Simviation Forums

I've always had problems with FSX working properly. I have to readjust the Settings to prevent the game from freezing. I'd like to know why FSX is so demanding compared to other newer PC games. And what does it take to have FSX work consistently acceptable. I don't mean set it up to max setting but some setting which will provide me with reasonable graphic quality and performance. My existing processor is 3.5GHz and my GPU is an AMD Radeon HD 7700. One more thing I've heard about the FSX: Steam Edition. What do you think of it and would you recommend it as an add on?

Thanks.

I feel your pain. I genuinely do.

I built my rig before I rediscovered commercial flight simulation. This machine, at the end of '11 / start of '12 when it was built, was a planet buster. I figured it would see me through a number of years before I needed to upgrade properly and it's doing a reasonable job.

So when I realised that I wanted to put down the Spitfires and the B29's and pick up a more sedate but technically demanding type of flight, I went straight for FSX; the last in the line but still a handful of years old by then and will run maxed out at a billion frames a second.

No!

I was stunned to find it lagging and bogging down amost everywhere. A few tweaks here and there in cfg files made small improvements, but it was only after I started scaling back the autogen and then shadows and the AA and the this and the that, things started to come back to me. I've now found a great balance that looks great and flies nice. The only execptions so far are mega international airports like San Fran, LAX, Heathrow and a natch of it at in New York JFK.

Someone might wish to correct me on this, but I think I read somewhere once that FSX was built up from what was there when it was FS9 which itself was built up from what was there when it was FS2000 which itself was built up from what was there when it was FS98 and so on and so forth. As a result, the processor loading for the sim is monstrous as the program runs through code cobbled onto code cobbled onto code.

This sounds like a valid theory to me. I'm a hack programmer at best, I taught myself a bit of VBA in spreadsheets and now I write subroutines that would probably make pro-developers cry out in despair, but I know how easy it is to write something that is bonkers complicated, then have the need to redevelop a new version and decide to cheat by copying the old version and just building it up hoping nobody will notice. Also, the complexity of a piece of software can be judged by how loud my PC gets.

Just running Windows: Low whirring noise of my case fans... Noise rating: 1. Running WatchDogs: The fans in the Gfx card spool up to turbo and turn my PC into a Formula1 wind tunnel making a noise much like that of vaccum cleaner with a sock stuck in the pipe... Noise Rating 10. FSX encourages a slight increase of the fans but only a little... Noise rating 2.5. This suggests that the card is doing very little and that it's all in the CPU. Mine's no slouch, a Sandybridge I7, but it still gets a bit overwhelmed on occasion when FSX is running.

I've heard the Steam edition of flight sim is a little moe stable and has been tidied up a bit but I've not tried it. Feedback looks pretty good though so it might be worth a shout if you're having mega troubles getting it to run smoothly. Otherwise, just trawl the web for anything that claims to be an FSX.cfg tweaking guide and follow it. Some of them don't make an awful lot of difference but some will make a world of change.

Good luck,

Rob.

StargazerWoods wrote:I feel your pain. I genuinely do.

I built my rig before I rediscovered commercial flight simulation. This machine, at the end of '11 / start of '12 when it was built, was a planet buster. I figured it would see me through a number of years before I needed to upgrade properly and it's doing a reasonable job.

So when I realised that I wanted to put down the Spitfires and the B29's and pick up a more sedate but technically demanding type of flight, I went straight for FSX; the last in the line but still a handful of years old by then and will run maxed out at a billion frames a second.

No!

I was stunned to find it lagging and bogging down amost everywhere. A few tweaks here and there in cfg files made small improvements, but it was only after I started scaling back the autogen and then shadows and the AA and the this and the that, things started to come back to me. I've now found a great balance that looks great and flies nice. The only execptions so far are mega international airports like San Fran, LAX, Heathrow and a natch of it at in New York JFK.

Someone might wish to correct me on this, but I think I read somewhere once that FSX was built up from what was there when it was FS9 which itself was built up from what was there when it was FS2000 which itself was built up from what was there when it was FS98 and so on and so forth. As a result, the processor loading for the sim is monstrous as the program runs through code cobbled onto code cobbled onto code.

This sounds like a valid theory to me. I'm a hack programmer at best, I taught myself a bit of VBA in spreadsheets and now I write subroutines that would probably make pro-developers cry out in despair, but I know how easy it is to write something that is bonkers complicated, then have the need to redevelop a new version and decide to cheat by copying the old version and just building it up hoping nobody will notice. Also, the complexity of a piece of software can be judged by how loud my PC gets.

Just running Windows: Low whirring noise of my case fans... Noise rating: 1. Running WatchDogs: The fans in the Gfx card spool up to turbo and turn my PC into a Formula1 wind tunnel making a noise much like that of vaccum cleaner with a sock stuck in the pipe... Noise Rating 10. FSX encourages a slight increase of the fans but only a little... Noise rating 2.5. This suggests that the card is doing very little and that it's all in the CPU. Mine's no slouch, a Sandybridge I7, but it still gets a bit overwhelmed on occasion when FSX is running.

I've heard the Steam edition of flight sim is a little moe stable and has been tidied up a bit but I've not tried it. Feedback looks pretty good though so it might be worth a shout if you're having mega troubles getting it to run smoothly. Otherwise, just trawl the web for anything that claims to be an FSX.cfg tweaking guide and follow it. Some of them don't make an awful lot of difference but some will make a world of change.

Good luck,

Rob.

I would say you have a general idea as to how FSX works. But to really unlock FSX to its full potential you need plenty of RAM and a descent CPU.
As you can see by my signature I have 12 gigs 0f 1800 hz RAM and a Quad core CPU with a Sandy bridge. I have set my Frame rates to 30 and set all sliders to max. I completely turn off water traffic as it is not my thing I set air traffic to about mid level for both commercial and general aviation. If you set the air traffic any higher and you will run into problems around the bigger airports. That has been my biggest complaint with FSX it does not handle AI traffic at all.
The Steam version of FSX has the same problem when it comes to AI traffic but it is more computer friendly and runs better on older systems.
If you compare the steam generated FSX CFG file to the Box set of FSX CFG file you will see some differences between them. If you use the Steam FSX CFG file it should help you out with the Box version of FSX all you have to do is to rename and copy the FSX steam FSX CFG file. I think it is in a different place than the original FSX CFG file is. Your best bet would be to rename your original FSX CFG file to FSX.BAK DO NOT DELETE IT PLEASE.

If you do delete the FSX.cfg, it will be rebuilt as soon as you run FSX again, same as the Steam version.
FSX is about 8-10 years old now. No development at all.
FSX:SE is the same as FSX, but with a few tweaks to optimise it for modern PC's. Now marketed by Dovetail Games & redistributed by Steam. Development is frozen.

Is the FSX Steam an add-on to the existing FSX:Acceleration? Is FSX:Steam less graphic demanding? If I decide to go with FSX:Steam do I uninstall FSX:Acceleration altogether?

Bubblehead wrote:Is the FSX Steam an add-on to the existing FSX:Acceleration? Is FSX:Steam less graphic demanding? If I decide to go with FSX:Steam do I uninstall FSX:Acceleration altogether?

FSX Steam Edition (FSX-SE) is based on FSX Gold + Acceleration but is completely separate software just like FS9 & other versions of MSFS. Like many others I have both versions of FSX installed to the same PC & can run whichever one I like.

Hagar: Do you happen to own the Hagar brand men's trouser company? my favorite brand pants? Joshing aside, is the FSX:Steam is near as demanding as the Box FSX?

Bubblehead wrote:Hagar: Do you happen to own the Hagar brand men's trouser company? my favorite brand pants?

Never heard of it. My screen name is based on this chap.

Joshing aside, is the FSX:Steam is near as demanding as the Box FSX?

I have both. I installed FSX Steam when it was on offer to check it out, mainly for troubleshooting purposes. Both versions run well on my very ordinary laptop & I've never suffered the problems you seem to be having. It's possible that the Steam Edition runs a little more smoothly but I rarely use it.

FSX Steam is not an add-on. It's a separate install that can run separately from FSX.
So, FSX:SE is identical to FSX, with a few tweaks. The sim engine is the same. So, why have both installed?

FSX is a 32 bit programme. it cannot use more than 4 gig of ram, but it is wrthwhile getting more to give win room to move. 8 is enough 16 ample. FSX us CPU bound, so speed is teh essence. Though it basically runs on 1 core , it can use the other cores for loading textures and they do help. As for graphics card, a 2 gig Nvidia card is the way to go. I believe the AMD cards may still have issues with FSX shading. A nice machine with 4 cores ate 4.6 gig will make all teh difference.

mjrhealth wrote:FSX is a 32 bit programme. it cannot use more than 4 gig of ram, but it is wrthwhile getting more to give win room to move. 8 is enough 16 ample. FSX us CPU bound, so speed is teh essence. Though it basically runs on 1 core , it can use the other cores for loading textures and they do help. As for graphics card, a 2 gig Nvidia card is the way to go. I believe the AMD cards may still have issues with FSX shading. A nice machine with 4 cores ate 4.6 gig will make all teh difference.

I am no expert when it comes down to 32 bit programs that run on a 64 bit machine like mine. But I think you are wrong in this case I do not think there is such a thing as a 32bit program.
Now a 32 bit CPU is limited as to how much ram it can use. Evan a 64 bit CPU has its limits I am able to put 32 gig of high speed ram onto my mother board.
Granted FSX was introduced when 32 bit systems was all you had available But it is not the program itself that has limits as to how much ram it can use But the CPU does have its limits and that is where the problem is.
Now by no means am I an expert on this subject I used to be a programmer and it is my under standing that any program is only limited by the operating system that it runs on.
So if run run FSX on a 32 bit system it will not run as good as if it was running on a 64 bit system with the same amount of ram.
The difference as I understand it has to do with what is called an address a 32 bit system has address that are 32bits in length where a 64 bit system has address that are 64 bits in length.
Which means you can process things faster. And of course the number of cores you have helps out as well providing that a given program is capable of using all of the cores which in the case of FSX can be a problem which was one of the reason for AIAUTOMATION. dll It is supposed to allow FSX to use more than one core.
But all I know is when I ran FSX on my older 32 bit system I had to turn a lot of things down in order to get descent results. But know that I have 12 gigs of ram And a 4 core CPU I run it maxed out with no issues any where

I just do not think that if you take a program that was designed on a 32bit system and installed it on a 64 bit system it would still run as if it was on a 32 bit system But I could be wrong.
It is my under standing that it is the CPU that makes the difference.

garymbuska wrote:

mjrhealth wrote:I am no expert when it comes down to 32 bit programs that run on a 64 bit machine like mine. But I think you are wrong in this case I do not think there is such a thing as a 32bit program.

FSX is, indeed, a 32-bit program. 64-bit Windows operating systems run 32-bit programs via WOW64 emulation. FSX doesn't take full advantage of today's advanced video cards, is cpu-bound, unlike modern-day sims and games.

Excerpt from TechAlert.com:

Under Windows 64-bit, 32-bit applications run on top of an emulation of a 32-bit operating system that is called Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit, or WOW64 for short. WOW64 intercepts all operating system calls made by a 32-bit application.

For each operating system call made, WOW64 generates native 64-bit system calls, converting 32-bit data structures into 64-bit aligned structures. The appropriate native 64-bit system call is passed to the operating system kernel, and any output data from the 64-bit system call is converted into a format appropriate for the calling application before being passed back.

Like 32-bit applications, WOW64 runs in user mode so any errors that occur in translating an operating system call will only occur at that level. The 64-bit operating system kernel cannot be affected.

Since WOW64 runs in user mode, all 32-bit application code must also run in user mode. This explains why 32-bit kernel mode device drivers and applications that rely on them, will not work under Windows 64-bit.

