FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Los Angeles support FS9 => Topic started by: DogStar on October 26, 2011, 06:35:34 am
-
Hi Folks ...
I bought and installed KLAX ... wonderfull airport, especially together with the photoscenery by PC Aviator it brings overwhelming night - (and day) approaches to my screen !
So first of all I say thank You for bringing it into FS9 ... but ... performance is veeeery low on my computer. Even without ai - traffic, fps are 1/3 below those I get at KJFK.
I guess, this is because all of those new techniques ? will there be a tool to convert textures to a smaller size at least ? would be great, to play this one fluent ...
Regards, Mats
-
I'm sorry, but we believe performances are very reasonable considering the airport complexity on an modern system, and won't invest any time working at it.
The textures are ALREADY resized 4x times comparing to the original FSX version so no, we won't offer any tool to resize them further, since the quality is already what we consider the absolute minimum. You can obtain the same effect by lowering the "Max Texture Size" slider one notch, it will resize everything from 1024x1024 to 512x512.
If you want to run KLAX on a low-end system, there's always the Cloud9 version, which is still on sale and still supported.
-
I don`t run KLAX on a low end system and there is absolutely no need to answer my question in such a crude note. A simple "no" would have been absolutely sufficient!
I asked, because many users of my forum wanted to know, whether they might encounter performance problems using typical FS9 - machines (eg. E8500). Now I can answer them with a "yes" ...
Anyway the scenery is wonderful if You run it on a high end machine ... great work and absolutely worth buying it.
-
the scenery is wonderful if You run it on a high end machine
I have an average machine (E8400) bought some five years ago and the performance is excellent for me.
So maybe there is some kind of problem on your side? If the performance was low in general, I would surely experience it too.
-
I'm seeing exactly the same problem as it was with FB KSFO. Strongly suspect incorrect uninstall of previous versions of the sceneries on some folks' machines. For me, KLAX is a piece of cake.
-
I don't agree, There are real issues with frame rates with this airport...at least so far. There is nothing to uninstall as far as Umberto has layed out. The only issue would be removal of the entry in the Scenery.cfg file. At least that's what's be said so far?
-
I don't know what to say, folks. I have stable 50FPS with 100% my own AI, REX, UTUSA, ASV6.0 and 25-30FPS on 25L approach from iFly 737 Virtual cockpit. My system is very average nowadays; i7-950, 12GB RAM, GTX460, Win7-64.
My only wish is slightly improved ground textures, but it's minor thing
-
So first of all I say thank You for bringing it into FS9 ... but ... performance is veeeery low on my computer. Even without ai - traffic, fps are 1/3 below those I get at KJFK.
Because FSDT KJFK is a known FPS hog (many reasons for that including FS2004 default heavy load in this area) and since you have no problems with JFK, KLAX should be an easy ride for you.
-
Well, I'm starting to suspect that it's a corrupted download...my system specs are below.
I am getting 25fps on short final but at the Cloud9 KLAX with ActiveSky running, MegaScenery SoCal, FSGlobal2010, and UT USA. Then I simply remove the Scenery.cfg entry for Cloud9 KLAX, install the FSDT version of the airport and get 7-10fps. There is nothing else that I'm changing or doing.
It's gotta be the airport/download...
My FS9 System :
O/S Windows XP32 SP3
CPU Intel Core i5-650 @ 4.1ghz
M/B Gigabyte H55M-S2V
GPU Gigabyte GeForce GTX-560-OC TI
Memory G.Skill DDR3-1333 2 x 2gb @ 1600mhz
Cooler Thermaltake ISGC-400
HDD 4 x 1tb of SATA2
Case Antec DF-35
Monitor Samsung SyncMaster 243T
Controllers Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
-
Well, I'm starting to suspect that it's a corrupted download...my system specs are below.
You can't get a corrupted download, the installer has self-integrity checks, if the download is corrupted, it won't install.
My FS9 System
Your system is very good, hardware-wise, the only wrong choices are the software: Windows XP32 and FS9...
using a 1GB video card on Windows 32 bit it's not good because, since the total memory allocated can't be more than 4GB in *total* (including VRAM), your VRAM will cut into your main memory so, you have about 2.5/2.7GB usable (depending on the hardware), a 64 bit OS will be much better, because you would at least have all of your 4GB usable.
And, of course, you have a system which should be very capable of running FSX: have you tried the FSX version of KLAX ?
-
the only wrong choices are the software: Windows XP32 and FS9
I think you are too pesimistic about it, Umberto. ;)
I use FS9 on Windows XP 32 bit, with rather aging hardware in general, with the 3GB switch though, and have good performance.
Your KLAX has surprised me with high FPS, so congrats and thank you for the brilliant addon (no matter what you think personally of FS9, lol).
-
Well, I'm starting to suspect that it's a corrupted download...my system specs are below.
I am getting 25fps on short final but at the Cloud9 KLAX with ActiveSky running, MegaScenery SoCal, FSGlobal2010, and UT USA. Then I simply remove the Scenery.cfg entry for Cloud9 KLAX, install the FSDT version of the airport and get 7-10fps. There is nothing else that I'm changing or doing.
It's gotta be the airport/download...
My FS9 System :
O/S Windows XP32 SP3
CPU Intel Core i5-650 @ 4.1ghz
M/B Gigabyte H55M-S2V
GPU Gigabyte GeForce GTX-560-OC TI
Memory G.Skill DDR3-1333 2 x 2gb @ 1600mhz
Cooler Thermaltake ISGC-400
HDD 4 x 1tb of SATA2
Case Antec DF-35
Monitor Samsung SyncMaster 243T
Controllers Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
Swoop Hmm for a cpu that's overclocked at 4.1 somethings not right there I wish I could help but I don't have fs9 installed I could install it on my son's system since that was my older main p.c that I gave to him will test it out and see what I get fps.
Hi Folks ...
I bought and installed KLAX ... wonderfull airport, especially together with the photoscenery by PC Aviator it brings overwhelming night - (and day) approaches to my screen !
So first of all I say thank You for bringing it into FS9 ... but ... performance is veeeery low on my computer. Even without ai - traffic, fps are 1/3 below those I get at KJFK.
I guess, this is because all of those new techniques ? will there be a tool to convert textures to a smaller size at least ? would be great, to play this one fluent ...
Regards, Mats
Hi Mats what are your system specs ?
-
Hi Cesar ...
my system - specs are:
E8500 @ 3.6 GHz
GForce 8800 GT 1024Mb
4GB RAM
Call it outdated, but not everybody is willing to buy a new system every 6 month ... most simmers I know, have similar systems or even lower specs. The whole rest of my FS9 is running fine (not less than 20 FPS under all conditions). So I simply wondered, why KLAX isn`t doing so. For the time being, I will use it with aircraft which are not so performance-hungry as a iFly 737 or a PMDG "Queen" are.
-
Here is FSDT KLAX FPS on my old FS9 PC (Win XP32, E8400, 3GHz, 8800GT).
And I have everything maxed out plus a lot of addons (first two with default aircraft and the last one with the Queen by PMDG):
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c255/VORJAB/frames.jpg)
-
Are You kidding me ? showing pictures with such a very small cutout ? of course I would have FPS like You under such circumstances. Probably better. I am interested in FPS during approach with almost the whole airport in sight, including ai etc.
-
Are You kidding me?
Do you think I have nothing better to do in my life than to 'be kidding you'?
showing pictures with such a very small cutout?
A strange problem that you have. But, OK, I can show you the whole ones if you wish (they will take much more than the screen size allows).
Shall it change ANYTHING? The FPS counter will be the same as the cutouts show the FPS results which (at least in my sim) are always in the left upper corner of the screen.
Mark claimed he's getting 10 FPS with a default aircraft when starting in the stand 47 B.
So I devoted my time (Instead of flying) to make screens at the same gate with different aircraft for a performance comparison.
What exactly is your problem about it?
I do not represent FSDT. I have no interest in defending their products.
I am just a simmer who takes time to participate in a discussion to show that I am glad with the performance and NOT everyone has problems with it.
I always wonder why people get aggressive so quickly...
-
Rafal, I think you should clarify that you cut the pictures AFTER taking them, I think Dogstar believes you ran Fs9 in a tiny window, just to pump up the fps!
Well, in any case, I had already posted a screenshot on Avsim, showing the whole screen, with KLAX ruuning at 28 fps at 47B, on my LAPTOP...
-
I think you should clarify that you cut the pictures AFTER taking them, I think Dogstar believes you ran Fs9 in a tiny window, just to pump up the fps!
Yes, you may be right, Umberto. I may not have been clear enough on that. :)
So: I did cut the screenshots AFTER taking them to show only the important parts of them (FPS counter) for comparison purposes.
I have no time or interest to play kid games of cheating. I am 40 years old, have been simming for more than 20 and simply wanted to help.
-
Thank's for the shots Rafal and thanks Mats :) for posting the specs, Rafal, doing things like that takes allot of time and I know many people will appreciate it and it gives simmers a good idea to compare, ;) I think the thing with Dogstar was a misunderstanding and maybe the frustration over the low fps hes getting. I'm installing klax for fs9 on my sons p.c right in a few to post fps that system has a dual core celeron E3300. and a 7800GS so its on the lower end.
-
Here's a comment...I'm not trying to attack anyone...I've been nothing but nice...I have an issue with the price of it but that neither here not there right now. This is really simple...
FS9 is working great, all of my scenery is working great, I buy FSDT KLAX and install it, load the airport and get 7-10fps. No attacks, no bad attitude...just simply that's what is happening.
I have been a professional software engineer for 30 years and am pretty well versed with systems, and architectures, and development. Been learning overclocking lately, no big deal, easy stuff. OK, that being said, here's my take on this...
Someone is saying it's my system, I'm saying that KLAX is not optimized for FS9 and Win32. So what...who cares...at this point, all I'm staring down at is a bunch of overly defensive people who are so busy trying to say there's nothing wrong with their software they roll over people who are actually having issues with it...as if I don't know anything about computers...
The issues argument is key in this comment because weather you like it or not, I am having issues with this software. So what is the solution...
Mark
-
FS9 is working great, all of my scenery is working great, I buy FSDT KLAX and install it, load the airport and get 7-10fps. No attacks, no bad attitude...just simply that's what is happening.
And of course I believe you, but what is wrong, it's your conclusion, that is a "problem" with KLAX.
Someone is saying it's my system, I'm saying that KLAX is not optimized for FS9 and Win32.
Yes, it's your system. You keep twisting up your explanation in different ways, other than accept that your system is not put together very well. There's no such thing of a "scenery optimized for 32 bit or 64 bit", or a scenery that "doesn't work with 1GB video card", it's just that, by setting up a system with a 1GB card AND use Windows 32, and XP to begin with (how much developing care do you think XP video drivers get today ?), you are asking for trouble and, since this scenery IS demanding, but it RUNS WELL on a system correctly setup, its only fault is that it *exposed* a problem you were already likely to encounter, sooner or later when you started adding addons.
if I don't know anything about computers...The issues argument is key in this comment because weather you like it or not, I am having issues with this software. So what is the solution...
Then accept this humble suggestion, from someone does *games* programming for a living since the early '80s (in Assembly, on the C64): you have a system which should be perfectly capable of running FSX, if you insist using FS9, AT LEAST switch to Windows 7 x64, because with XP32 and your 1GB card, you are crippling it.
-
I accept your advice about the 64bit system. I am about to launch one in the next couple of days...and sorry about the multiple threads...sucks on my part.
Yeah, C64...my old CPM compiler...I miss it. Used to do some work on the old Microvax systems too. Except that was dot prompt C with inline assembly. The good old days. Well thanks for the suggestions and will post the results of the 64bit endeavour here. (In one thread only :)
Mark
-
Hello All -
I own all of the FSDT sceneries for the US. They all run fine with FS9. However, I too, notice some performance issues with KLAX - namely stuttering on approach and what I can "loading delays" when I switch views. Not sure why this is happening.
I run an excellent FS9 machine at the present time.
Planning a new machine and an upgrade to FSX within the next several weeks.
In the meantime, any performance improvement ideas would be appreciated.
Kevin
-
I also suffer performance issue with KLAX, and only KLAX. I own most of FSDT sceneries, and none offer poor performance like KLAX. While I get always frames above 20 with the PMDG 747 freighter on major hubs with tons of AI, it goes down to the teens while approaching KLAX. Also get loading slowdown, a bit like with Aerosoft's Schipol. Extremely nice scenery otherwise.
-
While I get always frames above 20 with the PMDG 747 freighter on major hubs with tons of AI, it goes down to the teens while approaching KLAX.
So you don't really get 10 fps at KLAX, you get 10 fps using the PMDG 747 on it. Have you tried with a default airplane ? Is there any difference ?
Try to understand that PC performances are NOT linear thing: it's more like you can go up to a certain point loading your system with heavy addons, and it might run well UP to a tipping point, and after that performances start to go down very quickly, and this is very noticeable with FS9. Adding hardware to FS9 helps only to a certain point because it doesn't take advantage of multicore and it relies much less on the video card so, a super fast card in FS9 it's a waste of money, it can only be useful to drive very large screens, but it will not really help with frame rates, not much.
FSX might seem slower initially, but if you can throw at it lots of stuff done in the right way using FSX features (no FS9 ports) and if you *have* good hardware, the performances goes down WAY more gently, because the hardware IS better used in FSX. The graphics use lots of shaders (our sceneries use lots of them too) so, a good graphic card will help FSX way more than it can help FS9.
KLAX is quite demanding on the video card, not really because of textures (it doesn't take more textures than KDFW), but because of the high number of polygons, which is how we model it, since FSX is able to withstand more of them before starting to slow down, and there was no way in the world we would have *remodeled* KLAX with less polygons, just for FS9, there would have been no FS9 version under those circumstances.
We HAVE a lower polygon version for FS9, which is the Cloud9 one so, what's the point of dumbing down KLAX, considering we already had a perfectly reasonable version already on sale ?
The scenery has a Trial version, like all our sceneries. You are kindly asked to take advantage that feature, and decide to purchase it only if you are satisfied how it runs on YOUR system.
We'll surely fix bugs or errors in the scenery, but we won't do anything on the performances: this is how the scenery is, install the Trial, see how it works on your system and then purchase it only if you are satisfied. As explained many times, the Trial doesn't expire, you can launch it an unlimited number of times, which is exactly what is needed to test it with many configurations, 3rd party addons or tweaks so, you have been given all means to verify the scenery is suitable to your system.
-
Good evening,
[So you don't really get 10 fps at KLAX, you get 10 fps using the PMDG 747 on it. Have you tried with a default airplane ? Is there any difference ?
I sure get more fps with a default airplane. I always test a new scenry with the default C152, then with the heaviest fps wise, the pmdg744F.
We HAVE a lower polygon version for FS9, which is the Cloud9 one so, what's the point of dumbing down KLAX, considering we already had a perfectly reasonable version already on sale ?
