Archived

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

FaxCap

Suggestions for Planes That Don't Kill Framerate

Recommended Posts

I haven't found a single plane that didn't bog down the game, forcing me to cut back the scenery to keep a decent frame rate. This is pretty much the only reason I don't use custom planes much. It keeps me from getting any payware planes because I'm afraid I won't be able to enjoy them.What is the reason that most user created planes give such a performance hit (while simultaneously looking worse than the default planes)?Anyway know of any good planes (free or pay) that don't give any drop in FPS?I really want to expand my stable of aircraft, but can't find many that look good inside and out, let alone a single one that doesn't take 25% of my FPS away.Thanks guys. Also, I'm a sucker for the VC, I probably won't fly without one.

Share this post


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

For GA, look into Eaglesoft Piper Twin Comanche.Very immersive, impressive VC, easy on the frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Overland models are pretty good visually and also very frame-rate friendly. You get a lot of differnt aircraft models for your money.http://secure.simmarket.com/advanced_searc...d+-+Fly&x=0&y=0They dont have FMCs or other 'pro' touches, though. Plenty of repaints for them available in the AVSIM library too, as well as some FDE updates to address a few minor issues. Fully FSX SP2 compatible with patches available on the Overland Website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything by RealAir has no impact on my FPS and their smooth gauge technology is awesome.Triangle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carenado Mooney. After 2 years of high & fast, I am now all low & slow. It's a fantastic a/c with absolutely no FPS impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aerosoft Twin Otter is VC only, good on frames, and can drop 20 people almost anywhere the Mooney can go. If you get the Aerosoft Lukla X scenery (recomended) you will get a discount on the plane.The Premier freeware version of the Twotter looks a lot worse in the VC but the price can't be beat.I have a blast with the Twotter at VNKT-Lukla X and TNCM-SABA-TFFJ with Flytampa scenery...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of reasons why an airplane can have a large impact on performance. And the impact will depend on the hardware and game settings anyway.But, there are some things that one can do to take back control.1. Often, loading the exterior model will immediately cause the Blurries or stuttering. If this happens, just don't load the external model. Or, follow the advice given below.2. People who make airplanes (and scenery) sometimes have mistaken priorities. They want their add-on to look great, no matter the performance impact. So, they use very large, 32 bit textures without MIP maps - a sure recipe for bad performance, particularly in FS X that already has increased the default texture load by a factor of 16!Just take a look at the textures, - re-size them smaller - for example, do you really care if the pilot's jeans are high resolution, 1024 x 1024 pixel textures? - convert all textures to DXT1 if they have no alpha channel, and - to DXT3 only if they have an alpha channel, and - add MIP maps to all textures.Doing this to all textures, particularly those of AI aircraft, will guarantee immediate performance benefits, although it is a lot of work.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Super 80 Pro available at Flight 1 is a GREAT aircraft, with no adverse impact on frame rates that I can see. It has a beautiful VC as well as a great 2D cockpit with multiple views and extra panels. This thing is a winner in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Everything by RealAir has no impact on my FPS and their>smooth gauge technology is awesome.I second this recommendation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for a specific answer to your question that can help you beyond recommendations for aircraft from people who have computers that are probably totally different than yours, we'll need more information about your problem, specifically:1 - What is your computer configuration - CPU, Graphics Card, Amount of Memory in computer, amount of memory on graphics card.2 - What are the planes you are having problems with? I think most people will see a drop in performance on planes like the LDS 767 and PMDG 747, but these are very complex planes not representative of the general population of addons. Otherwise, in my experience, I haven't seen a drop in performance for most planes I've installed on any of my computers.With this information, we can then figure out what to ask next to help you.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Specs Are:P4 3.6 GHz2GB RAM8800GT 512MBI assume my processor is what holds me back in FSX, so maybe the really high poly plane models are what slow things down. I would say I see a framerate drop on about 75% of the planes I try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been my experiance that any aircraft that can operate in both FS9 or FSX will drop my frame rates in half in any given location as compared to the default planes. There are a few freeware planes (and Payware too I am sure) that are designed to operate in FSX alone and will not work in FS9 that I have tried and have not noticed any difference compared to the default planes, the navionv2.zip, available on this site being a good example of that.Aircraft originally designed for FS9 and modified to work in FSX drop the frame rates on my system, Q6600 2.4 ghz, 8800GT video, 3 g ram. I too am curious as to the specific reason why this is so.When downloading freeware or payware look for the caveat "Will not work in FS9 or below" and you will be happy with your frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Everything by RealAir has no impact on my FPS and their>>smooth gauge technology is awesome.