Fenix and performance

[RALF9636 1,920]

In short: It's fine.

On my ancient PC (8700K, 1080TI) with Render Display on Intel Graphics 630 and Display Quality to Performance I made just a quick comparison. Nothing scientific, just for a first assessment. To avoid discussions about what framerate is acceptable I give just percentages with the FBW being 100.

 

FBW A320: 100%

FNX A320: 115%

AS CRJ: 120%

Default C172: 130%

 

And let me add that - other than the FBW - the Fenix is perfectly smooth, no stutters.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Ray Proudfoot
Fenix tag added. Nothing else changed.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

What are the % out of? 200? 300? 150? 

[MarioDonick 752]

21 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

What are the % out of? 200? 300? 150? 

If I understand the post correctly, the 100% is just his baseline for comparision, 100% equalling a (deliberately unstated) FPS value he gets with the FBW A320.

So everything above 100% is better.

[RALF9636 1,920]

Just now, MarioDonick said:

If I understand the post correctly, the 100% is just his baseline for comparision, 100% equalling a (deliberately unstated) FPS value he gets with the FBW A320.

So everything above 100% is better.

Correct. Giving a certain FPS value is pretty much useless because it depends on settings and scenario. The given percentages were roughly the same in the different scenarios and settings I tested ( I am usually CPU limited.).

[Claudius_ 323]

Glad to know, but you are missing the system where you get your values. Anyway, after the pre release videos where I saw a lot of stutters, especially when landing, my opinion about the Fenix A320 is: it is very fps heavy.

A new company with almost no experience (compared to PMDG), in study level sim planes, with a lot of stellar features and you want it smooth on your system. But looking what Asobo ha done with FS20, improving the smoothness enormously, maybe Fenix will do the same.

[Tom Wright 438]

Watching this with interest. I like many am very excited about the Fenix A320 however have been slightly put off by the large number of performance related comments.

My PC is on the older side, although I was extremely pleasantly surprised with how well the PMDG 737 performs. I'm really loathed to go back to how I was in the days of P3D with the endless tweaking of settings and parameters to try and eek an extra frame out of it, like some people are reporting with this.

I'll probably still make the purchase over the weekend, but I'm tempted to wait a little while.

[ckyliu 1,749]

With my GTX980 I initially found i was down to low 20 fps (I have a cap set at 30) at one point it go down to about 18 during approach. However, I set the display quality to performance, ensured this was being rendered on CPU, and used nVidia control panel to ensure MFS was running with power at Maximum Performance, set to 4K textures and redownloaded all the liveries, and now I'm back to 30 fps. I disabled the cabin from the cockpit view too but didn't seem to make much difference.

Haven't turned down any sim settings, just the above stuff to get me back to VSync 30 FPS.

Edited May 20, 2022 by ckyliu

[tfm 169]

It’s a bit of a hog if I use the “quality” setting but if I use “performance” it’s on a par with the FBW A320, maybe even a touch smoother. But as an old man with fading eyesight I find I need the “quality” setting to see the instruments clearly.

Mine is a new build with the best kit I could find:

12900ks at 5.4ghz across 8 cores, 32Gb RAM at 5.6ghz 36CAS, 3090 ti, running at 4K resolution with Nvidia settings limiting vsync to 60.

As we all know, it’s hard to get a true comparable because of different weather and traffic and all the rest of it but VERY ROUGHLY on the “quality” setting I’m in the zone of 35fps at EGLL Gate 518 depending on weather and traffic conditions.

Edited May 20, 2022 by tfm

[MDFlier 2,031]

I set the displays to render on the integrated GPU with the Quality setting first thing after install, so I have no idea what the difference from the "normal" setting is, but I am not seeing any performance issues from the Fenix. Every performance issue I've had so far happens with all aircraft to varying degrees, so that is MSFS still needing some work.

[tfm 169]

3 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

I set the displays to render on the integrated GPU with the Quality setting first thing after install, so I have no idea what the difference from the "normal" setting is, but I am not seeing any performance issues from the Fenix. Every performance issue I've had so far happens with all aircraft to varying degrees, so that is MSFS still needing some work.

Brilliantly, you can change the settings on the fly! 
 

I found I lost about 10fps using the integrated GPU for rendering so you might want to play around if you’re curious. 
 

(edit - just tried again and it’s even worse than a 10fps hit: it’s terrible!)

Edited May 20, 2022 by tfm

[rick celik 1,243]

I've also had no performance issues with the Fenix 320... i79700K, 3090 @1440P Gsync

[anthony500 27]

No performances issues here. Setting rendering on the CPU, balanced quality 

Running 4K on mostly high settings in msfs getting about 38-42 fps taxiing at EGLL. 
more or less the same as the FBW for me in terms of fps but the Fenix appears to be smoother (less stutters) 

system: 2080 gtx- 12700kf- 32 ddr 4 ram 

Edited May 20, 2022 by anthony500

[tfm 169]

26 minutes ago, anthony500 said:

No performances issues here. Setting rendering on the CPU

Running 4K on mostly high settings in msfs getting about 38-42 fps taxiing at EGLL. 
more or less the same as the FBW for me in terms of fps but the Fenix appears to be smoother (less stutters) 

system: 2080 gtx- 12700kf- 32 ddr 4 ram 

Same here but with ultra 4K. If I drop to “very high” in MSFS but stick to “quality” in Fenix, I’m getting in the 50s at EGLL even in this rainy weather.

 

So I’m a happy bunny 🙂 

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

1 hour ago, tfm said:

It’s a bit of a hog if I use the “quality” setting but if I use “performance” it’s on a par with the FBW A320, maybe even a touch smoother. But as an old man with fading eyesight I find I need the “quality” setting to see the instruments clearly.

Mine is a new build with the best kit I could find:

12900ks at 5.4ghz across 8 cores, 32Gb RAM at 5.6ghz 36CAS, 3090 ti, running at 4K resolution with Nvidia settings limiting vsync to 60.

As we all know, it’s hard to get a true comparable because of different weather and traffic and all the rest of it but VERY ROUGHLY on the “quality” setting I’m in the zone of 35fps at EGLL Gate 518 depending on weather and traffic conditions.

I find the balanced setting to be quite a nice compromise, and it should increase performance on average by 7-10 fps according to Fenix. 

[shamrockflyer 647]

I initially had performance issues, however - playing around with the settings for the FNX 320 and setting display quality to performance I am now at an average of 30fps (fps locked at 36). Sitting at Stansted I see around 28 to 30fps, but its a smooth 28 to 30fps not choppy. I am very pleased with it, and it will improve over time.