FSX does not run properly on GTX295, i7 2,6gh, 6GB RAM

[Flight Ace]

[quote]Regrettably its true.

[Flight Ace]

Just out of curiosity...

Is here anybody who runs his FSX on i7 processor and GTX video card and is getting smooth performance? Just say "Me" or something.
Thank you!

Me

[SubZer0]

No problems at all here with my system... Just tune the system and FSX right and you're set to go.

There are no computers able to run FSX at its real max settings yet.
However, you computer should run it quite well with quite high settings.
I suggest you to read the sticky topics on the installation of SP2, more specifically the parts that describe and explain the various tweaks. You'll have to test yourself to find correct values.

What is a real MAX setting for FSX? Is it all sliders right, with everything turned on or is there something beyond that.

The fsx.cfg has to be modified to increase the level of detail radius and the amount of autogen. It doesn't matter how high you write those numbers... Hardware can only push out what it can push out, and that's nowhere near the max that FSX can produce...

Absolutely.
And to be more precise:

- the default autogen max setting correspond to something like 4000 trees and 4000 buildings per terrain cell (a cell is a part of the terrain, I don't remember the exact size). You can push this to 6000 each in the FSX.cfg. Of course, your CPU and video card will melt like lava.

- the range (distance) of high detail terrain visual can be doubled in the FSX.cfg. Of course, your CPU will melt like lava.

- the default ground textures in FSX are 1 meter/pixel (one pixel of the textures covers 1x1 meter square on the terrain). Some addons are about to be released with maximum ground textures precision in FSX: 7 centimeters per pixel (each pixel covers 7x7 cms square on the terrain). But it's just for a very limited area, else your CPU, video card, RAM and hardisks would tranform your computer in a volcano

So no, there are no computers able to run FSX at its max settings, and there will be no computers able to run it at its REAL max settings for a while

Amen, mon ami.

[Plugpennyshadow]

Im getting good looking smoothness on a Q8400 Quad and running 4gigs DDR2 memory.  Its all in the tweaking.  Of course, Ive squirrled away everything that works for me in folder...All printed out for future reference.

Just follow the tweaks, ask questions here when you get stuck and you should get smooth perf.  You may not like how far right your sliders are not, but you will get it to smooth eventually.

As for not understanding much of what is said in the tweaks?  You just have to start doing research.  Its what I did.

And remember, this is your thread.  You post to this one and someone will answer you.  We aim to help, but be patient.  We all have jobs, lives, masters...I mean wives, dogs, other hobbies and such.

[stevehookem]

Turning autogen (or anything for that matter) off doesn't necessarily make FSX run "faster" or "smoother". It is designed to have those options "tuned" to each other for the best performance.

That said, I have an i7 940 at 4ghz and finally stopped trying to mess with it. I spent many more hours tweaking, fixing, reinstalling, etc, than just flying! It wasn't fun anymore.

Get yourself FS2004. Load it, get some of the amazing freeware (and even better payware) add-ons and FLY, FLY, FLY! I no longer worry that when I boot up something will be different and cause me to have to mess with settings. It just works now. I can jump into the left seat of a 767 at Heathrow and go!

My experience is that the visual aspect of having FS9 with everything maxed out, and all the scenery add-ons available, is better than FSX the way it must be flown.

[Flight Ace]

There are no computers able to run FSX at its real max settings yet.
However, you computer should run it quite well with quite high settings.
I suggest you to read the sticky topics on the installation of SP2, more specifically the parts that describe and explain the various tweaks. You'll have to test yourself to find correct values.

What is a real MAX setting for FSX? Is it all sliders right, with everything turned on or is there something beyond that.

The fsx.cfg has to be modified to increase the level of detail radius and the amount of autogen. It doesn't matter how high you write those numbers... Hardware can only push out what it can push out, and that's nowhere near the max that FSX can produce...

Absolutely.
And to be more precise:

- the default autogen max setting correspond to something like 4000 trees and 4000 buildings per terrain cell (a cell is a part of the terrain, I don't remember the exact size). You can push this to 6000 each in the FSX.cfg. Of course, your CPU and video card will melt like lava.

- the range (distance) of high detail terrain visual can be doubled in the FSX.cfg. Of course, your CPU will melt like lava.

- the default ground textures in FSX are 1 meter/pixel (one pixel of the textures covers 1x1 meter square on the terrain). Some addons are about to be released with maximum ground textures precision in FSX: 7 centimeters per pixel (each pixel covers 7x7 cms square on the terrain). But it's just for a very limited area, else your CPU, video card, RAM and hardisks would tranform your computer in a volcano

So no, there are no computers able to run FSX at its max settings, and there will be no computers able to run it at its REAL max settings for a while

Daube,

There are areas where the default setting for trees and buildings are not sufficient for creating the most realistic environmental setting. For that reason, I have boosted my settings for each to 6000 and I guarantee you that my CPU and Video card has not melted like lava. We obviously differ on the definition of maxing out a computer for running FSX. In my opinion, it is setting up your computer and FSX to get the best and most realistic picture and flight environment including ATC and weather support throughout the world. It does not mean everything turned on and full right on all settings. Nor negating the possibility of maxing out through changing the SW or config file. With my new hardware and with add-ons like GEX, UTX, REX, and others, I can't see it getting much better. I now have performance to spare with a great picture and smooth flying. This was my third build since FSX was released and hopefully will last me for a while..

Happy flying

Flight Ace

[laurits]

Turning autogen (or anything for that matter) off doesn't necessarily make FSX run "faster" or "smoother". It is designed to have those options "tuned" to each other for the best performance.

That said, I have an i7 940 at 4ghz and finally stopped trying to mess with it. I spent many more hours tweaking, fixing, reinstalling, etc, than just flying! It wasn't fun anymore.

Get yourself FS2004. Load it, get some of the amazing freeware (and even better payware) add-ons and FLY, FLY, FLY! I no longer worry that when I boot up something will be different and cause me to have to mess with settings. It just works now. I can jump into the left seat of a 767 at Heathrow and go!

My experience is that the visual aspect of having FS9 with everything maxed out, and all the scenery add-ons available, is better than FSX the way it must be flown.

Hey, are you serious about this??

Because after months of doing apparently the same as you, tweaking, adjusting, and god knows how many re-installs, I'm starting to give up!

I bought a second hand rig fairly cheap and within my budget-limits, and I actually thought this would run FSX at a decent quality... But noooo...

Even a Q6600 clocked at 3.7 Ghz, 4x1 Gb DDR2 Crucials at 1105 Mhz / 5-5-5-15 - and the good ol' 8800 GTS at 676 / 1499 / 1036 - IS NOT ENOUGH to keep the sliders just about 3/4!

I've done everything, followed The Master's advise (!), nHancer, FPS limiter etc. - I even have a specially "geek-tweaked" XP 64, completely stripped down so only 24 processes are running, no antivirus, no firewall, no extras, nothing, and still have irritating stutters and unstable flying and jerks and jitters, it's driving me nuts!!!

I have Flight Sim 2004 on the shelve, should i really go back?

[Daube]

Turning autogen (or anything for that matter) off doesn't necessarily make FSX run "faster" or "smoother". It is designed to have those options "tuned" to each other for the best performance.

That said, I have an i7 940 at 4ghz and finally stopped trying to mess with it. I spent many more hours tweaking, fixing, reinstalling, etc, than just flying! It wasn't fun anymore.

Get yourself FS2004. Load it, get some of the amazing freeware (and even better payware) add-ons and FLY, FLY, FLY! I no longer worry that when I boot up something will be different and cause me to have to mess with settings. It just works now. I can jump into the left seat of a 767 at Heathrow and go!

My experience is that the visual aspect of having FS9 with everything maxed out, and all the scenery add-ons available, is better than FSX the way it must be flown.

Hey, are you serious about this??

Because after months of doing apparently the same as you, tweaking, adjusting, and god knows how many re-installs, I'm starting to give up!

I bought a second hand rig fairly cheap and within my budget-limits, and I actually thought this would run FSX at a decent quality... But noooo...

Even a Q6600 clocked at 3.7 Ghz, 4x1 Gb DDR2 Crucials at 1105 Mhz / 5-5-5-15 - and the good ol' 8800 GTS at 676 / 1499 / 1036 - IS NOT ENOUGH to keep the sliders just about 3/4!

I've done everything, followed The Master's advise (!), nHancer, FPS limiter etc. - I even have a specially "geek-tweaked" XP 64, completely stripped down so only 24 processes are running, no antivirus, no firewall, no extras, nothing, and still have irritating stutters and unstable flying and jerks and jitters, it's driving me nuts!!!

I have Flight Sim 2004 on the shelve, should i really go back?

[laurits]

Hmmm... Maybe I just demand too much of it, with the sliders too much to the right!

Settings: TBM at 70
Bufferpool: 100 Mb - should be OK, the 8800 is 640 Mb
No autogen tweak (Nick mentions something about not good with the priority...)

By the way, didn't mean to hijack the thread, just amazing that with highend systems there are still problems with it.. :-/

Oh well, I'll try to adjust the sliders instead, thanks...

[Daube]

The way FSX tries to use the power of a computer is not dynamic enough. Fortunately, we can adjust this with the tweaks. The TBM is a perfect example, ACES set it to 40 as a default value that was more or less working with the current material available, but nowadays it's not good anymore.

Despite what Nick said about it, the default autogen values will produce a tremendous amount of objects on the screen. If I let the autogen to the default and set the density to a correct value, then my computer starts bleeding...

Here are just two advises:
- try limiting your trees and buildings to 1000 only. Then, in the game settings, do not choose the maximum density, choose one crank before the max (very dense I think). Just for tests.
- The TBM... After you've made the autogen tweak, try to set your TBM to a very small value, like 10 for example. I know it's strange, but on some other forums I've seen several members with fast CPU use small TBM successfully. Just try, it won't cost anything anyway.

Also, be sure NOT to set the water at the maximum. Set it to High 2x only.

Finally, set the clouds to the minimum drawing distance until you find some replacement textures. The default clouds are horrible, for the eyes and for the FPS too.

[laurits]

Very good and interesting advise here, I'll try it out, thanks!

I use REX version 2 - and set the clouds at 1024 and DTX 5, so this should be fine too I guess...

[Daube]

Yes the clouds should be fine. Just set your cloud drawing distance to the minimum for the tests. You wil be able to increase the distance again later, if the performance is OK for you.

Also, last thing, just for fun: try setting the bufferpools to zero. Do not delete the bufferpools, set it really to zero, and tell me what happens.

[laurits]

Not much difference, sorry to say!

Tried KSEA - frames were from 17 to 25, but too much stutter...

Will have to play around with the settings some more, and a defrag I just found out now!

Had too many problems with Tongass Fjords add on, installed and removed 4-5 times, so I def. need a defrag or 2, or 3 - 4 maybe..

[NickN]

a 295 video card is known for not running FSX as well as a GTX285

The dual core cards are useless to FSX

[Tomaz]

I owe this to the community.. yesterday I got my new Geforce GTX 285 and my FSX has never been smoother... I'm very happy with my configuration now. Before my old Geforce 9600GT 512MB was a huge bottleneck so I was getting terrible stutters. Now.. practicaly none.

So, to answer my own question... Me!