FSnordic.net
Home Help Rules Login Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
20.11.17, 19:16

Login with username, password and session length
+  FSnordic.net Forums
|-+  English Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion (Moderator: Thomas Hjelm)
| | |-+  FSX the good the bad and the ugly
:  

« previous thread next thread »
Pages: [1] Reply Print
Author Topic: FSX the good the bad and the ugly  (Read 2977 times)
jostytosty
Former member
FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« on: 14.10.06, 22:30 »

I am not very satistfied with FSX.  Too much stutter on my machine which i thought ought to be good enough. P4D950 dual, RAID10, Ati x1900xt 512mb, DDR2 pc4300 1,5Gb. I couldn't afford more speed, FS2004 runs like a train or should I say supersonic jet while FSX works at 75% of the possibilities but with stutter. I hate this. thmbdn
Is it all that bad then? Surely not there's a lot of eye candy in FSX. Smiley Personally I like thing like moving jetstairs, moving fueltrucks (+ the abbility to load fuel while allready in the cockpit) Traffic on the highways. The water is at times so realistic that you think you are in a film. Mountains however have large yellow fields with green squairblocks in it (not nice at all, certainly not for someone like me how flies through the Alps a lot) other parts of the mountains have improved. They have the feeling of rock on them. The mirroring in the cockpitwindows is wonderfull, love it  thmbup, it adds to the feeling of beeing in a 3D world. Flying at a hight of aprrox. 20 000 feet I  took a spotplanelook at myself flying. The world arround me was just a hint to colourfull. Okay it's auttum but would I notice that this much at this altitude? I  don't think so. Too much colour, to few dampness over the world below me. It's a kiddies world.
My ATItraytools tell me I got a frame rate of 100 at 32000 feet, it tells me i got a FPS of 40 taxiing. But as I make this turn at ENBR, where there are a lot of trees it's a slideshow (okay a fast slideshow, but anoying enough) Then I move on following a straight line, it's okay again. When I quit FSX,  I can see one of the problems: to few memory installed. FSX doesn't stop, but it slowly dissapears. The package says: 2Gb is best. Typpical Microsoft Undecided. If they say 2Gb is best they mean 4Gb, so lets get the fastest type of ddr2 memory and install a lot of it! I wonder if things would improve with Vista. Iff so that would mean even more expenses! Hardware and software ooops!  For people who are not yet willing to make a huge upgrade to their system I 'd say: don't buy FSX yet! FS2004 is better (kinder) for you, you are much better off! But then hey, you are probally the same as me and you can't wait, okay drop this €60 in to the sewer..... Tongue come on... do it... Roll Eyes
kenkku
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #1 on: 15.10.06, 13:29 »

FSX (obviously) requires a lot of computing power and dual core isn't exactly the optimum choice. At best it can use one core for the sim itself and the other one for loading terrain on the background..

Edit: I'm sure FSX is a giant leap forward and within a few months I bet you'll get a patch that might even solve some performance issues. For now, I've been thinking of trying X-Plane, the only thing is that there are not that much complicate aircraft like the LDS 763 and PMDG products on FS2004. Or maybe it's just me and I haven't found anything Wink
BAW
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #2 on: 15.10.06, 16:08 »

No Tero....FSX does NOT utilise Dual Core at all. The sim is designed only for single cores, it will run on a dual core, but will run in single core mode only, no better performance for a dual core user at all, it is only single core
kenkku
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #3 on: 16.10.06, 17:50 »

No Tero....FSX does NOT utilise Dual Core at all. The sim is designed only for single cores, it will run on a dual core, but will run in single core mode only, no better performance for a dual core user at all, it is only single core
Yes it does.

Quote
So where can you use multiple threads? You use it where the interdepencies are loose and indeterminate wait times aren't readily noticable. In FSX we use multiple thread for texture decompression and certain types of file I/O. Consider terrain textures that must be loaded and decompressed as you fly along. Normally new textures are needed for the area at the edge of the visual scene. Using low-resolution versions for the initial display and then loading higher resolutions in the background works because texture swapping in the distance is not very noticable. In other words, it doesn't a matter if a texture is available immediately or several frames after it's requested because you likely won't notice the delay.
(The Last Word on Dual Core, tdragger blog)
BAW
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #4 on: 16.10.06, 19:36 »

Oh my bad, didnt know about that. Good read
kc135dood
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #5 on: 17.10.06, 20:17 »

Actually Joseph was quite right.  As if FSX does not support dual cores~multi-cores, Then You won't see the true benefit to having a dual core, over a single core.  Even though it has two cores, or multi-cores, Most, or all of the data will only run through the primary processor on a Dual Core~MultiCore Processor. 

And, before you jump right on back to responding the other way, I did not say that it wouldn't make a difference.... "Most, or all of the data will only run through the primary processor on a Dual Core~MultiCore Processor."

And "As if FSX does not support" So I am un-sure of if FSX, if it doesn't support this, If it does, Then this does not apply


-Dave A. Lawrence

-If you want to have a different side on this, Read this first! "
http://compreviews.about.com/od/cpus/a/dualcore.htm "
kenkku
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #6 on: 18.10.06, 12:26 »

Actually Joseph was quite right.  As if FSX does not support dual cores~multi-cores, Then You won't see the true benefit to having a dual core, over a single core.  Even though it has two cores, or multi-cores, Most, or all of the data will only run through the primary processor on a Dual Core~MultiCore Processor. 

And, before you jump right on back to responding the other way, I did not say that it wouldn't make a difference.... "Most, or all of the data will only run through the primary processor on a Dual Core~MultiCore Processor."

And "As if FSX does not support" So I am un-sure of if FSX, if it doesn't support this, If it does, Then this does not apply


-Dave A. Lawrence

-If you want to have a different side on this, Read this first! "
http://compreviews.about.com/od/cpus/a/dualcore.htm "
Actually it's not about supporting, the question is: does the program BENEFIT from a multi-core environment? In FSX, yes it does, but only a little bit, so my opinion is that a powerful single-core processor is probably better for FSX(and gaming generally) at the moment.
lexy
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #7 on: 19.10.06, 08:25 »

Hi! I'm using a laptop with AMD Turion x2 (1,6ghz), 1gb ram and nVidia 256mb graphics card. Runs fsx with pretty good scenery settings somehow but 'sup with my control panel graphics?? It ain't much better than what it was like in fs95! I tried various settings in display menu in fsx as well as with my graphics card but it didn't help. Anyone got same problems? Is it supposed to look like this or how can i make it look better?
« Last Edit: 19.10.06, 10:36 by Alex Niemi »
ightenhill
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #8 on: 20.10.06, 16:41 »

FSX has no advantage at all on dual core.. God knows whos paying for the advert on the box and why?? Even Microsoft on MS info now admit there is no advantage, in fact if you follow the logic their could be a disadvantage in cpu processing speed.

The biggest problems with FSX has to be the way the autogen is handled. Get rid of the cars and all my frame rate problems dissapear??

In fact If you set up the machine/X following the flightsim.com review instructions rather than the daft way the program interprets your needs you will probably double your FPS instantly..

I have to say though forget graphics cards having 128 being any use anymore.. 256 is the minimum probably at around 6600 GT at the lowest nvidia..(thats probably your last cheap option available)

To reiterate dont panic when it installs and think what the hell, it looks bad and moves bad.A little tinkering with the custom options and your well on your way..

nordstar
Former member
Re: FSX the good the bad and the ugly
« Reply #9 on: 30.12.06, 14:11 »

Hi & a happy new year!!! Christmas smiley
This has nothing to do with wether FSX support dubbelcore or not,it's about XP!!!
Well,for to start,do you have XP as your opsys?If that's the fact,xp i repeat xp doesn't support dubblecore at all,only singlecore thmbdn.But microsoft has developed a hotfix for that thmbup.It's still in a basic testrun for the moment and is not released to the public Cry.I know of this cause i have got the hotfix from my local microsoft develop/supportteam in sweden Cool.Sorry, but i can not provide you with this hotfix myself, cause i would then violate my trust to microsoft and their copyright.Please contact your local microsoft-supportteam and ask for the hotfix,tell about the problem "XP and FSX.dubbelcore-CPU".I'm sure that they will let you have the BETA-release of the hotfix thmbup.Otherwise you just have to wait for it to be fully tested by us other and later next year, hopefully it will be released to the public Undecided.NETVISTA have full support for dubblecore-CPU's. thmbup thmbup
Good luck!Sorry for my bad english!!!!Sorry!Saw that i mised out the name of the xp-dualcore hotfix....Here it is...
"WindowsXP-KB896256-v3-x86-SVE.exe",only have the swed.vers.Ask your local microsoft-supportteam!!
S-A.Ahlqvist
« Last Edit: 01.01.07, 18:14 by Sten-Allan Ahlqvist »
Pages: [1] Reply Print 
« previous thread next thread »
Jump to:  

1