The WOW64 emulator consists of the following DLLs, the only 64-bit DLLS that can be loaded into a 32-bit process:

Wow64.dll – the core emulation infrastructure and the links to the Ntoskrnl.exe entry-point functions.
Wow64Win.dll – the links to the Win32k.sys entry-point functions.
Wow64Cpu.dll – switches the processor from 32-bit to 64-bit mode.
Ntdll.dll – 64-bit version.

Wow64.dll loads the 32-bit version (x86) of Ntdll.dll and all necessary 32-bit DLLs which are mostly unmodified 32-bit binaries..However, some of these DLLs have been modified to behave differently on WOW64 than they do on 32-bit Windows. This is usually because they share memory with 64-bit system components.

Thanks ftlDave for the added info. regarding 32-bit applications running on 64-bit systems. Very interesting. I wish that Microsoft had developed FSX long enough to make it a native 64 bit.

ftldave wrote:

garymbuska wrote:

mjrhealth wrote:I am no expert when it comes down to 32 bit programs that run on a 64 bit machine like mine. But I think you are wrong in this case I do not think there is such a thing as a 32bit program.

FSX is, indeed, a 32-bit program. 64-bit Windows operating systems run 32-bit programs via WOW64 emulation. FSX doesn't take full advantage of today's advanced video cards, is cpu-bound, unlike modern-day sims and games.

Excerpt from TechAlert.com:

Under Windows 64-bit, 32-bit applications run on top of an emulation of a 32-bit operating system that is called Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit, or WOW64 for short. WOW64 intercepts all operating system calls made by a 32-bit application.

For each operating system call made, WOW64 generates native 64-bit system calls, converting 32-bit data structures into 64-bit aligned structures. The appropriate native 64-bit system call is passed to the operating system kernel, and any output data from the 64-bit system call is converted into a format appropriate for the calling application before being passed back.

Like 32-bit applications, WOW64 runs in user mode so any errors that occur in translating an operating system call will only occur at that level. The 64-bit operating system kernel cannot be affected.

Since WOW64 runs in user mode, all 32-bit application code must also run in user mode. This explains why 32-bit kernel mode device drivers and applications that rely on them, will not work under Windows 64-bit.

The WOW64 emulator consists of the following DLLs, the only 64-bit DLLS that can be loaded into a 32-bit process:

Wow64.dll – the core emulation infrastructure and the links to the Ntoskrnl.exe entry-point functions.
Wow64Win.dll – the links to the Win32k.sys entry-point functions.
Wow64Cpu.dll – switches the processor from 32-bit to 64-bit mode.
Ntdll.dll – 64-bit version.

Wow64.dll loads the 32-bit version (x86) of Ntdll.dll and all necessary 32-bit DLLs which are mostly unmodified 32-bit binaries..However, some of these DLLs have been modified to behave differently on WOW64 than they do on 32-bit Windows. This is usually because they share memory with 64-bit system components.

Thanks for thr information and setting me straight. Just goes to show you can teach a old dog new tricks. FETCH BOY FETCH

You have a 3.5 Ghz cpu and decent video card. BUT... did you install the Motherboard Drivers (Chipset, audio, lan, etc)? Then did you install lastes (stable) drivers for your video card (the ones on the CD you got with card ARE NOT UP TO DATE)? Then did you set Windows to give preference to 'PERFORMANCE' as opposed to visual candy, etc? Did you set your virtual memory size to 1.5x your installed Ram? Then did you go to Altobe ('Jesus') web site to tweak (FREE) your FSX.cfg file? A 'NO' to any of these twarts WINDOWS. No use installing FSX on a 'crippled' system.

Then when you setup FSX, LOCK the fps to 30 (and leave it there). Set autogen to normal (for starters) and water to low (for now) and only cirrus cloud (30k to 45k layer) and NO weather (fair weather). Start over? You have to do the tweaking. It won't do it by itself ('delete the FSX.cfg' is NOT a TWEAK - it just resets things to 'default'). OK? OK!
Chuck B
Napamule