ginoleopoldo 15 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Guys tryed many scenery of yours but every time i fly into one of your airports (Budapest, Madrid etc) in FSX my frames drops from 20-25 to 8 - 5. Ok you make them really detailed but defintely unflyable! Every time I have to remove them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal Haczek 1612 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 ginoleopoldo, Some advice from me: don't waste your money on detailed addon sceneries if you have a poor computer. I have an average rig and the Aesorotft sceneries work just fine (in FS9, which is less demanding than FSX). Of course there will ALWAYS be a visible FPS drop when compared to default or simple sceneries. Especially if you fill the airports with AI traffic, get heavy clouds and use a complex aircraft. But that is a compromise you agree to. P.S. Yes, Ferihegy is heavier than average. But is is also one of the most detailed sceneries available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogStar 0 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hi Ginoleopoldo ... simply use FS9 ... You will have nice performance and almost the same look of the airports as in FSX. Budapest indeed isn`t working well ... even on my machine ... although I have to say, that the scenery is real stunning ... especially when approaching via the city ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted November 24, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted November 24, 2009 ginoleopoldo, Some advice from me: don't waste your money on detailed addon sceneries if you have a poor computer. I have an average rig and the Aesorotft sceneries work just fine (in FS9, which is less demanding than FSX). Of course there will ALWAYS be a visible FPS drop when compared to default or simple sceneries. Especially if you fill the airports with AI traffic, get heavy clouds and use a complex aircraft. But that is a compromise you agree to. P.S. Yes, Ferihegy is heavier than average. But is is also one of the most detailed sceneries available. It's also one of the largest in size. And we learned a great deal since it was done so there is progress in that area as well. I got a 800 Euro computer that flies all our products without any problem. Also note that FSX can store profiles so tune the sim to the conditions you want to fly in. For a big airport you don't need high effect settings, detailed mesh or high autogen settings. You are wasting your CPU on those things then while you will need them on a VFR scenery. A few weeks ago at the FSWeekend show I asked to see the settings of 22 users. All of them had settings I did not understand (because they made no sense). On 16 systems they allowed me to tweak the settings (no cfg settings etc, never do that stuff) and all of those got better fps. Some 25%, some 75% better. Just setting the framerate rate limiter to unlimited adds loads of fps without any side effects on most systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogStar 0 Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 If You approach a big hub in FSX + full Ai Traffic and weather, the rest of Your settings won`t make a big difference. It`s simply not flyable - even with my machine BudapestX is in the one - digit range under such circumstances ... So I`m glad I`m still having FS9 on my HD ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted November 24, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted November 24, 2009 If You approach a big hub in FSX + full Ai Traffic and weather, the rest of Your settings won`t make a big difference. It`s simply not flyable - even with my machine BudapestX is in the one - digit range under such circumstances ... So I`m glad I`m still having FS9 on my HD ... And still we sell thousands of those airports. To customers who then buy another one. I don't want to go into the whole FSX/FS2004 issue here, but I do not have serious problems, nor do those other customers and I think that's useful to state here. The vast majority of our sales are for FSX (and with vast I mean with a whopping margin), there is no way we can send a retailer an FS2004 box, we get them straight back. Stating that it is "simply not flyable" might reflect on your system. Not on mine. I fly it with acceptable fps, seeing a lot more then FS2004 could show. I do not deny it is one of our more demanding products (the requirements reflect that) but do not use our forum to state that our products are unusable. FSX is more demanding then FS2004, and often in very strange ways. For example a $60 graphics card is almost always faster then a $600 graphics card. I seen grown man cry when we removed their high end card and dropped in a cheap card and got double the FPS without even changing drivers (try explaining THAT to your wife). I have seen people with $2500 machines that got half the fps of a $800 machine I use, I seen people who spend months tweaking cfg files only to find that using the default got them 25% better fps when combined with just using the 'unlimited fps' option. If you like to discuss the FSX versus FS2004 issue please do so here: http://www.forum.aer...showtopic=19472. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts