FSX Performance, frustrated. :(

[Guest jbinner]

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)

[ryanbatc 12,914]

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.

[Guest jbinner]

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

[tfm 171]

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

[Guest jbinner]

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

[meshman 109]

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".

[Guest jbinner]

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. :)

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

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

[Guest jbinner]

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

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

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

[N562Z 4]

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

[Guest PPSFA]

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.

[Manny 1,293]

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

[Guest jbinner]

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! :)

[ryanbatc 12,914]

>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.