Let's talk frame rates!!

[Sidewinder 0]

I know that this is a controversial topic and is also very subjective but some of us are struggling to get the best performance out of our computers and in turn get the maximum experience from our flight sims.

I have an older computer setup - AMD Athlon 3200+ (2.21 GHz) 1 GB RAM and an ATI Radeo 9700 Pro (128 MB) graphics card. I run FSX/Acceleration at its lowest settings at 1600 X 1200 screen resolution. So far the best performance that I can squeeze out of this old girl is about 7 - 8 FPS. I would dearly love to get 15 - 20 FPS or more but I seem to be up against the wall. I am aware that FSX is slightly more dependent on system processor speed than on the graphics card.

I guess what I'm most interested in is what are typical frame rates from other users out there. Perhaps a poll that includes some descriptions of basic hardware would do. Don't get me wrong...I am open to upgrading my system or building a new one from scratch. I just want to make some educated decisions on hardware and come away with some great performance.

I love this bird!

[Finn 873]

Try to choose a lower resolution, like 1280x960 - 32 bit color.

Uncheck antialiasing inside FSX and set it it to 2x in Your graphicscard driver.

Set both Object and autogen density to Normal.

Don´t enable any kind of shadows or bloom effect.

Set effects detail to a mid setting.

Use either water detail at Low 1x or Low 2x.

Remove any traffic apart from GA (try 15-20%) and Airliner (15-25%)

Don´t have any background tasks running in the background.

With a system only a bit faster than Yours, I get 20 FPs (locked a 20 fps) sitting on the runway in the F-16 on a not so detailed airbase (EKSP).

Inflight I can easily maintain 17 fps at low altitude, though autogen has hard to keep up (after some time at high speed, it disappears). At higher altitudes (+10.000 ft) I'm back at 20 FPS.

Infact the Aerosoft F-16 is not very FPS hungry as such, problem is the speed at wich it travels.

Try to take the default Learjet and cruise at treetop level at +300 kts - I guess You would see the same thing happening !

Finn

[nidr 0]

hi,

to prove that i'm crazy ill tell you something. In august of this year i especially bought a new computer for fsx acceleration because i was getting sick of the frame rate even without f-16.

now i have a new computer: AMD phenom 2.2 GHZ quad core processor, 3 GB DDR2 memory, nvidea geforce 8800 GT 512 mb, Windows vista home premium 32 bit sp1. it's not the best computer but it's going very smooth.

first i could play fsx acceleration with everything on the max but that's not the main target. i think it's the best way is to play with your settings and set them completely to your pc. i have my frames locked on 20, anti alias on, trilinear selected, on scenery set my water back to 2x low.

cloud settings on max, traffic on max. brussels mega airport from aerosoft installed, aerosofts f-16 installed, FEX/SHD installed and still running smooth.

take your time and searh the internet, you'll find some site with examples and hints for your settings.

although i want to say that al this depents very much from one computer to another.

regards

nick

[intrepid 2]

I know that this is a controversial topic and is also very subjective but some of us are struggling to get the best performance out of our computers .

Hello Sidewinder;

Here is a great link,,I used it and achieved a 40% improvement in FPS

There is a good deal of info ,and a lot is explained

http://www.highflightsimulations.com/fsxcfg.html#top

B.T.W. I didn't use there "pay- for" service, just the info on the site.

Randy

[Steffenm 0]

Just a small comment here. For MS FSX the 8800GT/GTS is still the BEST video card available. It's in fact much better for FSX than the brand new high-end cards like 4870 X2 and 280 GTX. This proves how badly coded FSX is I guess, but it also shows that if FSX is the only game you'll ever play (important fact) then 8800GTS is the way to go. 

