Should I revert to FS9?

[ryanf]

Hi All,

I upgraded to FSX a number of months ago - actually, I built a new computer just for it and installed FSX. The main reason was to be able to use the RealAir Simulations Beech Duke aircraft - an excellent product.

However, I have been very disappointed with the performance of FSX. It's running on Windows XP Pro SP3 with FSX SP1. The CPU is an Intel E8400 (not overclocked....yet) with 4GB ram and a Geforce 9800 GTX graphics card.

I have tried playing with settings alot - very few settings are maxed out and most are low. I used the tweaks on the following web-site: www.highflightsimulations.com.

My main problems with performance are:

1. Jittery frame-rate (though it is capped at 30 FPS).
2. Blurries - all distant textures are blurred.

Should I think about going back to FS9 (and lose the use of the RAS B60) or try to get a faster CPU or try to tweak more?

I am especially disappointed when I compare the frame-rates to X-plane which is **far** smoother by comparison. Though I have other problems with X-plane still, the graphics performance is excellent.

Any advice or wisdom is much appreciated.

/Ryan.

[choffmann]

Before bouncing back to FS9, try to add SP2 to FSX.

Chris

[mpl330]

Have you tried NickN's tips that are posted on simforums?
They seem to be tried and tested... must say I got good results for fs9 from those tips and the results sound to be good for fsx...

Cheers
Mike

[TasKiNG]

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041&PN=1

This sorted out the problems for me.

Also to sharpen up your distant scenery try the following in your fsx.cfg [TERRAIN] Section :-

LOD_RADIUS=6.000000

and try dropping your max FPS down to 24.

[ryanf]

Thanks guys - I'll try those out.

Am I unrealistic to expect a smooth 30FPS (with average settings) out of FSX with an Intel E8400?

[TasKiNG]

That will depend on the spec of your machine and what addons you have installed.
I have UK photo scenery and a Quad Core Q9400 Clocked to 3.5GHz with 4Gig ram and a 9800GTX+ Graphics card and to keep the blurries down I have had to lower my FPS to 24.
I have found that any less than 24 will start to look a little jerky. Lowering your FPS will increase the CPU time for loading and rendering the scenery.

[ryanf]

WOW Dave - 24FPS only with a Quad Core!

Granted the photo-realistic scenery will be more resource hungry but still....

The only add-ons I have are a couple of airports, UTX Europe, FS Global and texture replacement.

Maybe I'll try reducing it to 27-28 and see if that makes any difference.

thanks,
Ryan.

[TasKiNG]

I can actually get around 50 FPS away from the airports but at this FPS I get blurred scenery so dropping it to 24 keeps the scenery crisp.

[ryanf]

50 FPS sounds much more like what I would expect with a quad core.

I'll try decreasing the target frame-rate a bit and follow-up on the tweaks mentioned earlier.

thanks,
Ryan.

[Stijn]

My advice is revert to fs9 just buy some addon airports you like to fly to and some of your favorite planes. I mean if you put the settings to ultra high and compare this with fsx I can't see difference i mean come one some three's are less real or the the buildings are not perfect. You don't see that at 32000ft . But it is so much faster as fsx. That's what I told my friends at school and they all purchased fs2004. I went back to fs2004 too, fsx on my pc was like a mini cooper towing a 747!

that's my opinion


Stijn

[AchillesP]

Hi to all,

I read all the posts. I am using FSX for more that 1 1/2 year and i can tell you that all those problems are because of bad settings.

I have more that 120 frames on air and more that 35 fps also in big addon airports with a lot of traffic.

* I use almost all settings to max
Blurries are gone at SP2.

Try to delete fsx.cfg and set them from the begging. Do whatever you like but keep in mind four thinks.

1.) Mesh resolution = 10m
2.) Water effects = Low 2.x
3.) Light bloom = off
4.) scenery cast shadows = off

The rest settings can be to max.

Part 1 gives a lot of frames while part 2 gives all the smotheness ;)

Then download my file for fsx

http://www.mycockpit.org/fileshare/showentry.php?e=268&catid=member&entryuserid=2266

Go to page 3 and read very carefully shader20plus section.

Do not procced to the other tweaks.

[ryanf]

Hi AchillesP,

Thanks for your advice. I was really hoping that my problems were configuration related rather than just more hardware needed - it makes me feel better about FSX!

I will try the changes your recommend.

thank-you!
/Ryan.

[ryanf]

Well I did some tweaking according to the recommendations and now I can get a pretty solid 35 FPS with higher settings than I had before.

I have not completed all steps or pushed all the sliders as far as the recommendations so there could be more I can squeeze out of it.

Much happier now though!

thanks,
Ryan.

[twisted8]

Hi to all,


Do not procced to the other tweaks.






