London Brought My System To It's Knees

[hey_moe 0]

I have FSX installed on a separate HD and Vista 32 as the OS. There is no other programs on this drive. I have most of the settings turned up. My FPS run ti the thirties. The only was I could fly in London was to turn off the water effects, and lower all settings to default and no clouds, also no traffic on the ground or air. I get around 7 to 9 fps. At first I was getting not enough memory. My spec: Asus P5W64 WS Pro Socket 775 Motherboard /EVGA 8800GTX GDDR3 768MB/Corsair 4GIG PC6400 DDR2 800MHz/Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66Ghz Quad CPU / Zalman Reserator 1 water cooler/ 2 WD Raptor 150gig 10,000 rpm Drives in Raid O Mode/WD Raptor 150gig internal back up/400 gig External WD back up Drive/Thermaltake 1200 Watt PS/Sony Dual Layer DVD RD/RW/Plextor DVD/RW/ Thermaltake Kandalf Tower/ Sound Blasters X-FI Platinum / X52 Pro got any advice to help with the FPS...Mike

[warbird861 0]

With that system you shouldn't have that big problems with London

Sorry, but I have no idea how to help you

[Andy B. 40]

Set your scenery complexity slider to Normal to start off with, and keep your traffic slider off to start off with also. If you still struggle then move the scenery complexity slider even further to the left and test again. I have a Q6700 overclocked to 3.22 Ghz and i get 30 FPS with the complexity slider on extremely dense and the traffic at about 10 with MyTrafficX. The big thing problem for you though is you are using Vista, I'm using XP and that makes a big difference. I get at least 10 fps more in XP than i do in Vista 64.

Running FSX in full screen mode tends to be better than windowed mode in Vista too.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I have FSX installed on a separate HD and Vista 32 as the OS. There is no other programs on this drive. I have most of the settings turned up. My FPS run ti the thirties. The only was I could fly in London was to turn off the water effects, and lower all settings to default and no clouds, also no traffic on the ground or air. I get around 7 to 9 fps. At first I was getting not enough memory. My spec: Asus P5W64 WS Pro Socket 775 Motherboard /EVGA 8800GTX GDDR3 768MB/Corsair 4GIG PC6400 DDR2 800MHz/Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66Ghz Quad CPU / Zalman Reserator 1 water cooler/ 2 WD Raptor 150gig 10,000 rpm Drives in Raid O Mode/WD Raptor 150gig internal back up/400 gig External WD back up Drive/Thermaltake 1200 Watt PS/Sony Dual Layer DVD RD/RW/Plextor DVD/RW/ Thermaltake Kandalf Tower/ Sound Blasters X-FI Platinum / X52 Pro got any advice to help with the FPS...Mike

Strange, you should get something in the mid 20's with easy, you did use the settings advised in the manual? For example regarding bloom? We did see that XP machines seem to do a lot better with these high res scenery btw.

[hey_moe 0]

The suggested spec: System requirements:

Microsoft Flight Simulator X (Service Pack 2 or Acceleration Pack)

Windows XP (SP2), Windows Vista

Intel Duo2 Core Processor (highly recommended)

1 GB RAM (2 GB highly recommended)

Grafikkarte mit 256 MB RAM (512 MB highly recommended)

Sound card

Download-Size: 1.3 GB

Installations-Size: 1.4 GB My system is well above what your specs sugested. I really shouldn't have to start adjusting the slider to the far left to get this to work right. I use Vista so I can use DX10 for the candy eye. Now it is suggested to install it on another OS and not to use DX10, shut down traffic and lower setings ????????

