FSX Performance, frustrated. :(

[Guest JIMJAM]

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.....

[Guest jbinner]

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.

[Guest JIMJAM]

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 :-)

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

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,

[Guest jbinner]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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

[Guest jbinner]

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. :)

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

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.

[Guest jbinner]

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

[Guest NoobPilot]

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?

[Guest Nick_N]

>Is there a problem here? nVidia GeForce 7500 LE 512MBYesYou need a video card

[Guest jbinner]

for all:I ran a series of tweaks last night, which I will post when I have time later. :) Long story short, I was getting 25-32 FPS now, over KATL, in the Cirrus, with same weather running, same time of day, same plane. :)But like I said that is not my only tell-tale signs for what I wanna see when flying, its SMOOTH! :)Thanks to ALL of the help, and as you'll see to Nick for ALL the tweaks I used. :)Again, I will repost later on when I have some more time, running around right now. :)

[Guest Jim Knows]

FSX has taught us alot. Without getting into the long grocery list of the particulars, it has taught us alot about how to avoid getting ripped off in the gaming industry or to use the politically correct way of putting it, how to avoid spending money needlessly or when there is no longer any point in upgrading at all.When you have a piece of software that folks for almost 2 years now continue to have problems with decent hardware and well configured systems w/ updated everything, I start to look at the competancy of the creators of the software. Lots of proggrammers out there that know what they are doing, but don't do well at it.With many defending FSX by making statements like FSX was built for the hardware of the future. Huh? Still scratching my head over that one. As the "hardware of the future" is now here, its starting to look more like the programming language/programming techniques of this software is behind in taking advantage of the cabalities of todays hardware. But yet major issues like blurries and/or stutters totally destroying the FSX experience sure pushes folks towards throwing their arms up in the air and say, "I GIVE UP!!"Today, my rig runs FSX pretty much OK with a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz, 9800GX2 vid card. As many of you can appreciate, it was a long road and a ton of "hardware" money. I get on average 60-100 fps. So why the blurries and stutters? I eventually fixed that (90% fixed that), but yet with compromises not allowing you to enjoy alot of the things FSX says it has to offer.Currently, there is software in the gaming world that demand more....with some, alot more resources than FSX, and they perform incredibly well, sometimes giving customers more than what they paid for. Then you come back to FSX and how that performs for most...enough said.

[Guest NoobPilot]

So is this just an intergrated card then? I've been to about 4 different sources, 2 say it is, 2 say it isn't. Also, looks as though my MoBo only has PCIe 1.0. How badly will this limit my card selection?

[Guest PPSFA]

Best deal on the market right now is the 8800GT