Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest NoobPilot

FSX Performance, frustrated. :(

Recommended Posts

I must say after last evening I am very frustrated. :( I have a nice test bed right now, I was hoping would lead to a purchase later this year of my long awaited upgrade. However with what I am seeing performance wise, I wonder if I am doing something wrong? :( I mean, the hardware specs are pretty much top of the line right now.FULL specs of the system are below. As for software:--Testing was done with FSX, SP1 and SP2 (NOT acceleration, yet), ActiveSky X, Ultimate Terrain X, and nothing else running.--flight area was KSAV (for low-density area) and KATL ( for high density); over KATL I was only seeing 15-25 FPS :(--aircraft used for testing was the Cirrus SR-22 from Eaglesoft. Used same one each time for testing purposes.--O/S is Windows XP Pro, 32-bit, SP3.Tweaks tried thus far:--dds conversion, nothing noted, so went back to backup scenery.--limited autogen per square-area in the fsx.cfg (tweak found elsewhere on these forums)--multi-core tweak for CPU's, nothing noted except saw my CPU peak at 100% sometimesI am open to suggestions right now, what else am I missing? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

ATL is one of the busiest areas. And the SR22 is payware so it's tougher on the FPS than the default C172. 15-25 appears to be accurate for your system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, state of the art hardware and we are still only looking at 25 FPS for FSX? That's not too encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately none of the current crop of AMD processors really gives "state of the art" performance because AMD has fallen way behind Intel at the high end. The only way to get decent performance from FSX with current hardware is to buy a top end CPU from Intel and then overclock it 'til it hurts. People with quad core "extreme" edition processors overclocked to 3.8GHz or above seem to be reasonably satisfied. But even then, I'm afraid you'll probably be disappointed by the compromises you have to make to get a smooth display.There are some good tips around: look for posts by Nick_N, especially about degragmentation. But to be honest, all the tweaks in the world make a pretty marginal difference: it comes down to brute CPU force.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but for what that processor is, It's not THAT bad! lol Spent the last, hour or so??? compiling my nick_n best-of tweaks.....going to try a few tonight, like him I sort of know what to look for, now I know where to fix it. :)For one, I KNOW my system RAM is not being used right, going to start there.Nick, if you see this, thanks in advance! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resist the urge to hit Shift-Z. Seriously. Concentrate more on flying, not on your FPS. 20fps in FSX is nothing like 20fps in FS9. But it's easy to get caught up in the "How Many", rather than the "How Good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually most of my "testing" last night involved honest to goodness look out the window and fly type testing. only came into account when I wanted to check myself.Honestly, my concern is when I REALLY start to tax the system and fly online, with VATSIM. I've already gone the route of WideFS for this new rig, offloading EVERYTHING but the ASX program to a laptop, over a network. But my testing doesn't involve that.I figure if I cant hit SMOOTH flying without all that online, then online I am going to be stuck. Put it this way, my OLD rig, trying to fly in the first MITRE event on VATSIM, I had to log off, I couldn't even connect. :(I could care less what the FPS shows, as long as it's smooth, but I am still trying for that. But until we come up with a "smoothness" benchmark, FPS is all we have. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,Would you attach your settings configuration file.Thanks,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fsx.cfg??? I can send it this evening, when i get home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,No, not your FSX .cfg, but your settings configuration.This is a .cfg file that you can save off that would contain every setting you have selected (basically, where all of your sliders are positioned, and all of the options you have running such as bloom or self-shadowing).This would allow those who will help you to compare your settings on our machines to see what kind of performance you might get if you were running our machines.To save your Settings, run FSX but don't load a flight. Then, click the Settings page. You'll see a Load button and a Save button. Save and give the file an appropriate name.Then, attach that .cfg file to this post. I can then apply your settings to my machine to make comparisons and try alternatives.Cheers,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15-25 FPS is pretty good for FSX. Landing at complex airports in the urban USA in a heavy jet, there are not too many people getting anything better than that, as far as my experience with FSX/SP2 goes and judging by what I read in