FS2004 Models in FSX; Real Performance?

[Lionheart]

Hey all,

This is going to be a difficult question for alot of you that are FSX hardliners.

Do you think that FS2004 planes run worse in FSX then FSX planes?

Now, before you immediately answer yes, think about if they 'really are' performing worse?


If a plane has no bumps to bump map, and the glass and chrome in the FS2004 port-over look reasonably good already, then why make it in FSX format? For instance, the Boeing I just created was so huge, that you really cannot bump map it. The pixels for the rivets would be scaled the size of plates, so it would have looked goofy. I could actually see no reason to convert the monster into FSX.

Now the Skylark utilizes all the nice FSX materials such as bump mapping, even enabling surface deformations as well as the rivets and screws, etc.

But on some planes, I am wondering if they can just be in FS2004 format.



One of the reasons I bring this up is that I can now make highly sophisticated aircraft mesh in FS2004 format that is equivalent to FSX mesh (basically the same) and it appears to run perfect in FSX.



So, if no bump maps are required, and you convert the textures to DDS, couldnt you have an equally 'smooth performing' FS2004 mesh in FSX?


Concerning DX-10, I believe the only thing DX-10 requires is DDS textures.



For those that would like to test this, they could try running an airliner in FSX, checking the frame rates, and then running the Boeing 797 Blended Wing (download here at new addons section) and again check the frame rates. Mind you, the 797 does 'not' have DDS textures, so the test wouldnt be a 100% 'match' for performance, and the 797 uses 'alot' of 32bit high rez textures. If these textures were in DDS, it might be in equal performance with FSX models....

I look forward to your answers.



Bill

[full]

LoL I jumped in and clicked 'yes' I must admit most port-overs only drop about 2-3 frames on my rig, so their performance isn't bad at all, the only thing thats a problem with port-overs models are the alpha channels (props).

[blazefox2]

unfortunatly your 797 put my framerates down to 4-5 fps

ive noticed this with many other fs9 models, like tim conrads hind, iris freeware, posky models etc.

[Lewis-A2A]

My understanding and I believe its backed up enough with the evidence of what people experience on the whole + my experience with game engines. Its nothing to do with the model itself but rather the nativeness of the format. So bumps or otherwise if its built for a different engine then the new engine without true backwards compatibility will always have issues reading and rendering the new stuff down at the soruce (code) level. TBH even with true backwards compatibility you always end up with problems.

A good example would be the different versions of Max. Sure the new one, to an extent, can read older formats of max models but depending on which version depends on the results you can get. Some may be fine but others although appearing fine will have broken animations, bones functions wont work correctly etc.

[stansdds]

My experience has been that some FS9 planes have at least a moderate negative impact on fsp, yet some have little or even no impact.

[Thoe6969]

I've never seen much of a difference with FS9 planes with the exception of one every now and then.

[Rezabrya]

In my opinion, if it isn't native, it doesn't touch my sim.

[falcon409]

Boy Bill, you must be a glutton for punishment, lol. Good question though.
Personally, I rarely see any real differences between FS9 and native FSX aircraft as far as performance goes. Every once in a while, I'll try porting one over and it just nose-dives so I dump it, but as a rule, aside from the normal "clouds behind the prop" and "opaque" glass problems that show up with some airplanes, FS9 ports work great for me.:salute:

[Milton Shupe]

Bill, I say yes primarily because FS2004 constructed aircraft are not "tuned" for FSX. It's not always the number of polys, or the textures, but may be the gauges used, or how the gauges are displayed, or the number of vcockpit sections.

For example, I just did a quick conversion portover of our AC500S Shrike. In FS2004, I maxed out to my FPS lock at 35fps in the VC, the Spot view, and 2D panel.

When I first put it into FSX, I changed only the prop texture. I got 15 in the VC, 25 in Spot view, and 34 in the 2D panel.

However, with a few changes to the VC setup, I jumped it to 25fps and 34 in the air.

I have not tried converting the textures to DDS to determine impact but this does conclude for me that better performance for port overs is attainable with some minor tweaks.

Draw calls are important so fewer texture sheets would help. XML gauges for FSX would likely be an improvement as well native format textures.