I've read it several places and seen many benchmarks, but this is the only one I could find now http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gamin...-X-SP2,784.html  (Press 'Choose Benchmark' to select FSX with other settings)

hi,

to prove that i'm crazy ill tell you something. In august of this year i especially bought a new computer for fsx acceleration because i was getting sick of the frame rate even without f-16.

now i have a new computer: AMD phenom 2.2 GHZ quad core processor, 3 GB DDR2 memory, nvidea geforce 8800 GT 512 mb, Windows vista home premium 32 bit sp1. it's not the best computer but it's going very smooth.

first i could play fsx acceleration with everything on the max but that's not the main target. i think it's the best way is to play with your settings and set them completely to your pc. i have my frames locked on 20, anti alias on, trilinear selected, on scenery set my water back to 2x low.

cloud settings on max, traffic on max. brussels mega airport from aerosoft installed, aerosofts f-16 installed, FEX/SHD installed and still running smooth.

take your time and searh the internet, you'll find some site with examples and hints for your settings.

although i want to say that al this depents very much from one computer to another.

regards

nick

[Finn 873]

My impression of FSX is that it is monster in some parts.

I have seen people with far fra better systems than mine, who had horrible performance, even with mid settings.

In my eyes, a product like FSX, should be installed configured via easy to understand menus, and then run nicely after that.

Having to deal with strange figures like Texture resolution, Global textures, Terrain mesh etc. should not be necessary.

Tweaking files like FSX.cfg, should really be a no-go.

But tings are like they are and there is no real alternative apart from X-plane 9.

I´m running on, what can be considered as a low-end machine, but get decent framerates even on mid settings.

I have a AMD 3500+ single core, 2 GB RAM, GF 7950 GT and onboard sound.

Nevertheless I have a solid 16-17 fps with the PMDG MD-11 at Aerosofts Mega airport London Heathrow and Active Sky X running. And that is on mid settings within FSX. Once airpborne and above 5.000 ft fps is at my locked 20 fps !!

I really hope for the community that FS11 will become a consolidating version of Flight simulator, meaning nothing really new is added, but that what we have will be tweaked and graphics will be run more efficient.

I´m afraid that another FSX kind of release sequence will mean the death of this hobby.

So there is somewhat of a task ahead for Microsoft, but also for the addon developers.

Good framerates for all customers running on a med-end machine is necesarry. They shouldn´t be carried away by the possibilities, if they can´t substain good fps.

Personally I always revert to aircraft that perform very well, like Reailair aircraft, Carenado and Aerosoft titles like Beaver X, Twin Otter and Hughes H-1.

Those who perform bad, are selvdom used, if ever.

The same holds true for scenery.

Just my humble opinion.

Finn

[Horten229 0]

Here is some analysis that may help you get better frame rates. It is largely not new, just a quantification (or maybe just rules of thumb) of a number of things that have been said in various threads in this forum.

There are a lot things that go into frame rates includes CPUs, graphics cards, scenery and those FSX settings. But for F-16, the display configuration can make a big difference and is under our control. Here is a comparison of frame rates (FPS) of the sim sitting on the runway (upgraded Andrews AFB) looking through the HUD for various display configurations.

(sorry, tables don't work well in posts)

Display_____ Avg_FPS Ratio2Off Ratio2All Notes

All Off______ 20.5 100% 174%

UFC________ 20.0 98% 169%

MFD/SMS____ 18.2 89% 154% MFD with SMS selected

HUD________ 18.0 88% 153% VV/VAH,ATT/FPM

MFD________ 12.5 61% 106%

MFD,HUD____ 12.0 59% 102%

MFD,HUD,UFC 11.8 58% 100%

HUD2_______ 19.3 94% 164% Modified HUD

By way of full disclosure, this was done on an ABS Sniper M6 workstation with an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Dual Core 2.6GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 8800GTX graphics, running Windows Vista 32, FSX SP2/Acceleration, Ultimate Terrain X USA and FS Genesis Terrain Mesh. But it is the relative numbers are what is really important.

What I get out of this is the following:

• A major contributor to frame rates (or the lack thereof) is the cockpit displays. This isn't a criticism. The cockpit displays are one of the things that make this sim great. But they have a significant impact on frame rates
• The MFD is an FPS killer, particularly the Map page. For best performance, turn the MFD off. But if you must use the MSD, put the map page on something (like the SMS page) unless you really need it (the Map Page is ~80% of the MFD performance load). It would probably be nice if the Radar page could be turned off, but that is not currently an option.
• The HUD has some impact on FPS. However, it's no fun without the HUD, so we have to live with it (but see below).
• The UFC has minimal impact on FPS

These displays are FSX Gauges. Looking at the Gauge XML gives you an idea of why they are FPS killers - they are very complex. However, one thing stood out about the HUD page that resulted in the HUD2 measurement above. It is defined with an <Update Frequency="18"/> tag, which means it can update 18 times per second. This makes for a smoother display, especially during high g maneuvers, but it also puts a computational load on the system. And if you can't actually get 18 FPS, it's wasting a lot of CPU.

