Author Topic: Poor performance  (Read 68813 times)

inbetween

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #75 on: January 04, 2012, 01:14:31 am »
Hi guys, i'm not one to complain about performance at all but i too am getting some pretty poor results with LAX and it's deterring me from purchasing at the moment. I'm really sorry if i sound cheeky asking for support on this but i'm fully willing to purchase LAX right now if i can get it performing well under the trial mode. I'm going to try and remove a few BGL's to try and boost it a little, such as the grass type effects but i'm not sure how, is there any specific ones i can remove which would possibly give it a boost? In other sceneries i'm getting perfectly acceptable FPS, the only damaging sceneries i've encountered so far have been LAX and Flightbeams KSFO.

This is also without running any AI, 20 miles of visibility and clear skies under a relatively fresh FS9 installation.

I was having poor performance with LAX too under a similar system and installation and decided against purchase however with RAM corruption ruining my previous installation i decided to revamp the entire system and also make the trip to 64bit.

My system if it helps is -

Q6600 Intel Quad Kentsfield @ 2.80GHz
Gainward (GLH) 460 GTX 1GB
600W Corsair PSU
4GB Corsair XMS2 DHX
Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium
Also running a Sandisk 8GB USB flash drive with Readyboost

Any other ideas?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2012, 01:18:00 am by inbetween »

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51642
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #76 on: January 04, 2012, 11:53:59 am »
When you'll revamp your system, the better choice you could do, is to just upgrade to FSX, as explained here:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4899.msg45498#msg45498

You can see a comparison between LSZH and KLAX in FS9 and FSX, and see how the more FS9-ish LSZH runs very well under FS9, while KLAX runs faster on FSX on the same system under the same testing conditions, reason for this is just that FSX scales much well with very complex sceneries.

As was already explained in this thread, this is how the FS9 version is and it won't be changed, we'll update the scenery ONLY for obvious bugs, not for performance reasons, we still have on sale the Cloud9 version which will run way better with FS9 on lesser systems, which means there's no reason why we should struggle to remake FSDT KLAX on FS9.

The Trial is there, if you are not happy with performances, simply don't buy it.

Once you update your system, give the Trial another chance and, if you can, try the FSX version too.

keino333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2012, 06:28:36 am »
I find it difficult remaining as an observer in this post and I would be remiss if I did not share my experience.
Although LAXv2 runs exceptionally well on my rig (as seen on my recent screenshots),
I have noticed minor shutters, However consider this:
 
my system
PrecisionT3500
W3520 @ 2.67Ghz
64-bit
Intel(R) Xeon
Graphic Card Nivdia Quadro FX3800
RAM 24GB

Running FS9
438 addons (scenery only)
REX
EnbSeries
GEPro
UT/USA Europe and Alaska
FSGenesis world NextGen and Aster
AES
ASE
FSPax
FSFlightkeeper
Aiseparation
WOAI

Settings: all maxed
Only no shadows on gates and buildings Dynamic Objects
AI - 100%

FS9 Cfg. I've set the "Max Texture Load" to 12400 (Important my Graphic Card and CPU) loads Textures faster for me

Granted, if I brought down the sliders on Autogen and turn off aircraft shadows, shutters will be non-existent.  The system runs both FS9 and FSX; however I have to use an the updated Graphic card driver on FSX.
Additionally, I've discovered that when using Quality Wings VC 757 or and 2dpanel I experience a huge fps hit.  Hence I don't fly into LAX or DFW in the VC models for this equipment. In fact, freeKPHL by SunSkyJ is worst.   Ironically, Level-D vc, Ifly 737 vc, CLS A330/340 vc I don't experience the same.  These crafts breeze thru to landings/takeoffs and taxing.

With LAXv2, FS9 may have met or is on the cusp of its limit.

Similarly, Its clear that we are all still awaiting for the proper CPU spec that meets or surpasses the demands of FSX.  It's safe to say that both Pmdg NGX and LAXv2 are before their time.  Its surely an eye opener, as this is just the beginning of FSX possibilities.

Instead of holding back FSDT (funny I should make this remark, being the avid FS9ner) we should heed Umberto's recommendations regarding scenery selection matching to that of the CPU capacity.     

I wish you all the best

Keino   

FlyByFire1256

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2012, 05:56:44 pm »
 After reading through all six pages of this discussion I felt the need to get involved. I downloaded KLAX Trial last night and had 30-40fps and was absolutely satisfied, the blur on the taxiways and the cargo ramp, I'm okay with after reading the reasoning behind it. What I am NOT okay with is how on my computer this scenery causes switches in view or screen to desktop to blackout and take a very long time to load and freeze up. I just want an answer as to why this might be unlike other scenery from FSDT that don't cause this. Im running a pretty much brand new just built in August i7-2600 3.4ghz NVIDIA gtx 560ti 2GB and 8G ram without getting into all the finer details and if it's something on my end, then I'll deal with it but... I have to say I am actually really disappointed in the posts I have seen by administrators of this site saying how out of the many only four have come to you with issues so its not worth discussing further or fixing, well then make me the fifth. What if it was only five people who had it working well and the many had the poor performance. There's no doubt you've been the upcoming top notch scenery designers on the market for awhile now, but don't let it get to your heads. Support is support, do it right or don't at all..

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51642
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2012, 06:58:16 pm »
What if it was only five people who had it working well and the many had the poor performance.

If you are counting people, please count them on both sides.

Even if the thread is 6 pages long, there have been exactly 5 people stating they don't have any performance problems, and exactly 5 people stating they have fps problems, and 2 people including you saying they don't have fps problems, but slow view switching.

So, using your own reasoning that maybe there are just 5 people in the world that can run the scenery successfully, we might also assume there are only 6-7 at best that aren't.

I'm sorry, but this is not a support matter, the scenery is like this, and as explained several times already, you have several choices available:

- The Trial version, to verify before purchasing how the scenery works.

- The Cloud9 version, which is surely works much better in FS9, and that one a a Trial version too.

You are using a system perfectly capable of running FSX, if you have decided to under use it by installing FS9 on, because you thought that using a system that would run well FSX might *scream* in FS9, this not the case. NOT if FSX is used with PROPER FSX addons.

FS9 would get an unfair advantage if you stuff FSX with FS9 ports (like World of AI airplane, legacy FS8 and FS9 sceneries, etc.), in that case yes, then FS9 would be faster, but STILL under-using your powerful CPU+video card combination. But if you take care of using only proper FSX products into FS9, and I don't even have a problem open admitting that, of all our sceneries, the only PROPER FSX ones are:

- KLAX
- KDFW
- XPOI
- Cloud9 KMCO

Everything else we have on sale is still "poisoned" by legacy FS9 code and methods, which is why we have a program to update all our existing sceneries to KDFW/KLAX methods.

There was only ONE post in this whole thread that closed question forever, and it was my comparison shot that show how Zurich is much faster in FS9 than FSX, and how KLAX it's faster in FSX instead.

The scenery doesn't have anything wrong, except that it pushes the old FS9 engine way too close to the limit of what it can do, up to a point that we even had to get rid of LODs, because otherwise the objects wouldn't even *compile* under FS9, let alone display.


That sums it all, and I'm sorry, but there will be no changes to this. We might even consider solving the blurred hangar text, that will of course drive performances further down (surely not up...), but it might still be a reasonable request.

Expecting that KLAX would ever perform to Zurich-like levels on FS9, I'm sorry, but that's not possible. Again, the Trial version is your best friend.

midge80

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #80 on: February 04, 2012, 10:25:49 am »
I feel obliged to comment here, I've purchased 5 FSDT airports now for fs9 and they are very good, when I bought KLAX initially the issue was with the screens taking around 10 seconds to load, stutters are minimal and FPS are good, the way I've got around it is to put Global Texture to High from Massive and the screen blackouts last about 2 seconds, which I can live with as the Scenery is fantastic, all I will say for whatever the next release is, please bear in mind that a lot simmers still use FS9 as they have bought a lot of add-ons over the years and like myself are reluctant to start again I've thought about upgrading everything for FSX but as I say a lot of investment has gone into FS9.

So please consider FS9 users with sceneries and if thigns can be adapted to make good running on peoples systems then that'd be great!

LAX though is fantastic well done

keino333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Poor performance
« Reply #81 on: February 24, 2012, 03:33:18 pm »
My fellow pilot brothers....here is something I use that has made a noticeable improvement to shutters...

http://www.g-forums.net/general-discussion/2289-game-booster-3-download.html


cheers