• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Has FSX met it's (hardware) match, yet?

If you guys want to game with Windows 7 set up a separate disk or partition your current disk. Read this article to get your courage up and follow every link especially those just after the Conclusion of the article. Windows 7 is a real winner and this is just a beta not even a pre release candidate. By the way I don't recommend it for all the latest games but it does just great with FSX.

Windows 7 BETA TAKES THE TEST
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2009/02/06/windows-hits-lucky-7/

and check out this score with Windows 7 Beta on an i7Core 920 OC just a little on an ASUS P6T Deluxe:

http://www.pcpitstop.com/betapit/sec.asp?conid=21673981&report=Summary

Ted
 
Concur, I'm running 7 on a second drive and it's great. I only go back to XP if I want to use my tablet as I can't get the drivers to work, which is at least partly laziness on my part!
 
MudMarine said:
I have almost the exact same system, not overclocked and I average around 20-25 fps about 18 in heavy areas, sometimes worse.
Click to expand...

That is about the same as my system. I locked mine at 16fps to try to smooth it out as much for landing at congested airports which is where it gets the worst. That and heavy clouds.

I run add-ons and enable everything and put everything the highest. My system will still choke out to 5 fps for a couple seconds now an then.
 
Shoot, I was wanting to download the Windows 7 beta to test on one of my computers. So it's no longer available?

Kevin
 
casey jones said:
I will just stay with FS9..problem solved.

Cheers

Casey
Click to expand...

I used FS9 and FSX concurrently for about a month, then I had to ditch FS9 altogether. Each time I used FSX, my desire to use FS9 decreased exponentially, untill I was absolutely repelled by it and did the uninstall.

For those of you who love FS9 and have never tried the X...don't do it, run away run away.
 
Has FSX met it's (hardware) match, yet?
Click to expand...

Never has, never will.


"Hardware match" indicates high framerates (thirties to sixties) in extreme stress situations for me, say:
- all sliders and settings on maximum
- custom AI traffic (FS9-native, since FSX-native models won't ever exist)
- extra graphics tweaks in the fsx.cfg (LOD_Detail_Radius=6.5 and more; maximum value for trees and buildings)
- a weather add-on generating multiple layers of clouds plus bad weather
- a complex aircraft (FSX-native), like the Level-D 767 or the Super 80
- on approach to a big airport, like KORD (with custom airport scenery)


There's absolutely no hardware out there capable of handling this kind of situation in FSX. I doubt that even the next two, three generations of CPUs and GPUs will be able to fulfill FSX's craving for computing power.

However, the bars would be lower though if every add-on containing 3D models was made according to FSX SDK specs. But since this isn't the case either, and won't be for a very long time, FSX - in combination with most third party add-ons - will remain a hardware eater of the most excellent kind.
 
Bjoern said:
Never has, never will.


"Hardware match" indicates high framerates (thirties to sixties) in extreme stress situations for me, say:
- all sliders and settings on maximum
- custom AI traffic (FS9-native, since FSX-native models won't ever exist)
- extra graphics tweaks in the fsx.cfg (LOD_Detail_Radius=6.5 and more; maximum value for trees and buildings)
- a weather add-on generating multiple layers of clouds plus bad weather
- a complex aircraft (FSX-native), like the Level-D 767 or the Super 80
- on approach to a big airport, like KORD (with custom airport scenery)


There's absolutely no hardware out there capable of handling this kind of situation in FSX. I doubt that even the next two, three generations of CPUs and GPUs will be able to fulfill FSX's craving for computing power.

However, the bars would be lower though if every add-on containing 3D models was made according to FSX SDK specs. But since this isn't the case either, and won't be for a very long time, FSX - in combination with most third party add-ons - will remain a hardware eater of the most excellent kind.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, that is NOT FSX.

I ask that someone with a new i7 (or even penryn) computer either on vista or windows 7 test out a vanilla install of fsx w/sp2 or acceleration and max it out. Report back on the FPS. Something like the Aerosoft F-16 will never run maxed out because of the way it was built. Same with the PMDG planes, though the MD-11 is damn close.

I'm serious too. Someone do this and report back. I am most interested in the results. I can say when I BRIEFLY tested my vanilla fsx (no addons, no overclock either) I was getting a SOLID 130 (peaked at around 160) fps over my hometown airport.
 
My system runs FSX well. Not max settings but high with some nice scenery and 16xAA and it meets the set 28FPS 99% of the time. There is only one plane that drops it which is the Captain Sim C-130 but the Shockwave 377 doesn't make my computer sweat which I think is a good mark. High AA settings are a must for me, seeing shimmers and jaggy edges really really gets on my nerves.

I'm not on a total monster but it's pretty good (Q8800, 4GB RAM, 768MB 9600GS).
 
Kiwikat said:
Just FYI, that is NOT FSX.
Click to expand...

That darn well is FSX.

Vanilla FSX A/SP2 benchmarks don't say a thing if your hardware can't handle a bunch of add-ons.
And since an estimated 80 per cent of FSX users are running their copy spiced up with add-ons, they *have* to be considered in performance testing.
 
Bjoern said:
That darn well is FSX.

Vanilla FSX A/SP2 benchmarks don't say a thing if your hardware can't handle a bunch of add-ons.
And since an estimated 80 per cent of FSX users are running their copy spiced up with add-ons, they *have* to be considered in performance testing.
Click to expand...

My point is that you can't blame FSX for poor FPS with the PMDG 747 or Aerosoft F-16 or similar frame hogs. Those planes weren't built with performance in mind (sometimes you wonder if they were even designed to be usable). With any other planes, I get 35 fps solid anywhere. That is more than enough to say that hardware has at least tamed FSX. The PMDG 747 will never perform as well in FSX as it does in FS9, especially if you use the same hardware to compare them. Faster hardware will generally run the older game better. If you run FS9 on a new system, it will run with more FPS than FSX(Duh).

Even if many people DO have addons, most don't have hundreds or thousands of dollars of them like many people here have (we ARE the minority). For example, a Carenado plane has no more FPS impact over the defaults, so it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Some addons like the FTX AU series give better FPS with more details than the default scenery. If you have the Aerosoft London scenery, heathrow, and a bunch of traffic addons, yeah, you'll not get high FPS, but you are kind of asking for it by installing all of that.
 
Kiwikat said:
My point is that you can't blame FSX for poor FPS with the PMDG 747 or Aerosoft F-16 or similar frame hogs.
Click to expand...

You partially can. After all it's FSX's sim engine those add-ons are running in.


[...]
Click to expand...

As long as there's still "fake" FSX add-ons out there (FS9 models made FSX compatible), you need to consider them as a decisive factor negatively affecting FSX performance.
This can range from sceneries, AI traffic to aircraft.


If you have the Aerosoft London scenery, heathrow, and a bunch of traffic addons, yeah, you'll not get high FPS, but you are kind of asking for it by installing all of that.
Click to expand...

...and I expect both simulator and hardware to cope with that without touching a single slider or display setting.
 
Bjoern said:
...and I expect both simulator and hardware to cope with that without touching a single slider or display setting.
Click to expand...

You can't even consider "fake" fsx addons. Those are the DEVELOPERS fault, NOT FSX. It is AEROSOFT'S fault for making the F-16 like 400,000 polys, NOT FSX's. You're picking the argument with the wrong people.

I guess your perfect expectations are a little too high then. If you don't like it, go fly FS9. It won't hurt my feelings. People need to stop complaining and enjoy FS, whatever version.
 
Yes... I think this just may be a topic best left alone for now...

Lets fly........:woot: And have a :ernae:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top