Bushhawk Xp

[darem 106]

Q9550 quad, 4GB, Vista64 and a factory overclocked 8800GTX with 768MB RAM. Framerates are low here, too - not as low as with the ATR 72-500, but a little too low to really enjoy this plane.

I am hoping for a patch to fix framerate issues, else this was wasted money for me. I mean, 15fps over rural areas isn't acceptable, really. Else, this is a fine little bird...

[Kiwikat 2]

The ATR-72 is not a FSX native aircraft so that isn't really a fair comparison. It is really surprising to see a machine like yours struggling.

[Nick C 110]

I think what can be derived from this thread and the one at SOH, is that this plane has a different impact on different machines. That's what I've come to expect from any aircraft. However, on my machine, which is all I can comment on, it performs very well. Certainly well within acceptable limits for my use.

The following comparison on FPS was taken with the airplanes engines running, sat on the runway at Plum Island, all systems good to go. That means that all glass gauges were warmed up too. My settings were set as the images display below, these are my usual settings for regular GA flights. I tried a cross section of aircraft which I hope cover most bases.

I'd also like to point out that I don't hold much with the "FPS" argument as I also believe that it's about the fluidity of the sim. I seldom check the FPS counter, but do on this occasion simply to show how different PC's handle aircraft in different ways.

My PC:

Intel E8400 Duo 2 Core 3Ghz 1333 Mhz 6Mb CPU, MSI X38 Motherboard, Corsair 2Gb DDR3 1333 (Matched pair), Samsung/Seagate 500Gb 16Mb Cache HDD SATA, 20x DVD Re-Writer ( + & - ) (Lightscribe), Ge-Force 9800 GTX PCie 512Mb Graphics, Creative X-Fi Extreme Audio Card, Dual Gigabit Lan, Deluxe Midi Tower Case with Superior Tagan 900w PSU, USB 2.0 x 8 (2 on front), Windows Vista Home Premium

FPS Comparison:

Default Trike: 30

Default Baron 58 (steam): 30

Skysim BAE Hawk: 30

Default C172SP (steam): 30

A2A P-40: 30

Default C172SP (glass): 29

A2A B-17: 28

Default Baron 58 (glass): 25

Aerosoft Bush Hawk: 25

Eaglesoft SR22G3 Turbo (glass): 22

A2A Boeing 377 Strat: 19

CS Boeing 757: 18

As you can see from the results above, there is a definite reduction in FPS from the default aircraft with the exception of the glass driven default Baron 58. However I'm reaching far better frames with the Bush Hawk that I do with the A2A Boeing 377, which I'd expect, but other users are commenting that the 377 runs at a higher FPS.

So there you have it, you'll each make your own decision based on what you want from an aircraft and from others experiences. Personally I'm very happy, but I may be seen to be biased too, but there's nothing I can do about that, sorry.

[Kiwikat 2]

Comparatively, I'll post a few of my benchmarks. These are from the VC.

All default aircraft (G1000 included): 35

Skysim Hawk: 31

A2A 377: 29

Realair Spitfire: 32

Aerosoft Twin Otter: 35

Level-D 767: 28

AlphaSim Long-EZ: 35

AlphaSim Blackhawk: 35

PMDG 747X: 24

PMDG MD-11: 28

Lionheart Epic LT: 33

Eaglesoft Columbia 400: 35

(Aerosoft) Bush Hawk: 21

As you can see, the Bush Hawk performs significantly worse than anything I fly often. Even aircraft with 2048 x 2048 textures and 3D gauges perform a LOT better than the Bush Hawk.

I'd really like a low-impact model... if that's even an option at this point.

[Nick C 110]

William, I'm interested to know if you were just looking out the windows in the default view when you took the frames from the 377?

I should point out that in my comparisons, each FPS was taken with a good face full of gauges in each aircraft. The default view for the 377 has nothing showing but a couple of window frames. Just a thought.

[Kiwikat 2]

William, I'm interested to know if you were just looking out the windows in the default view when you took the frames from the 377?

I should point out that in my comparisons, each FPS was taken with a good face full of gauges in each aircraft. The default view for the 377 has nothing showing but a couple of window frames. Just a thought.

