Printable View
Is anyone here playing FSX with muti GPU's? e.g. Crossfire/SLI..
I've just ordered a new monitor, Acer 24" 1920x1200, and was thinking that the increased res may put strain on my current rig.
I'm using an HD4870 1Gb, and it performs pretty well on my current 1600x1200 monitor, but it could be better. (Rest of my rig is in the sig)..
Does FSX scale well in multi GPUs? If I add a second 4870 in Crossfire, would it make much of an improvement?
Thanks.
FSX does not take advantage of Crossfire or SLI and can actually run a little worse using these methods.
However, I've got 2 x 4870's in Crossfire X and my main game is FSX, but I only bought the second 4870 because it was going cheap on ebay and was identical to my original, also I do play a couple of other games like CoD4 that do take advantage of Crossfire X, when I play FSX I'll normally uncheck Crossfire X or if I forget just live with the fact I'm losing on average a couple of frames a second for that session.
I'm running a 24" LCD @ 1920 x 1200, so if you have a 1GB 4870 already, you will be fine, just don't expect the silly FPS figures extreme Gamers want and can get in some of the shooters, in FSX it will be years before any hardware can do that, but it doesn't need it, on my machine with a well tweaked OS and FSX install, I can get between 18 to 50 FPS on average and it never stutters and is quite fluid in flight.
I actually lose FPS using SLI with two 280gtx's, only bought them for FSX too.
1920x1080 with 8x 4x AA/AF pretty much constant 18-24fps. I have quite a lot of realisim/high def scenery packs though.
Ok, thanks for the advice. The monitor has arrived, so I'll do some testing on my single 4870.
I too play COD4 among others, so I might buy a second card anyway. like you say, I can always uncheck crossfire before playing FSX.
You won't have to uncheck Crossfire with your system Darxide. My system is close to your's and I run FSX and I don't uncheck Crossfire. I get 50 fps at a minimum on my system. FSX is more CPU dependant then GPU. I also run my monitor at 1920X1200 as well.
Would you care to lay your reputation down on the line with this. in FS Circles? You get 50 FPS at a minimum? stop being an arsehole, mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Crossfiire X offers absolutely NOTHING in FSX it never did and it never will.
Stop clouding the Issue.
You can always spot the unrealistic Guys in FSX ...... 50 FPS at a minimum, and his spec .... Oh dear :)
why not just use the crossfire fixer for FSX....??? it would probably work fine, FSX is D3D right?
I managed slightly better FPS when i added my second GTX280 in FSX but i have my effects spiced up. Biggest earnings were a change from the E8600 to the i7 920 and modification of the configuration file in order to make FSX aware of all 4 cores. FSX is very CPU dependent as we all know. My framerate in loaded scenarios can go as low as 20fps but in open sea raises to 70 sometimes as there's nothing there :P
Care to elaborate how to do this? I also have a i7 920 @ 4ghz but FSX doesn't even use the full power of 2 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
I never said that Crossfire added anything in FSX I jsut said that there is no need to disable it. Yes I get 50fps at a minimum and it will climb to 180fps depending on alltitude and how complex tihe sceenery is at the time. What the h*ll is FS Circles? I'll post a couple screen shot's later when I get home from work.Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
Mate ... I beta test FSX software add-ons and hardware for the hobby, there is no computer on the planet that can run FSX at a 50 FPS minimum climbing to 180 FPS, unless you have all sliders to the left, are running the lowest resolution possible and are flying over just water all the time, then you might as well be using FS5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
I dare you and double dare you to show un-doctored screen shots showing average FPS on the Tokyo mission or flying over any large city in FSX.
I don't mean to be a hardware snob, but you are *NOT* getting 50 FPS as a minimum on the rig in your sig.
And yes ... Crossfire as well as SLI will slow down the performance in FSX slightly, its not only well documented but I know this from first hand experience.
