Frame Rate Test: It's For Real!

T

ThePlainsman

Charter Member
Using the same Beechcraft Baron 58, weather set to "major thunderstorms", location Kilkenny, Ireland, time 5:55 pm, I tried FSX twice. All graphical options identical (density and other sliders almost all the way to the right). Ground Environment X -Europe installed and activated. 1920 x 1200

The first try was DX10 preview checked, the second DX9. Here's what I got:


DX10 preview: frame rate on the runway before takeoff = 36fps
DX9: frame rate on the runway before takeoff = 14fps


DX10 preview: frame rate at 2,000 feet, taking off straight ahead into the teeth of the storm = fluctuated between 32fps and 42fps, most of the time stable at 38fps, no choppiness.
DX9: frame rate at 2,000 feet, taking off straight ahead into the teeth of the storm = fluctuated between 10fps and 18fps, most of the time stable at 15fps, but with some choppiness

Ground graphics, terrain looked identical in both. I didn't fly over any water (I have REX 2.0) so can't make a comparison there. However, the frame rate difference when stable was dramatic. About a 150% increase! To get the same frame rate with DX9 would require me to move graphic sliders to the left. Way left.

Why isn't everyone using DX10 preview?
 
One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode. Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.
 
crashaz said:
One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode. Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. I have several non-native FSX planes. They all work perfectly in DX10 preview mode. In fact, all of Carenado's FSX planes, including their HD line, are DX10 compatible. I have freeware and payware add-on planes from different manufacturers and all are DX10 compatible. There are a few plane makers that are still stuck in a DX9 world, but I simply don't buy their stuff.
 
ThePlainsman said:
That's not accurate. I have several non-native FSX planes. They all work perfectly in DX10 preview mode. In fact, all of Carenado's FSX planes, including their HD line, are DX10 compatible. I have freeware and payware add-on planes from different manufacturers and all are DX10 compatible. There are a few plane makers that are still stuck in a DX9 world, but I simply don't buy their stuff.
Click to expand...

Non native FSX refers to aircraft from FS2004 and before ie those that were not compiled with the FSX SDK.
 
SECOND TEST RESULTS

Another test comparison, this time London City airport (right near downtown). Heavy building density. Same settings as above. Target frame rate = unlimited. Air traffic and road traffic and water traffic set on 50%. 1920 x 1200 x 32. Most important: altitude = runway and 500 feet through the heart of London buildings. I set the weather this time to clear skies.

On runway:

DX9 = 5fps
DX10 Preview = 30fps

500 feet, straight ahead, through the heart of London:

DX9 = 6fps with a high of 9fps
DX10 Preview = 27fps with a high of 32

Do the math.

With all the add-on crap I have installed, frankly DX9 was unplayable. It stuttered and bumped the whole test. DX10 preview was smooth as silk, with only momentary choppiness when between tall buildings downtown.

Obviously, frame rates under both DX9 and DX10 would be much better at higher altitudes, but I prefer low-level sight-seeing flying. Typically not as low as 500 feet, unless i'm flying a helicopter. But I like flying below 2,000. Based on the clear superiority of DX10 preview, I don't know why anyone would use DX9.
 
I'm guessing there are a lot of reasons people run one way or the other.
Why is really not something that I care about.
 
Yeah basically comes down to ... to each their own.... personally I use DX10 preview and have enough RAM to remove pauses.
 
While higher fps numbers can be gleaned through running the DX10 Preview mode...the anomalies tend to outweigh the initial benefits. Unfortunately almost all non native aircraft lose their textures in DX10...including user added AI traffic such as MAIW and WOAI.
 
kilo delta said:
While higher fps numbers can be gleaned through running the DX10 Preview mode...the anomalies tend to outweigh the initial benefits. Unfortunately almost all non native aircraft lose their textures in DX10...including user added AI traffic such as MAIW and WOAI.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone use non-native (FS2004) aircraft in FX when they can simply fly those aircraft in FS2004? I have both sims installed. Also, I have experienced ZERO anomalies with DX10 Preview. On the two tests I just ran, I did get occasional weird red streaks in the sky but that was in DX9 mode! I have MyTraffic X 2010 and Traffic X. Both are entirely DX10 compatible. So are REX, GEX, UTX, ORBX and everything else.