These are the averages I get with the airplanes, using them normally. Sometimes FPS is quite a bit higher, sometimes its lower. So in regards to the 377, it is what I experience in general, looking at all parts of the VC needed for flight.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi,

I´m so sorry to say that this nice bird have to stay here in my hangar untill we get some issues fixed (first aircraft i got from Aerosoft that not fill my wishes)

P E

What issues would those be?

[ChrisB 11]

If you are going to complain about the Bushhawk frame rates, then please compare it with an equally complex plane.

The VC has many functions that others do not. Decently dimmable lights for instance. More detailed textures. A highly useful set of new instrument sugh as the GEM Graphical Engine Monitor.

Speaking now as a user, ANYTHING that gives a steady 20+ FPS performance is excellent. That is a LOT better than your eyes can register. Look, if it flies smoothly, turn that darned FPS monitor off! If you didn't have it you wouldn't even notice the performance. Not just of the Bushhawk - but of any addon model. Just because your PC can feed the monitors at 1000 FPS, doesn't mean to say it has to. Developers can use that performance plus to add features and still get a smooth, fluid plane.

I didn't build the bushhawk, so I'll leave the objective answers to Thorsten, but subjectively speaking - please be sensible and don't compare apples with oranges. There's just too many different features new in the Bushhawk. For one thing, it is the first plane I have ever been able to flight test against the manufacturer's performance figures and to actually achieve similar "numbers" for fuel flow, temperatures, pressures, horsepower... And I mean flight test... by the book all the way.

If that's too techie, just fly in a straight line for a while. As the fuel burns off from the one tank, the lighter wing rises. Totally proportional to the mass of fuel used. If you don't change tanks regularly, you'll need more and more "foot" on the pedals because there is no lateral trim on this bird like there is on the Maule for instance.

[Boerries 24]

What issues would those be?

Hi Mathijs

it´s Framerate impact, that´s what is discussed here.

[bamse 0]

Hi Mathijs,

dont missunderstand me, but as i can read here at the forum there is many among us customers that find the framerate drops too mush so i am just hopeful that there is coming a "light model" for us low enders

regards Per E

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

These are the averages I get with the airplanes, using them normally. Sometimes FPS is quite a bit higher, sometimes its lower. So in regards to the 377, it is what I experience in general, looking at all parts of the VC needed for flight.

Thanks for your many posts Kikiwat, but I think we understand your point of view and there seems little need to reply to every posts here with the same comment that 20 fps is below would you expected and find acceptable. Personally I think it is more then enough but that's a personal opinion. I also get framerates that are better than you got on less capable hardware (duo2core at 2.4 ghz). Over default scenery with rather high settings I almost never go below 30 fps unlimited while I find 18 fps fully acceptable.

Could it be you are running in Vista? That could cause some problems with the textures, we are investigating this. Your framerate is simply lower then we expected, but is not the same on all systems. See my images below. We need to find out what causes problems on your system.

I also like to make a more general comment. The product has been selling very well since the release and the forum content could give a very warped vision on the product. If you remove all repeated comments (so from the same users) you end up with very few serious comments. We have seen this before and it is dangerous to a product. If there is an issue (and that could very well be) it will be investigated and when possible fixed. But keep in mind that the few hundred customers that have NOT posted here are probably happely flying.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathijs

it´s Framerate impact, that´s what is discussed here.

Okay, your comments seemed to indicate that there were other serious issues.

As said I don't see those issues even on my rather old laptop. But we will be looking into it. Until that moment let's drop the discussion so we can focus on trying to solve it for the few customers who have a problem with that, ok?

[Kiwikat 2]

I'm not bashing the job you guys did on the aircraft, but it is ridiculous that I can only get 20 FPS. I REALLY want to get up there and fly this thing. I was looking forward to this project since it was unveiled.

Mathijs, can you comment on the possibility of a "lite" model?

P.S. Yes, I am using Vista Ultimate 32 bit. I've got a E6700, 3GB DDR2 ram, and a 8600m GT.

[Boerries 24]

Okay, your comments seemed to indicate that there were other serious issues.

