iPetroSS 542 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Hello guys, just got my Airbus X Extended and wow its like a freaking spaceship - I love it! I noticed though that I get less FPS compared to the old Airbus X. I tried taking off from Mykonos X and I got around 12 FPS while with the old Airbus X I was getting around 18-20. Congratulations on the development team after all - it's the ultimate airbus experience P.S. May someone move this thread to the Airbus X Extended category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostap 19 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Yes, I am afraid the performance is not a winner - I have no over-clocked mega PC with a graphics card on steroids - the PMDG NGX reaches up to 20 fps when at cruise alt with clear weather. Airbus X only runs at 10-12 fps in the same situation without anything changed. The ND is one of the culprits. I have created 2D windows with the PFD and ND separate and removed them from the VC. When turned off fps jump to 18 fps. Also turn off that HTML interface and the logging - that improves things slightly. The HTML stuff is pretty much useless, taking screenshots of the MCDU. I actually thought we can use the WebMCDU like a real one but that was a misunderstanding it seems... I had to tweak performance of my Sim a lot to bring AXE into an acceptable performance range. But apart from that and some weird things happening from time to time I really like it and when the SP comes out I am hoping for some more performance. Kosta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob57 4 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Look at your FSX.cfg, this plane does not like widesceen aspect, choose False. Bob WideViewAspect=False Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mseiwald 79 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Overall i like the AXE very much! It's really the first Airbus addon that can actually be called airbus. However the fps really aren't the best. My specs are pretty good in cruise flight with the NGX i get around 27fps while with AXE it's only 18-25fps at addon airports usually around 10-12fps. But a really bad combination at least for me is AXE and aerosoft's LGIR. Here i get highly fluctuating fps with drops to 2fps every few seconds. I had such drops nowhere Else with AXE and never have seen fps at such a low level in fsx as with this constellation (AXE-LGIR) Edit: i fly from LGIR with the NGX with qite acceptable framerates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostap 19 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Look at your FSX.cfg, this plane does not like widesceen aspect, choose False. Bob WideViewAspect=False hmm, interesting. It did not improve on the fps but the views seem different, I need different zoom factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wims 1 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Weird, I'm getting excellent framerates, its definitely better in the AXE compared to the NGX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croftspardon 4 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 My framerates are great as well, better than NGX Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 Overall i like the AXE very much! It's really the first Airbus addon that can actually be called airbus. However the fps really aren't the best. My specs are pretty good in cruise flight with the NGX i get around 27fps while with AXE it's only 18-25fps at addon airports usually around 10-12fps. But a really bad combination at least for me is AXE and aerosoft's LGIR. Here i get highly fluctuating fps with drops to 2fps every few seconds. I had such drops nowhere Else with AXE and never have seen fps at such a low level in fsx as with this constellation (AXE-LGIR) Edit: i fly from LGIR with the NGX with qite acceptable framerates. The Airbus uses more CPU then the NGX in most conditions as we have to do all the FBW calculations. Could it be you are using a marginal CPU, perhaps a non Intel one? We would normally expect about 25% to 30% better fps then in the NGX (of course that is because it is handling a lot more systems). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mseiwald 79 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hey Mathijs, you are right my CPU is AMD FX8150. I disabled some stuff in FSX now and get better fps now! Had that issue only in europe as i'm really using lots of addons there (almost everything you can get). FPS outside europe have always been ok with AXE. However in LGIR i still have sudden fps drops to like 2-4 fps every few seconds. Thats a bit weired but i guess i'll just not fly there with the AXE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hey Mathijs, you are right my CPU is AMD FX8150. I disabled some stuff in FSX now and get better fps now! Had that issue only in europe as i'm really using lots of addons there (almost everything you can get). FPS outside europe have always been ok with AXE. However in LGIR i still have sudden fps drops to like 2-4 fps every few seconds. Thats a bit weired but i guess i'll just not fly there with the AXE Okay, I start to see a pattern. The AMD is weak on the hard core calculation we need to do (and it also seems a bit more prone to getting choked with tasks), not a lot we can do about that actually. The updates we will do will not make it slower and might help a bit here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mseiwald 79 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Ok thanks a lot. I'll continue to see where i can disable unneeded addon stuff from FSX and maybe that gives me some extra fps. Anyway at least i'm getting a few frames more at the Mega Airports now. So