Ok here you are, flight is from Norfork, VA (Norfork International) to Washington DC (Reagan International) alt. 4000ft flying over Newport News, VA.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7978/...91largeweb.jpg
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8359/...6largewebv.jpg
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
Get your magnifying glass out you will see 55.5fps
Just thought I would add these
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7520/52200923913pm.png
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6830/52200923848pm.png
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
whats the draw of fsx? it seems really really slow to me...
OK, so despite the arguments, you're all agreed that Crossfire will do squat for FSX?
Thanks, and yes, I know FSX is very CPU heavy, it's the only game I have that maxes out my Phenom II.
I have no loyalty to any CPU maker, but if I'd gone with an i7, I would have ended up with an overall weaker machine, because I wouldn't have been able to afford the Raptor drives, or the 24" screen etc etc.....
LOL.. i cant make didelly sqwat from his FSP readouts, can anyone else?
These shots are extremely low quality though and definatly not representative of what FSX can do.
Can anyone make out the FPS in top left hand corner?
My main computer is down (setting up watercooling) but it's easy to find through google. Basically this:Quote:
Originally Posted by fiskov
Set AffinityMask=15 in the fsx.cfg file. This mask will enable use of all the 4 cores of the CPU. Make sure the latest service pack is installed though.
Here's one of the sources i used for information. I can also post pictures and settings once i get the computer up and running again (monday / tuesday) if you think it can help.
Source
Cheers :up:
Cheers for that, looks like it's working according to Task Manager.
Not sure whether its effected the FPS, but it does seem to have made the game smoother.
Yeah it still doesn't make FULL use of a Quad, but the performance increase is indeed notorious. Shame the engine doesn't rely on GPU some more, like i posted before :(
With the current situation of the Studios, it never will probably... Shame, it's an awesome sim.
i lol'ed after i tried to find a highres version of his screens but couldn't find any :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
these screens are kind of useless if you ask me :shrug:
Ok here for your weak eyes I zoomed in for you.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7427/52200992951pm.png
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
Thats a 66.5 fps in that shot
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5796/52200993041pm.png
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-02
That says 52.9 fps there.
Absolutely Crossfire makes no improvement at all, but it also isn't worth disableling for just for this sim either.
If you want to save a few FPS, then yes it is worth switching Crossfire off, its been well documented and I know this for a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
In FSX, you need all the FPS you can get (apart from your rig obviously) that's why we tweak it inside out.
LOL m8, what resolution is that, 640x480? (you said you had a 24" LCD, right) also check the jaggies, you also have the detail very very low for those screenies. and your water setting and autogen is very low too, also what happened to your 180 FPS claims?
That's not what FSX is about. I could turn everything down too and get the same sort of FPS figures or higher.
Now this is what FSX can look like, anything less and you might as well stick with FS9 or even FS8. Just dont expect frame rates that you talk of in FSX if you are using it like you are supposed to :)
http://www.aerosoft.com/forum_screen...ancisco_02.jpg
http://www.flusi.info/pics/aaa/aaa_40.jpg
http://objects.thorstenreichert.de/A..._Preview40.jpg
Notice how he fails to include his FPS in his shots. Also you must not have checked the setting shot showing 1920x1200 at 32bit color. Also the screen shot shows autogen on max.
Ok I don't take many screen shots from FSX but here is one.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5245/...26mediumwe.jpg
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-15
Then this close up so hopefully you can see
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1349/515200910227pm.png
By knuckles6 at 2009-05-15
That's 136 fps there and before you cry that there isn't much for sceenery I already said that altitude does give a higher frame rate then low level flight. Oh and one more thing, I NEVER claimed to have all my settings maxed out. All I ever really said is it's not needed to disable Crossfire for the sim. The gain in FPS isn't that great to make it worth while to take the time to deactivate Crossfire.
Mate this is not a FSX FPS Competition, you came on here bragging your rig can do 50 FPS at a minimum rising to 180 FPS ... these are your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
My FPS and the whole majority of the FSX community have far far lower FPS than you claim, especially average FPS, you are running the sim on low detail for the screenie's, that's quite obvious.
Its quite easy to post screens of settings at max or high, then change it to low resolution, low detail settings like you have, to back up your ridiculous claims. Please dont take us for Fools.
