Poor performance

[kevchris]

Or, get FSX along with a new state of the art machine, which is exactly what I am doing.  Hope to see great results.

[DogStar]

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 !

[DogStar]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[DogStar]

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.

[flusispieler]

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.

[DogStar]

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 ...

[flusispieler]

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]

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.

[virtuali]

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.

[DogStar]

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 ...

[virtuali]

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.

[DogStar]

You said the same thing about the threshold markings. Later we learned, that it could be fixed  ...

[virtuali]

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.

[Rafal]

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....