What computer Hardware can Handle FSDT the best?

[Hnla]

Big Sceneries, might I say, such as FSDT, put a-lot of load on the FlightSim, and for me, usually brings down the graphics by a-lot. Especially FSX with extra mesh complexity to add on to the load.

I realize that lowering the mesh complexity can help this, as the resolution frames out farther in the distance while playing FS9 will become more blurry than you can imagine. If you are like me, and like as much realism features of your flightsim as possible, I would be much interested on learning about the best computers that can handle a big load on the graphics as much as FSDT does.

I'll be looking forward to hearing your responses!

[Frank Lindberg]

Like my PC. Take a look at my spec.   however, I'll stay with fs9 for now. I did try fsx, but I didn't like it, so... 

[Hnla]

Like mine, take a look at my spec.

8 GB Ram? Thats a little worry-some.

Without completely using up your entire memory space, as further clarified.  

[Frank Lindberg]

8 GB of ram is more than enough for fsx...   

[Hnla]

8 GB of ram is more than enough for fsx...    

FSX alone, the game requires on the hard drive, 14GB.

But you are right, only 1GB is needed for RAM.

Add-ons add more needed space also.

[virtuali]

Regardless how much RAM you can, FSX will never use more than 3GB on a 32 bit OS (and even less, if your graphic card has lots of VRAM), and will never use more than 4GB on a 64 bit OS, since FSX is a 32 bit app, so it's limited in how much memory it can use.

In fact, having 8GB would be probably slower than having 6GB, since most of modern mainboards use triple-channel DDR3 RAM, which works at the fastest speed when installed in multiple of three so, the best configs would be 3GB, 6GB, 9GB, 12GB, etc.

[virtuali]

I realize that lowering the mesh complexity can help this

Mesh is not one of the demanding things in FSX, on a decent system, you can usually have it set at the maximum complexity without much issues.

The most demanding things in FSX are:

- AI Traffic and Ground/Ship traffic. Never, ever, use 100% AI traffic with default AI, since they are not optimized for AI use, the default AI are exactly the same models as the flyable ones, so they are detailed to be good at close distance, which is overkill for AI usage. A good AI package in native FSX format, like Flight1 UT2 or MyTrafficX can give much better traffic coverage, and with the appropriate settings, even better fps than default.

- Autogen. There's no need to put it at the maximum setting, since even the lowest ones are visually denser than FS9 anyway so, a middle setting would probably by ok, and should gain quite a bit of fps

- Bloom in DX9. This is really the biggest frame rate eater, can take at least 8-10 fps alone, in DX9. Under DX10 it's much better, but there are many other issues with scenery that it's usually best to stick with DX9, and just forget about bloom.

- Water at the highest quality setting. Use "2.0 Low" or "2.0 Mid", the quality will be very similar (what changes it's only the resolution of the *reflections*) but the fps will go up

- If you use lots of AI, turning Airplane Shadows OFF will result in a good fps increase too.

[Dimon]

Too many "turn offs" for the program that was released 5 years ago.  

[Hnla]

I realize that lowering the mesh complexity can help this

Mesh is not one of the demanding things in FSX, on a decent system, you can usually have it set at the maximum complexity without much issues.

FSDT with the Mesh set to 100%? I am almost positive that can slow down the system dramatically. I have experienced this, when I span over the scenery with other outside mesh.

The most demanding things in FSX are:

- AI Traffic and Ground/Ship traffic. Never, ever, use 100% AI traffic with default AI, since they are not optimized for AI use, the default AI are exactly the same models as the flyable ones, so they are detailed to be good at close distance, which is overkill for AI usage. A good AI package in native FSX format, like Flight1 UT2 or MyTrafficX can give much better traffic coverage, and with the appropriate settings, even better fps than default.

Realism, comes with AI traffic, so for the better I choose to use WOAI, they have every airline, so I am guessing a-lot of WOAI can can crowd up things at an FSDT airport.

- Autogen. There's no need to put it at the maximum setting, since even the lowest ones are visually denser than FS9 anyway so, a middle setting would probably by ok, and should gain quite a bit of fps

Thanks for the tip, I have been setting everything to the highest possible, because as I said in my previous post, I like realism to the 100% (same with WOAI)

- Water at the highest quality setting. Use "2.0 Low" or "2.0 Mid", the quality will be very similar (what changes it's only the resolution of the *reflections*) but the fps will go up

The default water texture sets drive me crazy. I usually purchase ground environment, with the new water texture sets. Probably does put even more load on the FSDT scenery.