The proof is in the pictures, anyone would think you were promoting FS5 with your screenies, not FS10.
Here's (Once More) some screens of what FSX can look like (I'm claiming low FPS here Folks) when you go above the detail level of its predecessor FS9.
Manhattan X
I get about 14 to 25 FPS from the rig in my sig in this area.
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...hattanx_21.jpg
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...hattanx_22.jpg
Now go buy this scenery, run it the detail levels needed to get these shots .... This is yours FFS.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7427/52200992951pm.png
You come back and tell us what FPS you get on that Wonder rig of yours in the same situations.
Jeez, talk about comparing Apples with Oranges :)
Mate, a stock install of FSX like you have is not worth having, and is certainly not comparative of the bigger picture.
But if you are happy, then why worry.
k so someone please tell me - have any of you tried crossfire fixer? does it help?
:) No you never, did you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
And I'm still saying, FSX is a CPU hog, so if a proven method like switching off crossfire saves a few FPS, then we do it.
YMMV and it obviously does.
Mate this is not a FSX FPS Competition, you came on here bragging your rig can do 50 FPS at a minimum rising to 180 FPS ... these are your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
My FPS and the whole majority of the FSX community have far far lower FPS than you claim, especially average FPS, you are running the sim on low detail for the screenie's, that's quite obvious.
Its quite easy to post screens of settings at max or high, then change it to low resolution, low detail settings like you have, to back up your ridiculous claims. Please dont take us for Fools.
The proof is in the pictures, anyone would think you were promoting FS5 with your screenies, not FS10.
Here's (Once More) some screens of what FSX can look like (I'm claiming low FPS here Folks) when you go above the detail level of its predecessor FS9.
Manhattan X
I get about 14 to 25 FPS from the rig in my sig in this area.
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...hattanx_21.jpg
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...hattanx_22.jpg
Now go buy this scenery, run it to the detail levels needed to get these shots .... not this
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7427/52200992951pm.png
And tell us what FPS you get on that Wonder rig of yours.
The only thing I've bought for add-ons for FSX are a couple more aircraft. Don't see the need in adding any scenery. Also 14fps is to slow for smooth flight. I do admit it looks pretty but if its not smooth flight then to me its not worth it. I do know I want a couple more add-ons but again they will be aircraft.
Aha, we're getting somewhere now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Actually mate, you can have smooth flight in FSX as low as 12 FPS perhaps lower FPS, its stutter that is the worry, when that happens the smooth illusion of flight is ruined.
The good thing about FSX is that it can maintain a more constant low FPS than FS9 did, without stutter, but this is obviously now moot. as the machines that now run an average FSX install, run FS9 too.
The good thing about Microsoft closing the FS studio's for now is, the third market partys like Aerosoft have all the more time to concentrate on this target.
Our Computer hardware will grow into it, the longer Microsoft stall a FS11 Comeback.
The Future is looking good with projected scenery area's like this.
San Francisco X
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...ancisco_17.jpg
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...rancisco_1.jpg
http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilde...rancisco_2.jpg
Jesus christ, amazing scenery and chopper!
Let me say it again, W-O-W! I gotta go find that, who makes them?
Start here mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMcO
http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?show0
Ah, thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
I have a scenery from them already (my dad's offer) i didn't realize how magnificent San Francisco was. Thanks!
Well the new screen is up and running, so thanks for the advice. As expected it does take a bit of a hit running now @ 1920x1200, but overall I'm pretty happy with it.
M31, you seem to know your FSX, can I ask if more RAM will help FSX?
I have 4Gb of PC2-8500 (2x2Gb), and still have 2 free slots.
Seeing as RAM is so cheap nowadays, would an extra 4Gb help at all?
I have a 'stock' FSX Deluxe install, but I'm gonna add some extras soon, I've just ordered the Heathrow Mega Airport pack.
I take it you don't get this stuff in the free demo :)Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
How much does it cost to set up the full thing plus any add ons to get such quality?