EDIT: I just went to check some of my other port overs. The later Aero Commanders ported very well with no changes but the prop texture, minimal frame hit (running 30-34). These all have xml gauges. Some of the older ones (like the Shrike) with C+ gauges dropped frames to 18-25 for me (from 35) although I am not certain that is the cause. OTOH, the A-26B Invader has great frame rates (above 30) in all views for me. {shrug)

[Roger]

It depends. Complex Fs8 mdls fair poorly on my system. A favorite from Fs2004 is Robert Sanderson's stearman crop dusters and I have ported them over but the frame rate hit is high. On the other hand the default Fs2004 aircraft port over with the minimum Frame rate hit.

[Dain Arns]

unfortunatly your 797 put my framerates down to 4-5 fps

ive noticed this with many other fs9 models, like tim conrads hind, iris freeware, posky models etc.

Ditto here as well.


Ok.
Since you brought it up here Bill, I have to be honest.
I admit I was very disappointed the 797 was made for FS2004.
I do appreciate your technical achievement with the FS9 model and polygon count.
But FSX native models run better, at least on my system.
I think the 797 deserves to be FSX native, with bump mapping and spec maps it would be glorious.
Sorry, don't mean to sound negative towards you at all Bill, but this thought has been running through my mind since you released the 797. :wavey:

[Lionheart]

Some really good feedback. Thanks all.

For me, FS2004 planes have always ported over well with barely noticeable frame drops. The Materials (exterior skins for instance) arent as brilliant on FS9 models as they are in FSX models. Thats the down side for me.




Ditto here as well.


Ok.
Since you brought it up here Bill, I have to be honest.
I admit I was very disappointed the 797 was made for FS2004.
I do appreciate your technical achievement with the FS9 model and polygon count.
But FSX native models run better, at least on my system.
I think the 797 deserves to be FSX native, with bump mapping and spec maps it would be glorious.
Sorry, don't mean to sound negative towards you at all Bill, but this thought has been running through my mind since you released the 797. :wavey:


No worries Dain.

A friend who is part of the Tasman Airways Virtual group wanted to know if I would make a really basic one for his group and needed it in FS9 as most of the group was all FS9 and the only BWB out there is in FSX format. That was the requirement. It was perfect timing though as I was learning the new unlimited export system, so I used that as my test buck.

I may do one in FSX in the near future. I am just really hard hit with a list that is way behind schedule.

The new plane I am doing, the Dynamic, the factory had one request if I were to do it, that it be in FS2004 format.

I guess I am a diehard FS9 guy. It starts fast, runs smooth, and easy easy to make planes for. FSX is a very exotic beast with alot of requirements for its models and materials. Most of the payware world is now FSX, so its a must.


I was interested though in peoples thoughts on this.


Man, how I would love to use FS9 models for FSX, lol... So quick to build...



Bill

[mmann]

FS9 aircraft hit my FPS in a very noticeable (as in negative) way!! So much so that I often avoid flying them.</br> </br>Regards, Mike Mann

[Bushpounder]

I voted NO to this. It all depends on the model. Sometimes only a small modification is needed to produce a fine plane for use in FSX.

Don

[skyhawka4m]

The only issues I've experienced with port over'sare the prop disc issues, and the exterior view when you look at the plane with say trees in the backround and the glass disappears. If this could be fixed or prevented.....I've always said someof the rivets are overkill...so if I plane doesn't have raised panel lines and rivets....I'm just as happy with a painted panel line with nice weathering,.

[DennyA]

Performance suffers significantly with most FS9 planes on my rig.

But since I run under DX10, the numerous graphical issues (no textures, and even if DDS textures did fix things there are still the prop, canopy, and other issues) would still keep me from installing FS9 planes in FS10.

It's been six years since FS9 came out. It's time to let it die. :)

[empeck]

Depends how FS9 plane was built. Some of them don't hurt framerates that much, some of them are unflyable. I don't have any portovers in my FSX though, I can't stand transparency problems on props. Beside, there is so many native planes that I don't have to use aircrafts from previous generation of simulator.