As said I don't see those issues even on my rather old laptop. But we will be looking into it. Until that moment let's drop the discussion so we can focus on trying to solve it for the few customers who have a problem with that, ok?

I´m on VISTA too, maybe a problem. Just for your info.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathijs,

dont missunderstand me, but as i can read here at the forum there is many among us customers that find the framerate drops too mush so i am just hopeful that there is coming a "light model" for us low enders

regards Per E

No, there are a few hundred customers and as far as I can see 3 people here that discussed it. That's not 'many'. I don't feel there is any need for a light model because we feel the problems some users have are caused by some configuration on there systems in combination with something in this model. I get 40 plus fps on a machine that could be bought for 750 euro.

Please note I am not saying there is no issue, I am saying it is an issue not all users face. In fact the vast majority does not seem to be affected. Give us some time to investigate.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I´m on VISTA too, maybe a problem. Just for your info.

Okay, could be that I know what is is then.

Memory handling in Vista of bitmaps of a certain size is very buggy. This also leads to memory exhaustion is FSX and MS never seemed able to fix it even though even MS staff reported on the effects it has on FSX. Because of this almost all developers work with XP. Now I tested on a Vista machine here and I just done so again. I see the expected 15% lower fps compared to XP on the same hardware but nothing more serious. So there could be a driver related issue as well.

Just give Thorsten some time to compile something new we can test on the affected machines.

[darem 106]

Thing is: 20fps might be ok AS LONG AS you don't use TrackIR. The acceptable minimum with TrackIR for me (outside airports of course, compromises have to be made) is 24fps - and even then you shouldn't turn your head too fast. Besides, every knowledagble gamer will tell you there is a HUGE difference between framerates in the twenties and above - you can't talk about fluid gameplay if you are below 30fps - reason is the same as with TrackIR - quick turns get "jumpy".

Back to the Bushhawk. I am on Vista, too - so maybe there are problems with the textures in Vista, as you mentioned.

When I am back home, I will test drive the Bushhawk through different situations on small airports and in the wilderness, to see what I can find out about general framerate behaviour.

There is a bug I noticed yesterday evening: When I try to land in the wilderness (not on a grass strip or within an airport region), the back of the plane sinks into the ground in such a way that the nose is pointing up more than 45°. I confess my landing was a little bit hard, but with highest realism I didn't get the crash message. I was the unable to accelerate the plane in a way that it moved from the spot where it stood. It was a funny sight, looked like a sculpture :-)

Oh, and one more thing: Is it intentional that the Bushawk tends to stall a lot when the nose isn't pitched down shortly after takeoff? Once it is airborn, it loses speed quite fast if you don't pitch the nose down considerably...

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I'm not bashing the job you guys did on the aircraft, but it is ridiculous that it only gets 20 FPS. I REALLY want to get up there and fly this thing. I was looking forward to this project since it was unveiled.

Mathijs, can you comment on the possibility of a "lite" model?

P.S. Yes, I am using Vista Ultimate 32 bit. I've got a E6700, 3GB DDR2 ram, and a 8600m GT.

Kikiwat we really know by now that you only get 20 fps. I get 40 as I shown you on hardware that is not as fast as your system. So I think we can assume it is issue that is NOT only in the model but in a combination of the product and your hardware/software.

The 'light' model would be exactly the same, but compiled in such a way that the Vista problem is not so felt. If you feel it is ridiculous that something done 100% according to the official SDK's does not work perfectly with the preferred MS OS I can share your feeling.

[horst18519 231]

Thanks Mathijs.

Still, we are taking your replies serious. No question.

The Bushhawk is a new bird in the hangar, not some aircraft we did over and over again for several FS versions. It is only tested by a handful of testers yet. So of course we want to know if there are any serious bugs or issues.

To be honest I feared that 2 hours after release there'd be hundreds of users here complaining that some serious things were going wrong.

Now, what we have are indeed some issues that don't make me feel comfortable. Some of you have made good points about this. I want to name Boerries (Buschflieger) before all others, because he made clear that he was looking foreward to this aircraft and very shortly stated that he's unhappy with framerates.

