Simviation Forums

Hello everyone! I was hoping that some of you might help me solve a few performance problems that I have been having with Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition which I bought when it was first released in Oct. 2006. I was largely unable to play FSX until SP1 came out due to performance issues. Anyways, I've never been able to really get over the performance problems and get FSX looking as good as FS2004 (stock).

My computer system is not that powerful and it is a laptop but it should be able to run FSX on settings that make it look at least as good as FS2004.

CPU: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2 @ 667mhz Dual Channel (1.5+GB free after boot)
GPU: Mobility ATI X1600 256mb dedicated w/ Catalyst 8.5
OS: Windows XP Home SP3 (Just reinstalled)

I have Win XP reasonably optimized with minimal services running and various other performance optimization tweaks.

Anyways the problems that I am experiencing with FSX are as follows:

-The dreaded blurries (I've read the article and applied the tweaks with no change). This really annoys me because ground textures at 0.25+ miles it look a lot worse than FS2004.

-Erratic performance, basically I am looking at one spot and I am getting 30fps for a few seconds and without me doing anything it will drop to 25 then to 20 then to 15 and fluctuate wildly for some time, it's really annoying and upsets the flow of game play.

What I really just want to do is make FSX look at least as good as FS2004, but the blurries really prevent me from doing that. The erratic performance is a bit annoying but not as annoying as the bad looks.

Here are screen shots of my graphics settings: (ALL traffic is off).









Thanks for looking!

My computer system is not that powerful and it is a laptop but it should be able to run FSX on settings that make it look at least as good as FS2004.

CPU: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2 @ 667mhz Dual Channel (1.5+GB free after boot)
GPU: Mobility ATI X1600 256mb dedicated w/ Catalyst 8.5
OS: Windows XP Home SP3 (Just reinstalled)

Wrong assumption... FSX is not and never will be FS2004. You are assuming because you lower sliders FSX will drop down to a FS2004 level of CPU/GPU calls and that is simply not true

There is nothing I can do with a system like that and FSX

You do need to drop scenery complexity down, water to 1x high at most... raise global texture resolution to 100% and you did not show the TRAFFIC tab. On that system, make AL and GA traffic 10 or zero and airport vehicles MIN.. cars 0 boats and ships 10 max and uncheck aircraft labels

Nothing else I can suggest. You simply do not have the horsepower for the application

Alright I will try what you suggested.

What would you say would be a good system to run FSX on for about $1000?

I am looking to build a suitable system for it.

Hello everyone! I was hoping that some of you might help me solve a few performance problems that I have been having with Flight Simulator X Deluxe Edition which I bought when it was first released in Oct. 2006. I was largely unable to play FSX until SP1 came out due to performance issues. Anyways, I've never been able to really get over the performance problems and get FSX looking as good as FS2004 (stock).

Here comes the very first question: are you still using only the SP1, or did you already install the SP2 for FSX ? SP2 will bring you some additionnal "anti-blurries-weapons"...

My computer system is not that powerful and it is a laptop but it should be able to run FSX on settings that make it look at least as good as FS2004.

You can make it look at least as good as your FS2004.... ony thing is, are you really aware of how limited the graphic settings of FS2004 are ?

CPU: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2 @ 667mhz Dual Channel (1.5+GB free after boot)
GPU: Mobility ATI X1600 256mb dedicated w/ Catalyst 8.5
OS: Windows XP Home SP3 (Just reinstalled)

This CPU is slow, but you'll manage to get something good looking nevertheless.

I have Win XP reasonably optimized with minimal services running and various other performance optimization tweaks.

Good point.

Anyways the problems that I am experiencing with FSX are as follows:

-The dreaded blurries (I've read the article and applied the tweaks with no change). This really annoys me because ground textures at 0.25+ miles it look a lot worse than FS2004.

You're too optimistic with your settings and your CPU is not powerfull enough to refresh the ground textures fast enough.

-Erratic performance, basically I am looking at one spot and I am getting 30fps for a few seconds and without me doing anything it will drop to 25 then to 20 then to 15 and fluctuate wildly for some time, it's really annoying and upsets the flow of game play.

Unlimited FPS is EVIL. Now you know why.

What I really just want to do is make FSX look at least as good as FS2004, but the blurries really prevent me from doing that. The erratic performance is a bit annoying but not as annoying as the bad looks.

Here are screen shots of my graphics settings: (ALL traffic is off).

Thanks for looking!

Here is a list of changes that you WILL HAVE to apply to gain some performance and reduce your burries.
Graphics settings:
- FPS limited to 20
- sunglare: you can activate if you want
- global texture resolution to the MAX !!

Scenery settings:
- Mesh complexity to the max
- Mesh resolution is OK
- Texture resolution... you set 1m/pixel, FS2004 was 5m/pixel, so you can give a first try to 2m here, it will still look way better than FS2004.
- Water effect is OK for now. High 1x only in the extreme case, if you really want some more FPS.
- Autogen density: you can set that to normal or dense, but limit the buildings and trees to 800 each in the FSX.cfg (you know the tweaks right ?)
- Special effects... hmm let it like that, you'll play around with it later.

Aircraft settings:
Don't change anything. Maybe later, you can give a try to the self-shadow, see if your video card likes it or not.

Weather:
Put the cloud coverage to the max, you'll notice a performance hit only with complex weather anyway.

And you forgot the most important ressource-sucker screen: the Traffic !!
- deactivate completely the ground airport vehicules
- replace the default liner traffic with some FS9 traffic like World Of AI, which uses much more FPS-friendly models !! (default FSX AI models are FPS-hogs !!)
- deactivate the vehicules on road
- deactivate or set very low the boats and ferries
- err... I can't remember the rest of the settings, a screenshot would be usefull

Thank you so much for those tips, now if I could also have your opinion on a system that I am planning to build.

What do you think about these specs:

Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4ghz
G. SKill 1 x 2gb DDR2 PC2 8500
Nvidia 8800GT 512mb

I can build a system like for about $1000. Is a Rosewill 550W PSU (that's gotten good reviews) good enough or should I step up to a more reputable brand like OCZ or Enermax?

you would probably do pretty good with that sysytem.

Not a bad system, because it's quite a low price. However you have to be aware that:
- the Q6600 is a quad, but only 2,4 GHz, so it's a bit slow (I have it, and the FPS in FSX are not that good without tweaks)
- the Q6600 can be higly overclocked. I did it, to 2,75 GHz, and the FPS difference is there BUT overclocking is dangerous for the hardware that can be destroyed. You've been warned.
- 3Gb a RAM would be nice.
- the 8800 GT is good. FSX relies mainly on the CPU anyway.

locking frames with FSX is NOT, repeat NOT the same as locking frames with FS9

That is wrong

In FSX locking frames can HURT performance or it can HELP performance... the same with running reduced settings on the right hardware. its not about REDUCING things, its about BALANCE and PRIORITY and understanding the title

get the 'old' mindset of locking frames being the best way to go out of your head with FSX

On my system and every system I have personally tuned the outcome was always the same... UNLIMITED frames in heavy city areas runs smoother and better than locked, LOCKED FRAMES at 25 or 30 (assuming the card can run that) outside of city areas and bush flying

as shown here:

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1212634135


I suggest everyone read that thread to the end

Thank you so much for those tips, now if I could also have your opinion on a system that I am planning to build.

What do you think about these specs:

Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4ghz
G. SKill 1 x 2gb DDR2 PC2 8500
Nvidia 8800GT 512mb

I can build a system like for about $1000. Is a Rosewill 550W PSU (that's gotten good reviews) good enough or should I step up to a more reputable brand like OCZ or Enermax?

The PC Power and cooling 610 is a great PSU and it is priced well. when they say 610, you get 610

If you are planing a Vista system you may want to consider 4GB and make sure if you use the 32bit version of Vista (or XP) you see my posts in the thread at the top of the forum about 4GB use with 32 bit OS's

XP can slide on 2GB but do be aware you are still better off on 4GB  matched sticks (2x2GB is probably better than 4 1GB sticks)



I did not mean to come off as a grouch in my post above  ;D

Just be aware that FSX tends to defy logic when it comes to settings on the right hardware.

locking frames with FSX is NOT, repeat NOT the same as locking frames with FS9

That is wrong

In FSX locking frames can HURT performance or it can HELP performance... the same with running reduced settings on the right hardware. its not about REDUCING things, its about BALANCE and PRIORITY and understanding the title

get the 'old' mindset of locking frames being the best way to go out of your head with FSX

On my system and every system I have personally tuned the outcome was always the same... UNLIMITED frames in heavy city areas runs smoother and better than locked, LOCKED FRAMES at 25 or 30 (assuming the card can run that) outside of city areas and bush flying

as shown here:

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1212634135


I suggest everyone read that thread to the end

Nick, your remarks are valid when it comes to the generl sim smoothness. However, all the tests I performed with my old computer were always showing that unlimited FPS is bad for the blurries.

In my FSX with my new computer, I can get much better FPS if I set them to unlimited, that's right, however on my old computer, which had a very limited CPU power, setting the FPS to unlimited was only bringing trouble. That's why I was advsing usapatriot to set them lower, at least durung the tests, to see what happens with his blurries. He'll always be able to set them unlimited again later, and see the difference anyway

No problem! Thanks for the help! In the meantime while I finalize the components for my new build I've been able to get FSX running a bit more smoothly. Oddly enough I reset all the graphics settings to the their defaults and enabled Anisotropic Filtering and Anti Aliasing and locked the FPS at 25. The blurries seem to be gone although I am still getting the dip in FPS every few seconds. I notice that my HDD activity light lights up when the FPS dips so I'm going to go check my virtual memory settings and defrag my HDD and see if it helps.

Meanwhile, do you think a 9600GT would be better than an 8800GT?

Meanwhile, do you think a 9600GT would be better than an 8800GT?

In FSX ? Not really. FSX is all about the power of your CPU, and you will need a really FAST CPU before the video card becomes a problem

Patriot, I built my current system late last year for just under $1000.