The HUD2 display listed above is a modified version of HUD display with <Update Frequency="5"/> (that's all). This does all of those complex HUD updates only 5 times a second instead of 18. The updates are not quite as smooth as the original but they also filter some of the simulation measurement noise. To me visual performance is very acceptable especially considering the gain of about 1.3 FPS. If you are familiar with XML gauge definitions, this is easy to fix. (If you are not, you probably shouldn't. So I'm not going to describe it here.)

Net, I fly with HUD2, UFC and turn the MFD off unless I need it.

Fred

[saprintz 82]

Wow, Fred, that's a very informative posts for all the users. Thanks!

The only thing I'd like to point out is that we did put the option to turn OFF terrain elevation rendering in the right MFD map page. It's the TRRN button. With terrain off, all the navaids and such would still show, so you still have those essentials there. As I recall from designing / testing, it was the terrain that took the bulk of the frames on the right MFD.

One more thing. At least on my old machine, the altitude tape in the HUD had a pretty decent impact on framerates. So I still fly with the VAH tapes OFF. This gives better performance, and, to me, just looks less cluttered, also. Having the tapes on is no big deal if you have a few horsepower to spare, but for those trying to squeeze out every last ounce of performance, this is one thing that may be easy to sacrifice.

Scott

[Horten229 0]

Wow, Fred, that's a very informative posts for all the users. Thanks!

The only thing I'd like to point out is that we did put the option to turn OFF terrain elevation rendering in the right MFD map page. It's the TRRN button. With terrain off, all the navaids and such would still show, so you still have those essentials there. As I recall from designing / testing, it was the terrain that took the bulk of the frames on the right MFD.

One more thing. At least on my old machine, the altitude tape in the HUD had a pretty decent impact on framerates. So I still fly with the VAH tapes OFF. This gives better performance, and, to me, just looks less cluttered, also. Having the tapes on is no big deal if you have a few horsepower to spare, but for those trying to squeeze out every last ounce of performance, this is one thing that may be easy to sacrifice.

Scott

Thanks for that Scott.

I knew the Terrain feature was there, but it didn't seem to do much (visually) where I usually fly, so I haven't payed much attention to it. Using the same test I did with other display options I got an average FPS of 17.7 with just the MFD with Terrain turned off. Not as good as having the MFD off altogeher but a lot better than full map and you still get all of the good map data. So its worth considering.

I don't know about the performance hit from VAH tapes but I like the cluttered HUD. It makes it feel like an F-16!

Fred

[lexicon66 0]

I am using a 2.4 dual core with a 8800GT and 4 GB pc6000 DDR2. With the shadows off for the aircraft the frame rate is close to 28 average. But all other aircraft run great of course. Deatils on FSX are not very high I am running at 1024x768x32 should I be running a higher res when I try 1024x1024x32 it runs even slower.

[Horten229 0]

I am using a 2.4 dual core with a 8800GT and 4 GB pc6000 DDR2. With the shadows off for the aircraft the frame rate is close to 28 average. But all other aircraft run great of course. Deatils on FSX are not very high I am running at 1024x768x32 should I be running a higher res when I try 1024x1024x32 it runs even slower.

Interesting. Your machine is slightly slower (assuming its an AMD - clock speed between AMD and Intel are not comparible), basically the same graphics card and more RAM (which I don' think makes a lot of difference) and you get pretty good frame rates. I actually run at 1600x1200x32 (I have a 20" Samsung that supports the higher res) and Scenary Complexity: Very Dense and Autogen Density: Normal (plus the Ultimate Terrain USA X and FSGenesis Terrain mesh which adds to the processor load).

