Goof 490 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Hi guys, A few hours ago i bought the new Mega Airport Helsinki and i am a bit frustrated at the moment, because i have reeeeeeeeeally bad frames.... I´m reaching 14 fps with the NGX cold and dark at the gate at night, with all tweaks turned off in the performance tool of the scenery. In comparison i´m reaching 27 at Fsdreamteam´s LAX and 24 at Mega Airport Frankfurt. My system: intel i5 3570K GTX 660 TI 8 gb ddr3 ram w7 64 bit Some help would be appreciated, because the scenery looks stunning, but at the moment it is unflyable. Cheers, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCLK 24 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Same here.. reaching 14-15FPS in NGX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Glad that I am not alone... I have a slightly less potent system perhaps, an i7 950 @ 4GHz... The baggage carts and cars I have found to be a hard hit, the trees seem to be a bit of a problem... I have seen trees floating a little. I have changed no settings at all and have a better experience of performance almost everywhere else excluding OrbX YBBN, which is known to be really hard... A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Glad that I am not alone... I have a slightly less potent system perhaps, an i7 950 @ 4GHz... The baggage carts and cars I have found to be a hard hit, the trees seem to be a bit of a problem... I have seen trees floating a little. I have changed no settings at all and have a better experience of performance almost everywhere else excluding OrbX YBBN, which is known to be really hard... A Puuuh... and i thought it is my fault... Let´s the what the devs say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCLK 24 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Even in Budapest i get better FPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer Antti (A-Flight) 31 Posted October 4, 2012 Developer Share Posted October 4, 2012 With the system you have described here you should be getting better performance even with all the features turned on. Any other add-ons you are using that are affecting that area? Sometimes lowering some settings just a bit might also have an effect. For example lowering the autogen 1 notch down. Tweaking the fsx.cfg file can also benefit performance sometimes, particularly if you have over 1GB video card you can try this setting: [bufferPools] UsePools=0 Using the scenery in full detail with a complex addon like NGX also requires quite a bit of processor/graphic power. I can tell you though that with i7 2600k @ 4.4GHz and GTX580 we have been getting around 30fps with the NGX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 okay... I have nothing installed in this area (in fact, EFHK was my first addon for northern europe). I will try lowering some settings and report back (probably tomorrow... Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 [bufferPools] UsePools=0 This one has done it for me.. Im getting at least 23 fps when looking out of the vc at the terminal at night... Some minor tweaks here and there and i can switch on the effects Thanks to Antti That´s how it should be. Cheers, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Please do not misunderstand me, but lowering the settings should not be an option if other addons of this size and complexity seem to have no issue. The usepools=0 setting is not to be taken slightly. I for one am not going to use that setting, as it has caused all sorts of weird stuff, namely autogen spiking. I wonder if this geographical region in any way a problem in FSX, in the way that the greater metropolitan area of Brisbane can cause all sorts of performance issues both with and without OrbX. All I have as addon in the area is UTX-Eu, assuming it even reaches Finland, I would need to look myself. I notice the large number of 2048x2048 textures in DXT5 format at 5.33mb per texture, 180 of then to be precise. I think reducing those down to 1024x1024 dxt5 would reduce each to 1.33Mb, that massively reduces load time... Now, how would I go about resizing all those 180 files in a batch, as doing it by hand could take a good 2 weeks of my very precious free time... Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEA-JHD 1 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm having the same problem here, even with the Bufferpool tweak i get low FPS and shortly thereafter the out of memory error. I tried loading up in another region and i have no problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesper L. 1 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Same here was inbound EFHK and during decent the famus window "out of memory". Using the BP=0 already so that is not it here either. Also have settings medium in general. Have no other issues on other airports. One question? When the scenery installs the FSX.cfg is changed. What change are the installer doing ??? Still a very nice scenery indeed bravo for a very nice job. Hope to get this fixed soon. Bgrds Jesper L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted October 5, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted October 5, 2012 Please do not misunderstand me, but lowering the settings should not be an option if other addons of this size and complexity seem to have no issue. Now I am not sure what products you have installed but I am pretty sure you do not have much installed that has this density of modeling and textures. See it's actually all not very difficult. These days all scenery from reputable designers are pretty well optimized as much as possible. There is no 'trick' so when things are slow it is because there is a lot of detail to display. Every polygon simple takes time. I checked the load on the video bus with this project and it is one of the highest I have seen and that's simply because it is a very dense concentration of objects. So dense that on a 32 bit OS the out of Memory issue with FSX are always just a breath away. In this scenery it is the static cars that will cause most issues. Personally I got a solid 25 fps minimal all over the airport with a totally untweaked FSX and a bit more in P3D. But I can see where this project hurts users with less powerful systems. But do not expect a 'fix' for this. Making it faster will almost without a doubt mean removing objects, simplifying objects or reducing the visual range. This always means a slightly lesser beautiful project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer Antti (A-Flight) 31 Posted October 5, 2012 Developer Share Posted October 5, 2012 I would recommend that running the scenery with a complex add-on airliner with high-resolution textures (such as NGX), the system should have a Sandy Bridge (i5 or i7 2600k) processor with at least 4gb of ram and GTX570, 580 (Or HD7950 -7970) (or higher) graphics card with 1GB+ memory and definetly a 64-bit Windows 7 OS. We had several test systems with the scenery and all the Sandy Bridge systems with a good graphics card and 64-bit OS performed really well with complex airplanes. The truth is with a less powerful system, you can't always run FSX + complex airplane + complex scenery with high fps. Also, when in full screen mode, FSX has a bug that when you cycle between views there's a memory leak which can cause out of memory situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Thanks for the feedback Antii. I run Windows 7 Home Premium 64 on a home-built and optimised PC containing an overclocked i7 950. I haven't had an OOM error on this setup at all so far, a couple of CTDs, but I have always tracked down the causes of those. I add that I have NOT had an OOM in Helsinki... I only ever