Frame rates?

[JBaymore]

It is so interesting to look at this..........  go back into the fs2004 forum and read the similar threads there.  EXACTLY the same issues and comments.  Sort of funny.

What goes around comes around.  

[Daube]

Daube, if you're getting 20fps I'm guessing it's over hills or desert maybe, or with no weather. My pc is higher spec than yours and I have to turn everything down to even get close to double figures around big airports. And yes I've done all the tweaks. We can all get great frames upstairs in fair weather but that's not where it counts!

If you can get 20fps landing somewhere like Seattle with real weather and VATSIM pilots taxiing around I'd imagine Intel will want a word...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
3GB RAM
WinFast NF4K8AC motherboard
Palit GeForce 7600 GT (256mb - PCI Express)
Windows XP Home Edition SP2
MS Flight Simulator X
FSInn v1.2
FS Co-pilot v1.6
FSUIPC4 v4.0.6.0

Yeah, right...



Over Seattle, autogen at maximum density. You didn't apply all the tweaks yet, or you did something wrong.

PS: there are currently just two things that still make my FPS crawling:
- the specific scenery objects (not autogen), because they still have their heavy textures that my 6800 cannot handle, so I have to turn the scenery density to sparse (but autogen at max)
- the scenery loading whn going too fast, because I don't have enough RAM and I have a slow IDE hard-drive, so reading the files takes a lot.

[ATI_7500]

Can you reccomend any good AMD socket 939's?

Although my last AMD is dreaming away in my closet (2700+), I can recommend any of the 64s with a "FX" in it. Just like the one you suggested.

Make sure that your current motherboard supports newer AMD processors. Check the manufacturer's homepage for details.

I'll bet a 3700 and 8800 are a pretty good match for each other.

I won't.

A 3700+ might be good companion for anything less than a 7800GT.

I doubt that even my Core2Duo can fully supply my GTS.

What's the highest temp it could be at and still be alright?

The critical temperature range for a CPU is around 67

[Brett_Henderson]

I've got an Athlon 3700 slightly over-clocked, and an eVga 7800GT.

The 7800GT gets ornery when I overclock it (runs fine in FSX, but gets goofy in DoD), so I leave it at stock speed. But when I DO overclock the 7800, FSX performance improves.. so I'd say that the 7800GT is holding the 3700 back.

Ideally, if one is gonna be the bottleneck, it's better that it be the CPU. That's why I think a 8800GT is a good mate to a 3700.. You'll want your V-card slightly faster than your CPU, ideally. Not the other way around..

[mdavies90]

you have all got me on this frame rate stuff.    Forgive me, but ............. which is better???  More or less ??

cheers

mark d

[Daube]

Normally, the more the better.

BUT sometimes, it's good to limit the maximum FPS you could get. Why ? Because if your PC can run FSX at 25 FPS, and you limit it to 20 FPS only, that means that you save some ressources for computing better the flight model (like, to prevent the jumping plane on the ground in FS9), to load the scenery faster, etc...

The point is making a "distribution of CPU power" between the various stuff FSX has to handle. You can have a very fluid flight, but it's useless if you get blurry textures on the ground during that flight. It's better to get a little less FPS, but better scenery

[kilotango]

Forget the fps... You all got your eyes too much on that. Balance settings in the game, and read the tweaks posted on this site.

I'll tell you a story:

asus 7n8x-x
athlon 3000+
his 9800 iceq xt (128)
audiqy 2

I run fsx medium tex, dence autogen, traffic 30%, 40% all other, and it is just astonished. Fps is set at 20, but i rarely get under. Tested it with unlimited. 17-35.

Did you read my story?

Forgot 1 gb 2700 ram.....

[ATI_7500]

Sounds much like my old PC.

Sadly, the FSX Demo was running at 1 FPS (driver problem, I guess) on it.

[kilotango]

Sounds much like my old PC.

Sadly, the FSX Demo was running at 1 FPS (driver problem, I guess) on it.

Sadly Heretic!
You don't get it. Do you?

[Pike]

Hello guys,

I'm new here, but I've known one of your members for some time.  Ramsa329, of FS-GS.com to be exact.

Anyway, I have a:

FX-60 (easily overclocked to 2.8 gig)
Asus AN8SLI Deluxe
2 Gigs PC3200
7900GTX

My frames are capped at 25 FPS, and no matter where I am, I get perfectly smooth frames (usually above 20, and not noticeable when below--if they ever do go below.  I have stopped pulling up the FPS counter, as Mike informed me it costs about 3 FPS).  My settings are Ultra high for aircraft, high for weather, nearly maxed scenery (water at 2.x low, max when out at sea), traffic at 25% for non aircraft, and higher for aircraft once I get Traffic X installed.  My sim at default, without any addons looks much much better than my FS9 did with every possible addon (GE pro, Flight Environment, Active Sky 6, etc.).  No blurries, no jaggies, no blocks of sea water that don't match.  In my first test flight with Michael, I took off from Santa Monica and had to keep my jaw off the floor.  It was smooth and looked like better than the Mega Scenery I had bought for the area once upon a time.  

Point being that you really need to try out Michael's service.  I'm probably preaching to the choir here--but if you guys above are really struggling that much with those systems, well you aren't near what you could be at.

Anyway, just had to drop in and offer that suggestion.  FSX is truely the outstanding product we'd hoped it would be, just needs a little help.  You don't have to wait 2 years to enjoy this sim, nor have Cray supercomputers parked next to your car in the garage.  

Nice community you guys have here!

Matt Clement
Razorback Universal Air Services at FSeconomy.com

[kilotango]

Sounds much like my old PC.

Sadly, the FSX Demo was running at 1 FPS (driver problem, I guess) on it.

Sadly Heretic!
You don't get it. Do you?

Heretic. Just saw this again. Hope you did'nt misunderstood it! Were just trying to be funny about your 1 fps

[ATI_7500]

Happens. No offense taken.


I'd still use FS9 if I hadn't upgraded.

[aafuss]

Using the following benchmark on the lowest settings, I got 129.8 fps:
http://www.excitingsimulations.com/FSX/ ... 01-v11.zip

My system specs are:
Processor: AMD Sempron 3200+
RAM-512MB DDR2
HD-WD 160GB (WD1600JB-00REA0). Partioned into 2 drives-C:96GB/D:52GB
Motherboard ASUS M2N-MX
Optical-Sony DRU-710A BYX5 firmware
Sound-SoundMAX HD audio
Graphics-Albatron 7600GS, 256MB PCI-E
Joystick-Logitech Force 3D Pro
Laser mouse-Logitech G7
Keyboard-MS Digital Media Pro
Display-Apple Cinema Display 20"
Speakers-Altec Lansing VS-3151 (5.1ch)
PSU-350W
OS-Windows XP Pro SP2
Other-Philips webcam
FSUIPC v 4.07

[Pike]

Daube, if you're getting 20fps I'm guessing it's over hills or desert maybe, or with no weather. My pc is higher spec than yours and I have to turn everything down to even get close to double figures around big airports. And yes I've done all the tweaks. We can all get great frames upstairs in fair weather but that's not where it counts!

If you can get 20fps landing somewhere like Seattle with real weather and VATSIM pilots taxiing around I'd imagine Intel will want a word...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
3GB RAM
WinFast NF4K8AC motherboard
Palit GeForce 7600 GT (256mb - PCI Express)
Windows XP Home Edition SP2
MS Flight Simulator X
FSInn v1.2
FS Co-pilot v1.6
FSUIPC4 v4.0.6.0

Yeah, right...



Over Seattle, autogen at maximum density. You didn't apply all the tweaks yet, or you did something wrong.

PS: there are currently just two things that still make my FPS crawling:
- the specific scenery objects (not autogen), because they still have their heavy textures that my 6800 cannot handle, so I have to turn the scenery density to sparse (but autogen at max)
- the scenery loading whn going too fast, because I don't have enough RAM and I have a slow IDE hard-drive, so reading the files takes a lot.

No offense, but you are using FRAPS there right?  From my experience, FRAPS has been well known to give inaccurate FPS...perhaps showing us the same shot with the FSX counter would be a little bit better.  Even that isn't all that accurate, but its better than FRAPS.

[Daube]

From my experience, FRAPS was giving exactely the same FPS number as FSX.
I choosed to display the FRAPS counter because I didn't have any picture editing tool at that time (fresh reinstall of my system), and the Paintbrush JPEG compression would have made it completely unreadable.

Normally I use only the display from FSX to monitor my frames, but this time I have used FRAPS just for the purpose of the screenshots, to ensure it was readable.