Bandyair

Hello All, I am trying to get FSX to run in 3D mode via Nvidia 3D tv play. Most games run ok in 3D but cannot get FSX to behave. Figured out how it needs to work it will only work on 720P 60 hz however there is no option to go 6ohz in FSX it runs at 120hz only it seems, it only allows to set the resolution so need to find out how to force it to use desktop resolution and refresh rate. Looked through Nvidia control panel tried all Vsync options but as soon as I start the flight it will switch to 120Hz disabling 3D. Any suggestions are much appreciated.

yep that speaks for itself and as I said if it was the way to go I would buy the right card whatever it was called. But there is no need for FSX, I wish there was. You can stop around the middle of that list FSX just wont improve from there up. Spent thousands experimenting with gpus and cpus.

Yeah unfortunately I think you are right. I am considering the move to P3D v2.2 but nor sure if/what percentage of add ons I can transfer over. My FSX is worth approx $3000-4000:)

Noise tolerance is different for everyone.

What I love about the R9 is that it is dead silent even at full tilt I can hardly hear it as opposed to my GTX 670 which annoyed the hell out of my when playing anything due to noise.

fan boys that's what I thought:) As mentioned I have been in the computing business very heavily since the commodore 16 and even before just can't remember what it was called I think the ZX Spektrum and played flight sim on those great machines. So point is in about 30 years of computing this is my first ATI card which I am very happy with (always owned the top of the line Nvidia cards), heaps cheaper too and performs just as good in FSX as any other nividia that is a fact full stop. Sorry boys and girls. I would buy other cards is that was necessary as did in the past. Ryan my fps goes beyond 20 sometimes the average low is 14. BRIAN well said! My point was that most users here completely ignore the fact that my issue was solved and it had NOTHING to do with the GPU they still keep going on about how Nvidia is better. I just don't believe sometimes how ignorant people are. Well let them pay twice the amount for the same performance. You will never convince them otherwise. This comes from 10 years of hardware sales.

I wonder what you wrote there. Maybe add spaces?

Funny everyone still keeps favouring posts here suggesting that the cause was the graphics card despite that fact the this issue was related to an entirely different problem as it was proven. Jus don't get it peeps:)

Have to agree clock speed does not mean much these days its all about multi core cpus we are just out of luck with FSX lets hope MS will surprise us with a new version. Right at the end just wanted add a simple logical observation. Generated a very heavy thunderstorm in REX and loaded the 777 at LHBP payware where I was usually getting low fps. Fps was low of course round 14 however once switched to outside view it was up to 35-40 so if it was a bottleneck with the R9 GPU surely would have struggled with the heavy clouds and weather. It just proves there is nothing wrong with it and fsx simply cannot utilize GPU power over a certain range thus it is as always the CPU is the bottleneck. I am sure I will get heaps of very technical explanations why Nvidia is better but it just makes no difference at this level of the GPU game for fsx as simple as that.

Again it performs better then my GTX 670 now that cfg is fixed. Not sure why every die hard Nvidia fan keeps saying these things. This is my first ATI card and I am impressed. Exactly and appreciate the help from everyone here! I would be curious though as to why flying pmdg has changed performance. Also if there is any other CPU I could upgrade to however I doubt it. The 4770K or the 4930K seem to be the lone options and they are not worth the trouble. Possibly the next generation. Maybe... Reason I ask is that in mid atlantic flight just had a BSOD so had to increase core voltage to 1.45 which is not healthy.

yes that's what I meant and you are right but there is hardly any load on the card, as I just mentioned now I am back to normal performance regardless of the GPU. The only trivial questions is why flying the PMDG have altered performance in the cfg? I guess we may never find out.

Well again you might be right about ATI however I am still not convinced that it is the main cause as the R9 280X is very powerful and odes not even spin up when under full load in FSX. I have deleted .cfg and let FSX recreate it. Pushed settings one by one and now I am nearly at the level where I was with very low fps but now I get the average 14-17fps instead of the 9-11fps which is now enjoyable. This is what I was getting before flying the PMDG aircraft. I still don't get why the .cfg got screwed just by flying the PMDG???One thing I notice is that Fly Tampa airports seem to be much better optimized as frame rates are nearly 50% better than Aerosoft or others and they also look better.HOWEVER I do agree that generating a REX thunderstorm slows things down a notch which may be due to the rendering capabilities of the GPU.Any thought on that? Also forgot to add that I am a professional system builder and have built many systems since day one for FSX and the results were in the CPU and hardly ever in the GPU but that is just my experience. one more things I used to run FSX on a GTX 670 and on the R9 things looks smoother. This is my first ATI card ever too.

Thanks will test these shortly however I definitely want to run DX 10 even if it means getting an Nvidia card but honestly I doubt it would be any benefit over the R9.

Thanks will do shortly. What exactly do you mean by AA and AF normal? Should is et all else at high or leave settings at default?

Also I noticed the sudden FPS loss after the first flight on the PMDG 737 which of course may be a coincidence but now ALL aircraft are slower than they were. Bufferpools IS in the Graphics section and once only. Do you mean it perhaps should not be in brackets?? OK here is the test and is completely without add ons and all sliders requested as 0 and FPS at unlimited. Default Cessna: average 140 fps Majestic Q400: average 60-70 fps (nearly the same outside) PMDG 777: average 30-35 fps They were all recorder in the VC the biggest difference is in the 777 the fps doubles in outside view it still takes about 3-4 seconds to draw the view once switched back to VC. Hi Enrico, You do have some points there. However firstly the R9 uses GDDR5 3GB which is insanely fast NOT DDR3. As I mentioned on the OP I did use Word Not Allowed's guide and AFTER I was able to use FSX with the Majestic Q400 quite smoothly and all other aircaft. The NGX was installed already before I overclocked I was just not using it I only installed the 777 yesterday and it seems fps have dropped after the first flight with NGX so that is why I am posting here. As in short after OC and .cfg tweaks I was able to enjoy FSX but it went pear shaped after flying the NGX which I think has happened 2 years ago as well hence my frustration and the long brake from FSX. Hope this makes sense. Also I hear what everyone is saying about ATI cards and it may apply to some degree but but not as dramatic as some here says for sure when you use a high end card as such.