Comparing Resources between FSX and FS 2004

[RollerBall]

Sorry daube - I don't think so....

People are reporting that with autogen turned off performance is still way below FS9. That would knock your theory into a cocked hat. You obviously don't know - it's just your theory.

I don't have the demo installed now and I won't take delivery of the release for a day or so, so this is from memory. In the main folder there's a folder called Shaders, or something like that. It contains bitmaps that apply to a whole lot of different aspects of the sim and it ain't there for fun. My guess is that a lot of graphical horse-power is going into applying fancy effects that you can't see right now on current cards (or at least, only on very high end cards). However, I don't know for sure which is why I'd like someone technical who does, who was maybe involved in the development of the software, to tell me.

There's been a lot of discussion about hardware to run FSX and unfortunately we're all in limbo until we get DX10 (or DX9*!* or whatever it'll be called for XP) and then know something about the cards needed to run it. I see lot's of guys asking whether their AMD 2400 and 6600GT will run FSX. Yes, of course it will run the software, but there's no way the software will perform - there's a difference.

I've said in other threads that MS owe us the courtesy of telling us about the systems they tested this software on and how it performed, but I won't hold my breath as I don't think the news would be good for anyone with low end systems - and then they wouldn't buy it. Cynical aren't I - no, just realistic.

But think about this.

A 6600GT 128MB is now selling in the UK discounted for as low as

[Daube]

You're right RollerBall, I dont know for sure how many things FSX has to load in memory.

But nevertheless, I am one of the very few people here who already made programs using Direct3D, so when it comes to the graphics, I really know how it works, and I know what is supposed to be loaded in video memory.

Even when you autogen is disabled, there is still plenty of stuff to load into your video memory. If the textures in FSX are heavier than those in FS9, then you will get a greater amount of used video memory.

And what do we have in FSX when autogen is disabled ?:
- Ground textures, more precise than the FS9 ones, so heavier (and also remember the landclass is supposed to be richer, meaning more different ground textures for the same area)
- Plane textures, same issue
- VC textures, same issue
- Cloud textures, same issue (although resized clouds are already available)
- scenery elements like roads etc... same issue
- what else...

There's just nothing surprising here. Why don't you wait until someone issues some new autogen reduced textures, like we had for FS9 with the famous file 'resautog.zip', but this time for terrain textures as well, and check the memory usage again ?

[pepper_airborne]

Yeah, there is always a whole lot more happening then what is visible to the eye.

[Politically Incorrect]

Im with Daube here the textures in FSX are 1024x1024, twice the size, and twice the amount. Common sense where they go
Matter of fact most my texture files in FS9 are 256x256.

Scenery/ World/ Texture folder in FS9=195MB


Scenery/ World/ Texture folder in FSX=4.62GB

Something to say there

And I have said it before and will say it again, software programmers must design software for tomorrows technology not todays. It it was designed for todays technology it would be useless in short time

[Daube]

Im with Daube here the textures in FSX are 1024x1024, twice the size, and twice the amount. Common sense where they go ;)
Matter of fact most my texture files in FS9 are 256x256.

Some tree textures were much bigger if I remember well, but still in a lighter format!

Scenery/ World/ Texture folder in FS9=195MB


Scenery/ World/ Texture folder in FSX=4.62GB

Something to say there :)

Sure ==> Ouch !

And I have said it before and will say it again, software programmers must design software for tomorrows technology not todays. It it was designed for todays technology it would be useless in short time

Of course, what's the plot in issuing a software that is already outdated ? I'm glad I can play FSX right now with limited settings, and I am also glad that if I decide to spend money on hardware, I won't just get better FPS, but also better image quality, the same if I upgrade once more next year.

[Daube]

BTW, here are my specs:
Pentium IV 3,2 GHz
1 Gb RAM
GeForce 6800 GT 256 Mb

With default FS9, in Seattle, with full settings, I get 18 FPS... well not full settings, in fact the drawing distance is set at the minimum, that is 96 kms only.

A lot of people does not remember that "full settings" in FS9 means reinstalling heavy default autogen and clouds textures, re-activating the groud scenery shadows, and turning the video card on "Best Quality", not Performance, where a lot of graphical quality is lost to improve perfs.

Oh, and of course I get even less FPS if I set some interesting cloud layers...

So, before saying that FSX performance sucks, one should admit that FS9 performance is EVEN WORSE !

[flymo]

Daube is 100% correct.
ofcourse FSX is going to be so much more demanding its a new game! if you can run FS9 on max it doesnt mean your going to be able to run FSX maxed
its like saying wow i can run Half Life maxed settings but i can only run Half Life 2 on very minimun this is stupid. God Sake if your getting crap frames maybe its because you need to update something or tweek something!

if you dnt like FSX stop playing it and just fly FS9 and stop bringing all this crap to the FSX board, if you want to say that you think FSX is crap then do that but why compare it to FS9 when they are totaly diffearnt, it makes no sense! FS9 was realesed 2 years ago to run on hardware released 2 years ago (so the Geforce 6 series) and FSX was realesed 2006 so deisgned to run on GeForce 7series and GeForce 8 series (DX10) You are not going to be able to get the same frames on the same settings in FSX as you do in FS9 because THEY ARE TOTALY DIFFERANT PROGRAMS!!!!

john

....sorry to rant on but its been realy getting on my tits recently!

[RollerBall]

Thank you flymo. An interesting and constructive posting that adding quite a bit to the discussion. Very grateful for that.

[flymo]

that sarcastic?

[Gameunreal]

another reason why i wont install buy fsx

[Fr. Bill]

I've said in other threads that MS owe us the courtesy of telling us about the systems they tested this software on and how it performed, but I won't hold my breath as I don't think the news would be good for anyone with low end systems - and then they wouldn't buy it. Cynical aren't I - no, just realistic.

The folks at ACES have posted the specs of the computers used in their development studio to program and test FSX.

[wealthysoup]

A tip from one of the lads on the forum!

Dear old Google...;D...!

What would we do without her?...."Mem Status"...>>>

http://www.programmersheaven.com/downlo ... nload.aspx

Paul...!

Run it in a window, together with your program.....!

ah yes goofgle is useful...but not when it returns out of date versions of the program v2.5 is the newest (as far as I know) not 1.1

its worth the time to look around


p.s. there is resized autogen textures: http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

pps the textures in fsx are 1024x1024 fs9 textures are approx 256x256 (correct me if im wrong) but that means each texture in fsx will be 8x the size of each fs9 texture then therell be 9 or 10 different ones instead of 2 or 3 then you understand why it uses so much ram. if you want it to run faster resize everything to 256x256