What is the point of making and selling a new FS9 LAX version then if it offers poor performance for high end PC compared to the cloud9's version? Of course, v2 is graphically superior, and I assume that's why all fs9ers bought it.
you have been given all means to verify the scenery is suitable to your system.
You certainly missed my point, I wasnt complaining at all, you must have mixed me up with someone else. On the contrary I am glad I bought KLAX it's very nice. Moreover, you bring me a clear answer on the performance issue: it's due to the fact the new KLAX scenery uses a lot more polys than previous FSDT releases, I am ok with that. :)
What I am not Ok with on the other hand is this: I know FSX handles LOD in a different way than FS9. Are you telling us that KLAXv2 dont use any LOD in its fs9 version? If that's the case, then I am not ok at all, it's not a difficult nor dramatic task to ad LOD for fs9 scenery, you know.
On a more graphic note I only regret that the tawiways, street and buildings signs/scriptures had been thrown on a common bitmap. In previous version you used to have these signs on a separate texture and that gave very sharp signs, as opposed to the blurred ones in the new LAX.
-
I sure get more fps with a default airplane. I always test a new scenry with the default C152, then with the heaviest fps wise, the pmdg744F.
And the result is ? How much more ?
What is the point of making and selling a new FS9 LAX version then if it offers poor performance for high end PC compared to the cloud9's version?
It DOES NOT offer "poor performances for high end PC", it's now performing badly on YOUR PC, for reason we might discuss maybe, but it's working FINE for a lot of people.
So, obviously, the reply is, since the scenery works fine for most of the people, even without having really high end system, what's the point dumbing it down "just" because it doesn't do the same for *everyone* ?
You certainly missed my point, I wasnt complaining at all, you must have mixed me up with someone else.
It was a more general comment aimed to anyone that contributed to this thread rather than you in particular.
Moreover, you bring me a clear answer on the performance issue: it's due to the fact the new KLAX scenery uses a lot more polys than previous FSDT releases, I am ok with that.
Yes, partially, but that's not the end of the issue: it's not happening the same on every system: many users seems to be quite happy with performances so yes, it IS clearly more demanding compared to the Cloud9 version, but it doesn't seem a general problem, some are even reported it being *faster* than Cloud9!
-
Throughout all german forums You will find, that KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries. With or without ai-traffic. That is absolutely ok, as the sceney uses more polygons than all previous ones. But anyway it should be allowed to communicate this fact to the customers to prevent them from being disappointed.
-
Throughout all german forums You will find, that KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries. With or without ai-traffic
Since you can clearly see, from these reports:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4893.msg45477#msg45477
The scenery works fine on a diverse range of system and users, I find it difficult to believe that "Throughout all german forums" ( do you already read "ALL" german forums ? ) everybody is saying the same. It's more likely there will be some percentage of users having problems with the frame rate, and some that will not, just like here, just like Avsim.
But anyway it should be allowed to communicate this fact to the customers to prevent them from being disappointed.
Nobody "disallows" you to communicate whatever ideas you have from a scenery, you just have to expect that some OTHER user (which is what is happening here) that is NOT having performance issue, might just counterdict your experience.
However, there seems to be another misunderstanding, ONE THING is to say "KLAX offers the lowest performance of all FSDT sceneries", that might well be, but HOW low is the performance ?
Because, if it's 30 fps, like what all the users that has shown their screenshots here seems to have (give it or take), it's really pointless saying that Zurich, for example, it's running at 40 fps, both because KLAX is clearly WAY more detailed (and it's larger), but even more because 30 fps is still a very satisfactory figure.
An entirely different thing, instead, is saying that every FSDT scenery runs fine at, let's say, 30 fps, while KLAX is running at 10. Then sorry, in THIS case, it's clear something is wrong with that system, either is badly configured (like the 1GB video card put into a 32 bit OS) or it has been tested with another very demanding addon, like the PMDG747, and the combination of the two is just too much for that specific system to handle.
-
Some interesting comparisons here, KLAX against Zurich, FSX vs FS9, zero AI and default airplane, which is the only sane way to compare sceneries.
First is KLAX, an high polygon scenery with no FS9 code in FSX, and it runs faster in FSX than FS9!, polygonal complexity is obviously the same (the models are the same) the texture folder in the FS9 version is 170MB, the FSX version is 270MB, and the FS9 version doesn't have animated ground vehicles, bump mapping, elevated taxiways, and jetways are static, but FSX is faster.
Then we have Zurich, way less polygons than KLAX, which under FSX is slower than KLAX (it still has lots of FS9 code that FSX doesn't like much), but is really fast under FS9.
This simply confirms what I was saying all along, when you cross a certain threshold of polygonal complexity, FS9 just can't keep it up with it anymore, and of course it doesn't get better if, on *top* of having a polygonally complex scenery, you have a polygonally complex airplane and add many AI models, the overall density becomes too much for the FS9 graphic engine to handle.
It's not that KLAX is not "made for FS9", it's code IS 100% native for FS9, it's simply an exceptionally detailed FS9 scenery...
By *removing* all the FS9 code from FSX, we finally got free to use it as it was intended, and added a lot of detail to the models, which doesn't seem to be a problem for FSX to handle. Before, when we still used FS9 code inside FSX, we had to *restrain* ourselves a lot with polygonal detail, to the effect the FSX version didn't run *that* better in any case, but the FS9 version was really fast.
I'm sorry, but other than giving you the possible reason (which of course doesn't explain the 7 or 10 fps figure someone cited, with systems way faster than mine...) why KLAX could be very demanding on FS9, there's not much else we can say, other than TRY THE TRIAL FIRST.
-
Or, get FSX along with a new state of the art machine, which is exactly what I am doing. Hope to see great results.
-
Umberto, please don`t get me wrong. What I want to say is: people who are still running FS9 are often not willing or able to spend more money in the hardware, necessary to have satisfying performance in FSX.
Their average System is an E8500 with a nVidia 8800 - series video card. With this specs I get 15 - 17 FPS approaching Klax on 07L in the VC of the default Cessna 172! without any clouds, but with 100% ai.
If I switch the ai to 0%, FPS are at 20. Still not enough to play it satisfying. And believe me, I didn`t do anything wrong with settings or so, because I am in flightsimulation for more than 25 years now and pretty much up to date.
Conclusion: FSDT`s KLAX doesn`t make sense for those, running FS9 on a system similar to mine, especially not, if You use a complex aircraft as the iFly 737 which gives me 10 - 12 FPS from the VC including traffic and weather.
As KLAX is very well done, and gives the most spectacluar nighttime-approach possible in FS9 (especially when using PC-Aviators fotoscenery), I hope for better hardware soon !
-
I cannot agree 100% to You. Even if I am right at the airport, I get very low FPS when moving my sight into certain directions. From the VC of the iFly 737 I have an average of 33 (standing at the gate) ... moving to the mentioned direction, it is dropping below 20 FPS. I am still testing ...
At FSDT KLAS I have an average of 50 under same circumstances ... without noticeable drops.
-
Umberto, please don`t get me wrong. What I want to say is: people who are still running FS9 are often not willing or able to spend more money in the hardware, necessary to have satisfying performance in FSX.
Not always, because we got reports of very low fps even with systems that should be perfectly capable to run FSX.
Their average System is an E8500 with a nVidia 8800 - series video card. With this specs I get 15 - 17 FPS approaching Klax on 07L in the VC of the default Cessna 172! without any clouds, but with 100% ai.
