Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FSX - What Are The Framerate Hogs....  
User currently offlineYEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 29364 times:

Seeing that there's discussion about this in various threads, I thought I'd start one up specifically discussing the main problem everyone is having with FSX - POOR FRAMERATES. I've been trying many different things for a couple of weeks now, and these are what I've found to be the main framerate hogs:

- Autogen (Microsoft seems to have increased the density and diversity of the Autogen scenery). There are fixes available.

- Traffic. As with FS9, AI traffic seems to really affect performance of the simulator. In FSX, Microsoft added an entirely new form of traffic, moving cars, boat, airport vehicles, etc. These little treats are eating up your FPS!! As cool as they are, turn them off if your having framerate problems.

- Terrain mesh complexity. I noticed a huge improvement in performance when I scaled back the terrain mesh complexity. It's nice to fly around with incredible detail, but personally I'd rather have the smooth flying experience with slightly less detail as a trade-off.

- Water effects. On slower video cards, the new water effects have quite an impact on performance.


Those are the items that I've adjusted to make my FSX experience better. I'm sure most of these things will work much better once Vista and DirectX 10 are available. Please post any other suggestions that have worked for you....


cheers

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 29358 times:

Sadly, I had to use the MS "easy sliders" to get a good frame rate; ie, I couldn't go to "custom settings" and turn everything way up like I did in FS9/2004.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 29349 times:

A friend of mine who is a *big* FS9 hog (spends several thousand a year on addons and new hardware) said that on the forums he is on, theres talk of a configuration setting that you can make direct to the config files that boosts framerates considerably on something like 50% of setups in FSX.

I will speak to him tomorrow and see if he can shed any more light.


User currently offlineGEG From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 29327 times:

So after turning all of the sliders to so that there is less detail than in FS9 people ask "what is the point of going to FSX"? I know that the traffic kills frame rates but damn it looks good when I am on approach an pass over a freeway. Oh and the large bear I ran across in Alaska was a nice suprise too!! Basically i have everything turned on to some degree, and so far there has not been an ideal setup that everyone can use so it just entails hours and hours of tweeking to get the right balance of fps and looks. Much to the dismay of my wife Big grin
-Dan



Cant sleep...clowns will eat me...cant sleep...
User currently offlineYEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 29312 times:

Quoting GEG (Reply 3):
So after turning all of the sliders to so that there is less detail than in FS9 people ask "what is the point of going to FSX"?

The only real point, for me, was curiosity. I wanted to see what some of the new features were. I fully planned on purchasing FSX eventually, and I expected that it wouldn't be optimized to run well on XP - that being said, my curiosity took over and I decided to see what it was like.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
A friend of mine who is a *big* FS9 hog (spends several thousand a year on addons and new hardware) said that on the forums he is on, theres talk of a configuration setting that you can make direct to the config files that boosts framerates considerably on something like 50% of setups in FSX.

I've tried a few of the suggested tweaks to the FSX.CFG file, and yes there is improvement. I didn't experience a 50% improvement though, so I'm curious to find out exactly what your friend did. I got most of my tips from the following site:

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41


cheers


User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 29293 times:

Remember there are some basic things you can to increase FPS in windows - like shut down background programs.

Sounds obvious? You'd be surprised at how many people don't bother.

You can kill programs you don't need by going to:

Start -> Run and typing 'msconfig' and unchecking the boxes.

Some stuff (like realplayer) runs hidden processes.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13518 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 29250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 5):
Start -> Run and typing 'msconfig' and unchecking the boxes.

Some stuff (like realplayer) runs hidden processes.

Does the CTRL-ALT-DELETE entry into the Task Manager allow the same thing, or are we talking about an entirely different way to kill background processes?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 29236 times:

Quoting YEGspotter (Reply 4):
I've tried a few of the suggested tweaks to the FSX.CFG file, and yes there is improvement. I didn't experience a 50% improvement though, so I'm curious to find out exactly what your friend did. I got most of my tips from the following site:

Its hte FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 setting that got him (and a lot of others) the significant improvements.

Also, go and download the *latest* DirectX9.0c - its been optimised since the last release.


User currently offlineYEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29197 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
Its hte FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 setting that got him (and a lot of others) the significant improvements.

Yup, I did that one too - definite improvement. I'm pretty sure that I have the most recent version of DX 9.0c also, but I'll double check....


cheers...


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29185 times:

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 5):

Most definately...shut down any anti-virus, spyware, and other disk-checker programs as well. Also shut down other unneeded background programs as well.


User currently offlineN215AZ From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 29179 times:

It is a simple matter of having the most kick ass graphics computer out there, and finding out that your computer has met its match. FSX.

That was MS thinking????????

All of this cool stuff and nothing to use it on.


Without Was,



N215AZ

[Edited 2006-10-26 17:42:57]


"Atra esterní ono thelduin, Mor'ranr lífa unin hjarta onr, Un du evarínya ono varda."
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29144 times:

Quoting N215AZ (Reply 10):
That was MS thinking????????

All of this cool stuff and nothing to use it on.

