Fenix and performance

[Jokka83 14]

1 minute ago, fogboundturtle said:

it demands more on CPU

That was good to hear. Thanks for the reply.

[177B 730]

I really love the Fenix A320.

But it is a CPU hog.

Yes my system is old and I do run 4 screens. See signature for specs.

I really was having fun with the Feix until I started to use my Payware airports and traffic, then it just choked to sub 20 fps even when I severely reduced LOD's and most settings. So I have stopped using it.

I now am back to running the PMDG 737NG. Amazing difference 40 fps where I got 20 in the Fenix. Now I do use a lot of PopOuts, but not in the 737, there I use Avia Overhead and dual CDU's.

When PopOuts become available in the PMDG we will see if the frame rate Beverly drops. The Avia and AirManager stuff does not effect the 737 at all.

This is not a complaint just some observations.

It is fun to switch between Boing and Airbus, they are so different. Hard to say which one I like better. For now deffinetly the 737 because of the much better FPS and the higher settings I use for it.

[captain420 3,099]

Yes, also getting much better performance in the PMDG 737. I really hope Fenix can optimize it so that we can get the same performance if not better than the PMDG 737.

[Dyno152 51]

For what it’s worth, I’m getting 50+ FPS (locked) on the ground at JFK in the Fenix, running the cockpit displays on the integrated CPU graphics. 

2K (3440x1440) with Ultra/High settings. 150 LOD Terrain. 100 Objects. 100 Render Scale. 

Now that graphics card prices are coming down, it made sense for me to invest in a new computer and what a great decision it has been so far. 

 

[captain420 3,099]

32 minutes ago, Dyno152 said:

For what it’s worth, I’m getting 50+ FPS (locked) on the ground at JFK in the Fenix, running the cockpit displays on the integrated CPU graphics. 

2K (3440x1440) with Ultra/High settings. 150 LOD Terrain. 100 Objects. 100 Render Scale. 

Now that graphics card prices are coming down, it made sense for me to invest in a new computer and what a great decision it has been so far. 

 

Are you using any payware scenery or addons, AI/Live Traffic?

[Dyno152 51]

12 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Are you using any payware scenery or addons, AI/Live Traffic?

Yes to payware scenery, no AI traffic, only AIG for Vatsim. 

[captain420 3,099]

48 minutes ago, Dyno152 said:

Yes to payware scenery, no AI traffic, only AIG for Vatsim. 

Which payware scenery did you use when benchmarking that?

[YouDontKnow 93]

Unfortunately have to observe that I am not the only one with a not enough performance given by the Fenix product.

I was ready to see a difference with PMDG product, as expected, but it is too much. From 35 to 28 fps it means 20% less, in an easy scenario.
In the runway there is a further drop. I didn't try yet in a big airport and i suspect that it will be dramatic.

I hope Fenix will make something.

I remember @Aamir saying that the performance back in autumn (during their tests) was similar to FBW and actually it's not. So I think it is something that they can improve. 

[a321 207]

Load the plane up at the Hand Crafted KSFO and then cry. That Airport will be the death of your PC. It tanks FPS no matter what AC, at least it does for me anyway. Yet Fly Tampa KLAS and KBOS are far more detailed and while KBOS is worse than KLAS on FPS, the ASOBO KSFO just tanks to single digit numbers, as soon as I take off it all goes back to normal.

I have a 3090 and DLSS cant come quick enough IMHO.

Edited June 1, 2022 by a321

[Dyno152 51]

4 hours ago, captain420 said:

Which payware scenery did you use when benchmarking that?

Fly Tampa Boston, Latin VFR FLL and Vegas (Flytampa). 

[Jokka83 14]

6 hours ago, Dyno152 said:

Now that graphics card prices are coming down, it made sense for me to invest in a new computer and what a great decision it has been so far. 

 

Yeah. I'm planning on getting a new card, but the prices are a bit on the high side for me still. Hoping I can make a deal on a 3070 when the new 4000 series of cards come out.

[YouDontKnow 93]

The proposed "performance" setting suggested by Fenix looks wired form me.

 

Honestly, a FS2004 quality for the display is not a solution in my opinion. With a lot of things with extremely high quality of the details around the aircraft it is strange that it is proposed to reduce the quality (too much, this is the problem) of the item that you look at for the 80% of the IFR simulation, the displays.

 

From their Discord Support Thread seems that a new update is very close. It should contain some improvements.

[Cpt_Piett 4,523]

5 minutes ago, YouDontKnow said:

Honestly, a FS2004 quality for the display is not a solution in my opinion.

But there's 3 different quality settings: quality, balanced and performance. I'm using balanced and it doesn't look bad. Or are you talking about the performance setting?

[YouDontKnow 93]

28 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

But there's 3 different quality settings: quality, balanced and performance. I'm using balanced and it doesn't look bad. Or are you talking about the performance setting?

Yes I was speaking about "performance" setting.

But the point is another. I understand that displays suck a lot of resources but is not acceptable to propose an outdate resolution of the displays in order to give more fluidity to the simulation, when around you have an incredible number of details that you barely or never see during a flight.

Edited June 1, 2022 by YouDontKnow

[captain420 3,099]

10 hours ago, Dyno152 said:

Fly Tampa Boston, Latin VFR FLL and Vegas (Flytampa). 

I mean when you loaded up and flew at KJFK.