The framerate difference is so dramatic, so huge, I think it's crazy to limit graphic settings to try to get decent framerates out of DX9.

Just to clarify, my tests were conducted INSIDE the cockpit. Obviously fps are usually higher from outside.
 
I personally prefer the freeware WOAI/MAIW models compared to those offered in the payware FSX Ai packages. I've also had flickering runways textures in DX10 preview mode and ,as performance under DX9 is more than adequate for me, I tend to stick with DX9. It's all about personal preference :)
 
For what ever reason, I get smoother play in DX9 on my system, so that's why I use it. I'd quite happily change over if it improved things.
 
I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.
 
crashaz said:
One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode.
Click to expand...
Some FS9 aircrafts will work, though.
For example, the DR400 from Yannick Lavigne will work, you just need to convert some textures.
Also, the CR-42 frm Manuele displays perfectly :)
There must be some other examples, and I don't have any explanation/precise criteria, but the fact is that some FS9 planes will NOT be white in DX10 mode :)
And a proof:
daube_image1537.jpg


Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.
Click to expand...
Indeed. There is a cure for this, but it requires an edition of each airport :/
 
Peter SWE said:
I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.
Click to expand...

That, sir, is impossible. It's completely beyond belief. You'd be the only person on planet earth with such a result. Do you have Win 7 and a DX10 vid card? I'm going to see if I can duplicate your results.
 
ThePlainsman said:
Why would anyone use non-native (FS2004) aircraft in FX when they can simply fly those aircraft in FS2004?
Click to expand...
Because the FS9 flight environment quality cannot be compared to the FSX one as soon as you do anything else than IFR flights.

Also, I have experienced ZERO anomalies with DX10 Preview.
Click to expand...
Try to display the taxiway virtual path (yellow arrows guiding you on ground). ;)
 
Again...people have their reasons for flying the sim the way they do.
I think we get the point that you prefer DX-10 settings. You're starting to get personal with that last reply, and at that point this thread is close to done...
 
Peter SWE said:
I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.
Click to expand...

Okay, I've completed my test at Friday Harbor and find your claim to be unusual. At an altitude of 1,000 feet, I got 55-56 fps in dX10 preview, and 6-7 fps in DX9. The stuttering in DX9 is unplayable. This is flying over dense forest, but I took exactly the same path, under exactly the same conditions. Even on the runway before take off, the differences were dramatic. DX9 = 5 fps; DX10 = 57 fps. I'm not technically proficient, otherwise I would try to help you find out what's wrong with your DX10. Sorry.

Both tests conducted flying from inside the cockpit of the Ultralight.
 
Results in Dx10 preview mode (note it's referred to as "preview mode") are diverse and as usual in FsX differing systems show wildly different results. I used Dx10 preview mode through most of 2008 and 2009. This persisted until the news that the Aces team had been disbanded and FsX11 would never be made: so back to Dx9 so I could still run port-overs which I missed and with tweaking both FsX Dx9 & 10 can be made to produce similar results as the Dx10 preview mode was never finished.
 
Daube said:
Because the FS9 flight environment quality cannot be compared to the FSX one as soon as you do anything else than IFR flights.
Click to expand...

I agree: after 6 months I never returned to my GW3(Fs9) installation because, even with the wonderful modifications by Bill Lyons for GW3, FsX world was too convincing to go back.
 
LIGHT BLOOM

It's all about light bloom baby. In DX9 mode, turning on light bloom, will kill most people's framerates. In DX10 mode light bloom works a hell of a lot better.

A quick test at Heathrow at night gave me the following results:

DX9 no light bloom : 75fps
DX9 light bloom : 52 fps
DX10 no light bloom : 70 fps
DX10 with light bloom : 65 fps

As you can see, DX9 with no light bloom gives me the best possible framerates so that is what I use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top