-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
FS2004 Models in FSX; Real Performance?
- Thread starter Lionheart
- Start date
Quixoticish
Charter Member
If it isn't FSX native then I'm not interested in it, and that applies to freeware and payware.
I have quite a few portovers in FSX and have few issues. I fly Eric Cantu's 737-200 and HJG 707 series quite a lot and they're pretty smooth. I'm sure there are some planes that cause problems, but on the whole I can't complain, especially when the type of plane I want to fly is either not available as native FSX or too damn expensive (lil grumble about the CS 707 !!!).
For some reason, my rig really, really, dislikes FS9 aircraft in FSX. Halved frame rates in complex areas (often down well below 10FPS approaching "busy" airports), a good 7-10FPS drop away from complex scenery areas. That's why I tend to avoid them, much more than the props or texture issues, which can be mitigated against.
That said, it does depend on the model. The Wilco B737s bring my system to its knees (literally. 3FPS anyone?) but I think that's a gauge issue. On the other hand, the MAAM-SIM DC-3s/C-47s/R4D show virtually no frame rate loss at all.
Ian P.
That said, it does depend on the model. The Wilco B737s bring my system to its knees (literally. 3FPS anyone?) but I think that's a gauge issue. On the other hand, the MAAM-SIM DC-3s/C-47s/R4D show virtually no frame rate loss at all.
Ian P.
DaveWG
Charter Member
I just ran a test using the FS9 & FSX native versions of my Rapide. The exterior mesh of the model is pretty much the same accross both versions, but the VC in the FSX native has a bit higher poly count as it used modelled gauges. FSX model has bump & spec maps.
Same situation for both, sitting on the runway, no AI traffic, and left for a couple of minutes for the frame rate (set to unlimited) to stabilize.
FS9 model: 28.8fps average
FSX model: 44.5fps average
Same situation for both, sitting on the runway, no AI traffic, and left for a couple of minutes for the frame rate (set to unlimited) to stabilize.
FS9 model: 28.8fps average
FSX model: 44.5fps average
Very interesting read. I voted "no" and am surprised at the poll result.
I fly only FSX. Was a late convert over from FS9 but have never looked back. However, with the change, I brought some 'old friends' and of the 400 or so a/c in my FSX hangar (ext HDD), 80% or more are FS9 portovers.
It's down to cost/benefit - for the relatively few issues or tweaks required - I like a little tinkering/modding - I would otherwise be missing masses of enjoyment of aircraft not available in pure FSX format. Don't really think about whether they look as good as native FSX planes. I do think how much better they look in FSX than in FS9, for which they were designed, which is kind of neat. I appreciate e.g. bump maps and other features - swapping VC's among native models is a great asset, but think the view, "that if it's not native, I won't fly it" is kind of short-changing one's self of a lot of fun.
I don't notice any FPS hit from portovers. Perhaps this is another area where peoples' views may be influenced by their own subjective experience with varying PC processing power and performance capabilities, which some believe was at the heart of the old chestnut re the FS9 vs FSX debate.
I fly only FSX. Was a late convert over from FS9 but have never looked back. However, with the change, I brought some 'old friends' and of the 400 or so a/c in my FSX hangar (ext HDD), 80% or more are FS9 portovers.
It's down to cost/benefit - for the relatively few issues or tweaks required - I like a little tinkering/modding - I would otherwise be missing masses of enjoyment of aircraft not available in pure FSX format. Don't really think about whether they look as good as native FSX planes. I do think how much better they look in FSX than in FS9, for which they were designed, which is kind of neat. I appreciate e.g. bump maps and other features - swapping VC's among native models is a great asset, but think the view, "that if it's not native, I won't fly it" is kind of short-changing one's self of a lot of fun.
I don't notice any FPS hit from portovers. Perhaps this is another area where peoples' views may be influenced by their own subjective experience with varying PC processing power and performance capabilities, which some believe was at the heart of the old chestnut re the FS9 vs FSX debate.
Cazzie
SOH-CM-2024
Bill, there are several FS9 planes that work really well in FSX, especially after I use the FS-Converter available at Flight1.
But there are some that are just not worth the effort, frame rates are much slower than FSX native aircraft and there are always Alpha issues, especially with prop washes.
But for those few I have that work well, LilSki's Champs, Manuele's SVA5 (this works well enough as to almost be FSX native, LilSki's Christian Eagle after the FSX fix, etc., they look better in FSX than in FS9, even without spec and bump textures.
In the end, it is up to the user. If it works and gives good fps, sure, it stays, if not, it goes, simple as that.
I have yet to find an FS9 aircraft that will work in FSX in the DX10 mode though.
Caz
But there are some that are just not worth the effort, frame rates are much slower than FSX native aircraft and there are always Alpha issues, especially with prop washes.
But for those few I have that work well, LilSki's Champs, Manuele's SVA5 (this works well enough as to almost be FSX native, LilSki's Christian Eagle after the FSX fix, etc., they look better in FSX than in FS9, even without spec and bump textures.
In the end, it is up to the user. If it works and gives good fps, sure, it stays, if not, it goes, simple as that.
I have yet to find an FS9 aircraft that will work in FSX in the DX10 mode though.
Caz
Prowler1111
Charter Member 2011
I would like to add, that Bill´s persistence to FS9 is truly something to praise, i don´t use FS9 port overs anymore, even as i have a few installed due to the fact there is not a native FSX model, But Bill even found a way to use high poly FSX style models into FS9!
Hats off to you Bill!
Prowler
Hats off to you Bill!
Prowler
That's true, and I appreciate it, it's really good news for FS9 users, but FS9 model with high polygon count is still FS9 model.
It's not lower polycount or lack of normalmaps and speculars that turns me off from FS9 portovers. I have A2A's Bf-109, its almost the same 3d model as FS9, but compiled with FSX tools, same thing with Jenny I've converted from FS9 SDK.
I don't like problems with transparency, framerate drops, lack of selfshadowing on exterior.
Hey Prowler,
Many thanks, but the thanks goes to those few that found this out in FSDS (3D Design Engine) which uses MakeMDL and now also BGLC-9 in the new system. PropTrash, Luka, Wozza all had a part in it, including a gentleman at British Classics who found out how to rescale X files without rescaling in the 3D Design Engine.
These guys found it first. PropTrash and I figured out how to make it work in Gmax. Until just recently, only a handfull of people in the world knew about this. Its a pretty impressive system.
Wierd to now have MDL files double the size of former files.
ryanbatc
Charter Member
Hmm not sure - never was into the technical aspects of models and textures....
It's odd actually. The interior VC performs decent, not very smooth like it did in FS9 but the interior is much faster than exterior at least in FSX.
I dont know what type of textures it has.