Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Groovin_DC-10

Getting FSX to Look and Run Like FS9

Recommended Posts

I just want to check if there's any interest here with you FS9'ers who also have FSX but never or rarely fly it because of performance.  I know many of us use FS9 because we don't have top end PC's.

 

I used to do FS2004 about 99% of the time.  This past week, it's been 50/50 between the two sims.  Maybe slightly more with FSX.

 

My PC is pretty low end.  Win7, 955BE @ 4ghz, 8g DDR3, GTX560. 

After years of constantly fiddling with settings, I've finally found one that basically gives me the same performance as FS9.  It's a different approach to most well known graphics settings which helps with smoothness and fps.

 

I currently have a fresh FSX install and I've been flying the PMDG NGX a lot.  I didn't really touch it that much for a long time because of low performance.  Now, I'm getting 25-30fps constant at airports (depending on size and traffic settings, more in small airports), and 60 fps external views.  It's the most fps and smoothness I've been able to achieve with the NGX so far.  Easy models and GA have much higher fps.  The look and performance between the two sims are now so close. 

 

This should allow us FS9'ers with lower end machines to enjoy the newer complex add ons without FSX stuttering to a slide show.  Even with these very low settings, FSX still looks better than FS9.  I never tried the new settings before because I thought it would probably look worse.

 

If there is any interest, please post and I'll take screens of my FSX/Inspector settings.  I'm very interested to see what kind of performance people with similar system as mine would get.  I'm currently running FSX, NGX, Zinertek Airport HD, Ultimate Traffic 2, REX, FEX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jon,

Yes, FS9 has it's own look which I enjoy a lot.

I never get CTD or OOM, and those that do, I highly doubt they will ever encounter it with my settings.

 

The iFly is a great product, but I prefer the look of the NGX (external and VC).  I also have the iFly, and IMO, the PMDG is graphically superior.  It's not only the NGX we're missing out on, the PMDG 777 is another.

 

I'm not trying to convert FS9ers to switch over to FSX.  Just want to help those who want to get FS9 like performance on the newer complex planes.  I know there are FS9ers who have FSX just sitting in their hard drives not doing anything because of perf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer fs9 not because of performance, but because fs9 looks better. More a earthy feel.

I have some of the best add-ons available for any platform, like the Aeroworx King Air and the iFly 737 which I honestly believe is every bit as good - and better - then the pmdg.

So why change for the big increased possibility of ctd's and oom's? Not worth it.

How can you honestly say the iFly 737 is as good if not better than the PMDG one? Are you serious.? Pmdg is light years ahead


Jason Richards

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If there is any interest, please post and I'll take screens of my FSX/Inspector settings

 

 

I'd like to see those settings........I've been using FSX-SE, REX4+soft clouds, Fscene and FSreal/WX lite. To this point, it's doing the job(smooth and stable not like fs9 obviously ). I love , love, love FS9, but there is something about FSX  when you are inside the cockpit that it's just different and I Don't how to explain it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Frank,

Could be the higher res VC lol?  I have some free time later.  I'm taking some screens now.  I'll upload them to my photobucket and post here tonight.  Just keep in mind that your ground textures will pretty much look like FS9 (slightly better).  Also, I haven't tested this with add on airports.  Just the Zinertek add on which enhances default airports globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you honestly say the iFly 737 is as good if not better than the PMDG one? Are you serious.? Pmdg is light years ahead

That is your opinion. Others have as much right to express their opinion, even if it does not line up with yours. And yes we are serious. 


Regards,

Joe Esposito

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default cfg.  I only added highmemfix.  Ok, here they are...

 

My UT2 settings...

FSX8_zpsurodds77.jpg

 

Don't forget to limit your fps when using non complex aircraft.

FSX1_zpsrtuiming.jpg

 

FSX2_zpsd9l7gnfm.jpg

 

Extremely low Detail radius and Texture resolution settings gave the biggest fps boost.  I gained around 4 fps by lowering mesh complexity and resolution.  Water is 512 resolution and compressed from REX.

FSX3_zpsfuywnhjo.jpg

 

You need to play around a bit with these settings.  The reason I was able to max them out completely is because I'm using 128 compressed resolution texture from FEX.  Default FSX is 512 uncompressed if I'm correct.  

FSX4_zpsoxvwwcks.jpg

 

No traffic.  Only Ultimate Traffic 2...

FSX5_zpsbyiknhfk.jpg

 

Inspector Settings...

FSX6_zpsoaiutlaa.jpg

 

FSX7_zpsyukycxkr.jpg

 

In the VC at WADD.  PMDG Performance settings are Displays: high res.  cockpit model: low res, textures: low res.  The performance impact is quite small when everything is set to high res.  I will probably switch back to full high res.

fsx%202015-03-23%2018-54-54-41_zps7noqb8

 

60fps external view.  Great for making videos...

fsx%202015-03-23%2018-55-30-22_zpsda3bvs

 

fsx%202015-03-23%2018-59-26-47_zpstqco25

 

fsx%202015-03-23%2018-59-57-49_zpsf8vnyw

 

fsx%202015-03-23%2019-00-13-40_zps4rtqmr

 

Here's the real test.  On the runway at KSEA with 40% UT2 traffic setting.  Lower traffic settings may be required for KLGA, KJFK, LAX, etc to keep 30fps.

fsx%202015-03-27%2019-28-27-93_zpshifjas

 

fsx%202015-03-27%2019-29-33-21_zpswyzzbi

 

fsx%202015-03-27%2019-30-11-88_zpsekjunn

 

When using lighter aircraft, it's best to limit the fps within FSX to prevent big fps spikes that cause the jitters.  I had it on 60 but use 30 most of the time for VFR.

fsx%202015-03-27%2019-31-32-81_zpsep20qy

 

fsx%202015-03-27%2019-32-00-16_zpsmfaz8f

 

That's it.  I hope it works out well for those who try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


How can you honestly say the iFly 737 is as good if not better than the PMDG one? Are you serious.? Pmdg is light years ahead

 

Are you aware of 'Fail-Operational Autoland' and have you ever used it?  The iFly has it.

 

Are you aware that iFly introduced Aerosoft's NavDataPro as its default nav database before others?

 

Are you aware the iFly was the first sim aircraft to introduce weather radar in concert with Active Sky Next?  

 

Or Jason are you just trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurice, with respect, you will never get FSX to look like FS9 at all.  Microsoft changed their colour palette to a much brighter, contrastier unnatural look.  It has been described by others as cartoony. For example the 'tropical' water in the screenies above.

 

I am glad you have found performance in FSX to your satisfaction but whatever you do don't turn on aircraft shadows.  Your performance will nosedive ... but whoever heard of a plane that didn't cast shadows.

 

I suggest you don't waste your time any longer than necessary with FSX and instead move to P3Dv2.5 which, being DX11 compliant,  truly represents a quantum leap in graphical depiction over both FS9 and FSX.

 

Cheers mate.  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a proud user of Fs9 (+ hundreds of addons) and love it. I own FSX, P3D and X-plane. I have given up on FSX (because of fps hit and cartoon feeling) and P3D (cause of fps). X-Plane has couple of things above any other flight simulator, superb aircrafts and panels, fair fps,  great real felling of flying, accurate roadsystem and it is 64bit. I haven´t given up on P3D, what until they will run the system on 64bit. So now, I use 90% Fs9 and 10% X-Plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to stay clear of these topics. I, like it was mentioned, tried fsx when it came out. I got better performance in PowerPoint.

 

I use fs9 because it does what I want it to do. Like others, I have a ton of addons.

 

I will switch to PD3 when I see less "help me" posts and more "this runs unfreaking believable" on a system that does not require a preapproved mortgage.

 

Everyone has their sim of choice and I applaud all the work within the community for trying to work with what was handed to them.

 

I would rather jump into a plane and fly than constantly have to tweak, retweak and tweak again. I get it, I am on a sim where 3rd party developers are providing less and less to my sim of choice. It is a good thing because I can start saving for that high end, turbocharged, water cooled, 12 gb over clocked graphics card that I will need to run the next sim.

 

Unfortunately, I have a mortgage, 2 kids, wife, dog, primary residence, vacation home in the mountains, two cars, a career, saving for retirement in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Simming is an escape from all that and I can jump into an airbus or a Boeing and go to some destination that I will probably never get to. And my flight lasts the full duration and no ctd or oom.

 

Use the sim you love, fly vfr, fly ifr, do what you enjoy. All I am saying is that I in use fs9 and probably will for the foreseeable future. But again, my hat's off to you for getting fsx to work for you.


Don't blame for my name, my parents were hippies and met in Woodstock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to this topic, I revisited my old computer, for a bit of FS9 & FSX flying. I finally ended up with a high powered computer system (GTX 980 card), after my old one, purchased around the time of FSX & X-Plane 8 releases, had surely shown it's age.  I'm also using some Orbx scenery and airport enhancements for the mountain states of the USA.  A few notes here. I'm not tweaking FSX. The fps are high and smooth, and best of all, it's far from cartoony, as much of the ground takes on a photo-real look from above.  Orbx also changes the look of FSX's default auto-gen, which I was never fond of.  And to double check, aircraft shadows seem to make no difference in performance. The system just handles it.  Since I was a beta tester for Microsoft's FS2002, FS9, and FSX, I freely admit, that my preference was FSX over FS9. I did own some good scenery packages for FS9, and continued to use FS9, for many years along with FSX.  P3D, perhaps one day, and I also use X-Plane too...................as its mountains look great, but Orbx (FSX) is much better looking, when flying out of rural mountain airports.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like the Viking who strides into the hall one day wearing a crucifix. :)

 

It is rather... I submit respectfully that I come to this Forum for news and information about my favoured flavour of flight simulator: FS2004 ACOF.

