Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

So how fast is FSX really

Recommended Posts

Sure Lelystad airport is located in a polder, no mesh need, hardly any surrounding (in fact a low Autogen setting is MORE realistic there) so that's all lucky. But the airport is very detailed, all buildings are done with volumetric shadows (not done a lot as it is not easy to do in 3d) but still. It's nice to see framerates as high as we see them now. The images are not done on some super high end machine, in fact it is my own test machine that's rather low end, sub 700 Euro at this moment. No overclocks at all, very standard FSX, no tweaks at all. The FSX settings are all as we advise them in the manual. Kept all images in high res PNG so you can really see the details. The aircraft used is our Catalina that has over 100.000 vertices (external only) in the model shown. Keep in mind that FS2004 can only have aircraft that have 64.000 vertices for the external AND the virtual cockpit together. So this is one of the MOST demanding aircraft for FSX you can buy at this moment.

This is all done on beta2, we are still adding cars and traffic. So we expect to loose 25% of the frames by adding a whopping lot of objects.

2.png

Final approach, the whole of the Aviodrome with the external collection in view. 105 fps (average 98 fps).

3.png

Taxi to the platform. Difficult conditions with dusk, a complete wind farm (animated) on the horizon and the complete Aviodrome loaded in full detail. 102 fps (average 94 fps)

1.png

Worst case scenario. We got detailed objects very close, one of the most detailed aircraft available for FSX in the middle and a high dense scenery in the background. All fully shaded with volumetric shading. High dense clouds, not simplified in any way. 80 fps (average 78 fps).

Is the scenery fast. mmm yes I would say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo, Mathijs,

when can we enjoy this scenery. I'd love to showcase our new DC2 on it during the upcoming Flightsimweekend in the Aviodrome.

Please stop teasing us :)

Cheers, Rob

"UIVER" Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that just about everyone who runs a flat screen monitor these days runs at 60 Hertz refresh rate anything above 60fps is, ermmm, totally useless.

Mathijs - what this means is that you guys really need to ADD IN MORE STUFF!!! Bring that average FPS down to 60 (or even 50) and then we are talking.

My vote would be to at least double (if not triple) that texture resolution beyond the aprons - it looks horrible imho - a see of blur. FTX's Tamworth airport uses 7cm ground textures and it looks stunning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that just about everyone who runs a flat screen monitor these days runs at 60 Hertz refresh rate anything above 60fps is, ermmm, totally useless.

Mathijs - what this means is that you guys really need to ADD IN MORE STUFF!!! Bring that average FPS down to 60 (or even 50) and then we are talking.

My vote would be to at least double (if not triple) that texture resolution beyond the aprons - it looks horrible imho - a see of blur. FTX's Tamworth airport uses 7cm ground textures and it looks stunning...

There is no imagery available that is more detailed then what we use so that's not an option. And though we very seriously like what FTX have done, we feel FSX is just not ready for it. I get hickups and pauses even when taxing at very low speed. Without ANY disrespect (honestly), they have given a great tech demo. We rather have 50 fps smooth on this training airport. It's easy to make a scenery slow, it's very hard to make it look good and be smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo, Mathijs,

when can we enjoy this scenery. I'd love to showcase our new DC2 on it during the upcoming Flightsimweekend in the Aviodrome.

Please stop teasing us :)

Cheers, Rob

"UIVER" Team

Yep.. but the parking in front of the old Schiphol terminal is for us and the Catalina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really nice to see such high FPS, but these number are pretty useless (in my opinion) if we don't know the exact circumstances of the situation when they were taken. 105fps with the airport and nothing but FSX and autogen on normal? Or with AI traffic, detailed mesh, advanced weather, UTX Europe, water on 2x med, very dense autogen?

It's so hard to compare framerates - as they depend on so many factors.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.. but the parking in front of the old Schiphol terminal is for us and the Catalina.

That's fair, we will park in front of the T2 hangar :D (can we move the blue car from that spot?) It would be great if we could park in the hanger, and use it as the resting place for the DC2 as it really is.

But back to the question, will it be available then. I just had a look at NickC's screenshoits, and I just love this little scenery.

So, when??????????????

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really nice to see such high FPS, but these number are pretty useless (in my opinion) if we don't know the exact circumstances of the situation when they were taken. 105fps with the airport and nothing but FSX and autogen on normal? Or with AI traffic, detailed mesh, advanced weather, UTX Europe, water on 2x med, very dense autogen?

It's so hard to compare framerates - as they depend on so many factors.

Sure, you are right on all accounts. But on the other hand, I am flying circuits at this airport in that aircraft with those framerates and isn't that the only thing that counts?

