Released - Bush Hawk XP

[MCDesigns]

I really don't know where these problems are coming form. I beta tested the bird, and neither I, or anyone on the team had any FPS issues.

Hi Cody, didn't say it was a problem, just a question. It was just something that the developer posted at the Aerosoft forums, so naturally, those that have lesser systems (like myself) would/should be concerned. Given Aerosoft's own admission that they would tend to go with loads of detail on their models just because they can in FSX, one would naturally have these kind of thoughts when a new model is released.

Based on all the info in the various forums, FSX runs very differently on many types of systems, there is no magic system spec that guarantees smoothness.. Because FSX allows for more detail than FS9, many developers tend to go overboard or just don't take into account the limited headroom many have in FSX.

IMO the best comparison anyone can give, is how does an addon stack up performance wise against a similar default aircraft considering many of the FSX defaults have quite a bit of detail.

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I'm getting 31-33 FPS in the default Cessna at Plum Island with the engines on and running. With the Bushhawk, I am getting 25-26 FPS according to FRAPS. That substantiates a 5 - 8 FPS drop. Mind you, I also have FRAPS, Sony Vegas 7.0, Skype, Winamp, 5 Firefox browsers open, ActiveSky, FSForce, AVASTE and numeral other programs running in the background, along with the various scenery enhancements. I'l probably gain a good 10FPS ior better if I closed most the stuff down, but alas, I "should" be working lol!

Sure, there is a small drop, but that is far from a bad one. I would hope that most people see that as a negotiable drop, especially considering the REALLY cool features of the Bushhawk :mixedsmi:

 

[GeorgeM]

On my system this thing's VC is pretty hard on the frame rate. I have a dual-core Athlon 5200+, 512MB GeForce 8600 GT, 4GB memory, 32-bit Vista, FSX w/Acceleration in DX9 mode. I checked several planes sitting on the tarmac, cold & dark, daytime, fair weather, frames locked at 30. Here's what I got in the VC:

Bush Hawk - 18
Default C172 (steam & glass) - 30
RealAir Scout - 30
ES SR22 Turbo (lots o' glass) - 28-30
Aerosoft Beaver - 28
CS C-130 - 25
A2A B377 - 25
Acceleration F-18 - 25

I'm very disappointed. These were pretty ideal conditions; when you start throwing in all the various parameters of a flight I don't have much headroom. I don't think the Bush Hawk will cut it.

Given the stuff I compared it to I can't imagine what's eating the FPS.

 

[CBris]

Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?

I flew this on less than 10 FPS the whole beta - and it was still flyable.

 

[CBris]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

Slagging on the basis of numbers like I am seeing here is just so passé. If it's smooth and the images flow, trust your eyes. Lock your systems at 20 to 25 FPS and forget frame rates for Pete's sake.

Current aircraft developement for FSX is aiming also a bit at the future. Features and details are being added that not even yesterday's models had. The Bushhawk is full of newer details and still leaves room for 'easter eggs' and practical new features. What will tomorrow's planes bring?

The past is past.

 

[tigisfat]

I thought it was more like 24FPS, Cbris.



Anyway, I'm with him. I don't want products that have ben developed for a year to come out for yesterday's computers. Yeah, I have to upgrade from time to time, but I want brand new add-on aircraft to constantly push the envelope on detail and realism.

Who doesn't want to upgrade? Do we all want the same graphics from the same computer and the same game with no advances 5 years from now?

 

[gajit]

Hi Guys - I'm thinking of buying this but can you tell me if the VC has any kind of reflection / texture in the windows? I cant tell from the screenshots and I hate flying in products that look like the glazing was forgotten (unless its an open cockpit of course!!)

Your help would be apprechiated.

