I haven't run any flight simulators at 5-8 fps, except for the earliest of the first flight sims on the market. Sorry, but my "expectations" are far above those figures too...L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and an interesting note-if I recall fs2000 was eventually "patched" giving better performance by reducing the number of cycles given to the instruments e.g. the out the window view stuttered less and was made smoother-but at the expense of the cockpit instruments becoming more jerky and stuttery-something still present in fs2004. I remember not being very happy about the patch results..but at that time I was more interested in a serious ifr training platform-it appeared that most simmers were interested more in smooth out the window vfr views and didn't care about the instruments. They won-I lost-no problem. :-) Hopefully the performance patch for fsx will not be at the expense of new improvement aspects of fsx-but it appear Ms listens and reacts to the user base regardless-a good thing.Right now with the Real Air Marchetti I am getting both smooth instruments (like reality-how does Real Air do it?-I wish the instruments responded likewise everywhere else ?) and smooth outside views.Fs2000 also had the first "internet" weather downloads-something I had been rooting for and asking for years....I was elated when this feature which is now taken for granted appeared in fs2000. The inovations over fs98 were massive, though perhaps not perfect.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris, how do you define playable? Not wanting to argue as I know the FSX issues though now have it on a dual core locked at 50FPS with a minor stutter issue which came from an addon - disable the addon and FSX is running at 50FPS smooth and glitch free. Pretty 'playable'! I'll be honest I'm not big into autogen, little cars pooting along or very complex airports with tons of traffic.. though I could have this stuff (or at least choose between them) if I wanted as I have the overhead. I know we need SP1 to deliver, I would agree, but to say it isn't playable currently doesn't explain the several hundred hours I've had out of the sim in the last month or so. I tried FS9 and FSX out at the same time... FSX is way better IMHO - if simply because of the high res ground textures - perfectly focussed at 700 agl, that is way better than FS9 could do.This all seems to come back to the scalability of FSX. It won't run all sliders right on my rig.. not a problem as I don't want autogen or much traffic (though could have one or the other pretty high).. but surely if ACES hadn't built this in, in a couple of years people would have been saying it wasn't a big improvement over FS9. I think it is a big improvement, it just has some performance issues which ACES are hopefully addressing in SP1.I do agree though that FS11? may well need a rewrite, particularly to take full advantage of multi-cores, imagine it then, DX10, lots of optimisation, it will be another amazing leap, just like FSX has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, let's not hijack this thread and have it degenerate into the usual slanging match. Answer the original question: what can he do to squeeze some more frames out of FSX as is?Me, I just installed Horizon Simulation's scenery for England and I'm pleased to report frame rates of 45 fps with my system and the default FSX planes. Obviously this is mostly because the autogen is missing, but it still looks terrific once above a couple of thousand feet. This is the first time I have installed FSX on my upgraded system and I was pretty pleased with the result. OK, it would be better with autogen but overall it looks pretty good away from major cities. Certainly good frame rates which is what the original poster was looking for. Now here's a question for you all, if I'm getting such good frame rates, why am I still getting blurries at aircraft speeds over 200kts? What component of the chain can't keep up? Specifically, should I overclock the CPU or upgrade to a faster graphics card (8800GTX?).Cheers,Noel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi Chris, how do you define playable? Not wanting to argue as>I know the FSX issues though now have it on a dual core locked>at 50FPS with a minor stutter issue which came from an addon ->disable the addon and FSX is running at 50FPS smooth and>glitch free. Pretty 'playable'! >>I'll be honest I'm not big into autogen, little cars pooting>along or very complex airports with tons of traffic.. though I>could have this stuff (or at least choose between them) if I>wanted as I have the overhead. >>I know we need SP1 to deliver, I would agree, but to say it>isn't playable currently doesn't explain the several hundred>hours I've had out of the sim in the last month or so. I tried>FS9 and FSX out at the same time... FSX is way better IMHO ->if simply because of the high res ground textures - perfectly>focussed at 700 agl, that is way better than FS9 could do.>>This all seems to come back to the scalability of FSX. It>won't run all sliders right on my rig.. not a problem as I>don't want autogen or much traffic (though could have one or>the other pretty high).. but surely if ACES hadn't built this>in, in a couple of years people would have been saying it>wasn't a big improvement over FS9. I think it is a big>improvement, it just has some performance issues which ACES>are hopefully addressing in SP1.>>I do agree though that FS11? may well need a rewrite,>particularly to take full advantage of multi-cores, imagine it>then, DX10, lots of optimisation, it will be another amazing>leap, just like FSX has been.Maybe I should have specified, it's not playable for me. Of course I know experiences differ but I only get about 14 fps with every tweak applied in low autogen areas. It would be playable for me if it was in the lower 20s but this is simply not the case. My specs are:Pentium D 930 2 Gigs DDR2 667Geforce 7900 GS160 GB SATA HDD650W PSI'm a bit more disappointed with the blurries then the performance to be honest. I'm not saying this to bash FSX, because I see some serious potential. Once the kinks are worked out, FSX is simply going to rock. The high res textures, mesh, vehicles, missions etc... are awesome things but if I can't get enough fps to enjoy them then they are kind of pointless. I'm really hopeful of SP1 and hope I'll be able to finally enjoy what fsx has to offer.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you adjusted the "water" slider back & forth just to check the fps differences? Water & autogen equates to 10 fps on my system.What I don't get, is the "blurries". Generally, FSX has more focused ground textures with better transitions, than my FS9 ever has. That's been a big plus for me. I have to be running scenery such as Flight Sceneries Portland in FS9 to feel better about the look than FSX. My CPU is of lower power...Athlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.Water effects & autogen usually off. Fps set at 25. Fps close to 25 throughout the mountain west, and single digit at New York - Kennedy.Still have done "0" tweaks. FSGenesis & landclass.I switch back & forth between FSX & FS9 about 50/50. Just depends where I'm sim flying, the aircraft, and what scenery is in use.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Have you adjusted the "water" slider back & forth just to>check the fps differences? Water & autogen equates to 10 fps>on my system.>>What I don't get, is the "blurries". Generally, FSX has more>focused ground textures with better transitions, than my FS9>ever has. That's been a big plus for me. I have to be running>scenery such as Flight Sceneries Portland in FS9 to feel>better about the look than FSX. >>My CPU is of lower power...>>Athlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.>>Water effects & autogen usually off. Fps set at 25. Fps close>to 25 throughout the mountain west, and single digit at New>York - Kennedy.>Still have done "0" tweaks. FSGenesis & landclass.>>I switch back & forth between FSX & FS9 about 50/50. Just>depends where I'm sim flying, the aircraft, and what scenery>is in use.>>L.AdamsonYup, I use high 1x.;-)

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