But the same happened with previous versions. Remember, for every person who's upset that a brand new FS doesn't work at its best on an average machine, there's another person who would be upset if the new FS had been so understated that their new, top-end PC was yawning at it. Another thing to remember is that PC performances will improve quite a bit during the lifetime of FSX.

I'd also remind you of the number of people who "complained" that MS didn't go further with FSX.  Smile

I, for one, am really looking forward to it. I'll take what performance I can get then spend a bit, within reason, to make things smoother, if necessary. Now, I just need PMDG to release the FSX update for their 744(F)...


User currently offlineN215AZ From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29123 times:

Good Point and i agree entierly


Without Wax,




N215AZ



"Atra esterní ono thelduin, Mor'ranr lífa unin hjarta onr, Un du evarínya ono varda."
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 28993 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 11):
I'd also remind you of the number of people who "complained" that MS didn't go further with FSX.

 checkmark  Aint that the truth. I listened to some people's demands on other forums and you would need a computer with Star Trek technology to run their demands. Then they complain that the addons they did make with the new version fall short, yet bitch that their computers don't run it. People just love to complain

Quoting David L (Reply 11):
But the same happened with previous versions.

This I have to disagee with. I bought a laptop about 1 year before FS9 was released and it was a pretty hooked up machine. I don't quite remember the specs off the top of my head, but it cost me about $2,000 at the time...That was 1 year before FS9 was released. When FS9 came out I was able to make the transition very easily. Keep in mind that with the computer I have today (a 1 year old desktop that cost me a fortune) is getting slaughtered by FSX.

Current specs:
Intel Pentium D 840 (3.2 dual core)
2 GB DDR2 RAM
NVidia GeForce 6800.

FSX is not compatible with any machine on the market today.

Darren


User currently offlineDreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 28980 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 13):
Current specs:
Intel Pentium D 840 (3.2 dual core)
2 GB DDR2 RAM
NVidia GeForce 6800.

FSX is not compatible with any machine on the market today.

Darren

That is not true Darren, you can run FSX with pretty much everything on max if you have a better graphics card and a better CPU would help you out too. Your biggest problem is your video card.

There are many people out here who already have the duo2core installed with high-end cards and they are running it fine with everything set to max.

FSX was released maybe a bit too early and the ACES team is working on changes that will make it run smoother by doing the laterration that many are now doing thru changes to fsx.cfg. They are adding in parametes that are not isted there to increase the ability to customize.

Also in addition to removing all backgroud processes, also make sure your disk is in top shape, perform a cleanup and defrag before installing fsx. make sure your virtual memory is set up best (large enough and in one chunk, a fragmented swap space sucks big time)



still dreaming after all these years
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 28958 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 13):
Quoting David L (Reply 11):
But the same happened with previous versions.

This I have to disagee with. I bought a laptop about 1 year before FS9 was released and it was a pretty hooked up machine.



Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 13):
FSX is not compatible with any machine on the market today.

I agree that the impact may be bigger this time, especially since we knew from the outset that FSX would "prefer" DX10 but, in general, I agree with Dreamer:

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 14):
That is not true Darren, you can run FSX with pretty much everything on max if you have a better graphics card and a better CPU would help you out too. Your biggest problem is your video card.

There are many people out here who already have the duo2core installed with high-end cards and they are running it fine with everything set to max.

After a bad start, some people are already getting improvements by tweaking the settings as more people experiment with them and we still don't really know what improvements Vista and the respective patch will bring. Within the lifetime of FSX I'd expect PC performance to improve sufficiently for us to get pretty good performances. Then we'll all be clamouring for FS11.  Smile

My PC was only a few months older than yours but it really struggled with FS9 untill I upgraded the CPU, RAM and graphics card.

The delay to the launch of Vista obviously hasn't helped but let's see what'll happen in the next few months when dissatisfaction will be more vaild. Fingers crossed.  Smile


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 28497 times:

I have to add, I found the largest frame-rate hog now...the "antiailiasing" option. I unchecked the antiailiasing check box, and my frame rate shot up, and I also eliminated graphics issues, ie, trees in the runway, large radio antennae coming out of houses, etc...

User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 28383 times:

For what it's worth ladies & gents...

I have a Core 2 Duo EX6800 4Gb of RAM with a 7950GX2 video card...

Granted, this is quite a high-end system - I rarely get below 20fps with almost all the sliders maxxed and I use AS6.5 for the weather. I have seen mid 80's in the cruise, but that's meaningless.

I am away from home at the moment, and on return I will be swapping the motherboard from an i965 to a nVidia 680i SLI one, along with the new 8800GTX card...

During this upgrade I will try the RAM at both 2Gb and 4Gb's, as I have heard reports that 4Gb degrades the system.

I will do FS-X benchmarks and report back.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineYEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 28372 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 17):
During this upgrade I will try the RAM at both 2Gb and 4Gb's, as I have heard reports that 4Gb degrades the system.

I will do FS-X benchmarks and report back.