 

[kilo delta]

Fantastic pics, Nick........and top notch paints, Chris
Regarding fps issues that some people are experiencing....
When was the last time that you have done a complete reformat and re-install of your OS? Over time systems will become slower as they accrue large amounts of un-necessary files. Having a 3rd party defrag program is also beneficial...I swear by O&O Defrag Professional....although DO NOT use a defrag program on solid state drives.
As Chris has pointed out....with FSX, even relatively low FPS figures of 10-15 frames can provide a suprisingly fluid sim flight. Even people running extremely high performance rig's should not need to lock their fps at anything over 30 frames.....and running at "unlimited" is a complete waste of system resources imho.
Anyhoo.......enough of my blabbering:d...i'm off to pick up my Bush Hawk:ernae:

 

[Nick C]

I think what can be derived from this thread and the one at Aerosoft, is that this plane has a different impact on different machines. That's what I've come to expect from any aircraft. However, on my machine, which is all I can comment on, it performs very well. Certainly well within acceptable limits for my use.

The following comparison on FPS was taken with the airplanes engines running, sat on the runway at Plum Island, all systems good to go. That means that all glass gauges were warmed up too. My settings were set as the images display below, these are my usual settings for regular GA flights. I tried a cross section of aircraft which I hope cover most bases.

I'd also like to point out that I don't hold much with the "FPS" argument as I also believe that it's about the fluidity of the sim. I seldom check the FPS counter, but do on this occasion simply to show how different PC's handle aircraft in different ways.

My PC:
Intel E8400 Duo 2 Core 3Ghz 1333 Mhz 6Mb CPU, MSI X38 Motherboard, Corsair 2Gb DDR3 1333 (Matched pair), Samsung/Seagate 500Gb 16Mb Cache HDD SATA, 20x DVD Re-Writer ( + & - ) (Lightscribe), Ge-Force 9800 GTX PCie 512Mb Graphics, Creative X-Fi Extreme Audio Card, Dual Gigabit Lan, Deluxe Midi Tower Case with Superior Tagan 900w PSU, USB 2.0 x 8 (2 on front), Windows Vista Home Premium

FPS Comparison:
Default Trike: 30
Default Baron 58 (steam): 30
Skysim BAE Hawk: 30
Default C172SP (steam): 30
A2A P-40: 30
Default C172SP (glass): 29
A2A B-17: 28
Default Baron 58 (glass): 25
Aerosoft Bush Hawk: 25
Eaglesoft SR22G3 Turbo (glass): 22
A2A Boeing 377 Strat: 19
CS Boeing 757: 18

As you can see from the results above, there is a definite reduction in FPS from the default aircraft with the exception of the glass driven default Baron 58. However I'm reaching far better frames with the Bush Hawk that I do with the A2A Boeing 377, which I'd expect, but other users are commenting that the 377 runs at a higher FPS.

So there you have it, you'll each make your own decision based on what you want from an aircraft and from others experiences. Personally I'm very happy, but I may be seen to be biased too, there's nothing I can do about that, sorry.

 

[IanP]

Giz a copy and I'll tell you how it works on mine! :costumes:

(Seeing as I have to point this out these days, as Nick can attest, THAT. IS. A. JOKE. :ernae

Ian P.

 

[Nick C]

Give me a Porsche then and I'll let you know how it fits me, deal?

 

[Panther_99FS]

P, I just tested this on my AMD 3500 Nvidia 8500 512GT 2 gig ram XP Pro Sp3.

Useing the FTX scenery and John Stinstroms recent KVOK release I got a fluid 20 to 23 fps all sliders right except car traffic as I prefer boats and ships. Overall its still a winner.

Thanks Trans...

 

[Panther_99FS]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy!

Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?

I haven't done any slagging - All I did was ask a question :mixedsmi:

 

[kilo delta]

Giz a copy and I'll tell you how it works on mine! :costumes:

(Seeing as I have to point this out these days, as Nick can attest, THAT. IS. A. JOKE. :ernae

Ian P.

Developers take note..........

I'll take any and all freebies to test on my system.............and that's no joke!!

:d

 

[dswo]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

I don't know that Chris was referring to anyone in particular; I haven't seen any slagging so far. But let me put in a word for worrying about framerates. I write a regular column about freeware for Computer Pilot magazine, and I'm also an AVSIM reviewer. It's very rare, nowadays, to get a payware product that isn't good at something, for something. So by now, I have a lot of add-ons. Which ones do I fly with regularly? One thing -- maybe the only thing -- that they all have in common is good framerates. It's not a fetish with me, just something I've noticed looking back. Low-FPS products tend to stay in the drawer, even if there are other things to like (and there almost always are). Not everyone has the same experience, I'm sure. But if you're like me, you ask before you buy and look for trends in the reporting.

Again, I'm not taking issue with Chris; just putting in a few words for the other point of view.

 

[gera]

To expensive.......it is getting out of hand, just like WallStreet!!!!!

 

[Henry]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

Slagging on the basis of numbers like I am seeing here is just so passé. If it's smooth and the images flow, trust your eyes. Lock your systems at 20 to 25 FPS and forget frame rates for Pete's sake.

if that was not true i would not use FSX
i do not care what the fps are i dare not look :redf:
if its smooth thats all i need
I do not have this particular plane
but i find that in general
i have not found any problems with any addons free or payware
H

 

[Lionheart]

I myself being a developer have seen the most crazy frame rate results with FSX. With FS9, you could judge how fast frame rates were by the exact computer specs. But with FSX, you can watch one person with a simple, 2 year old computer, run a huge plane with moderate textures like glass with excellent frame rates, and then another guy runs it (same plane) on a super gaming computer, and it brings it to its knees.

Somehow though, to say one is terribly dissapointed over 7 framerates difference, comparing it to other planes, and still getting 18 FPS seems a bit... well, I dont know. lol... Funny if you think about it. Wish my rig ran the sky trike at 25 FPS! lololol...

 

[TimA]

that a coffee stain, mud, or a dried blood stain on the panel there? :costumes:

I suspect coffee. I also suspect it was pre-drunk, and arrived post-turbulence...

Apropos of nothing, I heard a wonderful story recently from a pilot who occasionally used to transport cadavers for a mortician (you have to be very careful with the 'souls on board' entry in your flight plan!). This particular flight was through the Rockies in a 172. The body was in a body bag, strapped into the passenger seat, since you can't fit a coffin into a 172... It was night, the weather was bad: marginal VMC, rain, lightning, thunder, moderate turbulence - real Frankenstein stuff. Anyhow, there's this huge bolt of lightning; the radios flicker, and the body bag jolts upright! AAArrrggghhh!!!!!!!!!! Of course it was all pure coincidence, and bodies supposedly do twitch from time to time. but the aircraft seats needed cleaning before the plane could be used again!

 

[GeorgeM]

Somehow though, to say one is terribly dissapointed over 7 framerates difference, comparing it to other planes, and still getting 18 FPS seems a bit... well, I dont know. lol... Funny if you think about it. Wish my rig ran the sky trike at 25 FPS! lololol...

Put that way, yes, it seems a bit petty. But the 7 FPS difference was from models that on the surface would seem to be much more complex than the Bushhawk. Other single engine props were at the capped 30 FPS and many go a bit higher if I uncap it, so the Bushhawk is closer to being 50-60% of the frame rate of similar planes. Also, that was under ideal conditions. If I throw in some inclement weather and a bit of traffic it slows down close to single digit rates, where other planes stay in the upper teens. For me that pretty much makes it unusable as a bush plane and I do find that disappointing.

Look, I don't want to slam this package. You get a lot for the price; a nice collection of model variants and a good looking set of missions for a great price. But there is a group of people that are having frame rate issues. The good news is that it appears that the developer is interested in trying to identify and solve the issue, and that makes me happy for now. I can't ask for much more than that.