Sign in to follow this  
AWACS

Really Odd FSX bench Markds

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Their testing was with AA and AF off. Goodness, what an attractive picture :-roll Regards,Jim Karn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Their testing was with AA and AF off. Goodness, what an>attractive picture :-roll >Yes, that's what you do when benchmarking a CPU. With AA and AF you risk a GPU bottleneck and inaccurate results. Here's a better comparison from BeHardware. The 6MB cache on the Penryn gives a 9% performance gain at the same clock. http://sio.midco.net/FTP4/IMG0021312.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The saddest part of FSX is how that 2 FPS is actually such a huge boost when you're having to lock it at 26 or whatever just so you can vaguely make out the terrain you're flying over. Flying the X-Plane 9 Beta, the textures and the autogen are incredible and they load on time. It runs better and in some cases looks better than FSX, and its in beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it all along, and yet no one wants to take my word for it. X-Plane uses OpenGL; it runs smoother and seems to be much more capable and powerful as a graphics API than what FS uses which is DX. If in fact DX is so much better like a lot of people tend to want to believe around here, why is it that no FFS uses a DX based visual system? It's pretty self-explanatory. It's like I've said before, why reinvent the wheel twice? Just food for thought guys. Not trying to knock FS, but something to think about. If anything, MS should give people the option of which API to run FS under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The API has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Virtually every modern game out including Crysis, STALKER, Valve's games, Unreal Tournament 3, any game on the Xbox 360, etc are Direct 3D and they look and run amazing. No one wants to take your word for it because it's an arbitrary comparison that doesn't mean anything. The last major game to use OpenGL was Doom3, and that's been far surpassed already by D3D games. Even id themselves said they're using DX10 for their new post Doom3 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know, X-Plane has no real ai traffic system and the beta 9 doesn't run that well.Perhaps you should ask Mr. Supnik about OpenGL or at least read his blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's such an 'arbitrary' comparison, as you put it, then why aren't FFS's using D3D? I think that means a great deal, and I know of no visual system manufacturers that plan on using D3D now, or anytime in the future as their API. Do you do anything with visual systems or know anything about them and their actual capabilities are? I can't say many around here actually do. If my comparison is 'arbitray' as you describe, give one a call and find out for yourself. The problem here is, this community has gone into more of a 'gaming' mentality, and just watching things over the past 10 years or so, has lost what I consider to be a genuine 'aviation' base of customers. Sure, there's a few die-hards still hanging in there. Unfortunately though, MSFS has tried to appeal more to the 'gaming' market and tastes, instead of focusing on a functional industry standard. This isn't XBox360, and comparing to such is next to comparing apples to oranges; a desktop system is vastly different in terms of what it's built for and can run. I don't see XBox360 running other applications and used for a plethora of tasks. Personally, I wouldn't get any joy out of trying to fly a jet on an XBox. I think we, the end users should have the ability/option to run it in either one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OpenGLis nottheanswer. And saying that FFS's use it is not convincing me. Or anyone else. You have yet to prove how OpenGL makes games run faster while looking better. I have played games where you can choose between DX and OpenGL. There is ZERO difference in gameplay experience. And as much as I dislike ACES focusing on inefficiently prettying up FSX for game review screenshots and elephant spotting missions, it is a *game*. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a game. I can prove it right here:Microsoft -> Microsoft Game Studios -> ACESThe key phrase being "Microsoft Game Studios". This is why they market to gamers. Want them to focus on industry standard? Buy ESP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they have to understand that you dont buy a flight sim for gaming, why would you, there is no combat, all you do is fly, thats why the majority of people that buy flight simulator are aviation enthusiasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An XBOX 360 basically is a small form factor desktop PC though - it's a tri-core PowerPC CPU (similar to what the Apple G5 Macs ran on), something akin to a Radeon X1800XT for the GPU, and a fair amount of DRR system memory. It runs a heavily modified version of Windows 2000 as its base OS.What makes it run so fast is that developers have only a single hardware configuration to deal with, so they can make tons of optimizations specific to it, which is something PC devs can't do. The graphics API is most definitely based on D3D9 with some extensions though. Look at Ace Combat 6 on it and tell me D3D can't do flight simulation graphics effectively...I would venture to guess the professional visual systems manufacturers aren't using Windows, which might be reason number one they take OGL over D3D. It's proprietary hardware they run and OGL is an open source API well suited to that kind of thing.I'm not a programmer, but I know plenty of people who are and I'm pretty well versed in this. The video card can do what the video card can do, it's not going to matter whether it's one API or the other telling it what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, you and several thousand others out there obviously don't understand the difference, which I'm not expecting you to either. However, I will say, and will continue to say it because I know better. I don't know how they built (coded) FSX, but given the hardware out there, you should be receiving awesome performance. It's not happening, in fact, a lot of people have actually received worse performance after installing acceleration (deceleration is my name for it). My point here is, things should run much smoother than they do. A PC COTS visual system uses the same processors, motherboards, and graphics processors we have, yet can maintain a fluid graphics display, and yes, they do model the entire world, terrain, and geo-referenced texturing and all, so don't use that 'excuse' for poor performance. Not to mention, it doesn't freeze up or crash. So, why does one outperform the other? The only difference I see is, the API which is a bottleneck.I think it's a rather poor assumption to make unless you can support it by your own experience, seen it, have worked with it, and know the guts of a visual system, and what its specifications are. Do you even know the difference between raster based and calligraphic visual systems are? I just think it's funny how most seem to 'know it all here', but have never had any experience with it. That's tantamount to a truck driver claiming to know how to fly, when he's never even been in the cockpit of an airplane. I don't buy the b.$. people, especially when I've had first-hand experience in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow the new xplane looks great!!! Didn't someone make photoreal scenery for xplane that covers the entire planet or something like that?Jeff

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