these forums. And while I agree, we should fly more and count FPS less, with all due respect to the poster, the argument that 20FPS in FSX is somehow different from 20 FPS in FS9 just makes no sense to me at all. http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try testing with a default plane first, as a benchmark. Addon planes can really affect your performance for testing. As an example, Im beta testing a product right now and with defaults I get 2-3 times the FPS I get testing with addons, and I've tried a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimate Terrain is where you need to focus. If you have selected all it can do, it would slow your system down. You need to be judicious about what you pick from UT X. 1. Try reducing your road traffic %..since UTX adds more roads, your traffic really shoots up.2. Select the lowest resolution of your road texture.3. Anything else that you really can do without.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all noted and added to my "try this" list for tonight. :) I'll report back this weekend with before and after config files for comparison.Thanks all! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>so, state of the art hardware and we are still only looking>at 25 FPS for FSX? That's not too encouraging.In the busiest areas, yes, unless you have a solid OC on your CPU. Try the default C172 - I heard the ESDG SR22 was rough on FPS, because of the PFD's etc. I only get about 10FPS in the busiest cities - so 15-25 is REALLY good, and my system is mid range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This area is my stomping ground and with the defaults, I get 30-60 fps. Even my most complex addons I get 25-30.Ex-F-20 Tigershark,Pilatus,Twin otter,Realairs ect.This is with mostly med/high settings,GEX,FEX,UTX,MYTrafficX.I notice NO performance hit with UTX ecept for night lighting. The traffic I run less than 5%. Look like little mice scurrying to me.The ES Columbia chops my fps in 1/2 and stutters. In sparse areas, 20-25,small cities,15-20.GA traffic 30,airlines 15. KATL- It becomes a helicopter with 8-15.West Coast,KLAX HA HA forget about it.Bump up the Airline traffic % and........ It gets ugly.And your computer should be ALOT faster than mine.I have access to alot of different computers and if you can get 25-30 fps,smooth with med/high settings and stable, consider yourself lucky.XP,SP2,FX-62 dual core,2 gigs raptor,8800gt bla blaCue Eaglesoft.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what concerns me here is I TRIED to rule out UTX; I went into it's config, turned it ALL off with the "simple on/off" switch, and then flew again. I didn't see any real difference with or without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Atlanta area as in real life is Slooooooooow.Also the ATC is screwy as I will get ils vectors sometimes as far out as 100 miles.Activesky I had to delete because of stutters. I have never had problems with it since fs9 but after sp2 and their latest updates, aaahh well its a long story.It can also slow things down since it usually draws more clouds and more detailed weather.If worst comes to worst,at least you are not having random LOCK UPS like me, delete your fsx.cfg file and let fsx rebuild it.BTY-15-25 over Atlanta is GOOD. In that plane its VERY good.Again it depends on a thousand variables but its acceptable with med settings.Again if its smooth,no chops or stutters,good picture and you are not having CTDs, be Happy :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,I think what you should do first is get out of the Eaglesoft aircraft if you want to get an idea how much that thing is costing you in frames per second.What a beautiful model ... but you are paying a FPS price for it.Here's a little test I do with add-on aircraft: I have a baseline FPS number that I get in the default Trike, 1,000 miles at sea, with all FSX settings set at the absolute minimums. No weather, no buildings, no roads no special effects ... it's just me and the airplane.On my rig, flying the Trike, with the absolute best settings I can ever hope for in FSX, I get 180 frames per second. So, that's my starting point.Then, what I do is switch aircraft to see what my new average FPS is (using Fraps to count for me while I just fly in a wide circle in the VC looking straight ahead).Then, it's fairly simple to calculate the performance "cost" of that aircraft.In my test, the Eaglesoft Cirrus SR22, with its Avidyne glass panel VC, reduced my FPS from 180fps down to 38fps. Your mileage is obviously going to vary.So ... if you're frustrated, I would doubt that it's with the performance of Flight Simulator X. Instead, I would bet that you must be frustrated with the performance of the Eaglesoft SR22 with the Avidyne system.Eaglesoft realizes the massive performance implications of their aircraft. From their readme: "Due to the sheer volume of data processed by our Avidyne units, some users may experience lower performance when using the SR22 G2."I would like to do this test on my rig with your settings ... however, so if you get moment, attach your settings .cfg file and I'll repeat the test.You definitely should consider that UTX substantially increases the number of extrusion bridges that must be drawn, so you pay a FPS price for using this addon as well.FSX certainly is a performance beast ... but you've chosen to test it with some add-on software that isn't exactly frame friendly.