And mesh? At Lelystad that's totally flat at -12 feet? The scenery and the wide surrounding looks 100% the same with mesh at max or mesh at min. Autogen? This area looks FAR more realistic with autogen at very low settings! FSX can store setting files, I am always surprised that people don't use that feature. I got one settings file that's called Holland/North Germany. It tweaks FSX to the settings that makes flights in that area look better and way faster.

Keep in mind we'll still eat up some of that fps by adding more cars and traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair, we will park in front of the T2 hangar :D (can we move the blue car from that spot?) It would be great if we could park in the hanger, and use it as the resting place for the DC2 as it really is.

But back to the question, will it be available then. I just had a look at NickC's screenshoits, and I just love this little scenery.

So, when??????????????

Cheers, Rob.

We still plan to have it with us at the Aviodrome next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...At the aviodrome next week... Oh my god, I'm so glad you mentioned that, or otherwise I'd have never known it was held. I'll see if I can come either one of those days. I want to meet the guys at Aerosoft and see what's happening. can you tell anything about what you will bringing with you? And will there be a possiblity to buy stuff? Oh, and NL2000... I hope they show version 4 of their great scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catalina might be the most complex modelled aircraft there currently is, but that doesn't mean that other planes don't hit frames harder (because of bad optimizing, too many effects etc.). Are you sure it is really the most demanding aircraft for FSX yet? Correct me if I'm wrong :P

PS: Do you have your system specs posted somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catalina might be the most complex modelled aircraft there currently is, but that doesn't mean that other planes don't hit frames harder (because of bad optimizing, too many effects etc.). Are you sure it is really the most demanding aircraft for FSX yet? Correct me if I'm wrong :P

PS: Do you have your system specs posted somewhere?

I can't imagine that the Catalina is the most demanding plane for FSX...of course, I do not own this add-on.

But I do own others (Shockwave's P-47 with Accu-sim can REALLY bring FSX to it's knees for example) and if the Catalina impacts the sim more than the P47, then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now turn your AA to a more serious setting, play it on 1920x1200 and imagine that in the coming time within a few miles there will be the FPS-eating Mega Airport Amsterdam. Say goodbye to your precious FPS. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catalina might be the most complex modelled aircraft there currently is, but that doesn't mean that other planes don't hit frames harder (because of bad optimizing, too many effects etc.). Are you sure it is really the most demanding aircraft for FSX yet? Correct me if I'm wrong :P

PS: Do you have your system specs posted somewhere?

Ahhh good point! I have seen some very nice looking aircraft we feel put an unreasonable load on the system. My personal point of view is that an aircraft can use 33% of the CPU cycles and the scenery the rest. But I like old aircraft and VFR flight so others might have different ideas.

Optimizing aircraft (or even deciding that some features are great but not worth the load) is a difficult. We normally remove a whopping lot of nice ideas and even ready code in the process of making an aircraft. We also have the very clear idea that it is a flight simulator, to be used from the pilot seat. So not a lot of ground equipment, cabin views etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that the Catalina is the most demanding plane for FSX...of course, I do not own this add-on.

But I do own others (Shockwave's P-47 with Accu-sim can REALLY bring FSX to it's knees for example) and if the Catalina impacts the sim more than the P47, then....

I don't say it it is THE most demanding aircraft, I written it is one of the most demanding because it is one of the most complex in modeling every done. I know the P47 with accusim hits the fps hard, it's actually the reason I hardly use it. I respect what they done, most certainly know a lot of people love it but it's a flight simulator, it needs to share the CPU load with scenery etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now turn your AA to a more serious setting, play it on 1920x1200 and imagine that in the coming time within a few miles there will be the FPS-eating Mega Airport Amsterdam. Say goodbye to your precious FPS. <_<

I can't comment on Schiphol, just have not seen it yet. But AA? I never tweak my systems as it is not used for screenshots but it is already on the highest settings, aniso etc. I'm happy with how it looks and very happy with the fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't comment on Schiphol, just have not seen it yet. But AA? I never tweak my systems as it is not used for screenshots but it is already on the highest settings, aniso etc. I'm happy with how it looks and very happy with the fps.

AA hardly matters nowadays. I run FSX 3360x1050 and it doesn't make a difference if I use no AA or 8x combined with the 285GTX. Bottleneck is my 3.24GHz CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: Do you have your system specs posted somewhere?

All prices in Euro

240 Asus PT6 deluxe mobo (cheapest I could find at the time)

230 I7 920 CPU

110 3gb of mem, no idea what

50 600 watt power supply

40 Antec midi tower

50 500 gb Seagate HD (I use a cheapo Windows Home Server machine to store my vintage porn collection and )

I have to use two graphics cards and normally switch them a few times a week.