[kilo delta]

Do FS9 complied a/c perform badly on my rig?
Generally......... no.
Do they look worse in the sim..............compared to the FSX native full fat bump and spec models ....yes, especially so if they are prop driven. Tweaking the alpha textures helps to an extent but the canopy/autogen bleed through is a killer for realism.

[Lewis-A2A]

Do FS9 complied a/c perform badly on my rig?
Generally......... no.
Do they look worse in the sim..............compared to the FSX native full fat bump and spec models ....yes,....



It's been six years since FS9 came out. It's time to let it die. :)

Pretty much sums it up for me. FSX is ahead of FS2004 in every aspect. I got rid of FS2004 along time ago now, and when I tried it on a friends machine I found the GUI to be so dated and annoying I didnt even get to click fly!

If I was to fly it now I would look at it the same way I look at Elite, Space invaders and Worms. Great fun, a great time but at the end just simple classic retro fun. A part of history and maybe even the golden age of simulation. But definately in the past, and if history teaches us one thing, its to stay with the current and dont get left behind.

Besides with MS Flight confirmed those with FS2004 are going to potentially be 2 generations behind the simulation technology curve.

[Daube]

I confirm that the planes in FS9 format have an impact on the FSX performance.
This impact varies a lot, depending on the level of details of that plane.

For example, a relatively simple or small plane doesn't eat more than 3-5 FPS, but a complex plane can really have a deep impact. A good example would be the 777 from POSKY, which eats approximatively 10 FPS, depending on the situation. The most extreme example is the Piaggio PD-808 from Mario Noriega, which really brings my system to its knees, the sim would run at less than 10 FPS !! (even after deactivating ALL the gauges in the panel.cfg)

On the other hand, FSX native planes can have an amazing complexity without having so much impact on the framerates. The only thing in FSX planes that can affect the performance is the complexity of the gauges (not graphically, I'm referring to the complexity of the systems simulated by the gauges). Surprisingly, planes like the A2A B-17 or B-377, which are extremely detailled, have a much smaller impact on the FPS than some of my freeware FS9 planes.

Best comparison would be the VRS F-18, which has an impact on my FPS... but a smaller impact than the F-18 from FS-KBT !!

[SADT]

True, very true Daube. This is certainly the case on my system.

[vora]

Since I use DX10 I have to vote "yes".
DX10 means an increase of 10-20 FPS on my rig, so it's mandatory for me.
Unfortunately using FS9 planes in DX10 is far from being a simple case of bmp -> dds conversion.

[Quixoticish]

If it isn't FSX native then I'm not interested in it, and that applies to freeware and payware.

[guzler]

I have quite a few portovers in FSX and have few issues. I fly Eric Cantu's 737-200 and HJG 707 series quite a lot and they're pretty smooth. I'm sure there are some planes that cause problems, but on the whole I can't complain, especially when the type of plane I want to fly is either not available as native FSX or too damn expensive (lil grumble about the CS 707 !!!).

[IanP]

For some reason, my rig really, really, dislikes FS9 aircraft in FSX. Halved frame rates in complex areas (often down well below 10FPS approaching "busy" airports), a good 7-10FPS drop away from complex scenery areas. That's why I tend to avoid them, much more than the props or texture issues, which can be mitigated against.

That said, it does depend on the model. The Wilco B737s bring my system to its knees (literally. 3FPS anyone?) but I think that's a gauge issue. On the other hand, the MAAM-SIM DC-3s/C-47s/R4D show virtually no frame rate loss at all.

Ian P.

[DaveWG]

I just ran a test using the FS9 & FSX native versions of my Rapide. The exterior mesh of the model is pretty much the same accross both versions, but the VC in the FSX native has a bit higher poly count as it used modelled gauges. FSX model has bump & spec maps.

Same situation for both, sitting on the runway, no AI traffic, and left for a couple of minutes for the frame rate (set to unlimited) to stabilize.

FS9 model: 28.8fps average
FSX model: 44.5fps average

[Naki]

I only have a couple of FS9 aircaft in my FSX install...the Flight 1 172R and the the FS9 version of the Carenado 206 both are fine on FPS.

[expat]

Very interesting read. I voted "no" and am surprised at the poll result.