Rafal posted screenshots made with an E8400 and 8800GT all in the range of 30-32 fps, even with the PMDG747. I've posted one made on my *notebook* which is a plain Core 2 Duo 2.8 ghz with a 9600 Mobile card, which surely slower than the 8800 for desktop which shows 28 fps too.
Conclusion: FSDT`s KLAX doesn`t make sense for those, running FS9 on a system similar to mine
Not a conclusion, if it was a general problem of hardware specs, everyone with an average system should experience the same bad performances (which is NOT the case, as the above posts indicate), and everyone with an high-end system should be happy.
Instead, there are some with an high-end system that are getting very bad performances, and some with average system that are very happy so, obviously, there must be something which is system related, perhaps a video card setting the scenery doesn't like, but there isn't a general problem, because the results are not consistent.
-
It seems to me, that there is a certain area of the scenery, which lets the FPS drop. Maybe I can figure out, which part it is.
-
Their average System is an E8500 with a nVidia 8800 - series video card. With this specs I get 15 - 17 FPS approaching Klax on 07L in the VC of the default Cessna 172! without any clouds, but with 100% ai.
AI at 100% is nonsense at all.
In the flightplans you can set at which percentage the plane should show. Most flightplanners set this to 1% for every plane. So, having your slider at 2% will show you the same amount of traffic as 100%. For me that saves some FPS but I still have the same amount of AI.
Try that.
-
Oh come on ! thats absolute crap ... ai related performance only depends on the amount of traffic, not on slider settings. Besides I reworked my ai traffic in a way, that I can choose between 25, 50, 75, and 100% traffic.
Please stop such unprofessional suggestions, not to buffle other users ...
-
Well it worked for me, i've built up my whole AI on my own, using mainly AIG flightplans.
I just tried to help, but I couldn't know that you are that disgraceful.
-
Rafal posted screenshots made with an E8400 and 8800GT all in the range of 30-32 fps, even with the PMDG747
To make things clear, that screenshot was taken at the gate (in response to Mark's 10 FPS remark), so of course on approach my FPS are rather not that high.
When on final approach to the new LAX with iFly 737NG, LVL-D 763 or PMDG 744 (I don't fly defaults) I measured to be getting around 18 FPS on average, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less.
But I believe it to be a really OK performace. LAX is by no means a small regional airport. When I compare it to other megahubs I often use, like EDDF, EDDM, EGLL, LFPG or LOWW, frames are similar.
I use 100% traffic, addons for both the ground and the sky, complex aircraft, and much more, so with my old rig getting between 15 and 20 frames on approach to large airports is very satisfying.
Of course there IS high performance demand from this addon, I surely can notice that too, but I would say it is logical and should not come to anyone as a surprise.
The great look it has thanks to Umberto's team makes it a superb addon. And for many, including me, it is performing really fine considering its size and complexity of course.
-
When on final approach to the new LAX with iFly 737NG, LVL-D 763 or PMDG 744 (I don't fly defaults) I measured to be getting around 18 FPS on average, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less.
I'd say that 18 fps with a complex airplane and full AI at KLAX while approaching sounds very reasonable with your system.
-
A bit less than 18 FPS is too low for me to get a realistic feeling of flight and to control the aircraft properly. But as I said: there must be a certain building or something, causing the very low performance ...
-
A bit less than 18 FPS is too low for me to get a realistic feeling of flight and to control the aircraft properly.
The flight model and the gauges update at 18 hz anyway regardless how high your visual frame rate is so, if "feeling of flight" is involved,
it doesn't change much, provided that those 18 fps are steady and not jumping up and down.
But as I said: there must be a certain building or something, causing the very low performance ...
There isn't, if it were, everybody would have noticed it just the same. Since this is not the case, it's clear it's not something in the scenery, other than the fact is *overall* very complex.
-
You said the same thing about the threshold markings. Later we learned, that it could be fixed ::) ...
-
You said the same thing about the threshold markings. Later we learned, that it could be fixed ::) ...
That's not relevant, at all, the double threshold markings problem that was always acknowledged, just that I though the solution was more difficult that it seems, but it was obviously fixed after a few HOURS.
That not everybody is having such low fps and there are users with mid-range system that are satisfied with it, instead, it's a fact that I'm not making up, but is clearly proven by the users themselves so no, your attempt to trying to put the two issues in relationship don't have anything in common. In fact, it's proving exactly the opposite: that when a problem is real, we DO act on it, immediately. This is not the case.
You are keep insisting there might be some specific "problem" somewhere, when in fact the only problem is the scenery is just very complex, but this, as I've said (too many times already) doesn't seem to be a problem for everyone. If it was, everybody would have the same low fps, which isn't the case, and this is not my opinion, it's proven by all the comments made by several users which have been linked before.
-
I'd say that 18 fps with a complex airplane and full AI at KLAX while approaching sounds very reasonable with your system
I would completely agree with you, Umberto! :)
Like I wrote above, that's a similar number I am getting at all giant airports around my FS world.
This is the resultant of an old PC, an old OS and tones of addons I personally need to use for the way of simming which satisfies me.
And I can control an aircraft properly even when my FPS occasionally drop to around 10 FPS.
Not that I like it of course, but on a scenic approach to a large international airport, with well-developed cumulus clouds lit by the setting sun, lots of dynamic AI aircraft both boarding, taxiing, departin and arriving, moving ground vehicles, AES stuff waiting for me, 100% autogen trees and buildings, HQ ground textures (GEPII), UT detailed land features, a complex 19m or 32m mesh, ASE, RC4 and FS2Crew working in the background, FSNav showing my flightplan, and all that seen from my high quality virtual cockpit with constantly refreshing displays scanned via Active Camera and FSRecorder, it DOES happen but I don't complain.
That's the sort of simming I enjoy. In my view everything always comes for a price to pay. I am planning to buy a new powerful PC (with i7 hopefully) with Win7 64 bit.
I hope my FS9 experience will get a new power then. So far I am surprised how much my E8400 with 8800GT and the 32 bit WinXP can do for my simulation.... ;D
-
You are keep insisting there might be some specific "problem" somewhere, when in fact the only problem is the scenery is just very complex, but this, as I've said (too many times already) doesn't seem to be a problem for everyone. If it was, everybody would have the same low fps, which isn't the case, and this is not my opinion, it's proven by all the comments made by several users which have been linked before.
I have a worse system that "DogStar".
I'm running the following:
E8400 oc'ed to 3.85
2GB RAM at 1088
EGVZ GTS 250 OC 1GB card <- a bad idea apparently since I have a 32 bit system with only 2GB RAM
Win Xp 32bit
Anyway, just as an example I am running FSX and flying the PMDG NGX/SP1 into KLAX I am getting between 20 and 30 FPS with about 65% traffic. So if I can get that out of FSX with a plane like the NGX and using a system that should barely be able to cope with FSX, I would have to agree that DogStar has something going on in his FS9 install that is giving bad performance to no fault of FSDT's LAX.
-
"Funny", that so many users of the forums I am in, encounter exactly the same problem. Anyway ... I accept that there is no cure for that ... soon I will have a new and really fast system and will enjoy KLAX fully then ...
What I won`t do is recommending KLAX to mid - system users.
-
"Funny", that so many users of the forums I am in, encounter exactly the same problem
"So many" ? I've counted only 4 that posted here, but there are more that said they don't have any problems (plus the ones I've linked from Avsim too) and, of course, those are only the ones that took the time to reply, because obviously, most of the users that don't have any problems, don't even bother to post or even register and just enjoy the scenery.
What I won`t do is recommending KLAX to mid - system users.
"Recommending" or not a scenery is not something that applies with our products, since we have a Trial version.
And in this case, by not recommending it to someone, you will do a disservice to him, because he might not have any problems, like the many users that don't, so you should instead say "it didn't worked well on MY system, but install the Trial, because it might work better on yours"
-
You are right. The trial version is a fair deal in fact :) ... so I will keep my mouth shut and wait for my new PC ...
-
I'm posting this with some reluctance as there's been some pretty heated discussions already and I'm not interested in getting into an argument. If this information is useful, then hopefully I can provide something positive. If not, then just ignore it.
I am able to run the new KLAX scenery okay on my system but with some stuttering, some slow texture loading times and FPS between 18-23 depending on the view. With the Cloud9 scenery using the identical flight, same AI, same weather, same default aircraft etc I get a steady 25 FPS which is what my system is locked at.
I have all the FSDT sceneries and have no performance problems with any of them including JFK and ORD. Here's what I've noted and if this helps resolve this then great - if not, please don't kill the messenger... When the trial times out and I lose most of the buildings, the FPS goes up slightly but NOT as much as I would normally expect. Usually with any of the trial versions once it times out the FPS go up enormously. In this case it does not. So it does seem that there might be a problem texture or two among the objects that remain after the trial ends and if that is true and the culprit could be identified, perhaps the problem could be eliminated.
Umberto - before you get pissed off at me and post a rude reply, let me just say that I love your products, have supported you throughout your career by buying hundreds of dollars worth of those products and I WANT this product to succeed and will buy it if I can get the same FPS as all your other products. If not, I am happy to stay with the Cloud9 KLAX which I still think is excellent. So please, either a polite reply or don't bother to reply at all. I am not trying to cause conflict - just to help you perfect what is otherwise a fantastic product that you have every right to be proud of
Ian
-
I am able to run the new KLAX scenery okay on my system but with some stuttering, some slow texture loading times and FPS between 18-23 depending on the view. With the Cloud9 scenery using the identical flight, same AI, same weather, same default aircraft etc I get a steady 25 FPS which is what my system is locked at.
Considering how much more detailed the FSDT version is compared to Cloud9, I'd say you are getting normal and expected results.
When the trial times out and I lose most of the buildings, the FPS goes up slightly but NOT as much as I would normally expect. Usually with any of the trial versions once it times out the FPS go up enormously. In this case it does not. So it does seem that there might be a problem texture or two among the objects that remain after the trial ends and if that is true and the culprit could be identified, perhaps the problem could be eliminated.
Textures don't have anything to do with the fps impact on this scenery, but polygons do.
What remains after the trial is the background objects (taxilines and taxisigns), and they use lots of polygons, because the curves are made to be very smooth AND there's an additional weight added we don't have in FSX, which are the detail polygons, otherwise the ground would be too blurred, and had to be made as polygons, because FS9 doesn't support shaders so, the FS9 version have even more polygons than the FSX version.
Sorry guys, but the scenery it's what it is, there's not much we can do other than remade a low polygons version from scratch, which doesn't make any sense, considering there's the Cloud9 version still on sale and, from the data we are gathering from the sales, FS9 users are now half of what they used to be just 6 months ago.
I'll say it again: use the Trial, and if it doesn't work to your satisfaction, don't buy the scenery.
-
from the data we are gathering from the sales, FS9 users are now half of what they used to be just 6 months ago.
What you mean is what you actually said: your sales for the FS9 version of KLAX is half of what the sales of FS9 version of Kxxx was just 6 months ago.
Your sales figures are influenced not only by the number of remaining FS9 users but also those willing to buy another version of KLAX. I am one of those (at least to this point). Yes, I'm still using FS9 on a daily basis and I'm NOT going to the dark side (FSX). I will wait until another flight simulator (or maybe just Flight) is released to reevaluate the situation. I have bought almost every product that you have created, but I have also bought Cloud9 products (before they were associated with FSDreamTeam). Hence, I already had KLAX from Cloud9. I am not one to have to have every gate accurately portrayed ...... every airport addition reproduced accurately ......the latest and greatest ground texture applied .....I think you get the picture. I happen to enjoy my current KLAX product with the moving vehicles and all. For that reason, I will probably choose to pass on your current offering (showing up evidently as a person who has defected from FS9 ..... NOT!). If you had offered a scenery of an airport which had not already been offered for FS9 users, you would have had my credit card verified and charged by now.
I love FSDreamTeam. I just do not want to be portrayed as a user who has left FS9 simply because I didn't buy the latest, redundant product that you are offering.
Keep up the good work, but have have a professional marketer analyze your FS9 sales figures.
gwillmot
-
Just performed my first landing at the FS9 version of KLAX with full ai (and I do mean full!), 5 mile visiblity and rain with very little performance difference from other FSDT sceneries such as KORD, KJFK and KDFW. I certainly hope the fact that some users are having difficulties with this scenery does not discourage FSDT from making future FS9 sceneries....I'm not optimistic :(
-
Well, I just tried my first landing at klax (Trial version) with the Ifly 737 and my frames droped to 6!!!!! on 5 mile final Yes I said 6. My frames are locked at 20 and never have a problem with other FSDT sceneries (KLAS). Never seen a Frame hit that bad on ANY sceneries I've bought and I have alot. Don't know what its but it's very clear I can't run it and have been looking forward to this one a long time.
-
What you mean is what you actually said: your sales for the FS9 version of KLAX is half of what the sales of FS9 version of Kxxx was just 6 months ago.
Yes, of course they are but, the thing is, it doesn't really make ANY difference to us, we are not trying to making a real poll of remaining FS9 users, we are only interested to those that will eventually buy our products, AS THEY ARE.
As we explained many times already, the only chance to see a new FS9 scenery from us, is that it can be reasonably easy to convert it from the FSX version.
Before KLAX, we *purposely* crippled the FSX version in order to ease the conversion to FS9, now this has ended, because it's quite CLEAR that FS9 user base is keep going down.
We don't have just sales data, the Trial downloads data also shows that FS9 is going down and, guess what, by the same amount of the sales, which clearly means it's not that FS9 users are not buying KLAX after having tried it because it's "bad", it's just there are few of them left, every data we have goes in the same direction.
Keep up the good work, but have have a professional marketer analyze your FS9 sales figures.
We are perfectly able to interpret sales data ourselves, thank you.
It's the FS9 users that are keep misreading them, as if they were needed in a sort of "competition" against FSX, we are not interested in that, even if FS9 was more than 50% of the market (and it's not), it won't change a bit if FS9 users don't buy the products, for whatever reason.
-
Nah... I'll buy LAX for fs9 when it's AES compatible :)
-
Just performed my first landing at the FS9 version of KLAX with full ai (and I do mean full!), 5 mile visiblity and rain with very little performance difference from other FSDT sceneries
Well, I just tried my first landing at klax (Trial version) with the Ifly 737 and my frames droped to 6!!!!! on 5 mile final Yes I said 6. My frames are locked at 20 and never have a problem with other FSDT sceneries
These two posts clearly prove that the scenery itself doesn't have any problem, the only difference it's in the user's systems.
I've already listed the various critical points:
- FS9 scales performances very badly: it might run well up to a certain point, then it collapses rapidly if you overload it with stuff. KLAX IS quite heavy on polygons so, it's possible that by running it TOGETHER with other polygon-heavy products, the TOTAL amount is more than FS9 can handle. You might probably have better results with the FSX version on the same system, which has even LESS polygons than the FS9 version!
- Some hardware/software combinations are critical, like 1GB video cards with 32 bit OS, this will eat your memory resources a lot.
As I've said, what makes the most impact in this scenery it's the polygons, it's not really heavy on textures (the texture folder in FS9 is only slightly larger than JFK and smaller than Zurich), which means there's no way to make it easier on fps without remodeling, which is something we'll not do in any case.
So, for the last time, since there's a Trial version, please use it!
Don't buy the scenery if you are not entirely satisfied with it and don't buy the scenery hoping for some performance fix, because none will come. There's nothing "wrong" with the scenery, other than being polygonal heavy, something that doesn't seem to be a problem in FSX, which means we are not going to change our way to do future sceneries.
If we'll ever do another scenery for FS9, it will be made exactly like KLAX, converted from FSX, whatever the end result will be, and of course it will always be available in Trial version, so you'll have all the means to check if it works for you.
-
I'm suffering with low performance too. Reading this thread, Dogstar, I feel your frustration... communicating with certain people in these forums can sometimes be just as much fun as banging your head against a brick wall!
My system is quite old now... Dell XPS 630i (Quad Core Q8300, 2.5GHz, 4Gb ram with Dual 512MB 9800GTs - XP 32bit).
This question may be O/T - but what specs do folks recommend for FSX? I CBA to build my own system, and currently looking at upgrading to an Alienware desktop?:
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-aurora-r3/pd
Any better 'off-the-shelf' options?
MTIA
-
I don't have any fps problems in LAX
-
4Gb ram with Dual 512MB 9800GTs - XP 32bit)
Maybe we are starting seeing some kind of a trend: you are the 2nd person that reports low fps, using XP32 bit and 1GB of VRAM.
Look the rest of the thread to see why this coud be a problem. In your case, it's probably worse, since Flight sim doesn't really supports dual GPU so, you are using what is now mid-low video card, don't get any benefit from Flight sim for being dual, and are crippling your system memory using a 32 bit OS, since the 1GB of total vram is cutting into your total memory.
-
Actually I think FlightSim does support dual GPU...
For years I was using a default set-up - without altering any Nvidia settings. One day, a friend of mine came round to my house and noticed that my GPUs weren't set in SLI mode! So effectively I was getting 512MB, instead of 1GB! LOL! :-[
After making this change, there was a huge performance increase in 90% of my sceneries.
I currently have a strange problem with my system though - the lower (2nd) GPU keeps on destroying itself - (I'm on my 4th 9800GT - my system will probably destroy this one too in a week or so, but Dell is offering no other solution - I guess it's over heating?).
Glad my post helped to distinguish a trend in poor performance with Win32XP. Next year I'll be upgrading system.
-
Just for your info: if you have 2 GPUs with 512MB VRAM each, you do NOT have 1GB of VRAM. Still, each GPU is capable of accessing only 512MB, meaning that for games with high quality textures, you would still run into the same VRAM limits as with just one GPU. The only advantage of SLI is the fact, that you can split the workload for the GPU on two independent processing units.
-
Actually I think FlightSim does support dual GPU...
No, it doesn't. The only possible benefit with a dual-GPU, is that you might not get a large performance *decrease* if you are driving a very large display or if you use advanced antialiasing modes, like 8x FSAA.
For years I was using a default set-up - without altering any Nvidia settings. One day, a friend of mine came round to my house and noticed that my GPUs weren't set in SLI mode! So effectively I was getting 512MB, instead of 1GB! LOL! :-[
After making this change, there was a huge performance increase in 90% of my sceneries.
That's not what happened. A Dual-gpu with one gpu disabled is NOT the same thing as having a single card. It's possible that with the 2nd GPU disabled, you HAD your 1GB of ram "taken" anyway, but without any benefit that the dual Gpu would give you of driving a large monitor or using antialiasing. So, you didn't really had a performance "increase", you simply restored a normal situation.
I currently have a strange problem with my system though - the lower (2nd) GPU keeps on destroying itself - (I'm on my 4th 9800GT - my system will probably destroy this one too in a week or so, but Dell is offering no other solution - I guess it's over heating?).
It's possible you have an overheating problem, but is strange why it only affects one of the GPUs ? Do you have two physical cards, or a single card with 2 GPUs on it ?
Note that, if there are overheating problems, it's also possible you main CPU is slowing down (that would also explain the low performances) to prevent melting itself (the technology is called Intel SpeedStep)
-
Just for your info: if you have 2 GPUs with 512MB VRAM each, you do NOT have 1GB of VRAM.
But you HAVE 1GB of VRAM "taken" anyway if you are running on a 32 bit OS. The mapping into the main 4GB of RAM (since 32 bit OS can't address more than that under ANY case) happens just the same, fact that each of the GPUs can't see more than 512 of it, it's not relevant in this case.
That was precisely my point: using 2 GPU on a 32 bit OS will result in all the disadvantages of having 1GB VRAM with a 32 bit OS, but without any benefit, and particularly with Flight sim, that doesn't really use SLI and, it's not so much graphic-card intensive that using a SLI configuration would get dramatic benefits even if it *did* support it.
-
Do you have two physical cards, or a single card with 2 GPUs on it ?
Yes, I have two separate 9800GT cards. They sit between a 128MB PhysX PCI card - I've no idea what that does. :P
Thanks for all the info virtuali. As you can see by my lack of knowledge - I'm not a computer geek!
Looking ahead - what specs are recommended? From reading this post and several hundred others today, I should look for:
Processor - (best you can afford) so for me that'd be an i7 960 / 970, 3.2Hz, 8/12MB cache
OS - Windows 7 64bit?
GC - Single GPU (any reccommendations?) Used ATI previously with no problems, but seem to be stuggling with Nvidia.
Memory - 4GB? FSX apparently can't use more than 4GB?
Thanks for your help
Alex
-
Yes, I have two separate 9800GT cards.
In that case, overheating for just one of them doesn't look so strange. Maybe there's bad air circulation inside the case.
Processor - (best you can afford) so for me that'd be an i7 960 / 970, 3.2Hz, 8/12MB cache
Try to get a Sandy Bridge if possible, the 2600 for example is not so expensive. The 960 is already a previous-gen CPU, since it was released 2 years ago.
OS - Windows 7 64bit?
Absolutely, that's what we all at FSDT use now.
GC - Single GPU (any reccommendations?) Used ATI previously with no problems, but seem to be stuggling with Nvidia.
A good one, but without spending too much on it, have a look here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fastest-graphics-card-radeon-geforce,3067.html
Both ATI 6870 or nVidia 560 GTX seems to be good choices below 300$
Memory - 4GB? FSX apparently can't use more than 4GB?
Yes, FSX can't use more than 4GB but, what about Windows ? With 4GB in total, FSX *and* Windows will share a total of 4GB, with 6GB or more FSX might at least be able to have 4GB all for itself. I'd say 6GB should be ok.
-
Just try the demo on my XPS studio LAX with the queen getting average fps of 24-25!! its great! love it! thanks guys!
Jorge
-
I don`t run KLAX on a low end system and there is absolutely no need to answer my question in such a crude note. A simple "no" would have been absolutely sufficient!
I asked, because many users of my forum wanted to know, whether they might encounter performance problems using typical FS9 - machines (eg. E8500). Now I can answer them with a "yes" ...
Anyway the scenery is wonderful if You run it on a high end machine ... great work and absolutely worth buying it.
I agree a simple 'no' would have answered the question. However my system is now were near "low end" and I get the same issues as well....hell I have the cloud 9 version as well. But if I had known it would have performed that bad on my set up...I would have never had bought it when I did..... performance wise this airport gets a D+....however looks nice....when not chopped and screwed.
-
I suspect the low perfomance issue isnt in any way due to high poly count or low end PCs, but directly linked to poor LOD architecture. And...LOD can be tweaked without re-modelling evreything. We all know that FSX deals LODs in a diffrerent (better) way than fs9.
-
I suspect the low perfomance issue isnt in any way due to high poly count or low end PCs, but directly linked to poor LOD architecture
First, there's no "low performance issue" at KLAX, there are only some users with either outdated systems, or new system but badly configured.
See (and read carefully) this message for proof:
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/353381-cloud9-klax/page__view__findpost__p__2160184
Swoop had a very fast system, but his 1GB card under XP 32 bit was the bottleneck, once he upgraded to Win7x64, everything changed, and KLAX started to perform as it was supposed to.
In any case, saying that the problem is not the high-polygon count but the "poor LOD architecture" is self-counterdicting: the LOD IS a way to display less polygons, when the full resolution model has too many of them so, the two are strictly related and, in fact, are the same thing.
And...LOD can be tweaked without re-modelling evreything
No, it can't in this case, which is entirely different.
KLAX for FS9 doesn't have a "poor LOD architecture", it doesn't have ANY LOD at all, for a very simple reason: BECAUSE of the already too high polygonal count, we were so close to the maximum limit that FS9 can handle (32k polygons per drawcall), which is lower than FSX anyway, that putting LOD levels in the objects would result in the FS9 compiler not compiling them anymore, and even by hand-tweaking it to bypass the limit, FS9 wouldn't display the object anyway.
We already *had* the LOD levels, from FSX, but we had to throw away them in FS9 in order to be able to compile the scenery.
Now, before you start jumping "that's it, it's the missing LOD!", the true story, as always, is not so simple.
Modern graphic cards are so fast and with so much *spare* power left when using Flight Sim (and especially FS9), that simply putting a lot of polygons without any LOD could be FASTER than the very act of *switching* between LODs, since there's some computation that affects the CPU involved when deciding which LOD level display based on the object size so, with a fast modern system, this overhead is worse than just drawing *everything* in one go, since the calculations must be made for every object and on every frame.
LOD is very helpful with slower systems, OR systems with less powerful graphic cards OR systems where (like Swoop's) the graphic card was underperforming because of the memory issues in 32 bit.
So, I repeat and confirm: KLAX for FS9 performs normally on a correctly configured fast system. If you have a old PC, there's always the Cloud9 version, which is still on sale and still supported.
-
Thanks for the detailed reply Umberto. At any rate, I wont start a debate here.
However, and I am not going to 'start jumping' as you ironically say: I am just taking act that, indeed, the low performance with KLAXv2 is due to inexistant LOD. It is perhaps acceptable because nowadays PC can handle this more or less, but please dont get into the fishy explanations that it IS normal. It is not.
We've all understood well that the FSDT plan was not to port that FSX native scenery to the older platform, we've all noted that we could have used the trial version before purchase (but you seem to ignore that FSDT faithful customer like me always buy blindly your sceneries because we trust the famous quality we expect from your company), that Win7 deals better with memory etc. Etc...But hey, would you have stated that the fs9 scnery did not had LOD, I wouldnt even have downloaded the trial. End of rant. I therefore suggest you warn your future customers about the fact that your LAXv2 fs9 scenery use no LOD at all.
To end with, two things: first, and depsite the performance problems (concerning 'a few of us' as you like to repeat, ok, lets admit that), the scenery is very nice. Second, we can understand that like every FS business around FSDT is suffering from the global economic crisis, and that perhaps explains the selling of a product that isnt optimized for an outdated FS platform.
Best regards.
-
I am just taking act that, indeed, the low performance with KLAXv2 is due to inexistant LOD.
No. As I've said, there's no such thing as "low performance" with KLAX2, it's just that it has highest system requirements than the old version, which is fairly obvious considering 5 years have passed since that one, but with a system that CAN handle it, the performances are NOT low, as Swoop's experience can confirm.
It is perhaps acceptable because nowadays PC can handle this more or less, but please dont get into the fishy explanations that it IS normal. It is not.
Modern PCs can handle it very well, not "more or less". As I've already explained, on a fast PC, not using LOD can even be FASTER so, why should we penalize those having modern PCs, with a scenery released at the end of 2011 ?
But hey, would you have stated that the fs9 scnery did not had LOD, I wouldnt even have downloaded the trial. End of rant. I therefore suggest you warn your future customers about the fact that your LAXv2 fs9 scenery use no LOD at all.
This doesn't obviously make any sense, because not having LOD is NOT a problem, and can be even a *feature* for those having a fast PC. Since this is clearly system-dependent, there's nothing better than checking the Trial first.
Second, we can understand that like every FS business around FSDT is suffering from the global economic crisis, and that perhaps explains the selling of a product that isnt optimized for an outdated FS platform.
Another unfunded statement: we are not really suffering from the economic crisis, since our business has always grown through the last years, and we always had good year-to-year increases, your hint that we released a sub-par scenery for FS9 because we were desperate to get more cash, other than being blatantly wrong since the scenery is NOT sub-par and is NOT under-performing on a capable system, is also borderline offensive, and these are exactly the kind of statement that would make us considering (more of ALL cash-related issue) to stop supporting FS9 at once.
And besides, if you have O'Hare, I suggest you to download the FREE UPDATE for it, which works in FS9 too. It took almost a month worth of work, more or less what it took to port KLAX to FS9, but we are giving it away for FREE, and we don't expect O'Hare to sell too many additional copies now, yet we ARE giving it free, because we PROMISED IT.
So much for your "though economy" theory...
-
This just keep getting better ;D
-
Yes, I have two separate 9800GT cards.
In that case, overheating for just one of them doesn't look so strange. Maybe there's bad air circulation inside the case.
Processor - (best you can afford) so for me that'd be an i7 960 / 970, 3.2Hz, 8/12MB cache
Try to get a Sandy Bridge if possible, the 2600 for example is not so expensive. The 960 is already a previous-gen CPU, since it was released 2 years ago.
OS - Windows 7 64bit?
Absolutely, that's what we all at FSDT use now.
GC - Single GPU (any reccommendations?) Used ATI previously with no problems, but seem to be stuggling with Nvidia.
A good one, but without spending too much on it, have a look here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fastest-graphics-card-radeon-geforce,3067.html
Both ATI 6870 or nVidia 560 GTX seems to be good choices below 300$
Memory - 4GB? FSX apparently can't use more than 4GB?
Yes, FSX can't use more than 4GB but, what about Windows ? With 4GB in total, FSX *and* Windows will share a total of 4GB, with 6GB or more FSX might at least be able to have 4GB all for itself. I'd say 6GB should be ok.
So you do suggest Sandy Bridge to be a great processor for FSX with Windows 7 64-bit?
-
So you do suggest Sandy Bridge to be a great processor for FSX with Windows 7 64-bit?
Yes, absolutely.
-
Hi guys, i'm not one to complain about performance at all but i too am getting some pretty poor results with LAX and it's deterring me from purchasing at the moment. I'm really sorry if i sound cheeky asking for support on this but i'm fully willing to purchase LAX right now if i can get it performing well under the trial mode. I'm going to try and remove a few BGL's to try and boost it a little, such as the grass type effects but i'm not sure how, is there any specific ones i can remove which would possibly give it a boost? In other sceneries i'm getting perfectly acceptable FPS, the only damaging sceneries i've encountered so far have been LAX and Flightbeams KSFO.
This is also without running any AI, 20 miles of visibility and clear skies under a relatively fresh FS9 installation.
I was having poor performance with LAX too under a similar system and installation and decided against purchase however with RAM corruption ruining my previous installation i decided to revamp the entire system and also make the trip to 64bit.
My system if it helps is -
Q6600 Intel Quad Kentsfield @ 2.80GHz
Gainward (GLH) 460 GTX 1GB
600W Corsair PSU
4GB Corsair XMS2 DHX
Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium
Also running a Sandisk 8GB USB flash drive with Readyboost
Any other ideas?
-
When you'll revamp your system, the better choice you could do, is to just upgrade to FSX, as explained here:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4899.msg45498#msg45498
You can see a comparison between LSZH and KLAX in FS9 and FSX, and see how the more FS9-ish LSZH runs very well under FS9, while KLAX runs faster on FSX on the same system under the same testing conditions, reason for this is just that FSX scales much well with very complex sceneries.
As was already explained in this thread, this is how the FS9 version is and it won't be changed, we'll update the scenery ONLY for obvious bugs, not for performance reasons, we still have on sale the Cloud9 version which will run way better with FS9 on lesser systems, which means there's no reason why we should struggle to remake FSDT KLAX on FS9.
The Trial is there, if you are not happy with performances, simply don't buy it.
Once you update your system, give the Trial another chance and, if you can, try the FSX version too.
-
I find it difficult remaining as an observer in this post and I would be remiss if I did not share my experience.
Although LAXv2 runs exceptionally well on my rig (as seen on my recent screenshots),
I have noticed minor shutters, However consider this:
my system
PrecisionT3500
W3520 @ 2.67Ghz
64-bit
Intel(R) Xeon
Graphic Card Nivdia Quadro FX3800
RAM 24GB
Running FS9
438 addons (scenery only)
REX
EnbSeries
GEPro
UT/USA Europe and Alaska
FSGenesis world NextGen and Aster
AES
ASE
FSPax
FSFlightkeeper
Aiseparation
WOAI
Settings: all maxed
Only no shadows on gates and buildings Dynamic Objects
AI - 100%
FS9 Cfg. I've set the "Max Texture Load" to 12400 (Important my Graphic Card and CPU) loads Textures faster for me
Granted, if I brought down the sliders on Autogen and turn off aircraft shadows, shutters will be non-existent. The system runs both FS9 and FSX; however I have to use an the updated Graphic card driver on FSX.
Additionally, I've discovered that when using Quality Wings VC 757 or and 2dpanel I experience a huge fps hit. Hence I don't fly into LAX or DFW in the VC models for this equipment. In fact, freeKPHL by SunSkyJ is worst. Ironically, Level-D vc, Ifly 737 vc, CLS A330/340 vc I don't experience the same. These crafts breeze thru to landings/takeoffs and taxing.
With LAXv2, FS9 may have met or is on the cusp of its limit.
Similarly, Its clear that we are all still awaiting for the proper CPU spec that meets or surpasses the demands of FSX. It's safe to say that both Pmdg NGX and LAXv2 are before their time. Its surely an eye opener, as this is just the beginning of FSX possibilities.
Instead of holding back FSDT (funny I should make this remark, being the avid FS9ner) we should heed Umberto's recommendations regarding scenery selection matching to that of the CPU capacity.
I wish you all the best
Keino
-
After reading through all six pages of this discussion I felt the need to get involved. I downloaded KLAX Trial last night and had 30-40fps and was absolutely satisfied, the blur on the taxiways and the cargo ramp, I'm okay with after reading the reasoning behind it. What I am NOT okay with is how on my computer this scenery causes switches in view or screen to desktop to blackout and take a very long time to load and freeze up. I just want an answer as to why this might be unlike other scenery from FSDT that don't cause this. Im running a pretty much brand new just built in August i7-2600 3.4ghz NVIDIA gtx 560ti 2GB and 8G ram without getting into all the finer details and if it's something on my end, then I'll deal with it but... I have to say I am actually really disappointed in the posts I have seen by administrators of this site saying how out of the many only four have come to you with issues so its not worth discussing further or fixing, well then make me the fifth. What if it was only five people who had it working well and the many had the poor performance. There's no doubt you've been the upcoming top notch scenery designers on the market for awhile now, but don't let it get to your heads. Support is support, do it right or don't at all..
-
What if it was only five people who had it working well and the many had the poor performance.
If you are counting people, please count them on both sides.
Even if the thread is 6 pages long, there have been exactly 5 people stating they don't have any performance problems, and exactly 5 people stating they have fps problems, and 2 people including you saying they don't have fps problems, but slow view switching.
So, using your own reasoning that maybe there are just 5 people in the world that can run the scenery successfully, we might also assume there are only 6-7 at best that aren't.
I'm sorry, but this is not a support matter, the scenery is like this, and as explained several times already, you have several choices available:
- The Trial version, to verify before purchasing how the scenery works.
- The Cloud9 version, which is surely works much better in FS9, and that one a a Trial version too.
You are using a system perfectly capable of running FSX, if you have decided to under use it by installing FS9 on, because you thought that using a system that would run well FSX might *scream* in FS9, this not the case. NOT if FSX is used with PROPER FSX addons.
FS9 would get an unfair advantage if you stuff FSX with FS9 ports (like World of AI airplane, legacy FS8 and FS9 sceneries, etc.), in that case yes, then FS9 would be faster, but STILL under-using your powerful CPU+video card combination. But if you take care of using only proper FSX products into FS9, and I don't even have a problem open admitting that, of all our sceneries, the only PROPER FSX ones are:
- KLAX
- KDFW
- XPOI
- Cloud9 KMCO
Everything else we have on sale is still "poisoned" by legacy FS9 code and methods, which is why we have a program to update all our existing sceneries to KDFW/KLAX methods.
There was only ONE post in this whole thread that closed question forever, and it was my comparison shot that show how Zurich is much faster in FS9 than FSX, and how KLAX it's faster in FSX instead.
The scenery doesn't have anything wrong, except that it pushes the old FS9 engine way too close to the limit of what it can do, up to a point that we even had to get rid of LODs, because otherwise the objects wouldn't even *compile* under FS9, let alone display.
That sums it all, and I'm sorry, but there will be no changes to this. We might even consider solving the blurred hangar text, that will of course drive performances further down (surely not up...), but it might still be a reasonable request.
Expecting that KLAX would ever perform to Zurich-like levels on FS9, I'm sorry, but that's not possible. Again, the Trial version is your best friend.
-
I feel obliged to comment here, I've purchased 5 FSDT airports now for fs9 and they are very good, when I bought KLAX initially the issue was with the screens taking around 10 seconds to load, stutters are minimal and FPS are good, the way I've got around it is to put Global Texture to High from Massive and the screen blackouts last about 2 seconds, which I can live with as the Scenery is fantastic, all I will say for whatever the next release is, please bear in mind that a lot simmers still use FS9 as they have bought a lot of add-ons over the years and like myself are reluctant to start again I've thought about upgrading everything for FSX but as I say a lot of investment has gone into FS9.
So please consider FS9 users with sceneries and if thigns can be adapted to make good running on peoples systems then that'd be great!
LAX though is fantastic well done
-
My fellow pilot brothers....here is something I use that has made a noticeable improvement to shutters...
http://www.g-forums.net/general-discussion/2289-game-booster-3-download.html
cheers