50 ATI 4650 1gb GPU (I have never found a faster one for FSX, but shitty for any other game)

185 ATI 4870 2gb GPU (used when I handle Bus Simulator, Rise of Flight etc, but much slower for FSX then the cheap card)

So depending on the graphics card in it, 770 Euro or 905 Euro. Runs great, I am sure I could get another 20% more fps out of it if I overclock, but I don't bother. This works great for me. I also know that adding a super high end GPU will make it slower. I love FSX because it is so cheap to run these days.

This all runs on Vista 32 bits (updating it to W7 this weekend), fully patched and FSX Xpack. I have no tweaks to the OS or FSX as I am not a bit believer in those things and I know how much problems they cause customer support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AA hardly matters nowadays. I run FSX 3360x1050 and it doesn't make a difference if I use no AA or 8x combined with the 285GTX. Bottleneck is my 3.24GHz CPU.

I agree, when the hardware is good and the drivers are okay, it is all done in hardware and the CPU should not notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say, i'm not impressed... If this is a "switch to FSX because" topic, from what I see, the only good thing here about FSX, is FS9 doesn't have this scenery and aircraft available. Both, I am quite fine living without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say, i'm not impressed... If this is a "switch to FSX because" topic, from what I see, the only good thing here about FSX, is FS9 doesn't have this scenery and aircraft available. Both, I am quite fine living without.

Fine, so you say you do not care about the scenery, the aircraft or about the simulator. Why did you read the topic or why did you post a reply that only tells the others you do not care about the scenery, the aircraft or about the simulator? Most people knew that already as you have been posting things like this for months. I kindly ask you not to post on topics about scenery, aircraft or even a simulator you can live without unless you have some comment that actually adds something to the discussion besides the fact you don't care or that the only 'good' thing is that FS9 does not have it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be the edges look a bit jagged because of image cropping or something?

I really think your AA doesn't look great. I tweak my GTS250 with nHancer, and it looks way better than this does. And AF is a real FPS killer. 8x gives me great results, 16x kills my FPS and textureloading.

I use a E8400 OCéd to 3,7 GHz, with 4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM OCéd to 980MHz, a velociraptor for my FS install, and a Spinpoint F1 for my OS and FSGlobal. I run all utilities on my netbook thru' WideFS. Still, when I switch my AA off, my FPS jumps from +/- 40 to 100+. So at least for me, graphics still cost performance.

Now if your bottleneck is the CPU, be happy with the knowledge of having AMS around the corner filled with AI. No matter what the airport looks like, that will drop your FPS notably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All prices in Euro

240 Asus PT6 deluxe mobo (cheapest I could find at the time)

230 I7 920 CPU

110 3gb of mem, no idea what

50 600 watt power supply

40 Antec midi tower

50 500 gb Seagate HD (I use a cheapo Windows Home Server machine to store my vintage porn collection and )

I have to use two graphics cards and normally switch them a few times a week.

50 ATI 4650 1gb GPU (I have never found a faster one for FSX, but #####ty for any other game)

185 ATI 4870 2gb GPU (used when I handle Bus Simulator, Rise of Flight etc, but much slower for FSX then the cheap card)

So depending on the graphics card in it, 770 Euro or 905 Euro. Runs great, I am sure I could get another 20% more fps out of it if I overclock, but I don't bother. This works great for me. I also know that adding a super high end GPU will make it slower. I love FSX because it is so cheap to run these days.

This all runs on Vista 32 bits (updating it to W7 this weekend), fully patched and FSX Xpack. I have no tweaks to the OS or FSX as I am not a bit believer in those things and I know how much problems they cause customer support.

thank you,

Could you add the resolution of your monitor please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still plan to have it with us at the Aviodrome next week.

In that case I will take some extra cash:) Looking forward to it!

Thanks, Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be the edges look a bit jagged because of image cropping or something?

I really think your AA doesn't look great. I tweak my GTS250 with nHancer, and it looks way better than this does. And AF is a real FPS killer. 8x gives me great results, 16x kills my FPS and textureloading.

I use a E8400 OCéd to 3,7 GHz, with 4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM OCéd to 980MHz, a velociraptor for my FS install, and a Spinpoint F1 for my OS and FSGlobal. I run all utilities on my netbook thru' WideFS. Still, when I switch my AA off, my FPS jumps from +/- 40 to 100+. So at least for me, graphics still cost performance.

Now if your bottleneck is the CPU, be happy with the knowledge of having AMS around the corner filled with AI. No matter what the airport looks like, that will drop your FPS notably.

First of all, screen shots never a good measure of how good AA is. In the past I used to tweak the graphic driver setting a lot (and indeed wasted a lot of fps for that) but I found out that in the game itself I simply did not see a lot of difference. It works great with a static image and that's what most people check. So now I just run with standard drivers, standard settings and am very happy. I do not have a clue how many AAx my FX now runs and I got very little interest in it!

But, i do know that AA causes a lot of issues for the GTS250. I am not surprised your fps drop so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...