FSX - Performance, i7?

[Rations 102]

To Be Honest, I think X Plane 10 Is the way forward, The Performance with FSX is definitely what let it down

FSX still has many advantages and a great third-party development community, but from seeing some of X-Plane's autogen and graphics, it definitely has lots of potential.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

To Be Honest, I think X Plane 10 Is the way forward, The Performance with FSX is definitely what let it down

I agree, I have xp10 and it just gets more better and more fun every update :good: Also the payware planes VC Cockpit in xplane payware looks more realistic than fsx payware. FSX gets a +1 in scenery addons but xp10 has some awesome beautiful payware planes and scenery on the way.

[AtlanticAviator 1]

I agree, I have xp10 and it just gets more better and more fun every update :good: Also the payware planes VC Cockpit in xplane payware looks more realistic than fsx payware. FSX gets a +1 in scenery addons but xp10 has some awesome beautiful payware planes and scenery on the way.

 

How is X-Plane's Performance in comparison with FSX?

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

How is X-Plane's Performance in comparison with FSX?

it's both 32bit and 64bit now and I have never had a crash since I bought it last year. It's silky smooth on modern hardware and uses your cpu, graphics card and memory. Check out my signature for xp10 best payware addons. Also did you know that xp10 is a folder on your desktop with no registry key entries or messy installs. Most sceneries and aircraft get unzipped and just copied into the xp10 sub folders. I have xp10 backups on usb thumb drives and it runs like it's on a hard drive, maybe even better off the thumb drive, no joke.

[waygo 1]

I just finished a new build and I am getting 60+ fps on three monitors with fsx running rex with 4096 hd clouds, orbx scenery and sliders near max or maxed, so as bad and outdated as fsx is, good performance can be had.

 

This is just my two cents.

 

Assuming you are going to pretty much stick with your current system, I would start with your CPU. If you are going with air, consider the NH-D14 if it will fit in your case. You're worried about damaging your CPU, keep it cool and you won't have to worry. I highly recommend the h100i water cooler. Very simple to install and the performance is excellent. I'm running ivy bridge with it which is much hotter than your CPU. I bet you get 4.8 easy with a good cooler.

 

Also if you are worried about ruining your CPU, buy an insurance plan from intel. For $25 they will replace your CPU if it is damaged during overclocking. It's like square trade for CPU,s.

 

After you find the limits of your CPU through oc, then oc your gpu. Neither of these is difficult. All you need to know is online.

 

After your system is tuned to its max performance, THEN tweak fsx. I don't think it makes sense to try to make the software run better before the hardware. Your hardware is the physical limit of your fsx experience. Even if you tweak fsx to run at 100 fps it still won't do it if the hardware can't processes it.

 

Finally, I got my big jump in performance when I went with sli. It works. At 5760x1080 I was getting 25-30 fps running fsx pretty near max but getting a lot of stuttering and visual artifacts. Now I get 60 and sometimes over 100 with a beautiful picture.

[Rations 102]

I just finished a new build and I am getting 60+ fps on three monitors with fsx running rex with 4096 hd clouds, orbx scenery and sliders near max or maxed, so as bad and outdated as fsx is, good performance can be had.

With what aircraft are you receiving such performance? I find it difficult to imagine—though it would certainly be nice—such performance with aircraft by Captain Sim and/or PMDG coupled with heavy traffic at high-quality payware airports in urban areas (whew—lots of prepositions!).

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

xp10 is smooth on the fps without overclocking, try running fsx with OC Disabled

 

I just finished a new build and I am getting 60+ fps on three monitors with fsx running rex with 4096 hd clouds, orbx scenery and sliders near max or maxed, so as bad and outdated as fsx is, good performance can be had.

 

This is just my two cents.

 

Assuming you are going to pretty much stick with your current system, I would start with your CPU. If you are going with air, consider the NH-D14 if it will fit in your case. You're worried about damaging your CPU, keep it cool and you won't have to worry. I highly recommend the h100i water cooler. Very simple to install and the performance is excellent. I'm running ivy bridge with it which is much hotter than your CPU. I bet you get 4.8 easy with a good cooler.

 

Also if you are worried about ruining your CPU, buy an insurance plan from intel. For $25 they will replace your CPU if it is damaged during overclocking. It's like square trade for CPU,s.

 

After you find the limits of your CPU through oc, then oc your gpu. Neither of these is difficult. All you need to know is online.

 

After your system is tuned to its max performance, THEN tweak fsx. I don't think it makes sense to try to make the software run better before the hardware. Your hardware is the physical limit of your fsx experience. Even if you tweak fsx to run at 100 fps it still won't do it if the hardware can't processes it.

 

Finally, I got my big jump in performance when I went with sli. It works. At 5760x1080 I was getting 25-30 fps running fsx pretty near max but getting a lot of stuttering and visual artifacts. Now I get 60 and sometimes over 100 with a beautiful picture.

:Thinking: so many members on avsim with identical hardware can't achieve what you have in performance, sounds to good to be true :lol: Are you using DX10? because there is no way your getting this much fps in DX9. DX10 does give a major boost in fps.

[Guest Raul_Hernandez]

OP:

 

The problem is that you say "High Settings" but there are some settings in FSX that are a no-go to have on high, and that will swallow your PC's resources.

 

Do you have "Bloom" enabled? .... the FPS cost is around 25-40% in frame rates!

 

Water on High? ...... Medium is just as good and will save 5-10%

 

Is your airliner AI traffic higher than 30%? ..... that will cost you about 10-25% frames.

 

There are other areas that don't matter as much.

 

So with all due respect if you've just decided you hate FSX, then there's no point in continuing in trying to get it to run better, but if you educate yourself a little more, you could have good performance!

 

My specs: i7 2600k 3.4Ghz (standard NOT overclocked), ATI 5770 1GB, 8GB DDR3 RAM, Win 7 64 bit

 

With the right FSX settings, in areas like :-

 

- FSX Main Display settings

- The right FSX.CFG set up,

- The right video card settings, (just like "Clarkresponse" above, I do overclock my graphics card, with great results),

- Game Booster to close unnecessary PC processes,

- Etc, etc, etc, etc,

 

............you could have a smooth performance.

 

I get 30-34 FPS with the PMDG 737NGX in almost all scenarios with a rig that is not as powerful overall as yours.

 

You just need to do the research, and not get so angry with FSX - it's a great platform - just quirky to configure and optimize. But all things considered, it's still light years better than X-Plane 10 in my honest opinion.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

But all things considered, it's still light years better than X-Plane 10 in my honest opinion.

..... :t0148: :p0816: ...................both sims are cool happy new year! :lol:

[waygo 1]

so many members on avsim with identical hardware can't achieve what you have in performance, sounds to good to be true

 

I know what you're saying. I'm having great success though its not flawless. I just finished flying from firstair to Darrington in a carenado c-208. For some reason I drop down to about 15 fps until I get out of the firstair area. Halfway to Darrington I'm up to a steady 25+. Out of Siletz bay though I am nothing less than 60. I run my Rex clouds at 4096 and the other rex textures at 2048.

 

I don't know how many people on here are running two gtx680 sli. If,anyone is I'd be interested to know if they are getting similar results. Also my CPU is oc at 4.6.

 

I don't fly the pmdg. Mostly I fly carenado products. No light bloom or flair. Water is at high, not max. Mesh is at 5. Cloud draw,at 100 miles. Everything else is max except air and road traffic is around 16.

 

Mostly I love not getting blank dash when I go back to the cockpit or artifacts when panning outside.

[Rations 102]

For some reason I drop down to about 15 fps until I get out of the firstair area. Halfway to Darrington I'm up to a steady 25+. Out of Siletz bay though I am nothing less than 60. I run my Rex clouds at 4096 and the other rex textures at 2048.

That seems more accurate. Most people experience much better performance at cruising altitude away from urban areas.

 

Mesh is at 5.

Is this a typo? If not, setting mesh resolution so low may significantly improve performance.

[waygo 1]

 

That seems more accurate. Most people experience much better performance at cruising altitude away from urban areas.

 

 

Is this a typo? If not, setting mesh resolution so low may significantly improve performance.

 

Mesh resolution is set at 5m. This is about 3/4 towards max. Skimming through all my airport manuals orbx lists 5m as the required setting. So I'm not sure why that would be considered low. Please tell me if there is something I should know.

[AtlanticAviator 1]

OP:

 

The problem is that you say "High Settings" but there are some settings in FSX that are a no-go to have on high, and that will swallow your PC's resources.

 

Do you have "Bloom" enabled? .... the FPS cost is around 25-40% in frame rates!

 

Water on High? ...... Medium is just as good and will save 5-10%

 

Is your airliner AI traffic higher than 30%? ..... that will cost you about 10-25% frames.

 

There are other areas that don't matter as much.

 

So with all due respect if you've just decided you hate FSX, then there's no point in continuing in trying to get it to run better, but if you educate yourself a little more, you could have good performance!

