Comparing Resources between FSX and FS 2004

[Fozzer]

I am at a loss...!

I have just run both FSX and FS 2004 to compare the System Ram, Video Ram, and CPU usage between the two programs using a small Memory Status program running in the background: MemStatus 2.50 (Kevin Reems).

System RAM = 1.5 GB
Video Ram = 128 MB (nVidia GeForce BFG 6600 GT 128 MB RAM)
CPU = AMD 2800+ MMX.....2.2 GHz

FS Autostart.
Both programs operating in the same scenery area.
****************************************************

FSX with mostly default settings, (very minimum!):

System RAM usage = 75%.
Video RAM = 100% usage.
CPU usage = 75%.
****************************************************
FS 2004 with Maximum settings including various add-ons:

System RAM usage = 37%.
Video RAM usage = 45%.
CPU usage = 42%.
****************************************************
I cannot figure out why FSX is consuming so much of my resources in a low quality mode, when it is supposed to be optimised to be more efficient, and less demanding than FS 2004..!!
The whole of my Video RAM, AND MORE, is being swallowed up!
...and three quarters of my total System RAM!

The difference in consumption between the two programs is alarming...!

There is no comparison between the visual quality of the two programs. My FS 2004 is far superior!

Very strange. I am almost tempted to uninstall FSX, and continue to run FS 2004 with its maximum settings, and all its present extras!

Paul.......!

[Helms]

Well, even though it was optimized to be more efficent, it was (optimized) to run more efficently on Vista.

hope you get that problem sorted out soon

[Daube]

I still can't figure why people keep asking that kinf of questions...  ???

In a normal scenery, you have the terrain, the buildings, and the trees (plus other stuff, but let's consider only the most important ones). In the video memory, you have to store all the textures used for eack kinf of object.

Now FSX show MUCH MORE objects than FS9, so it's more heavy on the proc (video proc and cpu as well). Additionnaly, there are MUCH MORE types of autogen objects than there was in FS9, so that's much more different textures to load in the video memory for a single piece of scenery.

See what I mean ? Because there are more variety in the objects displayed by FSX, more different textures have to be loaded in memory, and because there are much more objects on the screen and more graphical effects, it's more heavy on the CPU and video CPU.

[Fozzer]

I still can't figure why people keep asking that kinf of questions...  ???

In a normal scenery, you have the terrain, the buildings, and the trees (plus other stuff, but let's consider only the most important ones). In the video memory, you have to store all the textures used for eack kinf of object.

Now FSX show MUCH MORE objects than FS9, so it's more heavy on the proc (video proc and cpu as well). Additionnaly, there are MUCH MORE types of autogen objects than there was in FS9, so that's much more different textures to load in the video memory for a single piece of scenery.

See what I mean ? Because there are more variety in the objects displayed by FSX, more different textures have to be loaded in memory, and because there are much more objects on the screen and more graphical effects, it's more heavy on the CPU and video CPU.

...all this autogen scenery, textures and various objects are stored on my hard drive, and ONLY the details which I select in the opening FSX/FS 2004 screen are actually loaded onto my System memory and my Video memory!

So..!

If I select the minimum data , ie; lowest visual quality, why is my System memory and Video memory overloaded by such a drastic amount..?

In my FS 2004 opening screen I select the maximum visual quality, which is far superior in visual effect to my selection in FSX, yet FSX uses far more memory and CPU resources than FS 2004.

I compare the FSX scenery around me which is sparse, to my FS 2004 scenery which is highly varied, detailed and complex and I wonder where all my FSX System and Video memory is going to..?

As for overall speed and efficiency, it compares FS 2004 programed in pure Machine Code, to FSX programed in Sinclair/Commodore BASIC...!

Remember that only my actual selected scenery and effects are loaded from my hard drive into my memory at the start-up, and used by the CPU and graphics card, not the whole of the contents of the 2 DVD's...!

That's why I keep asking this question, my little Grasshopper......!

Paul.......!

[Daube]

Could you add a pair of screenshots, so that we can have a concrete comparison between "sparse FSX" and "maxed FS9" ?

Because I still think that even with "sparse" autogen in FSX, there are still more objects displayed than in FS9, or at least a greater number of different objects, meaning more textures in memory.

Remember: if you display 10 identical buildings, you will have just one texture in video memory.
If you display 10 different buildings, you will have 10 textures in the video memory !! And exactely the same applies to the trees !

[pepper_airborne]

FSX on sparse already beats FS9 from what i have seen, and i'm able to run it on a medium setting. Heck, i think my system is pretty poor and i cained to think that without my current card it would run better compared to FS9.

Current system:

AMD Athlon XP2400 running on 2000MHZ
1024MB Ramm

1 Gforce FX 5200
1 Gforce FX 6800

Windows XP.

[Fozzer]

Could you add a pair of screenshots, so that we can have a concrete comparison between "sparse FSX" and "maxed FS9" ?

Because I still think that even with "sparse" autogen in FSX, there are still more objects displayed than in FS9, or at least a greater number of different objects, meaning more textures in memory.

Remember: if you display 10 identical buildings, you will have just one texture in video memory.
If you display 10 different buildings, you will have 10 textures in the video memory !! And exactely the same applies to the trees !

No sooner suggested, than done....>>>

Approaching Petaluma Airfield, California.
FS 2004. All settings maxed, scenery, texture, effects, etc..

FSX default minimum settings, no traffic, no effects, etc.

FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


Note the comparison in scenery to try and achieve a similar frame rate in FSX....!!
..and tell me where all my system and video memory has gone to in FSX...?

..and my towns and cities are crammed full of colourful buildings in FS 2004, with ground textures, Autogen trees, scenery, roads, rivers, etc , maxed, with very little memory, or CPU time used......!

Paul.......!

[Fr. Bill]

Paul, even with FSX cranked to the absolute minimum, the mesh, terrain textures and landclass textures are 10x larger both in terms of filesize but pixel size as well!

Where FS9 used 256x256 tiles, FSX uses 1024x1024 tiles!!!

[Fozzer]

Paul, even with FSX cranked to the absolute minimum, the mesh, terrain textures and landclass textures are 10x larger both in terms of filesize but pixel size as well!

Where FS9 used 256x256 tiles, FSX uses 1024x1024 tiles!!!

Hi n4.... ...!

Comparing the first two screen shots, what benefit is there in the larger tile size which consumes so much memory and CPU time, and therefore seriously restricts everyone achieving an acceptable overall scenery appearance, as depicted in the FS 2004 screenshots...?

Cheers...!

Paul...  ;)...!

[wealthysoup]

simple answer..use resized textures you cant get some from: http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41 ..only one ive tried is autogen resized textures and it got me approx 5fps more and the only difference that i can see is VERY close to autogen trees where the textures are a bit less detailed

[Fozzer]

p.s. fozzer where can i get that memstatus tool?

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.....!

[pepper_airborne]

Seriously Fozzer, your comparing apples with pears, how did you get the idea that you would get the same amount of framerates?

[RollerBall]

Of course he's comparing apples with pears. For goodness sake, everyone stop keep defending FSX and answer the question.

[mistercoffee1]

After looking at these comparison shots, I would have to objectively wonder the same question.  Why would something that does not look visually as good (FSX at low settings) require more resources and give lower framerates than FS9 at higher settings (which in my opinion look better on the screen shots posted above).

[Daube]

[quote]
Of course he's comparing apples with pears. For goodness sake, everyone stop keep defending FSX and answer the question.