Frame Rate Test: It's For Real!

[ThePlainsman]

Using the same Beechcraft Baron 58, weather set to "major thunderstorms", location Kilkenny, Ireland, time 5:55 pm, I tried FSX twice. All graphical options identical (density and other sliders almost all the way to the right). Ground Environment X -Europe installed and activated. 1920 x 1200

The first try was DX10 preview checked, the second DX9. Here's what I got:


DX10 preview: frame rate on the runway before takeoff = 36fps
DX9: frame rate on the runway before takeoff = 14fps


DX10 preview: frame rate at 2,000 feet, taking off straight ahead into the teeth of the storm = fluctuated between 32fps and 42fps, most of the time stable at 38fps, no choppiness.
DX9: frame rate at 2,000 feet, taking off straight ahead into the teeth of the storm = fluctuated between 10fps and 18fps, most of the time stable at 15fps, but with some choppiness

Ground graphics, terrain looked identical in both. I didn't fly over any water (I have REX 2.0) so can't make a comparison there. However, the frame rate difference when stable was dramatic. About a 150% increase! To get the same frame rate with DX9 would require me to move graphic sliders to the left. Way left.

Why isn't everyone using DX10 preview?

[crashaz]

One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode. Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.

[ThePlainsman]

One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode. Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.

That's not accurate. I have several non-native FSX planes. They all work perfectly in DX10 preview mode. In fact, all of Carenado's FSX planes, including their HD line, are DX10 compatible. I have freeware and payware add-on planes from different manufacturers and all are DX10 compatible. There are a few plane makers that are still stuck in a DX9 world, but I simply don't buy their stuff.

[kilo delta]

That's not accurate. I have several non-native FSX planes. They all work perfectly in DX10 preview mode. In fact, all of Carenado's FSX planes, including their HD line, are DX10 compatible. I have freeware and payware add-on planes from different manufacturers and all are DX10 compatible. There are a few plane makers that are still stuck in a DX9 world, but I simply don't buy their stuff.

Non native FSX refers to aircraft from FS2004 and before ie those that were not compiled with the FSX SDK.

[ThePlainsman]

Another test comparison, this time London City airport (right near downtown). Heavy building density. Same settings as above. Target frame rate = unlimited. Air traffic and road traffic and water traffic set on 50%. 1920 x 1200 x 32. Most important: altitude = runway and 500 feet through the heart of London buildings. I set the weather this time to clear skies.

On runway:

DX9 = 5fps
DX10 Preview = 30fps

500 feet, straight ahead, through the heart of London:

DX9 = 6fps with a high of 9fps
DX10 Preview = 27fps with a high of 32

Do the math.

With all the add-on crap I have installed, frankly DX9 was unplayable. It stuttered and bumped the whole test. DX10 preview was smooth as silk, with only momentary choppiness when between tall buildings downtown.

Obviously, frame rates under both DX9 and DX10 would be much better at higher altitudes, but I prefer low-level sight-seeing flying. Typically not as low as 500 feet, unless i'm flying a helicopter. But I like flying below 2,000. Based on the clear superiority of DX10 preview, I don't know why anyone would use DX9.

[N2056]

I'm guessing there are a lot of reasons people run one way or the other.
Why is really not something that I care about.

[crashaz]

Yeah basically comes down to ... to each their own.... personally I use DX10 preview and have enough RAM to remove pauses.

[kilo delta]

While higher fps numbers can be gleaned through running the DX10 Preview mode...the anomalies tend to outweigh the initial benefits. Unfortunately almost all non native aircraft lose their textures in DX10...including user added AI traffic such as MAIW and WOAI.

[ThePlainsman]

While higher fps numbers can be gleaned through running the DX10 Preview mode...the anomalies tend to outweigh the initial benefits. Unfortunately almost all non native aircraft lose their textures in DX10...including user added AI traffic such as MAIW and WOAI.

Why would anyone use non-native (FS2004) aircraft in FX when they can simply fly those aircraft in FS2004? I have both sims installed. Also, I have experienced ZERO anomalies with DX10 Preview. On the two tests I just ran, I did get occasional weird red streaks in the sky but that was in DX9 mode! I have MyTraffic X 2010 and Traffic X. Both are entirely DX10 compatible. So are REX, GEX, UTX, ORBX and everything else.

The framerate difference is so dramatic, so huge, I think it's crazy to limit graphic settings to try to get decent framerates out of DX9.

Just to clarify, my tests were conducted INSIDE the cockpit. Obviously fps are usually higher from outside.

[kilo delta]

I personally prefer the freeware WOAI/MAIW models compared to those offered in the payware FSX Ai packages. I've also had flickering runways textures in DX10 preview mode and ,as performance under DX9 is more than adequate for me, I tend to stick with DX9. It's all about personal preference :)

[guzler]

For what ever reason, I get smoother play in DX9 on my system, so that's why I use it. I'd quite happily change over if it improved things.

[Peter SWE]

I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.

[Daube]

One cannot use the non-native FSX planes in DX10 preview mode.

Some FS9 aircrafts will work, though.
For example, the DR400 from Yannick Lavigne will work, you just need to convert some textures.
Also, the CR-42 frm Manuele displays perfectly :)
There must be some other examples, and I don't have any explanation/precise criteria, but the fact is that some FS9 planes will NOT be white in DX10 mode :)
And a proof:
http://sapdaube.free.fr/fsx/daube_image1537.jpg



Also there is a issue with taxiways in how they are drawn in FSX. That is a about all I know.
Indeed. There is a cure for this, but it requires an edition of each airport :/

[ThePlainsman]

I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.

That, sir, is impossible. It's completely beyond belief. You'd be the only person on planet earth with such a result. Do you have Win 7 and a DX10 vid card? I'm going to see if I can duplicate your results.

[Daube]

Why would anyone use non-native (FS2004) aircraft in FX when they can simply fly those aircraft in FS2004?

Because the FS9 flight environment quality cannot be compared to the FSX one as soon as you do anything else than IFR flights.



Also, I have experienced ZERO anomalies with DX10 Preview.

Try to display the taxiway virtual path (yellow arrows guiding you on ground). ;)

[N2056]

Again...people have their reasons for flying the sim the way they do.
I think we get the point that you prefer DX-10 settings. You're starting to get personal with that last reply, and at that point this thread is close to done...

[ThePlainsman]

I get the opposite result on my rig. Just fired up the default flight, friday harbour and the ultralight and got 55 fps in dx9, 12fps in dx10.

Okay, I've completed my test at Friday Harbor and find your claim to be unusual. At an altitude of 1,000 feet, I got 55-56 fps in dX10 preview, and 6-7 fps in DX9. The stuttering in DX9 is unplayable. This is flying over dense forest, but I took exactly the same path, under exactly the same conditions. Even on the runway before take off, the differences were dramatic. DX9 = 5 fps; DX10 = 57 fps. I'm not technically proficient, otherwise I would try to help you find out what's wrong with your DX10. Sorry.

Both tests conducted flying from inside the cockpit of the Ultralight.

[Roger]

Results in Dx10 preview mode (note it's referred to as "preview mode") are diverse and as usual in FsX differing systems show wildly different results. I used Dx10 preview mode through most of 2008 and 2009. This persisted until the news that the Aces team had been disbanded and FsX11 would never be made: so back to Dx9 so I could still run port-overs which I missed and with tweaking both FsX Dx9 & 10 can be made to produce similar results as the Dx10 preview mode was never finished.

[Roger]

Because the FS9 flight environment quality cannot be compared to the FSX one as soon as you do anything else than IFR flights.


I agree: after 6 months I never returned to my GW3(Fs9) installation because, even with the wonderful modifications by Bill Lyons for GW3, FsX world was too convincing to go back.

[anthony31]

LIGHT BLOOM

It's all about light bloom baby. In DX9 mode, turning on light bloom, will kill most people's framerates. In DX10 mode light bloom works a hell of a lot better.

A quick test at Heathrow at night gave me the following results:

DX9 no light bloom : 75fps
DX9 light bloom : 52 fps
DX10 no light bloom : 70 fps
DX10 with light bloom : 65 fps

As you can see, DX9 with no light bloom gives me the best possible framerates so that is what I use.

[ThePlainsman]

LIGHT BLOOM

It's all about light bloom baby. In DX9 mode, turning on light bloom, will kill most people's framerates. In DX10 mode light bloom works a hell of a lot better.

A quick test at Heathrow at night gave me the following results:

DX9 no light bloom : 75fps
DX9 light bloom : 52 fps
DX10 no light bloom : 70 fps
DX10 with light bloom : 65 fps

As you can see, DX9 with no light bloom gives me the best possible framerates so that is what I use.

Cool. My results are completely different. If set up my graphics to get 75 fps in DX9, the exact same settings would get me at minimum 150 fps in DX10 preview mode.

[modelr]

I've never tried the DX10 Preview setting. My previous rig would barely run FSX at all. My new one rocks, and since it is Win 7 with DX11, why bother with a preview setting? Or am I missing something?

[Scratch]

Since upgrading to Windows 7 64 bit I've never been able to use the DirectX 10 preview. When I have it checked the game loads up and runs, but all I get is a black screen.

[kludger]

I wish DirectX10 mode worked well on my system (W7x64 i7-920 ATI5870x2), while it does bump up FPS 2X or 3X, I get a lot of microstutters and inconsistent FPS. I tried lots of tweaks to try and get DX10 mode stable but nothing worked.

So I think DX10 mode is probably very hardware dependent, glad you got it working well Plainsman, most of us are not so lucky.

[Erlk0enig]

Is there a possibility to enable tooltips in dx10 mode?
Best regards

Erlk0enig

[Daube]

LIGHT BLOOM

It's all about light bloom baby. In DX9 mode, turning on light bloom, will kill most people's framerates. In DX10 mode light bloom works a hell of a lot better.

A quick test at Heathrow at night gave me the following results:

DX9 no light bloom : 75fps
DX9 light bloom : 52 fps
DX10 no light bloom : 70 fps
DX10 with light bloom : 65 fps

As you can see, DX9 with no light bloom gives me the best possible framerates so that is what I use.

However, the DX9 light bloom tweak from OrbX helps a lot ;)

[Peter SWE]

Okay, I've completed my test at Friday Harbor and find your claim to be unusual. At an altitude of 1,000 feet, I got 55-56 fps in dX10 preview, and 6-7 fps in DX9. The stuttering in DX9 is unplayable. This is flying over dense forest, but I took exactly the same path, under exactly the same conditions. Even on the runway before take off, the differences were dramatic. DX9 = 5 fps; DX10 = 57 fps. I'm not technically proficient, otherwise I would try to help you find out what's wrong with your DX10. Sorry.

Both tests conducted flying from inside the cockpit of the Ultralight.

Ok. This is strange.
I'm running a Intel E8500 3,16ghz, Win 7, Nvidia GTX460 OC, 4gig ram installed (win says 3,5 usable). Im using Nvidia inspector with the settings i found in another thread here.
I did another test:
This time i flew from my local airport since i have ORBX pnw installed and that covers the Friday harbour area. The flight was from ESGP (save AB) with the default c172. The only addon is FS9 REX clouds.

In DX9 with unlimited FPS i get a lot of stuttering and the fps jumps from 30 to 150. If i limit the framerate to 30 it is smooth as silk and looks great.

In DX10 with unlimited fps im getting a stable 66-68 fps and very little stuttering, with fps limited to 30 i get 20 fps and bad stuttering. Also, in DX10 mode i have a bad case of jaggies and shimmers, and the runway markings flicker on and off.

[peter12213]

Im getting exactly the same results as Peter describes above!

[kilo delta]

Btw..there is a "fix" for the DX10 induced runway/taxiway flickers... http://forum.avsim.net/topic/267998-dx10-runwaytaxiway-flickering-fix/

[falcon409]

That, sir, is impossible. It's completely beyond belief. You'd be the only person on planet earth with such a result. Do you have Win 7 and a DX10 vid card? I'm going to see if I can duplicate your results.
Plainsman, I applaud you enthusiasm, but there is a saying that goes. . ."never say never" and if it applies anywhere at all it would be in the differences between your rig and every other rig on the planet. You should make your finding known and be proud of what your rig can accomplish, but never be so smug as to suggest that yours is the last word and everyone simply must get the same results you do. I have had similar results to what others have noted, lower fps with DX10 and I fly non-native aircraft in FSX because I can.

[peter12213]

What about the jaggy textures though it's like anti analising won't work also I get funny things happening with the water textures can anyone help?

[Thoe6969]

What about the jaggy textures though it's like anti analising won't work also I get funny things happening with the water textures can anyone help? anti alaising don't work fork me either ,thats why the framerate is so much better with DX 10 but it looks like crap.

[mal998]

Cool. My results are completely different. If set up my graphics to get 75 fps in DX9, the exact same settings would get me at minimum 150 fps in DX10 preview mode.

a hundred and fifty, huh? that must be one hell of a rig you got there.

[ThePlainsman]

Ok. This is strange.
I'm running a Intel E8500 3,16ghz, Win 7, Nvidia GTX460 OC, 4gig ram installed (win says 3,5 usable). Im using Nvidia inspector with the settings i found in another thread here.
I did another test:
This time i flew from my local airport since i have ORBX pnw installed and that covers the Friday harbour area. The flight was from ESGP (save AB) with the default c172. The only addon is FS9 REX clouds.

In DX9 with unlimited FPS i get a lot of stuttering and the fps jumps from 30 to 150. If i limit the framerate to 30 it is smooth as silk and looks great.

In DX10 with unlimited fps im getting a stable 66-68 fps and very little stuttering, with fps limited to 30 i get 20 fps and bad stuttering. Also, in DX10 mode i have a bad case of jaggies and shimmers, and the runway markings flicker on and off.

Always fly unlimited fps with DX10. Don't put a fps limit on the DX10 preview. You bottle it up.

[ThePlainsman]

a hundred and fifty, huh? that must be one hell of a rig you got there.

I was trying to make a point to that other poster who insisted his DX9 fps was twice as high as DX10 preview. My point is whatever I get with DX9, I get 100% to 600% higher in DX10 preview. But you have to do DX10 preview with target frame rate set at unlimited to get the best results.

When I did the comparison test, I also had DX9 target fps set at "unlimited." Apparently, someone has discovered that selecting a target frame rate number (like 30) in DX9 mode gets much better results than "unlimited." DX10 is the exact opposite. Set DX10 preview to unlimited target frames and it will beat DX9 easily.

[ThePlainsman]

anti alaising don't work fork me either ,thats why the framerate is so much better with DX 10 but it looks like crap.

That's interesting. I don't have any jaggies in DX10. I have the anti-aliasing box checked in the game menu screen, although I don't know if it is actually working. But I don't have any jaggies. I am running at 1920 X 1200 X 32.
These are my settings: Aircraft = medium high; global texture resolution = very high; Scenery complexity = extremely dense; autogen density =dense; water effects = 2.X; level of detail radius = high; mesh complexity = 100; mesh resolution = 10m; texture resolution = 7cm; special effects detail = high; cloud cover density = maximum (detailed clouds); road vehicles = 40%; ships and ferries = 40%; boats = 40%; airline traffic density = 100%; general aviation traffic density = 100%; airport vehicle density = low; all shadows = on; high resolution 3D virtual cockpit = on; lens flare and light bloom = off.

I also have installed Traffic X, GEX USA & Canada, GEX Europe, GEX Middle East and AFrica, ORBX Australia SP4; REX 2.0 + Overdrive.

What resolution are you running in DX10? That could be why you're seeing crap/jaggies.

[mal998]

turn on your screen framerate counter and post a screen shot over Seattle using a third party aircraft.

[Phantom88]

:jump:WOW!!! I nearly trippled my FPS,The only negative so far are flickering lights and square boxes on a few aircraft lights,and no tool tips.But the extra performance is fantastic!! THX for the info!! Cheers:salute:

[Naruto-kun]

Some FS9 aircrafts will work, though.
For example, the DR400 from Yannick Lavigne will work, you just need to convert some textures.
Also, the CR-42 frm Manuele displays perfectly :)
There must be some other examples, and I don't have any explanation/precise criteria, but the fact is that some FS9 planes will NOT be white in DX10 mode :)
And a proof:
http://sapdaube.free.fr/fsx/daube_image1537.jpg


Indeed. There is a cure for this, but it requires an edition of each airport :/

The answer to why some FS9 birds go white in FSX is Bloom. Some non FSX materials will put out like full bloom which is so bright that it whites out the screen. I still run on winXP32 so i dont have the DX10 preview option available. But I have tested several FS9 aircraft and every time the screen went white it turned out that bloom was the culprit.

[falcon409]

The answer to why some FS9 birds go white in FSX is Bloom. Some non FSX materials will put out like full bloom which is so bright that it whites out the screen. I still run on winXP32 so i don't have the DX10 preview option available. But I have tested several FS9 aircraft and every time the screen went white it turned out that bloom was the culprit.
Just to clarify, and I admit that I haven't read every post in the thread, but when others state that some aircraft (FS9 ports) turn white, they don't mean the screen goes white, they mean the aircraft textures show up as white when running DX10 Preview. I've actually had a few airplanes where only some of the aircraft was white while other areas looked fine. I've read earlier explanations for why some ports turn white in DX10 and it wasn't related to bloom which a lot of folks don't use anyway because of the fps hit.

[ThePlainsman]

Just to clarify, and I admit that I haven't read every post in the thread, but when others state that some aircraft (FS9 ports) turn white, they don't mean the screen goes white, they mean the aircraft textures show up as white when running DX10 Preview. I've actually had a few airplanes where only some of the aircraft was white while other areas looked fine. I've read earlier explanations for why some ports turn white in DX10 and it wasn't related to bloom which a lot of folks don't use anyway because of the fps hit.

Has nothing to do with light bloom. The absence of skin textures means the person who made the aircraft didn't create to be DX10 compatible. I don't know the techie terms for it but that's what it comes down to. I have freeware and payware add-on planes and all are DX10 preview compatible. I just installed a Fokker DR. I off the disc in the latest issue of PC Pilot. It is DX10 preview compatible. No "white skin/blank texture" problem.

[falcon409]

Has nothing to do with light bloom. The absence of skin textures means the person who made the aircraft didn't create to be DX10 compatible. I don't know the techie terms for it but that's what it comes down to. I have freeware and payware add-on planes and all are DX10 preview compatible. I just installed a Fokker DR. I off the disc in the latest issue of PC Pilot. It is DX10 preview compatible. No "white skin/blank texture" problem.
Yep, exactly. :salute:

[N2056]

If a given plane was properly built using the FSX SDK tools it will work in DX-10. If you have installed either SP-2 or Acceleration and it's a plane that was built using the FS9 SDK it might work in DX-10, although based on the huge numbers of threads out there regarding how to fix prop and glass textures if you have a working plane without modifying something you are a lucky person. Think about it. FS9 planes can't be built to be DX-10 compatible. The tools don't exist!

For any FS9 model that works perfectly in FSX under DX-10 I can find you 10 that don't.

It would be a huge contribution to the discussion if you would post what you are running in terms of system specs, and what flavor of FSX you are using. Without those most of this means nothing.

[Daube]

Just to clarify, and I admit that I haven't read every post in the thread, but when others state that some aircraft (FS9 ports) turn white, they don't mean the screen goes white, they mean the aircraft textures show up as white when running DX10 Preview. I've actually had a few airplanes where only some of the aircraft was white while other areas looked fine. I've read earlier explanations for why some ports turn white in DX10 and it wasn't related to bloom which a lot of folks don't use anyway because of the fps hit.

Absolutely Falcon, we were talking here about the AIRCRAFT being white, not the full screen :)
And also, the full white screen when using the bloom on FS9 planes did happen to me in the past, but it does not happen anymore, so I suspect the bug might me linked to the video card settings or something like that. Nowadays, in DirectX9 mode, I can activate the bloom when I fly FS9 planes without any issue.

[Daube]

If a given plane was properly built using the FSX SDK tools it will work in DX-10. If you have installed either SP-2 or Acceleration and it's a plane that was built using the FS9 SDK it might work in DX-10, although based on the huge numbers of threads out there regarding how to fix prop and glass textures if you have a working plane without modifying something you are a lucky person. Think about it. FS9 planes can't be built to be DX-10 compatible. The tools don't exist!

For any FS9 model that works perfectly in FSX under DX-10 I can find you 10 that don't.

Indeed. And I would really like to know the precise criteria that would make a FS9 plane work in DirectX10, but so far that's stil unknown.



It would be a huge contribution to the discussion if you would post what you are running in terms of system specs, and what flavor of FSX you are using. Without those most of this means nothing.
I7 960 @ 3,2 GHz
GTX480
Windows 7 64b.
FSX Acceleration, with Gizmo's water textures and FSWC shader tweaking.

[Phantom88]

Quad4 @4GHz
8gigs Ram
GTX580

[Dangerous Beans]

Interesting discussion guys.
I've never had any luck with DX10, no change in framerate and all the usual bugs.

Could you include what video drivers your using, could be an important factor.

[DarrenL]

I'd like him to press "shift Z" a couple of times to get the FPS up on the top left of the screen and take 2 screen shots (pressing V key) of the same aircraft and same scenery, one using DX9 and one using DX10. Using the same FSX display settings so if maxxed out in DX10 then maxxed out in DX9. If bloom off, then bloom off in both etc...

To see the difference in FPS but also the difference in screen quality.

[Thoe6969]

I'd like him to press "shift Z" a couple of times to get the FPS up on the top left of the screen and take 2 screen shots (pressing V key) of the same aircraft and same scenery, one using DX9 and one using DX10. Using the same FSX display settings so if maxxed out in DX10 then maxxed out in DX9. If bloom off, then bloom off in both etc...

To see the difference in FPS but also the difference in screen quality. Me too ,and I would see his specs on his pc,cause I've never seen a puter that would get 150 FPS with the settings he says he's using.Ya know that old saying(I was born in the dark,but it wasn't last nite).

[almccoyjr]

I mostly "lurk" but this thread has caught my interest.

Are frames-per-second being equated to rendering speed and better performance? If so, fps is not a great way to measure performance because it's not linear.

Just a question to clear up some confusion on my part.

plug_nickel

[warchild]

it's a brute force measure of performance and the ability of the machine to handle whats being thrown at it. although not as good at determining performance as other methods, mostly we all go by what we see with our eyes, and the more frames per second we can generate, the smoother the over all performance of the sim appears..
The downside is that in order to get the frame rates in fsx to rise much higher than 15 fps, you gotta really throw some heavy metal types of machines at it. Ergo, the requests for system specs. For example, i'm personally currently running an NVBidiua 780I mobo, with 8 gigs of ram and a Q6600 core two quad clocked at 2.4 gigaherz. my current GPU is a single GTX-260 with 878 megs of ram on board. With this set up, I'm getting about 15 frames per sec on on average with a DX9 capable plane. In order to get a higher FPS, i need to overclock it to about 3 ghz, and add in the second GTX-260 which will give me approximately 40 fps..

[almccoyjr]

Thanks warchild.

Perhaps a better use for fps would be it's relationship to frames-per-rendered-scene or just drop fps completely.

My system specs are:

EVGA 680i-sli_1066 fsb
X6800 @ 3.72ghz
8gb PC6400 locked @ 800 w/ 4-3-4-3-2-9T timings
EVGA GTX 260/216 w/core @ 576_mem @ 2106_shader @ 1242
Primary HD is 600gb WD raptor
On-board audio
Sony GDM-FW900 @ 1920x1200x75hz or 2304x1440x80hz

I strive for consistent (not average) 30-40 fps in a dedicated flight scene and it takes a lot of mostly enjoyable work getting there when I do. To that end, I've found that "fps for fps sake" is pretty much a dead end. The only real use I've found for fps is when checking monitor resolution/frequency and the shear number of pixels a card can produce. As a matter of fact, I don't monitor in-game fps at all. When I hit a micro-stutter, I fly back around again to that area and see if it was a "simple" cache delay between mem/card/hd.

Some where, a long time ago, I remember reading an Intel white sheet that a consistent 45 fps (fprs) @ 1600x1200x75hz would be just about ideal. In today's hardware terms that 45 would mean at very high resolutions above 2304.

On a side note, I'd be curious to know how many "FSX'ers" use the same fsx.config for every flight. I've had as many as 19 back when I was "anal" but since I now primarily fly ORBX or Horizon Sim. scenery, I've pared it down to 7.

Hardware is important, but tuning what you have is even more so. And as you so rightly put it "mostly we all go by what we see with our eyes, and the more frames per
second we can generate, the smoother the over all performance of the sim appears.. ". FSX is code that is reproduced digitally where our eyes are analog devices that continuously process light information, hence we don't see in fps. The only change I'd make to your quote would be to add consistently before generate.

plug_nickel

[DarrenL]

I'd like him to press "shift Z" a couple of times to get the FPS up on the top left of the screen and take 2 screen shots (pressing V key) of the same aircraft and same scenery, one using DX9 and one using DX10. Using the same FSX display settings so if maxxed out in DX10 then maxxed out in DX9. If bloom off, then bloom off in both etc...

To see the difference in FPS but also the difference in screen quality.



Me too ,and I would see his specs on his pc,cause I've never seen a puter that would get 150 FPS with the settings he says he's using.Ya know that old saying(I was born in the dark,but it wasn't last nite).

He's gone very quiet hasn't he.

[Thoe6969]

He's gone very quiet hasn't he. You noticed that also.?

[wombat666]

Indeed he may have but best to play nice people.
FWIW, I've never been fussed about the whole FPS swagger, as long as users are happy with what they can run it is totally irrelevant.
:kilroy:

[lazarus]

I sort of look at these claims with some scepticisim. For my fairly modest system, using the jesus tweak guide, DXT9 cause I have a number of ports I cannot go with out, middle sliders, detail clouds, 2x high water, large draw radius, mostly default scenery mesh except for stuff like OzX death valley, Grand canyon, FSmainiacs Isuszu islands, frames locked at 25, 15-24.5 average rates, it can be as low as 3.5-4.5 with 7-8 Victorious clones in a 5nm box, but its smooth, no stutters, autogen bangs in with out delay, no waiting for textures to load when changing veiws. Smooth and snapy refresh rates win for me over the obsessing about frame rates. Heck, the eye and brain can't process anything more than 60fps. My eye just isn't fast enough to notice stuff moving at blink and shake rates.

[Overshoe]

http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse.gif

[ThePlainsman]

Yes, I've been gone awhile. I got a "downsized" notice from my former employer end of September. Got another gig fiarly quickly, though, so I feel lucky, especially at my advanced age (58). Anyway, I use FRAPS for my frame rate counter and it doesn't show up in screenshots (also FRAPS). I've never tried the FSX fps counter or the screen shot key. FRAPS has so many more uses.

Since I was on this thread last, I replaced my GTX 285, 1GB VRAM card with a GTX 580, 3GB VRAM card. I also doubled my CPU RAM from 6 GB of 1600MHz to 12 GB of 1600 MHz. The difference is amazing! Everything is turned on max with REX, GEX and ORBX installed. In DX10 preview, NO STUTTERING! THe additional RAM in both the vid card and the CPU has made a significant difference, and it was already pretty good.

[Daube]

Since this topic has been bumped, I'll take the opportunity to share here my most recent exeperiences with the FSX.cfg and general FSX performance tuning.

First a bit of context:
I have a i7 runnning a 3,2GHz with 6 Gb of RAM and a GTX480.
With Jesus website, I could achieve in the past some satisfactory results for the balance between quality and smoothness. However I was still getting some small problems:
- when reaching a big city or airport, the FPS would crawl down to barely flyable levels.
- when flying away from big cities, the FPS were fine (around 30 locked), but some micro stutters would somehow prevent the sim from being "really" smooth.
- when playing with the values of the Texture_bandwith_mult and the bufferpools, I could never get rid of the occasionnal black artifacts and flashes when panning around
- deactivating the bufferpools completely (usepools=0) lead me to a very smoooooooooth sim, but an unbearable amount of artifacts and flashes :icon_lol:

After many months of "not so serious" testing (like, once in a while, when I was thinking about it), I have finally found some "explanations" and a way to finally get rid (almost totally) of the artifacts. Here is what I did:

1- in NVidia Inspector, I have DISABLED TOTALLY the "transparency AntiAliasing". I killed it, killed it dead, with fire. The boost on the FPS has been incredible. Suddenly, I was able to fly aver Seattle or any major airport, including in OrbX sceneries, even with overcast skies.

2- as I saw in quite a lot of topics all over the forums recently, I went to a very high Texture_bandwith_mult value. I set it to 800, then run my FSX.cfg through Jesus website once again to get modified values for the other tweaks.

3- in the FSX.cfg, I forced myself to disable the bufferpools (usepools=0), I wanted to seriously try to get rid of the artifacts, because the sim smoothness was a goal that was getting more and more important to me.

4- in the FSX graphic settings, I FINALLY decided to lower the "mesh complexity" slider down to 50 percent. My other settings are as follows:
- mesh resolution 5 meters
- ground texture resolution 60 cm.
- autogen density set to maximum
- scenery density set to one crank below the max

5- after all the modifications, I modified my shader_cache_version value in the FSX.cfg, to force FSX recompile its shaders on next start.

CONCLUSION: The sim is smooth now. So smooth that I decided to crank back the water to High 2x, and I removed the autogen TREES limitation in the FSX.cfg !! (was set to 2000 before). I could also push my cloud draw distance the the middle ! FPS are stable at 30 unless I fly in some extreme condition with an extreme plane.

The most important elements to keep focus on are the transparency AA and the mesh complexity. I wonder how I didn't think about the terrain complexity before.... for information, this feature is the smoothing of the terrain shape. Set it to zero, and you'll end up with mountains looking like XPlane9. Set it to 100 and your mountain shapes will be very smooth (no visible polygon lines). Set it somewhere in the middle and you'll find a perfect balance, and your CPU will be happy. This really had an influence on the micro stutters in flight.

All my tests were done above FTX PNW, next to Concrete, Seattle and Bowermann. I have not tested in the "default" world yet.

[falcon409]

Hmmm, wish I knew more about this but I simply use Nicks well documented settings for Inspector to get me through.

Several things I noticed while comparing mine to yours Daube:
In Nick's settings for Inspector he doesn't suggest any change to the "disabled" setting already in place for the AA Transparency setting, so according to him it should never be used.
My Texture_bandwidth_multi setting was 80 so I hesitate pumping it to 800 (although I may just to test the results).
I don't have a Buffer_pools setting in my cfg file
I don't have a shader_cache_version setting either. . . .what I do have are these:
SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED_10=1693500672
SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693500672

The only problem I've had constantly since "day 1" are stutters. Nothing I do and nothing I've read and tried have changed them one iota, so I have to assume that it's related largely to the age and make up of my system. I will give your settings a shot though just as a test to see what I get. Also, just to reitterate what I said basically a year or so ago, I don't use DX10 because I fly a lot of FS9 aircraft that are not compatible with DX10. I also do it because IMHO DX10 is overrated.:salute:

[Daube]

Falcon, just try something: set the usepools=0 line in the [bufferpools] section, as follows:


[BufferPools]
UsePools=0

I'm pretty sure you'll get artifacts, but just ignore them for a moment and just try to determine if you're still getting micro-stutters or not. Just to know. After the test, you can remove the lines from your FSX.cfg again to revert back to your previous situation. On my computer, this tweak had a terrible effect at first: fantastic smoothness but TERRIBLE artifacts... that's why I quickly stopped using it... until my latests experiments :)

[falcon409]

Falcon, just try something: set the usepools=0 line in the [bufferpools] section, as follows:


[BufferPools]
UsePools=0

I'm pretty sure you'll get artifacts, but just ignore them for a moment and just try to determine if you're still getting micro-stutters or not. Just to know. After the test, you can remove the lines from your FSX.cfg again to revert back to your previous situation. On my computer, this tweak had a terrible effect at first: fantastic smoothness but TERRIBLE artifacts... that's why I quickly stopped using it... until my latests experiments :)
As I mentioned, I don't have a BufferPools section at all, can I just add that as indicated without the BufferPools= line?

[Daube]

Per default, this section does not exist in the FSX.cfg. But the bufferpools mecanism exists nevertheless, and by default the size of the bufferpools is set to 4 millions (4.000.000).
So, if you don't write any [Bufferpools] section in the FSX.cfg, or if you just add an empty [bufferpools] section, or if you add the section and a line PoolSize=4000000, it's just the same as default.

But if you add the section and the line UsePools=0, exactely like in my quote above, then you deactivate the bufferpools mecanism. That's the difference.

[falcon409]

Got it! :salute: