General Category > General Discussion
What computer Hardware can Handle FSDT the best?
Hnla:
--- Quote from: Lindbergh72 on April 10, 2011, 05:39:00 pm ---FSX was a failure from the start, regarding the graphic. We have to wait for the MS flight, so we can use our 64 bit system right?
--- End quote ---
FSX graphics have really evolved from FS9, and thats what I like about FSX. I do wish there was a work-around to have moving vehicles in FS9, as that feature in FSX just puts the realism to the limits.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: Boone Gorges on April 10, 2011, 04:43:23 pm ---FSDT with the Mesh set to 100%? I am almost positive that can slow down the system dramatically. I have experienced this, when I span over the scenery with other outside mesh.
--- End quote ---
I can't see ANY difference in fps changing the Mesh from, let's say, 50% to 100% with any of our sceneries. But there might be visual issues in some sceneries, like KDFW.
--- Quote ---Realism, comes with AI traffic, so for the better I choose to use WOAI, they have every airline, so I am guessing a-lot of WOAI can can crowd up things at an FSDT airport.
--- End quote ---
WOAI was a good choice in FS9, not so good in FSX. Those are all FS9 ported models, and the performance hit can be significant in FSX, products with native FSX models performs much better. Also, using FS9 AI models will result in problems with sceneries with custom runways, forcing you to turn off Airplane shadows.
I agree, WOAI it's freeware, but if it's eating up 30% of your fps, forcing you to purchase a better CPU, there goes all the freeware advantage...
--- Quote ---Thanks for the tip, I have been setting everything to the highest possible, because as I said in my previous post, I like realism to the 100% (same with WOAI)
--- End quote ---
Well..."realism" when referring to something which is generated automatically based on algorithms, like Autogen, is very subjecting, since the actual quantity of houses and trees you see, other than landclass assignment, doesn't have much relation to real world anyway, it's really a matter of personal preferences.
--- Quote ---The default water texture sets drive me crazy. I usually purchase ground environment, with the new water texture sets. Probably does put even more load on the FSDT scenery.
--- End quote ---
Regardless of what water textures you use, the effect of that slider is still the same, because it affects the shader algorithm FSX use to render any water reflection so, you should see fps increases when using "Low 2.0" or "Mid 2.0", with any textures set.
Of course, will only affect FSDT airports close to lots of water, like JFK, KFLL, PHNL. With KORD or KLAS it might not be noticeable.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: Boone Gorges on April 10, 2011, 05:41:26 pm ---FSX graphics have really evolved from FS9, and thats what I like about FSX. I do wish there was a work-around to have moving vehicles in FS9, as that feature in FSX just puts the realism to the limits.
--- End quote ---
If one would try to match FSX, feature by feature, in FS9, it would result in a FS9 slower than FSX.
The whole idea of measuring performances using ONLY the fps counter, it's wrong from the start.
Fps ( "Frames per second" ) doesn't tell anything about the efficiency of an engine, if there isn't information about HOW MUCH stuff is being drawn.
So, for example, if a typical FS9 scene (scenery+mesh+airport+ai+clouds) has 150.000 polygons, and it runs at 60 fps, while a similar scene in the same area under FSX is made of 500.000 polygons and runs at 30 fps, that means the FSX engine is 1.7x times FASTER, since FS9 is drawing 9 millions/polys per second, and FSX is drawing 15 milions/polys per second.
Hnla:
--- Quote ---I can't see ANY difference in fps changing the Mesh from, let's say, 50% to 100% with any of our sceneries. But there might be visual issues in some sceneries, like KDFW.
--- End quote ---
As I mentioned, I always use an ground texture enhancement product in my flight sim game, (usually Ground Environment Pro), which brings the load on with the FSDT sceneries, rather than the default ones. GEP has options to lower the complexity, but if your purchasing a $60.00 add on, why bring the complexity down at all?
--- Quote --- Also, using FS9 AI models will result in problems with sceneries with custom runways, forcing you to turn off Airplane shadows.
--- End quote ---
Didn't really run into any issues with this, as the WOAI traffic 99% of the time would land right in the middle of the runway, even on your FSDT product addons.
--- Quote ---Well..."realism" when referring to something which is generated automatically based on algorithms, like Autogen, is very subjecting, since the actual quantity of houses and trees you see, other than landclass assignment, doesn't have much relation to real world anyway, it's really a matter of personal preferences
--- End quote ---
The Flight Sim Autogen is meant to give an illusion and shades of roads, meant to look real from up in the sky, but when you fly close to ground, it just looks like colored cardboard with a few houses plopped on top of it. From my understanding, increasing the "Autogen" just increases the rate of houses and trees, but does absolutely nothing about the illusion that FS9 produced.
FSX sort of gets better at this, with the moving vehicles.
--- Quote ---Regardless of what water textures you use, the effect of that slider is still the same, because it affects the shader algorithm FSX use to render any water reflection so, you should see fps increases when using "Low 2.0" or "Mid 2.0", with any textures set.
--- End quote ---
Eh, I am leery on this one. Some water enhancing products will completely override everything, but still have options to increase, or decrease the shader, and same goes with reflection. It's all a painting.
--- Quote ---If one would try to match FSX, feature by feature, in FS9, it would result in a FS9 slower than FSX.
--- End quote ---
But from my experience, it's still the same when I run FSX with no addons, choppy, and very slow, and graphics are dramatically decreased. But, that probably lies on Computer Hardware.
--- Quote ---The whole idea of measuring performances using ONLY the fps counter, it's wrong from the start.
--- End quote ---
What is wrong from the start? the FPS?
--- Quote ---So, for example, if a typical FS9 scene (scenery+mesh+airport+ai+clouds) has 150.000 polygons, and it runs at 60 fps, while a similar scene in the same area under FSX is made of 500.000 polygons and runs at 30 fps, that means the FSX engine is 1.7x times FASTER, since FS9 is drawing 9 millions/polys per second, and FSX is drawing 15 milions/polys per second.
--- End quote ---
Well that all depends on add-ons, the load you put on everything, you can increase the polygons by spanning to a FSDT airport just as much as in any FS game.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: Boone Gorges on April 10, 2011, 08:13:47 pm ---As I mentioned, I always use an ground texture enhancement product in my flight sim game, (usually Ground Environment Pro), which brings the load on with the FSDT sceneries, rather than the default ones. GEP has options to lower the complexity, but if your purchasing a $60.00 add on, why bring the complexity down at all?
--- End quote ---
Ground texture enhancement product are not affected in any way by the Mesh settings, mesh is ONLY the resolution of altitude points, the impact on fps of the Mesh setting is always the same, regardless which ground textures are used.
--- Quote ---Didn't really run into any issues with this, as the WOAI traffic 99% of the time would land right in the middle of the runway, even on your FSDT product addons.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't referring to landing capabilities, that's depend only by the AFCAD of the scenery and the AI flight models.
The issue is entirely different: if you don't turn Airplane Shadows OFF when using FS9 AI models over a scenery that has custom runway textures+lights, they will disappear. Not ALL our sceneries requires this, but some of them do. And not just *our* sceneries, but ANY scenery that use that kind of custom runway commands.
Without mentioning the impact of FS9 models in FSX, which is slower than running native FSX models.
We also work with the Qualitywings guys, and when they upgraded their 757 to have a native FSX model (the first release was an FS9 model that ran in FSX), they gained something like 8-10 fps JUST because of that. Now, multiply that for so many AI you might see around you, and you'll understand why using FS9 AI traffic in FSX is not a good idea.
--- Quote ---The Flight Sim Autogen is meant to give an illusion and shades of roads, meant to look real from up in the sky, but when you fly close to ground, it just looks like colored cardboard with a few houses plopped on top of it.
--- End quote ---
Road/rivers, etc, it's not Autogen, it's VTP Terrain and it's generated from a (hopefully real-world based) database, not from an automatic algorithm.
--- Quote --- From my understanding, increasing the "Autogen" just increases the rate of houses and trees, but does absolutely nothing about the illusion that FS9 produced.
--- End quote ---
Exactly, autogen does ONLY that. And there's not much difference about the "illusion" between FS9 and FSX, except FSX can be up to 10x denser at high settings and has more variety.
--- Quote ---Eh, I am leery on this one. Some water enhancing products will completely override everything, but still have options to increase, or decrease the shader, and same goes with reflection. It's all a painting.
--- End quote ---
If they have entirely overridden the default Shader, and offer options to control its resolution, then the concept it's he same: lowering the reflection resolution will benefit fps, regardless which setting you use to control it, either the FSX default, or the corresponding custom setting made by a 3rd party.
--- Quote ---But from my experience, it's still the same when I run FSX with no addons, choppy, and very slow, and graphics are dramatically decreased. But, that probably lies on Computer Hardware.
--- End quote ---
FSX with no addons runs just fine on any decent and properly set modern (less than 2 year) system.
--- Quote ---What is wrong from the start? the FPS?
--- End quote ---
The fixation with the FPS counter, without understanding what it means. When graphic game developers talks about how good/bad an engine is, they never discuss FRAMES per second but rather POLYGONS per second.
And yes, FPS still doesn't mean anything if we don't know the variance: a system that generated 60 frames during the first half of a second and then it *stopped* for the 2nd half, IS running at 30 fps, but that would be an horribly unflyable jerky motion. Another system running at 30 fps, with EVERY frame perfectly spaced 1/30th of a second from the next one, will be silk smooth. Both will show 30 fps on their fps counter...
--- Quote ---Well that all depends on add-ons, the load you put on everything, you can increase the polygons by spanning to a FSDT airport just as much as in any FS game.
--- End quote ---
Which is exactly what I've said: it's no use looking at the fps alone, without knowing WHAT is being drawn.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version