It is a refuge from Everything X.

 

To stumble on a thread splattered with detailed Effeh Sex settings ... is like a reminder that the Viking has just splattered the brains of the priest on the rectory door.

 

I'm sure the Other Forum will be delighted to take this discussion further.

Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurice, with respect, you will never get FSX to look like FS9 at all.  Microsoft changed their colour palette to a much brighter, contrastier unnatural look.  It has been described by others as cartoony. For example the 'tropical' water in the screenies above.

 

I am glad you have found performance in FSX to your satisfaction but whatever you do don't turn on aircraft shadows.  Your performance will nosedive ... but whoever heard of a plane that didn't cast shadows.

 

I suggest you don't waste your time any longer than necessary with FSX and instead move to P3Dv2.5 which, being DX11 compliant,  truly represents a quantum leap in graphical depiction over both FS9 and FSX.

 

Cheers mate.  <_<

 

Hi Appliance,

Yeah, each sim has their own look.  I do enjoy both. 

Thanks for the tips.  Yes, the shadows do hurt my fps, especially scenery ones.  Not a big impact for plane shadows in DX10 however.

 

I definitely can't get P3D at the moment.  There's no way my machine can handle it and I'm very tight on budget.  I do plan to get a new PC in a year or two and I'll start looking into other sims as well.

 

 

I try to stay clear of these topics. I, like it was mentioned, tried fsx when it came out. I got better performance in PowerPoint.

 

I use fs9 because it does what I want it to do. Like others, I have a ton of addons.

 

I will switch to PD3 when I see less "help me" posts and more "this runs unfreaking believable" on a system that does not require a preapproved mortgage.

 

Everyone has their sim of choice and I applaud all the work within the community for trying to work with what was handed to them.

 

I would rather jump into a plane and fly than constantly have to tweak, retweak and tweak again. I get it, I am on a sim where 3rd party developers are providing less and less to my sim of choice. It is a good thing because I can start saving for that high end, turbocharged, water cooled, 12 gb over clocked graphics card that I will need to run the next sim.

 

Unfortunately, I have a mortgage, 2 kids, wife, dog, primary residence, vacation home in the mountains, two cars, a career, saving for retirement in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Simming is an escape from all that and I can jump into an airbus or a Boeing and go to some destination that I will probably never get to. And my flight lasts the full duration and no ctd or oom.

 

Use the sim you love, fly vfr, fly ifr, do what you enjoy. All I am saying is that I in use fs9 and probably will for the foreseeable future. But again, my hat's off to you for getting fsx to work for you.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I only tweak to get the desired performance and leaving visuals in the backseat most of the time.  I don't find it that frustrating, because when I'm not happy with what I get, I load up FS9.  I've spent a lot of time getting to this and I can say I'm set.  That was all I wanted, to fly the newer complex planes not available for FS9.  As long as the visuals match FS9, I'm happy.

But I get where you're coming from.  Sometimes life gets so hectic that we don't have time to mess around with settings, so as soon as we get some free time, it's straight to flying with no fiddling.

 

 

It is rather... I submit respectfully that I come to this Forum for news and information about my favoured flavour of flight simulator: FS2004 ACOF.

It is a refuge from Everything X.

 

To stumble on a thread splattered with detailed Effeh Sex settings ... is like a reminder that the Viking has just splattered the brains of the priest on the rectory door.

 

I'm sure the Other Forum will be delighted to take this discussion further.

Please.

 

First, I apologize for ruining you're wonderful day with my thread.  With all due respect, did you even read my OP?

It's a thread about how people who have weak machines like me who are running FS9 can tweak FSX to the point that it looks and runs a lot like FS9 so we can use the latest complex add on airplanes that we're missing out on in FS9 (ngx, 777).

Seriously, you knew what you were getting yourself into just by opening the thread.  Is it that hard to just skip the thread and not have to read it if "Effeh Sex" bothers you so much?  I'm actually quite surprised something like this got you so fired up.

Feel free to report this post to the mods and have them decide what to do with it.  Looks like it's not going to end well anyway because some people seem to look at this as a conversion thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...