[Andy B. 40]

DX10 is a waste of time in FSX anyway as it breaks more things than it enhances in my experience.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

The suggested spec: System requirements:

Microsoft Flight Simulator X (Service Pack 2 or Acceleration Pack)

Windows XP (SP2), Windows Vista

Intel Duo2 Core Processor (highly recommended)

1 GB RAM (2 GB highly recommended)

Grafikkarte mit 256 MB RAM (512 MB highly recommended)

Sound card

Download-Size: 1.3 GB

Installations-Size: 1.4 GB My system is well above what your specs sugested. I really shouldn't have to start adjusting the slider to the far left to get this to work right. I use Vista so I can use DX10 for the candy eye. Now it is suggested to install it on another OS and not to use DX10, shut down traffic and lower setings ????????

I will have changed that Monday so it reflects that we advise XP over Vista for this one. Does nto make a huge difference but I think it's about 10% faster with these kinds of complex scenery files

[Snave 466]

The suggested spec: System requirements:

Microsoft Flight Simulator X (Service Pack 2 or Acceleration Pack)

Windows XP (SP2), Windows Vista

Intel Duo2 Core Processor (highly recommended)

1 GB RAM (2 GB highly recommended)

Grafikkarte mit 256 MB RAM (512 MB highly recommended)

Sound card

Download-Size: 1.3 GB

Installations-Size: 1.4 GB My system is well above what your specs sugested. I really shouldn't have to start adjusting the slider to the far left to get this to work right. I use Vista so I can use DX10 for the candy eye. Now it is suggested to install it on another OS and not to use DX10, shut down traffic and lower setings ????????

Defrag after installation.

DX10 is a beta development of MS FS and therefore attaches it to it various risks that are accepted by the consumer when you choose to use it. This is entirely attributable to the ACES team NOT delivering what they promised on DX10, not Aerosoft. Turn it OFF.

Yes, you SHOULD have to start adjusting sliders to the left, using that as a baseline to discover where the problem is on your system. Careful interpretation of these sliders will enable a proper troubleshoot and tell you where the problem is in your computer.

[hey_moe 0]

First thing Jack is I don't have a problem with my computer. Second is you stepped on my toes before so back off.

Defrag after installation.

DX10 is a beta development of MS FS and therefore attaches it to it various risks that are accepted by the consumer when you choose to use it. This is entirely attributable to the ACES team NOT delivering what they promised on DX10, not Aerosoft. Turn it OFF.

Yes, you SHOULD have to start adjusting sliders to the left, using that as a baseline to discover where the problem is on your system. Careful interpretation of these sliders will enable a proper troubleshoot and tell you where the problem is in your computer.

[Snave 466]

First thing Jack is I don't have a problem with my computer. Second is you stepped on my toes before so back off.

You do have a problem with your computer. Others are running this at four times the speed. So you do have a problem with your computer, even if you don't like who is telling you, son.

...as is the advice to start backing off the sliders to help you troubleshoot the issue. Obviously if you want someone else to help you with the problem you can post your system specs and the results of your experiments, but once again, while I am pretty certain I know where/what the problem is, having just resolved a very similar issue on a computer belonging to someone else, I'm not likely to be telling you now, am I?

Ask yourself whether your attitude is actually conducive to solving your problem...

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Gents,

Lets get this back on track, If you answer someone in a negative way then the response will be the same.

If folks don't appreciate someone's reply or advice then thank them for there advice and say nothing more,

therefore not leaving yourselves open to retaliation.

Its all to easy to be polite but its also to easy to start a flame war..

[David000 0]

hi,

i have problems too.

Always when i fly to london i get a "out of memory".

My system:

CPU: E8400 2*3ghz

Motherboard: ShuttleFX38

Ram: 4*1gb 800 Mhz Geil ultra

Graka: Nvidia 8800gt

HardDevice: Samsung spinpoint 500 gb

have anyone a tip how i fix this??

mfg Dave

[Andy B. 40]

You can try disabling the 60cm photo scenery that comes with London if you already have the Horizon VFR Generation X scenery installed for southern England. If not then try just lowering the scenery complexity a notch or two. If you have VFR GenX installed then I don't think you will notice a massive difference in the look of the ground textures, but it will save you quite a bit of memory space if you disable the 60cm photo's.