The other tweaks don't work?

[AchillesP]

Of cource it works but are more advanced and tricky. try them if you like.


The other tweaks don't work?

[Steve A]

I have been following this thread with interest as i have been toying around with Fs9 and the pmdg 737, I'm giving this some serious consideration myself too, Everything just seems to run much smoother, faster, better and so much more stable. I have a water cooled overclocked quadcore pc with top end ddr3 ram, TBH i only project @ 1280x1024 resolution for the forward visuals and the screen is not far from my face so the eye candy Fsx can deliver is lost on my set up because i can see the pixels.

A big factor at the moment is lack of funds for an avionics suite, so when i couldnt get my new efis working correctly with freeFD, something i saw on ian@737ng's site about using the pmdg's gauges. I thought i would give it a try. I might just revert to Fs9 until i can get the things i need to use Fsx happily.

[h20will]

Achilles, what spec is your fsx system? I'm ready to buy a dedicated system for FSX but there seem to be so many conflicting reports on what really is the best setup to go with!

[AchillesP]

Hi,

CPU: Intel QX9770 3.2ghz
Motherboard: Foxconn blackops
Memory : DDR 3 1600 2 gigabyte
O.S. : Windows XP 32 bit
GPU1: NVidia 8800 GTX
GPU2: Ati 4870x2

It seems that Core I7 works much better and gives at least more that extra 10-15 frames compared to my system which is old in our days.

Please note that latest GPU's will not give you any extra benefits.
FSX needs CPU power.

I have approximatelly 50 frames at default KJFK, full traffic and thunderstorm weather.

And I get those frames without any panel (I use project magenta). In this case the frames are less that if you use a panel, because you get more thinks to be displayed. It is totally different than FS9.


Achilles, what spec is your fsx system? I'm ready to buy a dedicated system for FSX but there seem to be so many conflicting reports on what really is the best setup to go with!

[h20will]

Thanks Achilles, really appreciate some respectable advice! Time for a shopping trip....!

[ryanf]

With FSX SP2, latest video drivers and the tweaks from AchillesP, I am now at a solid 45FPS - though I have not pushed the autogen and custom scenery slides high yet.

I am running with an Intel Core Duo E8400 and Windows XP Pro SP3.

[ddimm]

I just made the switch back to FS9. I really like FSX and it runs ok on my current system but I felt like I was tweaking more than I was flying. I could not turn on vehicle traffic, Ultimate Traffic2 was at an absolule minimum, and I had no autogen trees. Since my hardware is good but not bleeding edge - I figured I would fire up FS9 again and compare after a year.

With UT, FSG mesh, GE Pro, HD clouds, 100% traffic with all WOAI, ,other misc add-ons, and sliders maxed out - it really looks good and runs smooth as silk. I am still using XP and have no intentions on upgrading a "stable" system.

While it doesn't "look" as good as FSX ( but it gets close with the add-ons) - I feel it flys as well or better for me. I am running FS9 at 5040x1060 with a TH2GO and cranked up the AA on the video card to completely eliminate the shimmering. (Something I could not achieve in FSX on my current hardware)

Nivida BFG 9800 GTX+ 1Gig @5040 x1060 - 3 22” LCD monitors (outside)
Nvidia 8600 GS @ 1024x768 - 18”LCD monitor (gauges)
K9N4 Motherboard with AMD Athlon 5600+
TH2GO Digital edition
Saitek Eclipse Red backlit keyboard


I will still play around with FSX on a single monitior but will use FS9 for my cockpit build. No bash on FSX b/c I do like it - I just finally came to terms with the fact that my current hardware won't run it the way I want to use it.

[ryanf]

An update on my experiences with FSX.....

I never quite got rid of the blurry textures even though I was getting around 40 FPS - with many sliders turned down, AI off, AA off (using nhancer). I was getting lower FPS around airports with complex scenery.

Then, just for comparison, I reinstalled FS9 (plus my FS9 scenery addons) and was simply amazed at the performance. I have pretty much all sliders maxed out, a pretty much solid frame-rate of 60FPS and AI traffic on for the first time ever. It was a completely new FS experience for me. 60FPS gives such a smooth flight sim and with really good scenery also.

I still get some blurries but not much (far less than FSX) and I am hoping these might resolve themselves or at least improve when I overclock my dual core E8400. I was also amazed to see that FS9 does utilise both cores of the CPU - something I had always believed would not work!

My only crib is that I get very jumpy behaviour when trying to tune the baro setting or heading bug using my goflight hardware. I suspect this is because of the high FPS and the hardware is not getting a chance....but I need to investigate more....if anyone has any suggestions here it would be helpful.

So while I will keep plugging away at FSX, I think, due to the far better performance of FS9 on my hardware, I will stick to it for now.