I fly only FSX. Was a late convert over from FS9 but have never looked back. However, with the change, I brought some 'old friends' and of the 400 or so a/c in my FSX hangar (ext HDD), 80% or more are FS9 portovers.

It's down to cost/benefit - for the relatively few issues or tweaks required - I like a little tinkering/modding - I would otherwise be missing masses of enjoyment of aircraft not available in pure FSX format. Don't really think about whether they look as good as native FSX planes. I do think how much better they look in FSX than in FS9, for which they were designed, which is kind of neat. I appreciate e.g. bump maps and other features - swapping VC's among native models is a great asset, but think the view, "that if it's not native, I won't fly it" is kind of short-changing one's self of a lot of fun.

I don't notice any FPS hit from portovers. Perhaps this is another area where peoples' views may be influenced by their own subjective experience with varying PC processing power and performance capabilities, which some believe was at the heart of the old chestnut re the FS9 vs FSX debate.

[Cazzie]

Bill, there are several FS9 planes that work really well in FSX, especially after I use the FS-Converter available at Flight1.

But there are some that are just not worth the effort, frame rates are much slower than FSX native aircraft and there are always Alpha issues, especially with prop washes.

But for those few I have that work well, LilSki's Champs, Manuele's SVA5 (this works well enough as to almost be FSX native, LilSki's Christian Eagle after the FSX fix, etc., they look better in FSX than in FS9, even without spec and bump textures.

In the end, it is up to the user. If it works and gives good fps, sure, it stays, if not, it goes, simple as that.

I have yet to find an FS9 aircraft that will work in FSX in the DX10 mode though.

Caz

[Prowler1111]

I would like to add, that Bill´s persistence to FS9 is truly something to praise, i don´t use FS9 port overs anymore, even as i have a few installed due to the fact there is not a native FSX model, But Bill even found a way to use high poly FSX style models into FS9!
Hats off to you Bill!

Prowler

[empeck]

Bill even found a way to use high poly FSX style models into FS9!
Hats off to you Bill!

That's true, and I appreciate it, it's really good news for FS9 users, but FS9 model with high polygon count is still FS9 model.

It's not lower polycount or lack of normalmaps and speculars that turns me off from FS9 portovers. I have A2A's Bf-109, its almost the same 3d model as FS9, but compiled with FSX tools, same thing with Jenny I've converted from FS9 SDK.

I don't like problems with transparency, framerate drops, lack of selfshadowing on exterior.

[Lionheart]

I would like to add, that Bill´s persistence to FS9 is truly something to praise, i don´t use FS9 port overs anymore, even as i have a few installed due to the fact there is not a native FSX model, But Bill even found a way to use high poly FSX style models into FS9!
Hats off to you Bill!

Prowler

Hey Prowler,

Many thanks, but the thanks goes to those few that found this out in FSDS (3D Design Engine) which uses MakeMDL and now also BGLC-9 in the new system. PropTrash, Luka, Wozza all had a part in it, including a gentleman at British Classics who found out how to rescale X files without rescaling in the 3D Design Engine.

These guys found it first. PropTrash and I figured out how to make it work in Gmax. Until just recently, only a handfull of people in the world knew about this. Its a pretty impressive system.

Wierd to now have MDL files double the size of former files.

[Bjoern]

My experience: Portovers always cost performance.

[ryanbatc]

Yes I really think they perform worse.

I fly the Aeroworx BE20 in FS9 and then ported over in X.

I get about half the performance while looking at exterior model in X as I do in 9

[Naismith]

I cannot vote. Some do, some don't.

[Lionheart]

Yes I really think they perform worse.

I fly the Aeroworx BE20 in FS9 and then ported over in X.

I get about half the performance while looking at exterior model in X as I do in 9



I wonder what some of these would perform like with DDS textures in them?

[ryanbatc]

I wonder what some of these would perform like with DDS textures in them?

Hmm not sure - never was into the technical aspects of models and textures....

It's odd actually. The interior VC performs decent, not very smooth like it did in FS9 but the interior is much faster than exterior at least in FSX.

I dont know what type of textures it has.

[guzler]

I've converted all the textures to DDS in my portovers. Can't say I've noticed any difference, but they weren't bad on FPS to start with