You also don't mention which OS you are using, but I'd presume its XP as I've never personally seen an OOM error with the London scenery in Vista 64bit during beta testing.

[Snave 466]

If it is as Andy suggests, then XP doesn't actually like 4 gigs of RAM, and you may not have set the system up correctly to make best use of what you got. YOu might want to check on the /3gb switch for FS, as it might solve the problem you are having...

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19479

for information

and

http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=70063

for implemenation.

Use at your own risk.

If its Vista, then you have something else going on.

[David000 0]

thx for the tips i try it.

[Ludo Lambrechts 0]

I have installed VFR London X on my system and I get between 20-35 FPS through out the city.

My system Specs:

* Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Processor 3.0GHz, 12MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB

* OCZ ReaperX Dual Channel 4096MB PC10666 DDR3 1333MHz Memory (4 x 2048MB)

* 2 X XFX 8800GTX @ 1.5GB of Video RAM

* 1250 Watt PSU

* 1 X 150 GB Raptor HDD (C: Drive)

* 2 X 500GB WD HDD (one for regular games, one for FSX)

Ludo Lambrechts

Sr. Administrator Canadian Pilots

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

I have installed VFR London X on my system and I get between 20-35 FPS through out the city.

My system Specs:

* Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 Processor 3.0GHz, 12MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB

* OCZ ReaperX Dual Channel 4096MB PC10666 DDR3 1333MHz Memory (4 x 2048MB)

* 2 X XFX 8800GTX @ 1.5GB of Video RAM

* 1250 Watt PSU

* 1 X 150 GB Raptor HDD (C: Drive)

* 2 X 500GB WD HDD (one for regular games, one for FSX)

Ludo Lambrechts

Sr. Administrator Canadian Pilots

Nice

[psolk 80]

If it is as Andy suggests, then XP doesn't actually like 4 gigs of RAM, and you may not have set the system up correctly to make best use of what you got. YOu might want to check on the /3gb switch for FS, as it might solve the problem you are having...

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19479

for information

and

http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=70063

for implemenation.

Use at your own risk.

If its Vista, then you have something else going on.

Actually, XP and Vista are built on the exact same 32 bit architecture and share the exact same limitations only Vista is just a wee bit more bloated.

It is only XP64 or Vista64 that would make a difference when it comes to avoiding the whole 32 bit memory limitation....

just my .02,

-Paul

[Andy B. 40]

Actually, XP and Vista are built on the exact same 32 bit architecture and share the exact same limitations only Vista is just a wee bit more bloated.

It is only XP64 or Vista64 that would make a difference when it comes to avoiding the whole 32 bit memory limitation....

just my .02,

-Paul

I take it you didn't read all the thread, as I said......

You also don't mention which OS you are using, but I'd presume its XP as I've never personally seen an OOM error with the London scenery in Vista 64bit during beta testing.

And from that quote i didn't mean to infer that the 32bit and 64bit versions of Vista were the same..... Although any variant of Vista is far better at memory management than XP is.

[Snave 466]

Andy, If someone wishes to allude that Vista is nothing more than XP in a smart clothing then who are we to correct them..?

I drive a Skoda, it's just the same as a Ferrari, with a different badge, as it drives on the same tarmac, with four wheels and an engine based on the same suck, squeeze, bang, blow concept...

NOT.

[psolk 80]

Andy, If someone wishes to allude that Vista is nothing more than XP in a smart clothing then who are we to correct them..?

I drive a Skoda, it's just the same as a Ferrari, with a different badge, as it drives on the same tarmac, with four wheels and an engine based on the same suck, squeeze, bang, blow concept...

NOT.

Andy, sorry I missed it, I did not see where you said Vista64 in your response.

Simon, I did not say they were the same, I said XP and Vista share the exact same 32 bit memory limitations. Do you wish to argue that? Was Vista 32 actually built on a 64 bit platform and I missed it? Like Shaun said, it is so much easier to start a flame war than to stay polite, give it a try...

-Paul