We're gonna investigate this (and believe me: that sort of feedback is a better motivation for me to do this work than repeated cynism ) and see if we can give any assistance to those PC systems that seem to struggle more than expected.

Now, let's have a fun flying weekend and see what we think about those matters after some hours of flying, shall we?

[Kiwikat 2]

Does it matter that they are .bmp's and not .dds? As I previously said, I had converted the textures to DDS and it only marginally helped FPS, but it REALLY helped loading times. What about reducing the resolution of the textures? I guess I'll just wait for the update

I'm running Nvidia driver 169.61 in DX9 mode if that helps with anything. The newer 17X series of drivers make my FSX unstable and really choppy.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thing is: 20fps might be ok AS LONG AS you don't use TrackIR. The acceptable minimum with TrackIR for me (outside airports of course, compromises have to be made) is 24fps - and even then you shouldn't turn your head too fast. Besides, every knowledagble gamer will tell you there is a HUGE difference between framerates in the twenties and above - you can't talk about fluid gameplay if you are below 30fps - reason is the same as with TrackIR - quick turns get "jumpy".

Back to the Bushhawk. I am on Vista, too - so maybe there are problems with the textures in Vista, as you mentioned.

When I am back home, I will test drive the Bushhawk through different situations on small airports and in the wilderness, to see what I can find out about general framerate behaviour.

There is a bug I noticed yesterday evening: When I try to land in the wilderness (not on a grass strip or within an airport region), the back of the plane sinks into the ground in such a way that the nose is pointing up more than 45°. I confess my landing was a little bit hard, but with highest realism I didn't get the crash message. I was the unable to accelerate the plane in a way that it moved from the spot where it stood. It was a funny sight, looked like a sculpture :-)

Oh, and one more thing: Is it intentional that the Bushawk tends to stall a lot when the nose isn't pitched down shortly after takeoff? Once it is airborn, it loses speed quite fast if you don't pitch the nose down considerably...

The pitch up issue is one that is well known to us. FSX sometimes has problems understanding exactly where the ground is and in many locations in the world it is rather easy to land BELOW the ground if you touch down a bit hard. The aircraft has no influence on that. We faced that issue In Lukla X very seriously.

And if your aircraft is a bit heavy you could indeed stall very easy if you lift off a bit soon and climb out of ground effect. Every aircraft that has low take-off speeds suffer from that in some form. Always stay well over the stall limit until you get some altitude. Also make sure you load the aircraft well, so with the CoG not to far aft.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Does it matter that they are .bmp's and not .dds? As I previously said, I had converted the textures to DDS and it only marginally helped FPS, but it REALLY helped loading times. What about reducing the resolution of the textures? I guess I'll just wait for the update

I'm running Nvidia driver 169.61 in DX9 mode if that helps with anything. The newer 17X series of drivers make my FSX unstable and really choppy.

BMP and DDS are just containers, should not really matter a lot and on my system they load about as fast (as expected because the size is the same). If they load seriously faster on your system it could indicate that the GPU pipeline does not like the BMP format a lot. Strange, but I do not fully know how Vista does that.

If you like, experimenting with the bitmaps that are 4,097 kB could certainly help. reducing them to the 1,025 kB might solve a lot of the issue. Please let me know.

[bamse 0]

horst18519, and Mathijs

Thank you for your attention and have a nice weekend

Per E

[ChrisB 11]

I use TrackIR even on my wrecked PC and it performs adequately even with the plane flying at 7 FPS.

Mathijs... hold me back, I am getting seriously frustrated by some mentalities...

[Finn 873]

They are bmp files but in DXT5 format.

Converting them to dds only makes them larger (at least with DXTBMP).

Reduzing the 2048x2048 textures gives appr. 2FPS more on my maschine.

I´m running FSX SP2 on Windows XP SP3

Single Core AMD 3500+

2GB RAM

Geforce 7950

FPS is lower than on the default aircraft, but flying near Ketchikan gives ~15-18 FPS with medium FSX display settings on my oldtimer maschine.

FPS will allways be a personal taste, but flying at 17 FPS is good enough for me, even with Track IR.

But any FPS improvement will allways be welcomed.

Finn