Did not help me much.... I downloaded it because i wanted better frames.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
But yah i would agree with the Multi GPU thing about it hurting more then helping...i too seen it first hand.
"Actually mate, you can have smooth flight in FSX as low as 12 FPS perhaps lower FPS, its stutter that is the worry, when that happens the smooth illusion of flight is ruined.
The good thing about FSX is that it can maintain a more constant low FPS than FS9 did, without stutter, but this is obviously now moot. as the machines that now run an average FSX install, run FS9 too.
The good thing about Microsoft closing the FS studio's for now is, the third market partys like Aerosoft have all the more time to concentrate on this target.
Our Computer hardware will grow into it, the longer Microsoft stall a FS11 Comeback.
The Future is looking good with projected scenery area's like this.
San Francisco X"
Those are nice shots, to bad they are from the makers web site and not your computer.
What difference does it make? I was pointing out how FSX can look, not how bad it can look (as in your case) and then claim high FPS as if this should be the norm ... i've said it before and its worth repeating, but you would be better off with FS9 if you don't want exotic add-ons, then you could claim 500 FPS if you turned the detail on that down too. Better still, go back to FS1 and claim 1000 FPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Oh and San Francisco X had not been released when I linked to Aerosofts site, though its out now.
Would you like me to post some screenshots from FSX on my PC? I wont be claiming ultra high FPS though and never did, you are missing the whole point mate.
Too much :confused: Over the years I've always built my PC's for FS and its cost an absolute fortune, my rig in sig runs FSX very well now, but that's down to OS and FSX tweaking as well the overclocking, there is lot you can do to FSX to make it look good and run better for free if you follow Nick N's guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xello
http://www.simforums.com/forums/foru...TID=29041&PN=1
Follow that to the letter where it is applicable to your system and you will have a much better looking and performing FSX.
I really want to upgrade to I7 for best FSX performance, but have a lot of other financial outlay this year, but come spring 2010 I'll be building a complete new system based on the best I7 hardware available at the time, should be more options than there is now.
I'd thought about another 4GB too, but for FSX, even with Vista 64 you are really not going to notice any difference, at least that is the general consensus of opinion from FSX enthusiasts who have tried it, its CPU muscle high clock speed FSX benefits most from (all other things being equal) take a look at Nick N's excellent OS and FSX tuning guide I linked too above, there are good pointers for FSX hardware as well as tips that can be done for free as regards optimizing, he updates it regularly too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darxide
Oh i'm sure the system could handle it, i meant just for the software itself. I'm seeing FSX 'deluxe edition' for £25, how much are the add ons or textures or scenery and what not? Are they just available on download?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xello
Sorry, misunderstood you, yes your rig has the potential to be an FSX dream computer, but because of the way FSX dislikes dual GPU, even one of your GTX295's will be overkill, in fact Nick goes on to say in his article that because a GTX295 is apparently a dual GPU card, FSX will suffer slightly because of that, in the same way my Crossfire X does with my 4870's, not sure if you can turn off one GPU on a 295? but what can we do? Like you I play other stuff (though FSX is my main game) I'm sure if you can disable one of those cards in SLI for FSX, then you will still be good to go, there must be a work a round for FSX for this, if I was building a dedicated FSX rig only I'd go for a single GPU GTX285 or even an old GTX 8800 ... its ridiculous how poorly optimised FSX was, wasn't it?
Do a google on GTX295 and FSX.
Anyway we have what we have and we just have to make the best of it, fortunately there is a lot that can be done thanks to the flight sim community.
If you are looking to buy FSX from scratch, then go for the De-Luxe version at least, to this you can add the absolute necessary SP1 and SP2 FSX patches, though if you buy the FSX Acceleration add on, this ships with FSX SP1 and SP2. You can now buy a version called FSX Gold, that includes FSX Deluxe and Acceleration (I notice you are from the UK) that can be had quite cheap now from Ebay or the likes of Play24, do a google for FSX Gold prices ... I'm guessing maybe £25? I'd go for this if I were you.
There is an early FSX demo still available, but this is terribly optimised and only serves to put people off, this is what the full FSX was like before SP1 gave us more than one CPU core utilisation, even after SP2 we are still not getting perfect multi core usage, it seems to peak out with 2 cores and loads scenery a bit better with a quad but can use as many as 24 cores apparently?
There are a ton of excellent community made free add ons for FSX that could be had from Avsim (its down just now due to hacking) but the best are pay for add-ons and although individually attractively priced, these can add up over time, check the Aerosoft site for a start, for scenery and aircraft add ons and you will see the sort of price you will need to pay.
http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?show0
I dont know what I've spent in add ons (its embarrassing) but to put things in perspective, my FSX folder on my dedicated FSX Raptor is now 93GB with 225,913 files in 5,148 folders.
Then there are the dedicated FS controllers I've invested in over the years, the ones I've paid for in my sig so far come to about £500, not including the older gen stuff sitting in the cupboard, but fortunately I got to beta test the soon to be released Saitek pro flight LCD Gauges, so that's saved me a bit, got to keep it for free :) I've also helped beta test some scenery add-ons around my area of Scotland n the past too.
Some may ask, well why dont you learn to fly for real? Well I have had some real life flying lessons and amassed quite a few real life flying hours from the local RAF flying club in GA Aircraft and thoroughly enjoyed those experiences, but due to my spine problem now becoming a permanent disability this is the best I can do now.
Glad you brought up Nick N's site, see I have used most of his setting for some time now. But today I duplicated all of his settings. It did lower my fps, on the ground at Memphis Internationa was 36 fps. On my flight across Tenn to Tri-Citys Airport in Bristol, Tn the fps topped out now at only 117 fps. Now I could cap the fps at any setting but I choose to leave it set to unlimited that's the only reason they go so high. I still have to laugh when you bring up the scenery because what I see is totaly FSX. You say it could be better if I used one of those packs but I can't see spending the money, see I don't fly just around New York City, San Francisco or Indianapolis in fact the only one of those citys I come near would be Indy and thats usually at 18,000 feet or above so the scenery wouldn't help much. Even on my flights into New York the routing takes you south of the city and into Kennedy from over water so again it wouldn't help much. See to me FSX is just as its suppost to be, a flight simulator. For flight simulation the majority of the program has to deal with flight not what your flying over. I set my flights for places I would like to go and those scenery packs just wouldn't help. Heck if it wasn't for stumbling on how to get the sim to show frame rates I would never know what they were. When it really comes to running the sim 90% of the time its over nothing but tree's or water and small towns. In one post you stated my water detail didn't look to good but then its set right at Nick N's settings, in fact there were a few settings I had to just lower in order to meet Nicks settings. Mostly ground features like airport traffic, highway traffic and ships and boats. I guess the one thing we agree on is Crossfire/Sli doesn't do a thing to improve FSX. I'm about to disable Crossfire to see just what affect it does have on my system.
Oh yeah you need to enable SLI even with a single 295 for both cores to work, from driver perspective it's the same as having two separate video cards, so disabling SLI takes you right down to single GPU (though instead of disabling altogether i'd just alter the SLI profile to Single GPU Mode in the control panel)
Wow most of those addons are £20 or more :eek: I can see how that adds up!!
Where abouts are you M31? Livingston here :up:
Most of what you say there is fair comment, you like to fly the airliners and I prefer the lower ground bush flying that shows the full detail in what the FSX default polygons and mesh can do, so I'd obviously prefer a bit more detail in the scenery than you, having said that, I like to fly a big Boeing or Airbus airliner from time to time too, and even the best aftermarket examples of these Aircraft will drag down FSX FPS wise, then you have to land at Airports even after driving that bus at high altitude where detailed scenery wont hurt your FPS:) For me, its not enough to land at a default FSX autogen airport with a few scattered square or rectangle polygon buildings, when so many add ons can do it so much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Oh, and as we all know, the default FSX Airliners are grim for quality ... slightly better than FS9 though.
Your take on FSX is different to mine, but that's OK, so long as we agree that to get the best out of FSX detail wise, you need the add ons, and if you dont need the add ons, then you might be better off with FS9.
We should agree to disagree.
Oh and dont follow Nicks guide to the letter, you need to take into account the different hardware like you and I have to his examples.
For what its worth, one of the things Nick has got slightly wrong in his guide (IMHO) is my slight detection of Nvidea fanboyism from him, he slates ATI because of the way the 3800 card series handled clouds in FSX ... IE terribly, with the 4800 series, this is no longer a problem, though for a dedicated FSX only comp, I'd go for a single GTX285 knowing what I know now.
I have the aerosoft London VFR pack myself, but personally, i find FSX almost unplayable when flying over/near London with it on.
It's not the FPS, those are around 12-18 like "M31" stated. It's the sevre jerks..
The only thing you can do?
Select your date/time/weather/airport/start position etc. Then wait for 10 minutes before hitting the "Fly Now" button.. For the game to buffer up a bit.
Once the games loaded and your sitting at your start position, press F12 for sky view.
Zoom right out, so you can see the Whole of the London scenery map pack and then sit and wait again for a further 10-15 minutes before attempting to do anything/move so it can buffer up.
It also means your start position must ALWAYS be London as flying into it just brings these serve jerks (unless you want to pause it and wait).
Up to you though personally, in what you require for an enjoyable flight.
Personally, i think the BEST scenery pack i have purchased which was most value for money is the:
Real Environment Xtreme pack, it brings realistic skies, oceans and runway/ground textures.
Ever since i bought this i only purchase additional aircraft now.
(Real Environment Xtreme is not shown in the picture bellow, the web site does it better justice http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/index.html )
http://home.btconnect.com/fiskov/images/777.jpg
Does the default scenery really look that bad when you only see it for 10 minutes?
I have the london VFR scenery area too, and like Manhattan X and probably the San Francisco X scenery, these are amongst some of the many that can drag FSX to its knee's and why we have to discuss why this happens and what we can do about it and even if we need them or not, with the demise of ACES who were culled by Microsoft in a knee jerk reaction to the recession, this is all we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by fiskov
If you follow Nicks guide and are prepared to at least spend a proportionate amount of your income on time as well as money from the pleasure you derive from FSX, then there is no need for stutters, if you just have a passing interest in flight simulation, then accept lower detail and enjoy.
I dont have stutters flying over Manhattan X or London VFR, at very high detail even though the frame rates in those area's can drop into the teens at times this is why optimisation is so important, its still smooth here... or by hook or by crook I'd have spent thousands more throwing money at PC hardware at it trying to improve it, but since this is my passion and I've been doing it for a few years, I've picked up a few pointers over the years!
But dont expect a magic wand fix for FSX, you can either throw expensive hardware at it to a diminishing point of return ... optimise for what you have, but it will be hard work, to optimise my FSX install to the way it is now took weeks of trial and error, and its still ongoing ... or just accept what you have and enjoy.
Good to know a single GTX295 can switch off SLI, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xello
I'm from up North, living near RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss (where I did some Piper Warrior III flying for real) I saw Aerosmith play a gig in Livingston back in about 1989 and met Steven Tyler the next day :)
Ok so I disabled Crossfire and ran the exact same route (Memphis International to Tri-City Bristol, TN) and saw no difference in the frame rate then what I saw with Crossfire enabled. Memphis International isn't a small airport either it is a hub for United Parcel Service the Super Hub and home base for FedEX. It is the largest cargo hub by volume in the world. It is a hub for Northwest (Delta) Airlines. The sim has a high level of detail for this airport. I ran this route twice in the King Air climbing to 5000ft, of course the lowest frame rate was during taxi from the gate to the runway again at a low of 26fps and when at 5000ft in eastern Tenn you make your way thru the Blue Ridge Mountains it again hit just over 100fps. It's clear that Crossfire doesn't improve anything in FSX (we already now this) but its also clear to me that when disabled it doesn't improve performance at all. Now granted if FSX was the only sim I ran on my system I would never have bothered to run Crossfire, but it's not the only sim. It's one of five that I run, and it's the only one that doesn't take advantage of Crossfire. It's just not worth the time to open CCC and disable Crossfire for its use. Oh and I don't always fly the big aircraft, in fact my favorite is the Goose followed by the King Air & P-38 Lighting from Just Flight . My favorite big aircraft would be the C-130 from Just Flight and then the CRJ700.
Which addons do you use to get that skyline?Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
Edit: NM, i see you used aerosofts addons, are there any addons other than the city addons you can recommend?
So any of you using PerfHUD...Been told by a few they use it while running FSX. Only works for Nvidia guys....but allows you to tweek What gets rendered.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nvperfhud_home.html
I need to look more into it myself.
Saw a video on it on You Tube...but couldnt get to it from my work computer.
If you mean for terrain MESH, then have a look here, a lot of the world terrain in FS9 and FSX can look generically flat without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malk
http://www.fsgenesis.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc
Good for you, my experience and others are different, there really are so many variables, but once again you are coming back with how your rig is the definitive demo-graph reference point for FSX, its not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Its not that Black and White, nothing in PC hardware or gaming ever is.
There is hardly anything in it on my rig too, but for a simulation that needs all the FPS it can get, this is a good starter for those interested in fine tuning FSX for those that have Crossfire and especially those with SLI, SLI is worse effected than Crossfire when it comes to negative performance in this sim.
LOL,Quote:
Originally Posted by M31
I never said my system was a reference point for FSX and neither is yours. Your correct it's not a black and white issue. No two systems or any two identical parts of a system will work alike.
But when it came to Darxide's gaming system and my system they are closer to each others then his to yours or yours to mine. All I pointed out to him was IF he chose to add that second card he wouldn't have to disable Crossfire to run FSX. I never told him he had to buy a second card to get the best out of FSX. In fact if he stated it was the only sim or game he was running I would have advised him not to buy a second card at all.
You my friend were the one that started all of this by saying I couldn't get 50fps as a minumum out of my system. Which I showed was possible. Then you started bringing up detail, which by the way you also say running one of those scenery packs can bring a system to a craw.
So I matched all of Nick N's settings and I stated it did drop the frame rates on my system. I then run the same flight without Crossfire and see no change.
We agree that Crossfire doesn't add any improvement to FSX. I just stated it made no difference on my system to disable Crossfire, never said it would do the same on your system.
We do differ on quality for the sim itself. I'm happy with FSX as it is out of the box, you're different you prefer spending many dollars more for eye candy that has nothing to do with flight modeling. I think the simulation has to do with setting in the seat of the aircraft and how realistic it fly's. Which is what the simulation is about to me and also why I have added third party aircraft to mine.
I can respect your view of the sim and what your looking for and never said I didn't.
I'm glad you are happy with the results of your tuning to Nicks guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner133
Enjoy.
Best results so far that i get, is tweaking the FSX.cfg file. I add a line to get it to use all 4 cores instead of the 2 most see.
Im sure most of you already know this trick also....
Just an FYI. A 3.8+ GHz clocked i7 will perform slightly better clock to clock than a Penryn/Conroe pre-Core i7. This is the only game that I have ever realized any benefit in so far when swapping to Core i7:
Quote:
Although I am stuck at 3.90 GHz for the time being until I receive my Apogee GTZ and watercooling parts it doesnt mean I cant do a little testing. The FSX testing that I had promised came out extremely beneficial! Although not 30 to 50% like some had stated, the results are on average, clock for clock close to 30% better on the Core i7 system so I am very impressed.
Fraps was used as the measurement tool for average FPS and time demos were created for JFK Approach and JFK Night Takeoff. All settings were ULTRA HIGH, Resolution was 1600 X 1200, anti-aliasing on, light blooms were activated, traffic and all features/objects on Ultra high. This config is enough to bring any system to its knees. I had simply plugged in one of my new Visiontek HD4870X2's in my QX9650 NLH test bench and here are the results vs. i7:
http://nextlevelhardware.com/FSX.jpg