i can live with just not flying to LGIR now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikk 7 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oke I have not a bad PC, I5 2500K and GTX 570. I have tweaked my FSX a little bit. Use many add-ons like REX. I got less framerates at some moment than in the NGX. At Mega Airport Schiphol. With the NGX I got 16-19 fps in vc. With the AXE 10-14. So I don't know why. And that is on the ground. I can't understand why. Textures are at a lower resolution in the AXE than in the NGX. Is there also a reason for that? If we get lower fps, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LapCheong 45 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hi am niceify If u have i5 2500 with a K unlock u should have overclock it.I have about same processor and video card and my FPS is around 30 to 40 with framrate lock at 30 But do it at your own risk Lower the ground vehicle i personally disable all of them . Sky is another issue,if u have as2012 and have fps problem u should lower it. For the bus i really have nothing to say,you should'd be lagging Am sorry. My best suggestion OC your cpu i plus chop u see a improvement make sure u have a aftermarket heatsink. Flying is my life i cant live without flying Aviation ALL THE WAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oke I have not a bad PC, I5 2500K and GTX 570. I have tweaked my FSX a little bit. Use many add-ons like REX. I got less framerates at some moment than in the NGX. At Mega Airport Schiphol. With the NGX I got 16-19 fps in vc. With the AXE 10-14. So I don't know why. And that is on the ground. I can't understand why. Textures are at a lower resolution in the AXE than in the NGX. Is there also a reason for that? If we get lower fps, why not? I cannot really say why this is so on your machine, clearly the amount of polygons makes it harder on your machine. It's often hard to say what exactly causes something to be slower on one machines compared to another. As this is fully optimized there are no things we can do to make it faster without starting to remove things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBus 13 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just been doing some test. In the same condition, somewhere in the middle of the ocean so scenery can play no role I see these results (the fps is averaged and always with the mouse cursor off the window and after a fresh start of FSX. The ND is left 'empty', sim is paused 229 fps default Airbus 188 fps Airbus X 173 fps Airbus X Extended 143 fps PMDG 777 121 fps PMDG NGX 120 fps Wilco Airbus Evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goof 490 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 143 fps PMDG 777 Sorry for off topic.. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just been doing some test. In the same condition, somewhere in the middle of the ocean so scenery can play no role I see these results (the fps is averaged and always with the mouse cursor off the window and after a fresh start of FSX. The ND is left 'empty', sim is paused 229 fps default Airbus 188 fps Airbus X 173 fps Airbus X Extended 143 fps PMDG 777 121 fps PMDG NGX 120 fps Wilco Airbus Evolution That's about what I would expect yes. With the caution that we get good FPS because we limit the product where as PMDG does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikk 7 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 PMDG 777? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LapCheong 45 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sorry for off topic.. Seriously? Next buy list pmdg 777 haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sorry for off topic.. Seriously? Why not? You did read the conditions didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBus 13 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Sorry MD11 ofcourse. The wish leads the mind sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikk 7 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I have done also a little test at EHAM with the Mega Airport Scenery. With the NGX I get in the VC with mouse cursur 14 fps, without 17-18. With the AXE I have with and without mouse cursur 14 fps. That is the difference that I say something about the fps. 17 or more fps is playable, 14 fps is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 20, 2012 Aerosoft Share Posted December 20, 2012 I have done also a little test at EHAM with the Mega Airport Scenery. With the NGX I get in the VC with mouse cursur 14 fps, without 17-18. With the AXE I have with and without mouse cursur 14 fps. That is the difference that I say something about the fps. 17 or more fps is playable, 14 fps is not. Okay then we conclude that on your system the Airbus is slower then the NGX. As I explained it is hard to know why, certainly as it is the opposite on most other systems. And as I said the only way to make that better for your system is to reduce the complexity of the aircraft in some way, we just can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBus 13 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 On Aerosoft Schiphol that is very hard on FPS I also see the Airbus X Extended drop in FPS and the difference with the NGX gets smaller. Still faster but the difference gets smaller. I think because the overal resources for the aircraft are lower. But how it can be slower then the NGX..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikk 7 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't know it, it is weird. And remember, it is flyable, because at EHAM I have the lowest frames where on earth. So if I don't fly in Holland I have good fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.