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I plan on re-running a series of tests this evening with both the default cessna, not the glass one, as well as the Level D 767 which ALWAYS does well with frames.My concern here is not how it's reacting now.....I am trying to realize that WHEN I connect to online, and throw in traffic from VATSIM, I am obviously going to lose SOME frames, and choppy returns. So I am trying to get "better then average" offline to make sure the other 95% of my flying, online, is useable.Thanks again for the help, as soon as I can get home to this machine I will attach the config file for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your getting me at a bad time.. I just received a pile of textures from Anthony Voz for Europe and I don't have a lot of time to go through things.The CPU is actually not state of the art... You would need to move to a Intel Q processor for that. The AMD memory latency and bandwidth is not anywhere near as efficiently used as IntelI can run you through all sorts of systemWindows tweaking which usually helps because what that does is release CPU cycles for the application. But baring that we should probably start at settings The tweaks I list for XP do work and work well but unfortunately some simply push their system too hard expecting miracles, or more often than not.. I find out they skipped, missed or decided they know better and changed/added something to what I posted.When ever you use an application along side FSX you should always set the affinity for the exe file in the process list to the last core so FSX has core0 and 1 dedicated to it alone. So if you boot an application such as ASX you should bring up the task manager, select process tab and find the XEngine.exe entry... right click and select SET AFFINITY... uncheck all but the last core and then applyAs for settings.. I would need to see what you are running now. Also, the use of Nhancer can go a long way in both visual and performance depending on the system. You can review its use here:http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/Ya...=1208959973/0#5I did post a 'funny' that has all the links to the information I use in setting up a system and Windows in case you may wish to browse it:5th post down...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...46461&mode=full when it comes to FSX settings that is where you need a bit of experience in translating what you are seeing on the screen to a setting change. It would probably be best to start there and with Nhancer and see what we can do to smooth it out so post screen shots of the settings windows in FSX and lets see where you are now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually did a search earlier for your screen name here, jotted down (read that as copy / pasted) 3 pages of notes to try tonight. lolI am going to back track a bit, and throw in some of the nhancer stuff, see where it takes me. I understand the Intel stuff, but I am a die-hard AMD a really excited user and went for the best I could afford from their camp. In the "real world" I swear by Intel for business related items, If I could afford them in the Sim world I'd do the same. :) But, quad core is quiad core and the 9850 BE didn't seem that bad to me, spec for spec.Thanks for the reply, I will be working tweaks and posting later tonight or tomorrow, have a fly-in to work the ATC side of things on VATSIM tonight. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem John is the Aircraft series you are using is an fs9 SDK production with over 400 drawcalls , and also one that i am about finished rebuilding for ESDG and you will find framerates much improved on the new release when it comes out + its drop dead Gorgeous in FSX materials . CJTo get the best framerates its important to use full spec FSX models. 22_4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well dang it hurry up! loljust kidding, thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the same boat as you. I get about 10 FPS everywhere, including KATL and about 1500 miles out to sea, in the VC. Outside, I get about 20 FPS. I'm using the default 172. Native resolution, global texture res is set to very high, advanced animations is on, aircraft is medium high, LOD radius is small, Mesh complexity is 15, resolution is 152m, texture res is 1m (GEXnhanced is installed) water is at high 1.x, scenery complexity is dense, autogen is sparse, SFX medium, weather is medium high, traffic is medium low. I just used NickN's tweaks, no framerate difference, and then Nhancer, the blurries went down, but my framerate fell from pretty good with higher settings to these framerates with these settings. My computer's stats are in my signature. Is there a problem here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites