Has FSX met it's (hardware) match, yet? [Archive]

View Full Version : Has FSX met it's (hardware) match, yet?

codeseven

February 13th, 2009, 10:21

I brought this question up at the end of another thread but I wanted to start a topic all it's own.

Most games/sims are created with some sort of 'futureproofing' in mind in that in order to extend it's shellflife their peak performance is aimed at future hardware developemnt. Since it's introduction in 2006 FSX users have been eagerly aquiring the latest in computer hardware in search of a 'maxed out' FSX. With the arrival of multi core CPU's, powerful GPU's and screaming fast Memory you would think this several year old sim would now be behind the hardware curve and finaly could be maxed out whatever sliders you turned up or complex addons you put into it.

So, has FSX finaly met it's hardware match yet? Can you now build a computer that you can say will handle anything FSX can throw at it and still have everything maxed out with smooth gameplay?

Or, are we still waiting for newer hardware, faster cores and super quick memory to finaly tame this sim? Some may say FSX's has just enough programming bugs to never allow for smooth, maxed out gameplay. Others may say that they are already getting maxed out gameplay, on their older slower computers for some reason, but crappy performance on their newer screaming fast computers,??

What say you??

djscoo

February 13th, 2009, 10:26

I can run all sliders full right in DX10 mode and get 30 frames minimum at flyTampa's Kai Tak...out of DX10 I'm in the 10's though.

Boomer

February 13th, 2009, 10:33

Yes & no....

With a clean install of FSX I can run everything Maxed out with very high frames.

Now that I have installed all my meshes, high rez textures & scenery I have to be more practical in my expectations.

kilo delta

February 13th, 2009, 10:45

I've been running FSX with all sliders maxxed ,as have many others on these forums, for quite some time now. :)
There are lots of variables that can affect frame rates, ....background running processes,directx mode, gameplay resolution,AA/AF filtering, fs addons etc. So long as you've a computer running an Intel dual/quad core chip at or above ~3.6GHZ, 4GB of fast memory and a decent GFX card you should be good to go!:wiggle:

As Bob has stated........a virgin install of FSX (with sp's) will run very fluid. Problems seem to arise only when you start loading on the Addons and get a craving for yet more eye candy! :)

Bone

February 13th, 2009, 10:47

I can run all sliders full right in DX10 mode and get 30 frames minimum at flyTampa's Kai Tak...out of DX10 I'm in the 10's though.

I've seen other people post that they get better FPS with DX10 preview enabled, but I have the opposite experience. My system is no slouch, either. It has a QX9650 brain running on Vista. Another weird thing is, I get a drop in FPS when running my GPU's in SLI mode.

Boomer

February 13th, 2009, 10:57

I Another weird thing is, I get a drop in FPS when running my GPU's in SLI mode.

I see no real difference in DX10 or not but I also take a hit when running in SLI. Very odd!

guzler

February 13th, 2009, 12:02

I thought FSX doesn't support SLI ? Could that be why ?

Great thread as I am looing to upgrade for FSX pleasures

Kiwikat

February 13th, 2009, 12:02

If not, it is getting close. Right now I am testing my overclock around NYC. I've got it set to 35 fps and it is pinned. So far I've tested it with the Skysim Hawk, RealAir Spitfire, and AlphaSim Long-EZ. I am about to pull out the MD-11 ;) That's with max scenery complexity, very dense autogen, UTX, REX, GEX, fsgenesis USA mesh, and ASX running. Only thing not way high/maxed is traffic. I don't use traffic because I always fly online.

I really can't believe how well this computer is ripping apart fsx.:faint:

EDIT: (with the PMDG MD-11) On the ground at JFK my FPS averaged about 30. Once I got into the air they went up to around 32-33, and once I got to 5000 feet or so (which happened to be above Manhattan, with all of the NYC buildings in sight) it was pinned at 35.

Major_Spittle

February 13th, 2009, 15:02

Kiwikat

February 13th, 2009, 15:16

Major_Spittle

February 13th, 2009, 15:23

I'm on a Samsung T220 (22 inches if you didn't gather that by the name) at native 1680x1050x32 resolution with FSX on full screen (not windowed)...:naturesm:

I honestly don't know how people do it. I limit my autogen trees to 500 and autogen buildings to 1500 in .cfg file also. The only thing I can think of is that FSX doesn't like Vista64.

Kiwikat

February 13th, 2009, 15:27

I honestly don't know how people do it. I limit my autogen trees to 500 and autogen buildings to 1500 in .cfg file also. The only thing I can think of is that FSX doesn't like Vista64.

I don't know either. FSX runs awesome on some PC's and terrible on others. It is really really strange. I still haven't even begun to figure out why that is. Maybe someone with a bit more FSX knowledge can fill us in. (cue Phil Taylor or someone like that ;))

I'm on Vista 64 though too. By far the most solid OS I've ever used.

n4gix

February 13th, 2009, 15:35

I thought FSX doesn't support SLI ? Could that be why ?

SLI doesn't require "support." It either works or it doesn't.

It would be accurate to say that SLI doesn't "do anything" for FSX.

Bone

February 13th, 2009, 15:36

I think a lot of people on here are full of crap, running at crap resolutions on small monitors, or running FSX in a 4in X 4in window. :gossip:

Hehe, now that cracks me up. I've got a Gateway 30" that runs at 2560x1600. Most of my sliders are somewhere between half and 3/4's to the right, with the exception of the autogen, which is either at a minimum or completely off. I keep my FPS locked at 37 to eliminate the "stutters", and the FPS doesn't vary much. I'm a professional pilot, and quite frankly most of the FS world looks more realistic with the autogen off. The trees are just too big.

kilo delta

February 13th, 2009, 15:38

MCDesigns

February 13th, 2009, 16:37

Ok, I got an 8800gt super clock gpu, 4 gigs ddr2 running at 1120, and a Q9450 clocked at 3.8 with a FSB of 1900 and I can't get 16fps with everything maxed. btw, I have a 22" monitor running at 1920 X 1200.

I think a lot of people on here are full of crap, running at crap resolutions on small monitors, or running FSX in a 4in X 4in window. :gossip:

See, posts like this scare the crap out of me since I am about to upgrade and this isn't the first one like this I have seen.

My specs are below and well below most here. I have mine locked at 30 and without real weather and outside of cities, it stays there. So in comparison, you should be able to get MUCH better performance than myself and when i upgrade I "should" be able to get better than what i get now (crosses fingers!!!)

txnetcop

February 13th, 2009, 19:24

Codeseven I am very sorry I haven't contributed. I have been swamped with a server swith-over from Vista back to Linux on four servers and the corresponding software. I came to drain the swamp and end up with alligators up my arse.

I think starting with the X48 motherboards FSX has been tamed, and with a healthy overclock on the i7 920s I've been building for folks I have been averaging 35-40 fps locked all over the place. That is with Nvidia and ATI video cards. I am using Corsair Dominator 1800mhz memory and overclocking it and the CPU.
Here is a pretty idea of the results you can expect:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2161&page=4

I posted pics in here of flying in a heavy thunderstorm over NYC at 30+ fps no tricks with everything full right except texture resolution at 2 and mesh resolution at 10 and it pegs and stays there. That is on a Gigabyte X48 DQ-6 with an E8600 OC'd to 3.8Ghz and 4GB of OCZ Flex Memory with an ATI HIS HD4870 ICE-Q4 Turbo video card. It isn't a fluke it is constant and I have other people in here I have built for that doing very well in FSX as well. I still can't tell the difference between 40 and 20 fps in FSX when it is so fluid but people like to chase the frame rates I guess. It could be my age too... lol

It is too hard to help people over the phone so I quit that. There is no point in anyone asking me to give away my secrets for free, I won't! I've been severely criticized for that and I don't care. I'm in business to make a profit on gamer builds, as this is all I have now for income besides managing a physicians network for next to nothing financially, but I will tell what parts I buy and test at Tech Corp. While I can't give detail specs, as we test for mfgs and report to them, I will tell what runs great to help you guys out. I am telling you though that you can build a system that runs FSX just great starting with the X-48 boards and up.

Michael you sounded worried, but I can assure you that you can move your sliders further right and still get about a 20-24% boost. I use Windows 7 64bit right now and it runs slick as grease. I hope I can keep it until Windows 7 final is out. It is for me the next XP only better.

I do have alot of information on how to set the Windows 7 up for gaming it isn't hard and it is very easy to use.

I was over at the General's(Wh61 in the forum) house for a few minutes today and saw his new 26 and 28 inch monitors. He is running full right on all but mesh and texture resolution with light bloom with an X48 board and E8400 OC'd to 3.4Ghz with an ATI HD3870 on computer and an X48 board E6850 and HD3870 on another...it was gorgeous and that is one happy man. So yes you can build a unit that runs FSX just great.

FSX has been tamed but not conquered.
Ted

I brought this question up at the end of another thread but I wanted to start a topic all it's own.

Most games/sims are created with some sort of 'futureproofing' in mind in that in order to extend it's shellflife their peak performance is aimed at future hardware developemnt. Since it's introduction in 2006 FSX users have been eagerly aquiring the latest in computer hardware in search of a 'maxed out' FSX. With the arrival of multi core CPU's, powerful GPU's and screaming fast Memory you would think this several year old sim would now be behind the hardware curve and finaly could be maxed out whatever sliders you turned up or complex addons you put into it.

So, has FSX finaly met it's hardware match yet? Can you now build a computer that you can say will handle anything FSX can throw at it and still have everything maxed out with smooth gameplay?

Or, are we still waiting for newer hardware, faster cores and super quick memory to finaly tame this sim? Some may say FSX's has just enough programming bugs to never allow for smooth, maxed out gameplay. Others may say that they are already getting maxed out gameplay, on their older slower computers for some reason, but crappy performance on their newer screaming fast computers,??

What say you??

djscoo

February 13th, 2009, 20:05

MudMarine

February 13th, 2009, 21:21

codeseven

February 13th, 2009, 22:24

Thanks guys.

I sometimes wonder if it's just a matter of throwing enough horsepower at FSX in order to be able to max everything out and have smooth gameplay, or not. It's been pointed out that even new builds mysteriously fail to run FSX better than the owners older build. Some say it's a matter of 'luck' whether your shiny new comp will run FSX well or not. You would think it would be just a matter of time before a game engine is finaly 'overpowered' by newer, faster, more powerful technology than it was ever meant to be run by.

Just popping in a game, downloading all the addons you like, setting all the sliders to max and hitting play would seem a bit unrealistic for any game. Everyone has their own taste in a how a game looks and plays. Thats when a few custom tweaks here and there should come into play. But strictly following an OS Install Guide, shutting down specific services, messing with the registry, ect ect, then comes the Game Install Guide, adding lines and changing specific numbers in the cfg. file then adjusting and re-adjusting just about every setting in game and out via yet another Guide for the GPU to squeek out every bit of performance you can get just to hope you can come close to smooth gameplay seems a bit much.

I realize that there are some guys that have managed to get FSX to run beautifully. But as long as even the folks with the newest, fastest stuff still need to tweak their systems, from OS to cfg. files, in order to get smooth gameplay at max settings then either the hardware hasn't yet caught up to FSX's max potential or there is something wrong the game itself.

Dont get me wrong, I love the game and I've managed to get 'acceptable' gameplay on my less than cutting edge system but geez it took alot to get to that point and it looks like even the best hardware you can currently buy will only run FSX 'close' to maxed out as long as all the right tweaks are done and even then it's not a done deal.

Maybe there is something wrong with the game itself, perhaps in the coding or something. If not, whether OS or hardware, I dont think were quite there yet.

txnetcop

February 14th, 2009, 02:01

If you guys want to game with Windows 7 set up a separate disk or partition your current disk. Read this article to get your courage up and follow every link especially those just after the Conclusion of the article. Windows 7 is a real winner and this is just a beta not even a pre release candidate. By the way I don't recommend it for all the latest games but it does just great with FSX.

Windows 7 BETA TAKES THE TEST
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2009/02/06/windows-hits-lucky-7/

and check out this score with Windows 7 Beta on an i7Core 920 OC just a little on an ASUS P6T Deluxe:

http://www.pcpitstop.com/betapit/sec.asp?conid=21673981&report=Summary

Ted

SkippyBing

February 14th, 2009, 03:27

Concur, I'm running 7 on a second drive and it's great. I only go back to XP if I want to use my tablet as I can't get the drivers to work, which is at least partly laziness on my part!

Major_Spittle

February 14th, 2009, 05:11

I have almost the exact same system, not overclocked and I average around 20-25 fps about 18 in heavy areas, sometimes worse.

That is about the same as my system. I locked mine at 16fps to try to smooth it out as much for landing at congested airports which is where it gets the worst. That and heavy clouds.

I run add-ons and enable everything and put everything the highest. My system will still choke out to 5 fps for a couple seconds now an then.

Major_Spittle

February 14th, 2009, 05:23

I'm running a native 2560x1600 resolution....fps locked @ 30fps...and Vista Ultimate 64bit.

Major_Spittle Have you tried following Nick N's guides? http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041

Thanks for the post, I am working today but will use it this weekend. I know I need to use the texture bandwidth mult, but have done the rest for the most part.

txnetcop

February 14th, 2009, 07:00

more help for those who want to use Windows 7 for FSX

http://lifehacker.com/5126781/how-to-dual-boot-windows-7-with-xp-or-vista

By the way, a hint on getting the best performance see Nick N guides posted by Harleyman...back to work
Ted

Bone

February 14th, 2009, 07:22

Windows 7 is no longer available for download...I snoozed and lost.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/

casey jones

February 14th, 2009, 08:09

I will just stay with FS9..problem solved.

Cheers

Casey

Kiwikat

February 14th, 2009, 09:30

I will just stay with FS9..problem solved.

*Cough* :sniper:
:caked:

SkippyBing

February 14th, 2009, 09:39

Hey, how'd that dinosaur get into our forum:icon_lol:

Wiens

February 14th, 2009, 09:40

Shoot, I was wanting to download the Windows 7 beta to test on one of my computers. So it's no longer available?

Kevin

Bone

February 14th, 2009, 09:52

I will just stay with FS9..problem solved.

Cheers

Casey

I used FS9 and FSX concurrently for about a month, then I had to ditch FS9 altogether. Each time I used FSX, my desire to use FS9 decreased exponentially, untill I was absolutely repelled by it and did the uninstall.

For those of you who love FS9 and have never tried the X...don't do it, run away run away.

Bjoern

February 14th, 2009, 11:38

(http://sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=113651#post113651)Has FSX met it's (hardware) match, yet?

Never has, never will.

"Hardware match" indicates high framerates (thirties to sixties) in extreme stress situations for me, say:
- all sliders and settings on maximum
- custom AI traffic (FS9-native, since FSX-native models won't ever exist)
- extra graphics tweaks in the fsx.cfg (LOD_Detail_Radius=6.5 and more; maximum value for trees and buildings)
- a weather add-on generating multiple layers of clouds plus bad weather
- a complex aircraft (FSX-native), like the Level-D 767 or the Super 80
- on approach to a big airport, like KORD (with custom airport scenery)

There's absolutely no hardware out there capable of handling this kind of situation in FSX. I doubt that even the next two, three generations of CPUs and GPUs will be able to fulfill FSX's craving for computing power.

However, the bars would be lower though if every add-on containing 3D models was made according to FSX SDK specs. But since this isn't the case either, and won't be for a very long time, FSX - in combination with most third party add-ons - will remain a hardware eater of the most excellent kind.

Kiwikat

February 14th, 2009, 13:40

Never has, never will.

"Hardware match" indicates high framerates (thirties to sixties) in extreme stress situations for me, say:
- all sliders and settings on maximum
- custom AI traffic (FS9-native, since FSX-native models won't ever exist)
- extra graphics tweaks in the fsx.cfg (LOD_Detail_Radius=6.5 and more; maximum value for trees and buildings)
- a weather add-on generating multiple layers of clouds plus bad weather
- a complex aircraft (FSX-native), like the Level-D 767 or the Super 80
- on approach to a big airport, like KORD (with custom airport scenery)

There's absolutely no hardware out there capable of handling this kind of situation in FSX. I doubt that even the next two, three generations of CPUs and GPUs will be able to fulfill FSX's craving for computing power.

However, the bars would be lower though if every add-on containing 3D models was made according to FSX SDK specs. But since this isn't the case either, and won't be for a very long time, FSX - in combination with most third party add-ons - will remain a hardware eater of the most excellent kind.

Just FYI, that is NOT FSX.

I ask that someone with a new i7 (or even penryn) computer either on vista or windows 7 test out a vanilla install of fsx w/sp2 or acceleration and max it out. Report back on the FPS. Something like the Aerosoft F-16 will never run maxed out because of the way it was built. Same with the PMDG planes, though the MD-11 is damn close.

I'm serious too. Someone do this and report back. I am most interested in the results. I can say when I BRIEFLY tested my vanilla fsx (no addons, no overclock either) I was getting a SOLID 130 (peaked at around 160) fps over my hometown airport.

Bone

February 14th, 2009, 14:55

Just FYI, that is NOT FSX.

I can say when I BRIEFLY tested my vanilla fsx (no addons, no overclock either) I was getting a SOLID 130 (peaked at around 160) fps over my hometown airport.

Holy #*% (!@#*%3)*!

hinch

February 14th, 2009, 15:30

My system runs FSX well. Not max settings but high with some nice scenery and 16xAA and it meets the set 28FPS 99% of the time. There is only one plane that drops it which is the Captain Sim C-130 but the Shockwave 377 doesn't make my computer sweat which I think is a good mark. High AA settings are a must for me, seeing shimmers and jaggy edges really really gets on my nerves.

I'm not on a total monster but it's pretty good (Q8800, 4GB RAM, 768MB 9600GS).

Bjoern

February 15th, 2009, 09:09

Just FYI, that is NOT FSX.

That darn well is FSX.

Vanilla FSX A/SP2 benchmarks don't say a thing if your hardware can't handle a bunch of add-ons.
And since an estimated 80 per cent of FSX users are running their copy spiced up with add-ons, they *have* to be considered in performance testing.

Kiwikat

February 15th, 2009, 09:49

That darn well is FSX.

Vanilla FSX A/SP2 benchmarks don't say a thing if your hardware can't handle a bunch of add-ons.
And since an estimated 80 per cent of FSX users are running their copy spiced up with add-ons, they *have* to be considered in performance testing.

My point is that you can't blame FSX for poor FPS with the PMDG 747 or Aerosoft F-16 or similar frame hogs. Those planes weren't built with performance in mind (sometimes you wonder if they were even designed to be usable). With any other planes, I get 35 fps solid anywhere. That is more than enough to say that hardware has at least tamed FSX. The PMDG 747 will never perform as well in FSX as it does in FS9, especially if you use the same hardware to compare them. Faster hardware will generally run the older game better. If you run FS9 on a new system, it will run with more FPS than FSX(Duh).

Even if many people DO have addons, most don't have hundreds or thousands of dollars of them like many people here have (we ARE the minority). For example, a Carenado plane has no more FPS impact over the defaults, so it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Some addons like the FTX AU series give better FPS with more details than the default scenery. If you have the Aerosoft London scenery, heathrow, and a bunch of traffic addons, yeah, you'll not get high FPS, but you are kind of asking for it by installing all of that.

Bjoern

February 15th, 2009, 10:50

My point is that you can't blame FSX for poor FPS with the PMDG 747 or Aerosoft F-16 or similar frame hogs.

You partially can. After all it's FSX's sim engine those add-ons are running in.

[...]

As long as there's still "fake" FSX add-ons out there (FS9 models made FSX compatible), you need to consider them as a decisive factor negatively affecting FSX performance.
This can range from sceneries, AI traffic to aircraft.

If you have the Aerosoft London scenery, heathrow, and a bunch of traffic addons, yeah, you'll not get high FPS, but you are kind of asking for it by installing all of that.

...and I expect both simulator and hardware to cope with that without touching a single slider or display setting.

Kiwikat

February 15th, 2009, 11:19

...and I expect both simulator and hardware to cope with that without touching a single slider or display setting.

You can't even consider "fake" fsx addons. Those are the DEVELOPERS fault, NOT FSX. It is AEROSOFT'S fault for making the F-16 like 400,000 polys, NOT FSX's. You're picking the argument with the wrong people.

I guess your perfect expectations are a little too high then. If you don't like it, go fly FS9. It won't hurt my feelings. People need to stop complaining and enjoy FS, whatever version.

harleyman

February 15th, 2009, 12:30

Yes... I think this just may be a topic best left alone for now...

Lets fly........:woot: And have a :ernae:

Bjoern

February 15th, 2009, 12:53

You can't even consider "fake" fsx addons. Those are the DEVELOPERS fault, NOT FSX. It is AEROSOFT'S fault for making the F-16 like 400,000 polys, NOT FSX's. You're picking the argument with the wrong people.

There's always more than just one side to blame.
Especially if it's an issue made up of multiple elements.

I guess your perfect expectations are a little too high then. If you don't like it, go fly FS9.

FS9 hasn't seen the light of my HDD ever since FSX arrived on it.

I dare to say that's I've got quite some experience with this flight simulator. Experience from both its dark and bright side.
And when I say that a modded FSX can't be run perfectly accepatbly by current and soon-to-come hardware, there's at least a bit of truth to it. Because I've seen too much proof for this in my FSX days...

Lets fly........:woot: And have a :ernae:

I'll buy the next round!
http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s209.gif

codeseven

February 16th, 2009, 08:59

So, has FSX finaly met it's hardware match yet? Can you now build a computer that you can say will handle anything FSX can throw at it and still have everything maxed out with smooth gameplay?

I'm going to say the answer is no, not yet anyway.

Nobody plays a 'vanilla' FSX unless they absolutly have to and most are not about to pass up the fantastic scenery and aircraft addons available to greatly enhance the sim (ie, A2A and REX comes to mind).

We'll all see what this years OS and hardware improvments have to offer.

Thanks again,

Codeseven

MCDesigns

February 16th, 2009, 11:19

I'm going to say the answer is no, not yet anyway.

Nobody plays a 'vanilla' FSX unless they absolutly have to and most are not about to pass up the fantastic scenery and aircraft addons available to greatly enhance the sim (ie, A2A and REX comes to mind).

We'll all see what this years OS and hardware improvments have to offer.

Thanks again,

Codeseven

I wouldn't say "nobody", there are probably lots that have FSX that have no idea there are addons for it or any online communities.

Then you have addons that affect performance and those that don't. If you have any experience with FS, then hopefully a simmer is aware that more detail usually equals a hit on resources, just like modelers deal with when working on a model. With this knowledge is makes it easier to pick and choose what you want/need to add to your sim to keep it performing on par with how you want it.

I run a rather "vanilla" version of the sim and I am completely happy for now as I have good performance and I can pick and choose what addons I add to keep it that way.

codeseven

February 16th, 2009, 12:42

I run a rather "vanilla" version of the sim and I am completely happy for now as I have good performance and I can pick and choose what addons I add to keep it that way.

Hi Mike,

Your running a vanilla version of FSX and you have to "pick and choose what addons I add to keep it that way" because of your system specs, not because you dont want to be able to play FSX with all the addons you want and sliders maxed. I'm in the same boat as you. It's not what I'd really like to be able to do but it works for now.

My point is, at this time, whether using your computer (or mine) or the newest computer you can get the OS/hardware does not yet exist for anyone to run FSX maxed out, unfortunately.

Codeseven

SolarEagle

February 16th, 2009, 13:26

I'm serious too. Someone do this and report back.

Here's some extreme autogen results with a clean install of FSX on my i7/Win7 system and no cfg changes or tweaks of any kind. For the test I was running at 4.0GHz. All scenery sliders were maxxxxed out including autogen, with the exception of water at Mid 2.x, and ground scenery shadows off. All AI and traffic was off for the test, cloud draw set to 60mi with medium density and fair weather theme. DX9 was used with bloom off, and multisample AA was used to remove any potential GPU bottleneck at high framerates.

So for the "test" I threw the Acceleration P-51 up, down, and around downtown Chicago with the throttle firewalled, constantly changing directions as well as constantly panning the the camera around the aircraft . Using a 30fps lock it stayed pegged at 30 the entire time, and no blurries despite my best effort to create them.

Unlocked it ran between 35 and 75fps+, not going below 35 at any point, which is impressive for a major urban area and max autogen, though mostly it stayed between 40 and 75. The low points occured during intense panning and turning. So that was with vanilla FSX.

I also tested the same settings only with a tweaked cfg using FTX/REX and the more intensive Orbx weather theme 3 and A2A P-47. With autogen again maxxxed but using MAX_PER_CELL Trees=1700/Buildings=2000 I stayed pegged at my 30fps lock in any rural areas I tried, but when over a giant sea of houses, such as over Brisbane, it would drop down into the low 20's, like 22fps+.

Using 1700 trees with max autogen looks perfect to me with FTX, full yet performant, though 2000 seems a bit much for buildings and large FTX urban spreads. I wish I wasn't getting the herky jerky with the framerate lock turned off, but I've tried everything to eliminate that with the only solution being a framrate lock. Luckily it's fast enough even with the lock.