Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Nick_N

"Holy FPS, Batman!"

Recommended Posts

>I believe, imperfections aside, that article shows:>1)where 8800, 9600,and 9800 stand relative to each other.>2)where CPU variants stand relative to each other.>3)what an OC on both CPU and GPU can get you.>>and not everyone knows 3, much les 1 or 2. It is in that>spirit I posted. Sorry if that is objectionable.Hi Phil,I think most people appreciate the head's up, but some are in configuration #### and that can be frustrating. If people could put money on it, they'd bet that time would bring performance to FSX - this seems to be the case.Jeff


Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick, take those INSIDE the VC please. Comparing screenshots taken from the VC vs taken outside are not at all the same. I have no problem getting 31 FPS at my current settings while flying outside of the airplane. Also, I see that you have no cloud reflections in your water. Your screenshot are not at all comparable because you are not using the Ultra slider setting.I was testing 'most' setting maxed, of course I can get 100 FPS at KSEA by reducing the settings as required. What we are testing here was sliders setting at 'ultra' and beyound, and you don't have your settings set for ultra as was the point of the test at Tom's Hardware ;-)Edit: as for bottlenecks, a 3DMark score of almost 21,000, the ability to get 200 FPS in 'certain' areas of FSX, and ridiculous FPS marks in every other game tells me that I'm seeing no issues worth mentioning. Regards,Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

MikeThe reason I took them outside was because the load is HIGHER with a long shot which has the city and the airports in the shot along with the full overcast.. The VC has a HIGHER frame rate than outside with the views I displayed on my systemI was showing that even my DDR3 QX system can struggle when certain views/ overcast/AI/100% slider/major urban is appliedI never have any problems in the VC with frames :)But I am also running a 384bit memory buss card tooEDIT... as requested VC shots in the same areas on the exact same sim settings which I always runhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188840.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188841.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick:I think you were missing what I originally set out to do, which was to mimic the Tom's Hardware test at THEIR settings, not mine. Again, FSX has no problems running on just about everyone's system once the proper balance is found. What we were playing with was Tom Hardware's settings...which you are still not illustrating so it's apples to oranges.BUT, tell me what your settings are and I will plug them into my system. Also, post your system specs as a comparison.It's always healthy to see good frame rates at KSEA but I usually test FSX to strain it. That way we can compare your apples to my apples (so to speak :-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great videos and good advise. The 2nd video ended when you started to talk about the multi-core option in nhancer. What do you have yours set to. I am getting a little better frame rate with it set to multi than at single. I think Nick says to set it to single but since the new beta drivers I see a improvement with it on. Whats your take on it?Jim


Jim Wenham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

Settings posted here, 7th post into the threadhttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...?TID=26410&PN=1Intel QX @ 3.67GHz X48 motherboard (sorry, can't reveal the brand) 4GB Corsair 1:2 459FSB @ DDR3 1836 7-7-7-22 1T-CMD, 8800GTX 768MB1920x1200x32TBM set to 80Bufferpools set to 100000000 (100MB)AA = 8xSAF = 16x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bufferpools set to 100000000 (100MB)I thought Phil posted (way back) that 10000000 (10MB) was the highest FSX recognized? Did either of the SP's change that? Also I think that was Mike's point about the water. FSX can handle 2Xlow pretty well, but the higher shaders up to 2Xmax are FPS hogs!!!


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Nick:Thanks for the info. I'll plug them into my rig since we are running comparable high-end rigs and let you know.On another note, I didn't realize you were Nick from the GE team :-) How are Pete and Carl? Haven't seen them around for a while, but if you do speak to them please give them both by best regards!Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom:EXCELLENT You Tube tutorials BTW! The mods should pin those here in the forums for all to see, because they are valuable even to those who have been using FSX from the beginning.For those like me who have only been tinkering with FSX for the last 1.5 years, I have not realized the real power of my system for FSX until now. Most certainly have opened my eyes and taken the blunt edge off of my attitude towards FSX!After more than 24 hours of solid exploration in FSX my only wish now is that all of the things available for FS9 were available for FSX and I'd make the switch today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Yeah I have it set to Multi to. The remaining options cutoff, (Ran into the Youtube 10min limit I guess) were OPENGL options and the new Hybrid SLI options that aren't even available yet for the 9 series cards (Waiting on new MOBO's to support them.).


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

NegativeBP will reserve VM if you have the VM to reserve, .. I have tested this many times and have maxed my VM use using BP although that will bring on memory related graphics anomalies ... if you are on XP you can confirm that with yourself with MEMSTATUSIn a single core solution FSX will use 512 even with a 768MB card.. the rest goes to the frame buffer for the resolution. The lower the resolution the less used. At 768MB VM and 1920x1200x32 the max safe BP is about 100-120MB but that can change based on a few other factors.Changing BP or even using the feature is system dependant. In my case that high BP smoothes large AI forest areas greatly when flying low over trees for approach and also eliminates stutters in turns within high impact urban areas. Many find they do not need to use the tweak at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

I do not know Pete or Carl... are these beta team members?Anthony and I are still in the alpha phase have not reached beta status as of yet so if they are on the beta team I am sure we will be introduced thenAs for water... as far as I am concerned its just like bloom, over done and too much. There should have been controls for adjusting bloom amount and reflections which is one reason why I sort of pushed to try and keep the shader file hack development going... and Paul/Ashton from FSWC have done a superb job in taking that and making into into something really special for FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! I wonder what other settings have higher limits then what is generally known!! For me though, I always had trouble with BP, anywhere from texture corruption to drastic reductions in performance, no matter what I set it for, even the current default level (4MB) or when set as low as 1MB (The RTM default) This usually happened only when flying low level in about 20 minutes into the flight. When I don't set this, all is well. Actually now that I think about it, I last tried it on my old system which had an ATI X1950XTX Xfires. On this system I have a Nvidia 9800GTX, so maybe I'll give it another shot!! With this card and a 2GB system, how much do you think would be an optimum setting?


Thanks

Tom

My Youtube Videos!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nick_N

Its a trial and error setting.. there is no set value that works bestIts a CONDITIONAL setting.. one must know that the condition exists before knowing the setting will have any affectOn a 512 card, FSX will use it so the amount of overhead you have in the BP area is not like that of a 768. If the correct condition exists, I would keep it a 15MB or less

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...