FSX Questions: DXT5 or not, 64-bit EXE for FSX?

[timers15 11]

Hello Everyone,I was wondering:Is there a 64-bit FSX EXE? Because what I have on the disk appears to be 32-bit, at least XP64 has a "*32" next to the process.I have REX and I'm trying to decide whether I should use 2048x2048 textures or 4096x4096 DXT5 textures.So far the texture size and DXT5 (on/off) doesn't seem to effect FPS. So I'm inclined to just leave it as 4096x4096 DXT5.I can't use non-DXT5 4096x4096 because FSX will crash if any clouds are about. Memory?I have a 280 GTX 1 GB, 4GB and 4-core 3.0 Ghz.Thanks.

[Noel 4,502]

Hello Everyone,I was wondering:Is there a 64-bit FSX EXE? Because what I have on the disk appears to be 32-bit, at least XP64 has a "*32" next to the process.I have REX and I'm trying to decide whether I should use 2048x2048 textures or 4096x4096 DXT5 textures.So far the texture size and DXT5 (on/off) doesn't seem to effect FPS. So I'm inclined to just leave it as 4096x4096 DXT5.I can't use non-DXT5 4096x4096 because FSX will crash if any clouds are about. Memory?I have a 280 GTX 1 GB, 4GB and 4-core 3.0 Ghz.Thanks.

No 64-bit FSX.exe4096 and even 2048 can be taxing, even on 4 cores w/ a GB of video ram. The issue may not be FPS though. FPS is only one "performance" variable, though the more the merrier, most of the time. The other performance variables include image clarity & texture loading speed, as well as absence of stuttering, aka smoothness. For me when clarity, loading & smoothness are near perfect, I'd like to see at least 20 fps as a minimum, which of course I have even in the most taxing situations. If you can have those variables working very well, and can run at 40 fps, then even better. I think the minimum acceptable fps per se is around 20, below which the display tends to become perceptibly choppy. That is not stuttering in my lexicon.Noel

[timers15 11]

No 64-bit FSX.exe4096 and even 2048 can be taxing, even on 4 cores w/ a GB of video ram. The issue may not be FPS though. FPS is only one "performance" variable, though the more the merrier, most of the time. The other performance variables include image clarity & texture loading speed, as well as absence of stuttering, aka smoothness. For me when clarity, loading & smoothness are near perfect, I'd like to see at least 20 fps as a minimum, which of course I have even in the most taxing situations. If you can have those variables working very well, and can run at 40 fps, then even better. I think the minimum acceptable fps per se is around 20, below which the display tends to become perceptibly choppy. That is not stuttering in my lexicon.Noel

Hmm, interesting, we have very similiar systems. And congrats on getting your 9650 to 4.1 Ghz. I think I have a 9650 too on a P5E. My preferences in FS operation are identical to yours. I even dropped my texture size to 512 and didn't see an FPS hit. So I'm wondering if I'm going to have a major stutter-attack running at 4096 DXT5 somewhere. So far so good though.Shame there's no FSX 64-bit, but I couldn't find anything via Google. I had just though I heard people talking about it, guess they meant OS.I'm going flying now... :)

[Guest 413X3]

Can you post your specs? I have a fast computer and everything set to max. I can almost get 20fps in every situation but can't get the good variation of config file settings. texture bandwidth, AA/AF, etc

[Noel 4,502]

Hmm, interesting, we have very similiar systems. And congrats on getting your 9650 to 4.1 Ghz. I think I have a 9650 too on a P5E. My preferences in FS operation are identical to yours. I even dropped my texture size to 512 and didn't see an FPS hit. So I'm wondering if I'm going to have a major stutter-attack running at 4096 DXT5 somewhere. So far so good though.Shame there's no FSX 64-bit, but I couldn't find anything via Google. I had just though I heard people talking about it, guess they meant OS.I'm going flying now... :)

I have ended up dialing back my CPU to 3.9Ghz, FSB 407, with very good memory timings. At 3.9Ghz, I can set vCore at 1.39v and run stable. Going to 4.1Ghz requires 1.4125 vCore to remain stable. I'm opting for a little more service life in exchange for a 5% faster CPU. I always have excellent performance in FSX even at 3.9Ghz, so there she has been for several months now. I have run her a 4.3 or higher but this approaches the max vCore for this CPU at 1.45v. Yes, 64 bit .exe would be nice it's too bad they didn't go there. To be honest, I have not gone back to trial 4096 cloud textures and perhaps may to see if it's worth the hit. I am a huge fan of FPS_Limiter.exe for optimizing MY results. It is like Slick-50 for FSX on my machine. I am even able to dial frames in with that utility and generate totally smooth dense traffic (cars n stuff), something I could never do without this utility. I also have a very unoptimized Vista 64 installation: no special tweaks, Aero intact, all services running. I think if you are looking for "fps hit" effects, you are only getting one part of the performance issue, big one that it is. To me, if you get IQ and smoothness near 100% perfect, 22 fps versus 35 fps is not very different. FPS_Limiter.exe is a frames-governor that can control surges/spikes in FPS when running in the game's UNLIMITED frame rate mode, and in doing so gives you the benefits of the optimizations that come from UNLIMITED, while minimizing potential cons.

[timers15 11]

I have ended up dialing back my CPU to 3.9Ghz, FSB 407, with very good memory timings. At 3.9Ghz, I can set vCore at 1.39v and run stable. Going to 4.1Ghz requires 1.4125 vCore to remain stable. I'm opting for a little more service life in exchange for a 5% faster CPU. I always have excellent performance in FSX even at 3.9Ghz, so there she has been for several months now. I have run her a 4.3 or higher but this approaches the max vCore for this CPU at 1.45v. Yes, 64 bit .exe would be nice it's too bad they didn't go there. To be honest, I have not gone back to trial 4096 cloud textures and perhaps may to see if it's worth the hit. I am a huge fan of FPS_Limiter.exe for optimizing MY results. It is like Slick-50 for FSX on my machine. I am even able to dial frames in with that utility and generate totally smooth dense traffic (cars n stuff), something I could never do without this utility. I also have a very unoptimized Vista 64 installation: no special tweaks, Aero intact, all services running. I think if you are looking for "fps hit" effects, you are only getting one part of the performance issue, big one that it is. To me, if you get IQ and smoothness near 100% perfect, 22 fps versus 35 fps is not very different. FPS_Limiter.exe is a frames-governor that can control surges/spikes in FPS when running in the game's UNLIMITED frame rate mode, and in doing so gives you the benefits of the optimizations that come from UNLIMITED, while minimizing potential cons.

"Smoothness" is very important to me too. So far I'm in a good place in that regard. Interestingly enough, I was having FPS flucuations with the PMDG MD11. So I set the gauge update to 100 per second and then it smoothed out. Interesting. I think without the flucuations the expereince is a little smoother. I've found the biggest offender is the gauges in the MD11. If I remove them from the view my FPS goes to the locked 30 and stays there, no matter what's on the screen.BTW, I see you're using the CoolSky Super 80 Pro. I've had really good performance experiences with that plane. Not to mention it's a great plane to fly.Maybe I'll try FPS_Limiter tomorrow. After what you've shown, I've cranked my cloud draw distance (4096 textures) to 110 miles. I lose a few FPS with the big planes (realair spit, fw190 and default planes lock at 30 still) but I'd have to say it's well worth it. I think the performance hit is because of the number of clouds, not the size of the textures. I think the size of the textures is irrelavent as long as everything can fit in the card at once. If texture swapping occurs then there will be a severe perf penalty. Otherwise there's no difference fetching a texel (?) from a big texture or a small one. DXT5 compression is designed for random access, so I doubt that would be a problem either. So far my limited testing bares that out.Crank it to 4096, and make sure they're DXT5. My FSX simply crashes without the DXT5. :)

[Noel 4,502]

"Smoothness" is very important to me too. So far I'm in a good place in that regard. Interestingly enough, I was having FPS flucuations with the PMDG MD11. So I set the gauge update to 100 per second and then it smoothed out. Interesting. I think without the flucuations the expereince is a little smoother. I've found the biggest offender is the gauges in the MD11. If I remove them from the view my FPS goes to the locked 30 and stays there, no matter what's on the screen.BTW, I see you're using the CoolSky Super 80 Pro. I've had really good performance experiences with that plane. Not to mention it's a great plane to fly.Maybe I'll try FPS_Limiter tomorrow. After what you've shown, I've cranked my cloud draw distance (4096 textures) to 110 miles. I lose a few FPS with the big planes (realair spit, fw190 and default planes lock at 30 still) but I'd have to say it's well worth it. I think the performance hit is because of the number of clouds, not the size of the textures. I think the size of the textures is irrelavent as long as everything can fit in the card at once. If texture swapping occurs then there will be a severe perf penalty. Otherwise there's no difference fetching a texel (?) from a big texture or a small one. DXT5 compression is designed for random access, so I doubt that would be a problem either. So far my limited testing bares that out.Crank it to 4096, and make sure they're DXT5. My FSX simply crashes without the DXT5. :)

I'll revisit 4096 too n see how it goes. I had not discovered FPS_Limiter prior to trying 4096 so what the hey. The Super 80 Pro is very easy on performance. I have held off on the MD-11 due to the high cost, but I previously used and very much enjoyed the 737NG/747 in FS9, and I am aware of how nice the pMDG stuff is.FPS_Limiter is, IMHO, the most useful "tweak" for my installation, be in in Vista or XP. The theory goes that UNLIMITED mode offers some optimizations that improve overall performance. Try this experiment to see if you might be a good candidate for FPS_Limiter:Load up a complex situation in FSX, and lock the frame counter in the game at 30 FPS. The situation must be complex enough to NOT be able to keep up with the 30 FPS lock, ie, such that you are only seeing maybe 24 or 25 FPS. Now, remove the 30 FPS limit, and set at UNLIMITED. If yours is as mine is, frames may come up to 30 or more. Therein lies the built-in optimizations in UNLIMITED mode. This is a very well known phenomenon. The only problem is, oftentimes the improvement will be accompanied by surges: look out the window of your bird and speed and see if the runway during takeoff, for example, appears to be surging, or clouds you're wizzing by do the same thing. But setting the in-game lock back to 30, you will lose the surging, but again, frames may drop to well below 30, situation dependent. Now get FPS_limiter running. What I, and many others, have found is: she stays at the lock placed by FPS_limiter, but surges are gone. You can change the frame lock within the applet by using the F11/F12 keys. I have found that sometimes road traffic will do its own surging until I dial back, in runtime, frames to 26 or so using the F11 key. Now traffic is quite smooth and surge-free. Up at altitude, I may hit the F12 key up to 40 FPS, and so forth.