I have noticed that higher resolution makes a big difference and cranking up the scenary details doesn't help. But I like quality visuals and I'm willing to take the hit on frame rates. But the compromise is worth considering.

[lexicon66 0]

Interesting. Your machine is slightly slower (assuming its an AMD - clock speed between AMD and Intel are not comparible), basically the same graphics card and more RAM (which I don' think makes a lot of difference) and you get pretty good frame rates. I actually run at 1600x1200x32 (I have a 20" Samsung that supports the higher res) and Scenary Complexity: Very Dense and Autogen Density: Normal (plus the Ultimate Terrain USA X and FSGenesis Terrain mesh which adds to the processor load).

I have noticed that higher resolution makes a big difference and cranking up the scenary details doesn't help. But I like quality visuals and I'm willing to take the hit on frame rates. But the compromise is worth considering.

I am using an Intel Duo.

[Horten229 0]

I am using an Intel Duo.

Generally, Intel clock speeds are higher than AMD clock speeds for the same performance. But differences in CPU and buss architectures make this a very complex game.

As an experiment, I tried dropping the resolution, using my same test set up, to 1280x960 (gives the same aspect ratio and a reasonable pixel multiple as the native display resolution on my system). It made very little difference - probably less than one FPS.

So I changed the Scenary Complexity: None and Autogen Density: None. FPS sitting on the runway (~12:00) with nothing on went to 26.5. With the HUD on (HUD2 - modified update rate) it was 24.5. A lot more like lexicon66's experience. However, Andrews AFB looks like a desert. No buildings or hangers (except for the traffic at the end of the runway - a function of UTX traffic and probably explaining the slight difference in frame rates). I like my visuals so I'll go back to the previous settings.

But it is interesting that Scenary Complexity and Autogen Density settings make a big difference.

Performance analysis is so much fun !

Fred

[Darrin 0]

Hello,

I have a question. I'm looking to buy a new computer, and I think I've found a great deal. It's a quad-core AMD Phenom X3 8450, 2.1 Ghz, 3GB DDR2, ATI Radeon HD3200.

Would this computer run FSX in general and your F-16 in particular flawlessly, with the settings maxed out or nearly so? If not, what would you recommend?

And, isn't the 8800GT an older video card? So the newer video cards don't work as well with FSX as this older NVidia card?

Because the price is so good, I'm really eager to buy this one. I just want to make sure it's going to run this all perfectly. It seems to be more than what Aerosoft is recommending.

Thanks much

Darrin

[Guest FSWMD]

i have an hp amd athalon 3300 running at 2.0 ghz with 2gb memory and an ati radeon 2600pro with 512mb memory and i carry a steady 15fps with the f16 if my scenery is turned way up it may drop to 10fps but it doesnt flicker.and i generally have my settings about 3/4 to high water on 2low and i find it is very happy running fsx accel. my stock planes i range from 30 to 55 fps and i dont see much differance between them and the f16. so the unit you are lookin at should run just fine.

[Horten229 0]

Hello,

I have a question. I'm looking to buy a new computer, and I think I've found a great deal. It's a quad-core AMD Phenom X3 8450, 2.1 Ghz, 3GB DDR2, ATI Radeon HD3200.

Would this computer run FSX in general and your F-16 in particular flawlessly, with the settings maxed out or nearly so? If not, what would you recommend?

And, isn't the 8800GT an older video card? So the newer video cards don't work as well with FSX as this older NVidia card?

Because the price is so good, I'm really eager to buy this one. I just want to make sure it's going to run this all perfectly. It seems to be more than what Aerosoft is recommending.

Thanks much

Darrin

And on the NVidia 8800GT being "an older video card", check on Tom's Hardware benchmarks for flight simulator (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...chmarks,30.html). The 8800 series boards are at the top of the list in every FSX category.

[Darrin 0]

And on the NVidia 8800GT being "an older video card", check on Tom's Hardware benchmarks for flight simulator (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...chmarks,30.html). The 8800 series boards are at the top of the list in every FSX category.

Okay, thanks!

So the newer (and much more expensive) NVIDIA 9800 and GTX 280 cards are not as good as the 8800, huh?

I also thought Radeon worked better with FSX? Or perhaps that was FS2004.

[wsciutti 1]

Gentlmen,

I've run a test on my system and discovered a bit that may be interesting.

System: E6600 dual 2.4 overclocked to 3.2; 4 Gb Corsair RAM @ 5-5-5-18 timing (not real tight).

8800GT 512, 174.54 drivers + NHancer.

XP Home with SP3.

FSX and XP tuned as found on Simaviation Forum by Nick N.

FSX settings: 1920x1200

Global @ max

38 M mesh

30 Mesh resolution

Scenery Complex: 100%

AutoGen: Dense

Frames: locked @ 30

When I unchecked the 'aircraft casts shadow on ground' AND was at an airport NOT near water (Luke and Germany) the frames in and out of the cockpit were 30.

At Langley and MacDill, outside dropped to 20, inside stayed at 30.

The HUD was set up with all options on, NO MFDs until at altitude.

I do get blurries below 5000' and above 350KIAS.

My conclusion: the scenery location makes a difference as does the shadow rendering.

Thanks.

Jack Sciutti

[deltaleader 0]

Question:

Does the Aerosoft F-16 affect other players frame rates/performance in any way while in a multiplayer session?

Here is why I ask...this last week sometime, I joined an FSX server at Nellis. The ATC guy basically told me, if I was going to fly the Aerosoft F-16, I needed to do it away from all the other players as it was affecting their frame rates. I am sure most of them didnt even have the F-16 so it would have been substituted with a Maul or something (usually its the Maul). No for the life of me, I cannot see how it would affect other players.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Question:

Does the Aerosoft F-16 affect other players frame rates/performance in any way while in a multiplayer session?

Here is why I ask...this last week sometime, I joined an FSX server at Nellis. The ATC guy basically told me, if I was going to fly the Aerosoft F-16, I needed to do it away from all the other players as it was affecting their frame rates. I am sure most of them didnt even have the F-16 so it would have been substituted with a Maul or something (usually its the Maul). No for the life of me, I cannot see how it would affect other players.

Very weird as the F-16 is rather mild on fps and as you see in the many multi player and formation flight videos on Youtube show it should not be such a problem. Next time you see this, ask them to contact us so we can set it straight.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Gentlmen,

I've run a test on my system and discovered a bit that may be interesting.

System: E6600 dual 2.4 overclocked to 3.2; 4 Gb Corsair RAM @ 5-5-5-18 timing (not real tight).

8800GT 512, 174.54 drivers + NHancer.

XP Home with SP3.

FSX and XP tuned as found on Simaviation Forum by Nick N.

FSX settings: 1920x1200

Global @ max

38 M mesh

30 Mesh resolution

Scenery Complex: 100%

AutoGen: Dense

Frames: locked @ 30

When I unchecked the 'aircraft casts shadow on ground' AND was at an airport NOT near water (Luke and Germany) the frames in and out of the cockpit were 30.

At Langley and MacDill, outside dropped to 20, inside stayed at 30.

The HUD was set up with all options on, NO MFDs until at altitude.

I do get blurries below 5000' and above 350KIAS.

My conclusion: the scenery location makes a difference as does the shadow rendering.

Thanks.

Jack Sciutti

Nice overclock!

However I am not 100% sure about the point you make. Could you expand a bit on the shadow rendering?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hello,

I have a question. I'm looking to buy a new computer, and I think I've found a great deal. It's a quad-core AMD Phenom X3 8450, 2.1 Ghz, 3GB DDR2, ATI Radeon HD3200.

Would this computer run FSX in general and your F-16 in particular flawlessly, with the settings maxed out or nearly so? If not, what would you recommend?

And, isn't the 8800GT an older video card? So the newer video cards don't work as well with FSX as this older NVidia card?

Because the price is so good, I'm really eager to buy this one. I just want to make sure it's going to run this all perfectly. It seems to be more than what Aerosoft is recommending.

Thanks much

Darrin

Darrin, sorry to be a bit late to the party and I hope you did not yet bought the system. I would NOT buy an AMD at this moment, they simply are slow when compared to Intels quad/duo core machines and they are dead in the water compared to the new Intel core i7 systems. I have been using AMD's for many many years and loved them for the great value for money, but right now AMD is way behind. Getting a low end Quad Core and overclocking that one to a high end Quad Core will get you a lot better performance in games at this moment.