 

My specs: i7 2600k 3.4Ghz (standard NOT overclocked), ATI 5770 1GB, 8GB DDR3 RAM, Win 7 64 bit

 

With the right FSX settings, in areas like :-

 

- FSX Main Display settings

- The right FSX.CFG set up,

- The right video card settings, (just like "Clarkresponse" above, I do overclock my graphics card, with great results),

- Game Booster to close unnecessary PC processes,

- Etc, etc, etc, etc,

 

............you could have a smooth performance.

 

I get 30-34 FPS with the PMDG 737NGX in almost all scenarios with a rig that is not as powerful overall as yours.

 

You just need to do the research, and not get so angry with FSX - it's a great platform - just quirky to configure and optimize. But all things considered, it's still light years better than X-Plane 10 in my honest opinion.

 

Hello,

 

I appreciated your help, But, In no way am I getting angry or will get angry over FSX, And I don't think I've shown any anger over my last few comments?....

Besides that haha, I never have my AI Traffic on, Its always down to Zero because I know it steals the FPS.

Water is set Usually Medium 2X, And Im almost positive Light Bloom is off, And If not FSX Booster will turn it off for me

 

Thanks

 

I just finished a new build and I am getting 60+ fps on three monitors with fsx running rex with 4096 hd clouds, orbx scenery and sliders near max or maxed, so as bad and outdated as fsx is, good performance can be had.

 

This is just my two cents.

 

Assuming you are going to pretty much stick with your current system, I would start with your CPU. If you are going with air, consider the NH-D14 if it will fit in your case. You're worried about damaging your CPU, keep it cool and you won't have to worry. I highly recommend the h100i water cooler. Very simple to install and the performance is excellent. I'm running ivy bridge with it which is much hotter than your CPU. I bet you get 4.8 easy with a good cooler.

 

Also if you are worried about ruining your CPU, buy an insurance plan from intel. For $25 they will replace your CPU if it is damaged during overclocking. It's like square trade for CPU,s.

 

After you find the limits of your CPU through oc, then oc your gpu. Neither of these is difficult. All you need to know is online.

 

After your system is tuned to its max performance, THEN tweak fsx. I don't think it makes sense to try to make the software run better before the hardware. Your hardware is the physical limit of your fsx experience. Even if you tweak fsx to run at 100 fps it still won't do it if the hardware can't processes it.

 

Finally, I got my big jump in performance when I went with sli. It works. At 5760x1080 I was getting 25-30 fps running fsx pretty near max but getting a lot of stuttering and visual artifacts. Now I get 60 and sometimes over 100 with a beautiful picture.

 

Hi!

 

I never even knew that Intel done an Overclocking type Insurance! And its really cheap as well! I will definitely consider overclocking now as the main barrier stopping me from doing it was the fact that something could go wrong, But looking at the Intel OC Insurance, They state "Go Ahead and Push it, We've Got your back." Certainly very re-assuring to know and Definitely something to Consider!

[Rations 102]

Mesh resolution is set at 5m. This is about 3/4 towards max. Skimming through all my airport manuals orbx lists 5m as the required setting. So I'm not sure why that would be considered low. Please tell me if there is something I should know.

Sorry—I meant to refer to mesh complexity, not mesh resolution. It was unclear in the original post I was responding to, but off the top of my head, I thought the latter was the name of the former.

[martin-w 3,234]

Hi!

 

I never even knew that Intel done an Overclocking type Insurance! And its really cheap as well! I will definitely consider overclocking now as the main barrier stopping me from doing it was the fact that something could go wrong, But looking at the Intel OC Insurance, They state "Go Ahead and Push it, We've Got your back." Certainly very re-assuring to know and Definitely something to Consider!

 

I have the Intel overclocking insurance. Great idea, why not, it's dirt cheap!

 

I have an i7 3770K overclocked to 4.5GHz... and I DON'T have the sliders at max, even with this spec.

 

I echo what was said above, don't be obsessed with high sliders. Be sensible, turn them down and enjoy the super smooth result.

 

Quiet frankly, the sim is perfectly enjoyable without super high sliders. High frame rate beats high sliders for me.

 

As said above, FSX comes alive with overclocking. 4GHz and above makes all the difference.

 

If you decide to overclock, do some research on the net, take your time, easy does it. You will find it's far easier and safer than you thought. Modern CPU's and motherboards are desighned for overclocking. That's why Intel feel very comfortable giving you an overclocking guarantee for what amounts to peanuts.

 

Would highly recommend the Noctua NH-D14. Awesome cooler, super quiet, handles high clocks with ease. Big though, so make sure it fits.