Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
boshar

FSX -- What performance mods can I do next?

Recommended Posts

Guest X15

I don't get the blurries in FSX at all, it was a real problem in FS9 though! We all seem to get different experiences. The only time I've seen blurries in FSX was on the default settings of my ATI graphics card. Turned up some sliders and I have pin sharp textures to the horizon.I do understand the problems, I started out with FSX on an ACER Aspire T650 and could only get 17FPS with everything to the left - I took the chance (with great advice from this site) and went for a hardware upgrade to get the best possible from FSX now, it was worth it for me - mainly because I also got a bit hacked off at missions being 'mission impossible' on the ACER pooter :0)I would say thought that I think some will be dissapointed with SP1 it is hard to see how ACES will get around all the performance issues, maybe SP1 and top hardware will see us through the next 12 months of FSX?

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.Be careful what you wish for.A complete rewrite is not a panacea. There are many many consequences of such a move. People say they don't care about backward compatibility, and they want the ground-up rewrite anyway, but then there would be many who would scream when their PDMG doesn't work for them.More importantly, then there is the issue of add-on developers. It would take about 1-2 whole years to see new quality add-ons if the backward compatibility chain were broken across the board.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case


Rhett

7800X3D ♣ 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ  Gigabyte 4090  Crucial P5 Plus 2TB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest unitedpilot36

>>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.>>Be careful what you wish for.>>A complete rewrite is not a panacea. There are many many>consequences of such a move. People say they don't care about>backward compatibility, and they want the ground-up rewrite>anyway, but then there would be many who would scream when>their PDMG doesn't work for them.>>More importantly, then there is the issue of add-on>developers. It would take about 1-2 whole years to see new>quality add-ons if the backward compatibility chain were>broken across the board.>>RhettYes, some people will be disappointed (what's new?) but the advantages would far outweigh the disadvantages. To be honest, I see far more people in favor of a complete engine rewrite. In fact, I made a poll about this on fs2004.com once, the results were about 75 in favor and 2 not in favor I believe. So yes, we'll have to sacrifice many great addons for a little while but it will be worth it to have a more powerful engine that is capable of much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,A "Complete rewrite" ain't gonna happen. Ever. If that were the answer, FS would have more competition. From what I understand, the only contender at this point, X-Plane, doesn't fare much better than FS on the FPS end.As time goes on, various pieces get rewritten and eventually the product evolves.Based on conversation from the team at the Avsim conference, I believe there is room for improvement, and I think it is possible for SP1 to deliver. A godsend, however, it will not be.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


Tom Perry

 

Signature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been an avid FS user since the pre microsoft days. FS2000 was, for me, the biggest dissapointment I have ever had with a new sim. It was poor graphically (no aircraft shadows? gimme a break!)and very slow. FS2002 and especially FS2004 were excellent releases. The protests for the FS2000 release on this board were a virtual firestorm!bdenley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>while but it will be worth it to have a more powerful engine>that is capable of much more.>The more powerful engine is here now.We'll be all right.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case


Rhett

7800X3D ♣ 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ  Gigabyte 4090  Crucial P5 Plus 2TB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PPSFA

Save yourself a lot of time and aggravation and contact www.fs-gs.comIt costs a few bucks but you won't beleive the way FSX runs when they are done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have been an avid FS user since the pre microsoft days. >FS2000 was, for me, the biggest dissapointment I have ever had>with a new sim. It was poor graphically (no aircraft shadows?> gimme a break!)and very slow. FS2002 and especially FS2004>were excellent releases. The protests for the FS2000 release>on this board were a virtual firestorm!>Remember FS2000's Mt. Rainer? It was exceptional. Hasn't been near as detailed since. FS98 ----- I didn't like it, and much preferred Pro-pilot! As I remember, FS98 still had the block clouds and a ribbon painted on a flat surface for the Grand Canyon! :-lol If the firestorm of FS2000 protesters were protesting realistic data bases for topography, 1000's of new airports, working virtual cockpits, clouds that looked like clouds, and much improved flight dynamics, then it doesn't surprise me that some would protest all the improvements in FSX! :-hah Seriously; FS98 was severely lacking in everything, but perhaps frame rates. It wasn't even usable as a realistic sim when flying west of Denver because of it's severe lack of airports due to it's flat table top elevations. The flight dynamics were truly "flying on rails" and boring!How FS2000, which improved greatly on FS98's misgivings, could generate so many complaints, and be the biggest disappoint in a new sim..............is something I don't comprehend,...... I guess.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really...how much better? Be specific!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PPSFA

Cant be specific because every system is different. But I know they will see what you have, tell you what they can do, do it, and if you are not satisified, you dont pay, so there is nothing to lose by checking with them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,"But now the performance and the FS engine is more obsolete with every release and needs to be re-engineered and re-written."I'm sure that the guys at MS would love to re-write the FS engine, after all I heard them saying at the other convention here last year (Denver) that "legacy drags you down".But if they did, that would imply that every add-on would need to be re-developed from scratch. How long would that take? Would you be prepared to wait up to a year, maybe longer, for any add-ons with good FPS in the stock FSX? Can you imagine what these forums would look like then?Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello ,1. Wait another 2-3 years until we have the hardware for that sim2. maybe the upcoming patch for perf brings a little helpbut i think after that you can still not use it as FS 9.1So you have to find your way............cheerspmpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>From what I understand, the only contender at this point,>X-Plane, doesn't fare much better than FS on the FPS end.Yea right:X-plane: smooth 60 fps with high res textures (high quality graphics setting) Fs-X: 18 fps (lots of sliders to the left). Ocassional dips in FPS when I'm over cities.Both on my AMD X2 4400 with Ati X800 graphics.Yup X-plane doesn't fare much better than FS on the FPS end its miles ahead leaving FS-X in the dust.It has its own problems though (lack of add-ons, calibrating nightmare before you finaly can enjoy the great flightmodeling, not so good for big iron, no AI traffic). But FPS wise its miles ahead and with Global scenery installed some area's look beter then 'out of the box' FS-X .


simcheck_sig_banner_retro.jpg

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...