And as they sell a lot easier, prices for mobo's etc also tend to be lower.

[Horten229 0]

Gentlmen,

I've run a test on my system and discovered a bit that may be interesting.

System: E6600 dual 2.4 overclocked to 3.2; 4 Gb Corsair RAM @ 5-5-5-18 timing (not real tight).

8800GT 512, 174.54 drivers + NHancer.

XP Home with SP3.

FSX and XP tuned as found on Simaviation Forum by Nick N.

FSX settings: 1920x1200

Global @ max

38 M mesh

30 Mesh resolution

Scenery Complex: 100%

AutoGen: Dense

Frames: locked @ 30

When I unchecked the 'aircraft casts shadow on ground' AND was at an airport NOT near water (Luke and Germany) the frames in and out of the cockpit were 30.

At Langley and MacDill, outside dropped to 20, inside stayed at 30.

The HUD was set up with all options on, NO MFDs until at altitude.

I do get blurries below 5000' and above 350KIAS.

My conclusion: the scenery location makes a difference as does the shadow rendering.

Thanks.

Jack Sciutti

Just my experience on this based on a lot of experimentation.

Scenery Complex and AutoGen are a big hit on frame rates. I find AutoGen even more so than Scenary complexity but that may be because I have UTX, which add a lot of complexity. I like quality so I run Scenary Complexity at Very Dense (~80%) and AutoGen at Normal.

I too have noticed significant hits on frame rates over big cities. I often fly other the Baltimore and Washington Metro areas where the scenary complexity is high and the frame rates can dip into the single digits. More rural areas (Western Maryland/Rhode Island/Massachusets) produce at least twice the frame rates. It's probalby just a function of the scenary complexity and autogen activity associated with big cities (traffic, but land and air!).

On Target Frame Rate, I recently did an experiment where I ran the frame rate up to its limit (100) and compared the various settings with unlimited (0). Surprisingly, unlimited always produced better actual frame rates, especially considering that the unlimited average frame rates were only around 25. It seems that either there is some overhead in limiting frame rates or that the limiting function is cutting out some high speed short burst frame rates that drive up the average. But I have found better results running with unlimited frame rates.

[wsciutti 1]

Nice overclock!

However I am not 100% sure about the point you make. Could you expand a bit on the shadow rendering?

Thank you for reading Mr. Kok.

My point is this: on my system, disabling 'aircraft casts shadow on ground' (which I call shadow rendering; I don't know the correct programing term although I spent 20+ years as a developer/Oracle DBA) results in an increase in frame rates of 5-8 which, as you know, can make a difference in MSFS. Also, I discovered that the airport location makes a difference in F-16 (very nice programing I believe) frame rates. My locked 30 becomes 20 at Langley AFB and back to 30 with water set to 'none'. I usually fly with water set at low 2. At Luke or a German base (not much water to display), I leave the water at low 2 and get 30 steady from T/O to altitude.

Hope this is a better explanation.

Jack

PS: I also enjoy the Cheyenne and the Beaver.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thank you for reading Mr. Kok.

My point is this: on my system, disabling 'aircraft casts shadow on ground' (which I call shadow rendering; I don't know the correct programing term although I spent 20+ years as a developer/Oracle DBA) results in an increase in frame rates of 5-8 which, as you know, can make a difference in MSFS. Also, I discovered that the airport location makes a difference in F-16 (very nice programing I believe) frame rates. My locked 30 becomes 20 at Langley AFB and back to 30 with water set to 'none'. I usually fly with water set at low 2. At Luke or a German base (not much water to display), I leave the water at low 2 and get 30 steady from T/O to altitude.

Hope this is a better explanation.

Jack

PS: I also enjoy the Cheyenne and the Beaver.

That's a whopping big effect for a simple effect as aircraft shadowing on ground, surprising. I would expect that for self shadowing but not for the ground stuff. Personally I am not a big fan of shadows on the ground as FSX has so much problems understanding where the ground is.