FSX multi GPU

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

k so someone please tell me - have any of you tried crossfire fixer? does it help?

[M31]

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.

No you never, did you

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.

[M31]

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.

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.

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.





Now go buy this scenery, run it to the detail levels needed to get these shots .... not this



And tell us what FPS you get on that Wonder rig of yours.

[Stoner133]

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.

[M31]

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.

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

[NaMcO]

Jesus christ, amazing scenery and chopper!

Let me say it again, W-O-W! I gotta go find that, who makes them?

[M31]

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.

http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?show0

[NaMcO]

Start here mate.

http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?show0

Ah, thank you!

I have a scenery from them already (my dad's offer) i didn't realize how magnificent San Francisco was. Thanks!

[Darxide]

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.

[Xello]

I take it you don't get this stuff in the free demo

How much does it cost to set up the full thing plus any add ons to get such quality?

[BiFfMaN]

k so someone please tell me - have any of you tried crossfire fixer? does it help?

Did not help me much.... I downloaded it because i wanted better frames.

But yah i would agree with the Multi GPU thing about it hurting more then helping...i too seen it first hand.

[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"

Those are nice shots, to bad they are from the makers web site and not your computer.

[M31]

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.

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.

[M31]

I take it you don't get this stuff in the free demo

How much does it cost to set up the full thing plus any add ons to get such quality?

Too much 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.

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.

[M31]

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'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.

[Xello]

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?

[M31]

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?

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.

[Stoner133]

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.

[Xello]

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 I can see how that adds up!!

Where abouts are you M31? Livingston here

[M31]

Stoner

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.

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.

[fiskov]

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 )



Does the default scenery really look that bad when you only see it for 10 minutes?

[M31]

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..

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.

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.

[M31]

)

Wow most of those addons are £20 or more I can see how that adds up!!

Where abouts are you M31? Livingston here

Good to know a single GTX295 can switch off SLI, thanks.

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

[Stoner133]

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.

[Malk]

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.

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

Which addons do you use to get that skyline?

Edit: NM, i see you used aerosofts addons, are there any addons other than the city addons you can recommend?