use full screen mode and have the luxury of a second PC to run everything not directly related to FSX, including weather injection via Active Sky and simconnect... As my current system stands, using the nvidia in-driver frame limiter available now and running unlocked in-sim, I get steady 25-30 FPS in almost every scenario. I have only a minor numer of tweaks to fsx.cfg such as HIGHMEM and a cap on the number of autogen objects visible, which affects only built-up areas, but other than that it is not really much different from the original, fresh .cfg after setting up the resolution and so on. I do my best to avoid "snake-oil" tweaks and solutions. I spent last night resizing the 2048x2048 sheets to 1024x1024. It reduces file size, as I said, from 5.33 to 1.33Mb. I have around 60 still to resize, but I have already noticed a difference in general smoothness. I have switched off the baggage carts and will probably leave them off, as that is in my opinion quite an additional load. I know the 2048 sheets are higher resolution and should look better, but I have to admit that I have not really noticed the difference yet. No doubt, if I zoom in on the resized textures, they will not look so good... But I am sitting in my cockpit looking out at the airport from a certain distance. In my mind, smoothness of operation into, out of and around the airport is more important than hi-resolution textures. At the end of the day, the beauty is useless when it reduces or removes usability, particularly for the masses. Although I am aware of the additional work it is, it would be a real bonus to see different densities of 3D objects like baggage carts or cars in the car parks, as offered by some others. That way, I could have both a few baggage carts and a few cars, giving the impression of an active airport that is usable with higher end addons as well. Instead, I have to switch off all this functionality in order to use my addon at this airport. I am now beginning to think I should have waited a little before purchasing to see others' first impressions... This time it is me, among others, writing the first impressions. @Mathijs: With all due respect, surely it is in a devloper's interest to make a product that many will be able to enjoy in its fullness, not a product that only a select few with perhaps more money than sense (JOKE) will be able to use in all its full glory? "Great scenery and unbelievably sharp textures, but you need a CRAY supercomputer to run it with your NGX" won't sell too well. "Great scenery, the perfect balance between performance and visuals, you can enjoy this scenery in its full glory, without needing a CRAY supercomputer..." will get you a lot more sales don't you think? With my current hardware and configuration, I can hand-fly the 737-600NGX into a cloudy Skagit Regional in OrbX PNW, with many of their other airports in the region active, smoothly. If I do see the frame counter, it wanders from 22-30 , though the smoothness is consistent all the way down to the ground. I even had this performance with the ENBseries.dll running... Still, thank you to the support team for the work, suggestions, and help so far. It really is appreciated. (Antii, this mention goes out to you particularly right this minute, but I do not aim to single anyone out specifically...) Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Okay, so maybe a patch with the option to switch between 2048*2048 and 1024*1024 textures? I would appreciate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel EBCI 23 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Sir Goof I don't no, but just for your information ... Are you use this patch texture fix 1.1 for your FSX ??? But some people have a very good result on the fps on all add-on after use it. See this post ! http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/34024-flight-sim-labs-ltd-fsx-texture-fix-utility/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kepti 34 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Guys, please read this thread as well! http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/58267-not-satisfied-with-your-frames-read-these-tips/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Sir Goof Lol.. you can call me Alex I´m not that old that you need to call me sir lol Are you use this patch texture fix 1.1 for your FSX ??? But some people have a very good result on the fps on all add-on after use it. See this post ! http://forum.aerosof...re-fix-utility/ I use all those tweaks which are inserted with this tool. Highmemfix etc all inserted, only missing thing was Usepools=0. And this one made a significant difference for me. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tors 2 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 This seems to be the never ending story with FSX, bad fps. That´s reason I still use my good fs2004 with all my addons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 With all due respect, what is the point of making your comment tors? I hope you do not aim to start a flame war on FS9 vs. FSX... You will find more than enough soldiers on both sides to fight that one until the thread gets closed... HIGHMEM is a must for FSX these days... an absolute must... A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted October 5, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted October 5, 2012 This seems to be the never ending story with FSX, bad fps. That´s reason I still use my good fs2004 with all my addons. And FS2004 could never show this level of detail and if it could it would be dead slow because it is limited to one CPU core. In FS2004 MS limited what people could do so it would never get slow, in FSX those limits are gone and we can grow with the increase in hardware performance. Besides, for most people performance is hardly an issue any more. For these kinds of project that go one step further it will always be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtAir 3 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 And FS2004 could never show this level of detail and if it could it would be dead slow because it is limited to one CPU core. In FS2004 MS limited what people could do so it would never get slow, in FSX those limits are gone and we can grow with the increase in hardware performance. Besides, for most people performance is hardly an issue any more. For these kinds of project that go one step further it will always be. Ok, Mathijs, I hope FS9 version will follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Was a version for fs9 even mentioned? I certainly don't remember reading that... Or is your post one of those irony things??? A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtAir 3 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Was a version for fs9 even mentioned? I certainly don't remember reading that... Or is your post one of those irony things??? A As I remember correct developer sad it depends on convertation ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakayoyo 3 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Gosh, people are so rude blaming this wonderful product for overloading their own simulator. I'm running Helsinki X with PMDG, REX and Ultimate Traffic 2, with FinlandX underneath at radius large, scenery extreemly dense, autogen dense in Prepar3d. Using 2,4GB memory. Getting 25fps incockpit looking at the main body of buildings at the airport. Granted when I switch a few times in season and aircrafts memory usage goes to critical levels, perhaps the product could do with some optimization, but to claim it's unusable is unfounded. Thank you aerosoft, happy customer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.