Great - I'm really interested in how your system performs. I was considering upgrading to 4gb of RAM, but I'll hold off for now. From what I've read, the increased RAM may not be of any benefit, unless you're running Vista....


cheers


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 27714 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
Its hte FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 setting that got him (and a lot of others) the significant improvements.

Does that exist in the release version? It doesn't appear in my FSX.CFG file.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3611 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 27678 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 19):
Does that exist in the release version? It doesn't appear in my FSX.CFG file.

So add it. The trick is knowing where. For that I don't have an answer, but Google will probably help.

I have added a bunch of stuff like this to my FSX.cfg file that were supposed to bring performance improvements; most have other tradeoffs though. But there's a lot of stuff that's not in there but that the program will recognize if you add it.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 27646 times:

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 20):
So add it. The trick is knowing where.

I was just curious. I wondered if they'd "fixed" it so that setting wasn't necessary anymore. The talk was of changing the setting rather than adding it.

I'm getting 10-17 fps (C172 and A321) with my "old" system that hasn't had a hardware upgrade in two years. I've even upped a lot of settings from the low defaults I started with. I can't wait to see what I'll get with DX10 and a new graphics card.  Smile


User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27510 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 11):
Another thing to remember is that PC performances will improve quite a bit during the lifetime of FSX.

True, but it won't help much to get better results for this sim!

The sim is based on an old engine that doesn't support new hardware features like dual core processors let alone the quad cores that will enter soon.

Quoting YEGspotter (Reply 18):
Great - I'm really interested in how your system performs. I was considering upgrading to 4gb of RAM, but I'll hold off for now. From what I've read, the increased RAM may not be of any benefit, unless you're running Vista....

XP pro doesn't support 4 Gb of RAM and the same goes for FSX. FSX will run perfectly on 2 Gb of RAM. 4 Gb will also be an overkill with Vista running for FSX. The first thing that will be the bottleneck will be your CPU with this game.



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 27472 times:

Quoting Morvious (Reply 22):
The sim is based on an old engine that doesn't support new hardware features like dual core processors let alone the quad cores that will enter soon.

But so were the previous versions. Faster processors and motherboards and better graphics cards will make a difference as they become available.


User currently offlineYEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 27466 times:

Quoting Morvious (Reply 22):
The first thing that will be the bottleneck will be your CPU with this game.

Agreed - 100%. With all the tweaking and testing I've done over the past couple of months, I've concluded that FSX is VERY CPU dependent. I'm running an Athalon 64 3800, at 2.4 gHz, and even though I'm getting decent framerates (now), I've had to turn off many of the new features (traffic, etc.) I experimented a little with overclocking, and was surprised that the results. Overclocking my video card (ATI X850 XT, 256 mb) to 620 mHz, did nothing noticeable. Overclocking my CPU to 2.6 gHz provided a noticeable improvement (around 5 to 8 FPS at SeaTac). Unfortunately, the stabilty of my system running at 2.6 gHz was questionable, so I clocked back down to 2.4 gHz. Most of the posts I've read on various forums, people are achieving good results with CPU's that run in the 3 gHz range. Lets hope that DX10 eases the load on the CPU a little, so that we can all start to experience some acceptable framerates...

cheers


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FSX - What Are The Framerate Hogs....
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
FSX What's After The Scenarios? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 04:12:15 by Boeing 777-400
What Are The Records For Models? posted Thu Jul 3 2003 05:12:56 by Lehpron
What Are The Top 20 FS Planes? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 20:27:11 by Mirrodie
What Are The Nicest Scenery's Ever Seen In Fs2k? posted Tue Oct 30 2001 13:53:06 by Hb-iqj
What Models Are The "best"? posted Mon Dec 2 2002 02:34:41 by Aviatsiya
What Are Your Worst FS Crashes? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 23:06:41 by Azza40
What Is The Jet Engine Cover/collar Called? posted Sat Feb 18 2006 03:28:28 by Ghymes
What Is The Most Realistic FS Routing Type posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:21:34 by Cumulonimbus
What Is The Use Of The .AIR File posted Thu Sep 15 2005 21:07:58 by 8B775ZQ
Where Are The Viewing Areas? posted Thu Aug 4 2005 20:39:15 by Holidaycharter
What Are The Best Models? posted Tue Mar 25 2008 10:45:16 by EMA747
FSX What's After The Scenarios? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 04:12:15 by Boeing 777-400
What Are The Records For Models? posted Thu Jul 3 2003 05:12:56 by Lehpron
What Are The Top 20 FS Planes? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 20:27:11 by Mirrodie
What Are The Nicest Scenery's Ever Seen In Fs2k? posted Tue Oct 30 2001 13:53:06 by Hb-iqj
FS9/FSX: Where Are You Flying At The Moment? posted Thu Oct 15 2009 06:23:42 by Cpd
What Is The Best 777-200LR Model For FSX? posted Mon May 26 2008 12:46:46 by Klimchuk
What's With The Rain/snow In FSX? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 19:26:45 by B727-200
What Models Are The "best"? posted Mon Dec 2 2002 02:34:41 by Aviatsiya

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format