[Frank Lindberg]

Too many "turn offs" for the program that was released 5 years ago.  

I totally agree 

FSX was a failure from the start, regarding the graphic. We have to wait for the MS flight, so we can use our 64 bit system right? 

[Hnla]

FSX was a failure from the start, regarding the graphic. We have to wait for the MS flight, so we can use our 64 bit system right?

FSX graphics have really evolved from FS9, and thats what I like about FSX. I do wish there was a work-around to have moving vehicles in FS9, as that feature in FSX just puts the realism to the limits.

[virtuali]

FSDT with the Mesh set to 100%? I am almost positive that can slow down the system dramatically. I have experienced this, when I span over the scenery with other outside mesh.

I can't see ANY difference in fps changing the Mesh from, let's say, 50% to 100% with any of our sceneries. But there might be visual issues in some sceneries, like KDFW.

Realism, comes with AI traffic, so for the better I choose to use WOAI, they have every airline, so I am guessing a-lot of WOAI can can crowd up things at an FSDT airport.

WOAI was a good choice in FS9, not so good in FSX. Those are all FS9 ported models, and the performance hit can be significant in FSX, products with native FSX models performs much better. Also, using FS9 AI models will result in problems with sceneries with custom runways, forcing you to turn off Airplane shadows.

I agree, WOAI it's freeware, but if it's eating up 30% of your fps, forcing you to purchase a better CPU, there goes all the freeware advantage...

Thanks for the tip, I have been setting everything to the highest possible, because as I said in my previous post, I like realism to the 100% (same with WOAI)

Well..."realism" when referring to something which is generated automatically based on algorithms, like Autogen, is very subjecting, since the actual quantity of houses and trees you see, other than landclass assignment, doesn't have much relation to real world anyway, it's really a matter of personal preferences.

The default water texture sets drive me crazy. I usually purchase ground environment, with the new water texture sets. Probably does put even more load on the FSDT scenery.

Regardless of what water textures you use, the effect of that slider is still the same, because it affects the shader algorithm FSX use to render any water reflection so, you should see fps increases when using "Low 2.0" or "Mid 2.0", with any textures set.

Of course, will only affect FSDT airports close to lots of water, like JFK, KFLL, PHNL. With KORD or KLAS it might not be noticeable.

[virtuali]

FSX graphics have really evolved from FS9, and thats what I like about FSX. I do wish there was a work-around to have moving vehicles in FS9, as that feature in FSX just puts the realism to the limits.

If one would try to match FSX, feature by feature, in FS9, it would result in a FS9 slower than FSX.

The whole idea of measuring performances using ONLY the fps counter, it's wrong from the start.

Fps ( "Frames per second" ) doesn't tell anything about the efficiency of an engine, if there isn't information about HOW MUCH stuff is being drawn.

So, for example, if a typical FS9 scene (scenery+mesh+airport+ai+clouds) has 150.000 polygons, and it runs at 60 fps, while a similar scene in the same area under FSX is made of 500.000 polygons and runs at 30 fps, that means the FSX engine is 1.7x times FASTER, since FS9 is drawing 9 millions/polys per second, and FSX is drawing 15 milions/polys per second.

[Hnla]

I can't see ANY difference in fps changing the Mesh from, let's say, 50% to 100% with any of our sceneries. But there might be visual issues in some sceneries, like KDFW.

As I mentioned, I always use an ground texture enhancement product in my flight sim game, (usually Ground Environment Pro), which brings the load on with the FSDT sceneries, rather than the default ones. GEP has options to lower the complexity, but if your purchasing a $60.00 add on, why bring the complexity down at all?

Also, using FS9 AI models will result in problems with sceneries with custom runways, forcing you to turn off Airplane shadows.

Didn't really run into any issues with this, as the WOAI traffic 99% of the time would land right in the middle of the runway, even on your FSDT product addons.

Well..."realism" when referring to something which is generated automatically based on algorithms, like Autogen, is very subjecting, since the actual quantity of houses and trees you see, other than landclass assignment, doesn't have much relation to real world anyway, it's really a matter of personal preferences

The Flight Sim Autogen is meant to give an illusion and shades of roads, meant to look real from up in the sky, but when you fly close to ground, it just looks like colored cardboard with a few houses plopped on top of it. From my understanding, increasing the "Autogen" just increases the rate of houses and trees, but does absolutely nothing about the illusion that FS9 produced.

FSX sort of gets better at this, with the moving vehicles.

Regardless of what water textures you use, the effect of that slider is still the same, because it affects the shader algorithm FSX use to render any water reflection so, you should see fps increases when using "Low 2.0" or "Mid 2.0", with any textures set.

Eh, I am leery on this one. Some water enhancing products will completely override everything, but still have options to increase, or decrease the shader, and same goes with reflection. It's all a painting.

If one would try to match FSX, feature by feature, in FS9, it would result in a FS9 slower than FSX.

But from my experience, it's still the same when I run FSX with no addons, choppy, and very slow, and graphics are dramatically decreased. But, that probably lies on Computer Hardware.

The whole idea of measuring performances using ONLY the fps counter, it's wrong from the start.

What is wrong from the start? the FPS?

So, for example, if a typical FS9 scene (scenery+mesh+airport+ai+clouds) has 150.000 polygons, and it runs at 60 fps, while a similar scene in the same area under FSX is made of 500.000 polygons and runs at 30 fps, that means the FSX engine is 1.7x times FASTER, since FS9 is drawing 9 millions/polys per second, and FSX is drawing 15 milions/polys per second.

Well that all depends on add-ons, the load you put on everything, you can increase the polygons by spanning to a FSDT airport just as much as in any FS game.

[virtuali]

As I mentioned, I always use an ground texture enhancement product in my flight sim game, (usually Ground Environment Pro), which brings the load on with the FSDT sceneries, rather than the default ones. GEP has options to lower the complexity, but if your purchasing a $60.00 add on, why bring the complexity down at all?

Ground texture enhancement product are not affected in any way by the Mesh settings, mesh is ONLY the resolution of altitude points, the impact on fps of the Mesh setting is always the same, regardless which ground textures are used.

Didn't really run into any issues with this, as the WOAI traffic 99% of the time would land right in the middle of the runway, even on your FSDT product addons.

I wasn't referring to landing capabilities, that's depend only by the AFCAD of the scenery and the AI flight models.

The issue is entirely different: if you don't turn Airplane Shadows OFF when using FS9 AI models over a scenery that has custom runway textures+lights, they will disappear. Not ALL our sceneries requires this, but some of them do. And not just *our* sceneries, but ANY scenery that use that kind of custom runway commands.

Without mentioning the impact of FS9 models in FSX, which is slower than running native FSX models.

We also work with the Qualitywings guys, and when they upgraded their 757 to have a native FSX model (the first release was an FS9 model that ran in FSX), they gained something like 8-10 fps JUST because of that. Now, multiply that for so many AI you might see around you, and you'll understand why using FS9 AI traffic in FSX is not a good idea.

The Flight Sim Autogen is meant to give an illusion and shades of roads, meant to look real from up in the sky, but when you fly close to ground, it just looks like colored cardboard with a few houses plopped on top of it.

Road/rivers, etc, it's not Autogen, it's VTP Terrain and it's generated from a (hopefully real-world based) database, not from an automatic algorithm.

From my understanding, increasing the "Autogen" just increases the rate of houses and trees, but does absolutely nothing about the illusion that FS9 produced.

Exactly, autogen does ONLY that. And there's not much difference about the "illusion" between FS9 and FSX, except  FSX can be up to 10x denser at high settings and has more variety.

Eh, I am leery on this one. Some water enhancing products will completely override everything, but still have options to increase, or decrease the shader, and same goes with reflection. It's all a painting.

If they have entirely overridden the default Shader, and offer options to control its resolution, then the concept it's he same: lowering the reflection resolution will benefit fps, regardless which setting you use to control it, either the FSX default, or the corresponding custom setting made by a 3rd party.

But from my experience, it's still the same when I run FSX with no addons, choppy, and very slow, and graphics are dramatically decreased. But, that probably lies on Computer Hardware.

FSX with no addons runs just fine on any decent and properly set modern (less than 2 year) system.

What is wrong from the start? the FPS?

The fixation with the FPS counter, without understanding what it means. When graphic game developers talks about how good/bad an engine is, they never discuss FRAMES per second but rather POLYGONS per second.

And yes, FPS still doesn't mean anything if we don't know the variance: a system that generated 60 frames during the first half of a second and then it *stopped* for the 2nd half, IS running at 30 fps, but that would be an horribly unflyable jerky motion. Another system running at 30 fps, with EVERY frame perfectly spaced 1/30th of a second from the next one, will be silk smooth. Both will show 30 fps on their fps counter...

Well that all depends on add-ons, the load you put on everything, you can increase the polygons by spanning to a FSDT airport just as much as in any FS game.

Which is exactly what I've said: it's no use looking at the fps alone, without knowing WHAT is being drawn.