>>I second this recommendation.I third the motion - RealAir is by far the best addon developer...in the world...And, they have managed to overcome the FSX lighting (VC lighting) limitation caused by FSX, that most developers complain about but few actually do anything about!Aeroplane Heaven and ** (2WW planes mainly)are pretty good as well. And, Iris is getting better if you like modern fighters.If you wanna try one worse than PMDG 747, try the Aerosoft Seahawk...that's a corker - 15 fps in the middle of nowhere with all the sliders to the left.......okay a little exaggerated but not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF 260 is smooth as silk on my system - very favourable comparison to default. The Dornier is good too, also the Twotter. And for airliners, the Super 80 is terrifically framerate friendly. And the ES Cit II is very smooth.The only "hogs" in my hangar are the LDS 767, the C-130 and the PMDG 747 - none of which is showstopping, imho. But my system's not too far out of date, so any of these may drag more significantly on an older PC.To complicate matters, I think personal tolerance is a big issue. I can handle low teens on approach in busy areas, even dipping into single figures, and some people will say that's no good, not flyable. So what you expect is part of the equation, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only use the default aircraft if I don't want FSX to completely crash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I haven't found a single plane that didn't bog down the game,>forcing me to cut back the scenery to keep a decent frame>rate. This is pretty much the only reason I don't use custom>planes much. It keeps me from getting any payware planes>because I'm afraid I won't be able to enjoy them.>>What is the reason that most user created planes give such a>performance hit (while simultaneously looking worse than the>default planes)?>>Anyway know of any good planes (free or pay) that don't give>any drop in FPS?>>I really want to expand my stable of aircraft, but can't find>many that look good inside and out, let alone a single one>that doesn't take 25% of my FPS away.>>Thanks guys. Also, I'm a sucker for the VC, I probably won't>fly without one.>As far as I can tell the Navajo and Saratoga from FSD-International don't affect my frame rate negatively. Same goes for EagleSoft's Premier1 and Flight1's Cessna 441.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>SF 260 is smooth as silk on my system - very favourable>comparison to default. >>The Dornier is good too, also the Twotter. And for airliners,>the Super 80 is terrifically framerate friendly. And the ES>Cit II is very smooth.>>The only "hogs" in my hangar are the LDS 767, the C-130 and>the PMDG 747 - none of which is showstopping, imho. But my>system's not too far out of date, so any of these may drag>more significantly on an older PC.>>To complicate matters, I think personal tolerance is a big>issue. I can handle low teens on approach in busy areas, even>dipping into single figures, and some people will say that's>no good, not flyable. So what you expect is part of the>equation, too.Is that Super-80 the Coolsky/Flight 1 Pro by any chance ? or is it the steam-gauge older version ?I'll be surprised if the new glass-cockpit'd Pro version is that good - I certainly hope it is as it's on my wish list !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Super 80, Classic or Pro, basically have the same frame rates, although it's hard to tell as I get about 6 FPS with the default 172 in the middle atlantic with all sliders left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then your stuck with hideous ground textures, less features, and a product that has reached end of line with most reputable addon manufacturers.As for a plane, I, as above, recommend the Coolsky Super 80 (might as well go with the pro version now but the steam is great also). Those planes were built for FSX and they have little to no impact on frames. I can fly the steam Super 80 out of KORD with 20 fps with 100% ai traffic (and I have all WAOI installed with UT filling in the regional carriers). My processor is better then yours though (e6600 overclocked to 3.3 ghz). The LvLD isn't quite as friendly, but after the Super 80 it's probably the best on frames. I'm sure there new 757 built for FSX only will be much better. They definently make a great plane.Those to stay away from? Anything made by captainsim. FPS hogs and they do not support their products well (check out the thread on flightsimworld.com right now aobut what they are doing). The ATR is also a hog as it is simply an FS9 port. Still a good plane though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason that FS9 planes in FSX kill the framerate is probably because FS9 planes use mostly polygons to look good, but FSX-only planes can use normal mapping and other videocard-heavy tricks to keep the polys low and the quality high. Just a guess, but it makes sense to me. I have since ponied-up for a payware plane: the Alphasim Rutan Long-EZ, and I am in love with it. Easy on the frames. Looks great. Huge visibility out of the VC. Good performance with the O-320 variant, and it is easy to fly and trims wonderfully for hands off over longer distances. Also it has just enough quirks to be unique (besides it's looks which are totally out there), but not so many that it's confusing. One more thing: it's great to have a speed brake on a small plane when you find youself coming in to fast or in need of a quick decelleration when you get cruising too quick and stress the airframe (which this plane is capable of even at level flight). I recommend it to anyone. Now if I could find some nice paintjobs for it... Lots of FS9 ones, and ones for the 253 variant, but none for the faster 320 variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Is that Super-80 the Coolsky/Flight 1 Pro by any chance ? or>is it the steam-gauge older version ?>>I'll be surprised if the new glass-cockpit'd Pro version is>that good - I certainly hope it is as it's on my wish list !Sorry - I only have the steam version - very smooth and fast - though I hear good things about the new Pro, and am likewise tempted. Difficult to believe a glass cockpit version can be as good, but then there is a good amount of free overhead in the older model, so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single core or dual core?3.6 GHz should be plenty fast enough for most if not all planes.What are your framerates with normal planes?What are your framerates with addon planes where you see a drop?What is your processor activity % when you have no programs running on your PC? It should normally be at 1-7% with perhaps some occasional jumps to 11% or so. I've got a friend with a Vista Gateway laptop that sits at 52% CPU usage with nothing else running. I was unable to find any cause for this in the limited time I spent checking his machine out. FSX (or any other program for that matter) could not run well in this environment. And this was for a fairly high level laptop. He had another two PC's of the same configuration that had much lower CPU idle usage (not the idle usage parameter, just the CPU usage when "nothing" was running).Are you getting lots of stuttering?I've overclocked my 2.4 GHz Dual core to 3.3 GHz and I think it runs great, doesn't bog unless I totally overload it.What are your FSX settings? Have you pushed all the sliders up to max? FSX won't run well like that. Try turning off Bloom if that is on.Overall, I don't notice any difference for most addon planes on my system.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites