FSX General FPS Issue.

Hello guys, I have a new, but I think general question. Here's my PC spec, I think I have pretty good spec, so why after all the tweaks, I get 10 frames with PMDG 777 in FlyTampa's Montreal with almost all setting to the full minimal end.

 

Intel Core i5-3230M CPU@2.60GHz (4 CPUs)

RAM 11.9GB usable out of 12GB

Direct X 11

GPU GeForce GT740M

 

If you need any more info, please do ask and as long as it doesn't interfere with my personnal privacy, I will be glad to provide it.

...so why after all the tweaks' date=' I get 10 frames with PMDG 777 in FlyTampa's Montreal with almost all setting to the full minimal end.[/quote']

Quite simple answer, really...

 

Intel Core i5-3230M CPU@2.60GHz (4 CPUs)

FSX needs fast CPUs.

 

To get the most out of FSX people are overclocking their CPUs to the 4.0+ GHz range.

 

Given that you are using a laptop there is not much else you can do.

 

peace,

the Bean

In all seriousness, I doubt you could even run FSX over 40 default... Maybe try FS2004? I sometimes use a Laptop for FSX but that is clocked around 3.0GHZ when using FSX and i run AXE (Airbus X Extended) 20fps in default scenery with hours, months, spending tweaking. If you want to go down the tweaking road... it takes a whilst to get the right tweaks for you. Oh, and scince FSX is a 32Bit program it will only use 4gb of your 12GB ram, so the RAM is fine... But PMDG and FLytampa? not even 4ghz will run it at over 30fps. Plus it is handy to have a good graphics card. For some added performance, try Nvidia Inspector. And what does the graphics tab say about your GPU? FSX sometimes does not recognize it very well. Also I suggest looking around the forums, this question pop's up quite often. Hope this helps

As already mentioned, anything under 3.0 GHz is a dog in FSX. The tweaks are designed to make the most of a high end system. While 2.6 is above average for a laptop, a high end system for FSX is in the 4.0+ GHz range, so your machine should not be considered "pretty good spec."

 

We get a lot of players here discouraged with their 3.0GHz machines too and they also think these are "pretty good" computers.

 

The default settings with the HIGHMEMFIX=1 is about the only tweak which does anything for you.

 

I suggest exiting FSX, deleting your FSX.CFG file,

Restart FSX clicking the reset defaults in the graphics options.

Exit FSX and add the HIGHMEM tweak and restart FSX with frame lock set pretty low, like 15-20. This will keep the sim flyable, but you will get very little eye candy.

The AI you added a while ago is hitting you the hardest so keep that as low as you can (well under 50% on the planes, and 10% or lower on the boats and vehicles.)

-Pv-

As already mentioned, anything under 3.0 GHz is a dog in FSX. -Pv-

 

Woof! Woof, woof-woof! Bark...Bark...Bark! Mine runs fine except around the KLAX area with KLAX photoreal scenery.

 

I like the FS2004 idea. That's a much better match to that particular laptop.

 

Doug

Yes MZ. I'm aware you are studious with your graphics settings and expectations.

Not all new to FSX are. With your faithful dog in the fight, I'm sure you arrived at your optimum balance between glitz and frame rates long ago. Since the OP is only getting 10 frames on the computer munching PMDG, he probably has not yet acquired your particular balance of esthetics and smoothness.

 

-Pv-

OOOOOOOOK, I have FSX minimal on everything, well, almost, HIGHMEMFIX and I guess, I'm not going to utilize the camera on the 300ER anymore. Nvdia Inspector is toward its best. Anyways, anybody know a tweak for "low-end system", I'm confused because I run GTA IV at almost full setting with no problem, and that needless to say is a demanding game on the computer's part.

Oh, I do have FSPS' fsx booster, almost no help other than a few more frames, guess I have to go for the $200 Prepar3D then.

First off, P3DV2 has a 59 dollar academic version. You don't need the 200 dollar pro version unless you are teaching.

 

Second, GTA probably utilizes more GPU then CPU. FSX is and always has been a CPU hog.

 

Third, You won't see much if any improvement with P3d as it is basically FSX with DX11 graphics.

 

If you wan't to get involved in Flight Simming you will need to get a powerful desktop.

It's not the sim, it's your hardware. P3D will not run faster.

FX was not optimized for computers built after 2007. It is more demanding than 99% of the games out there especially when you load it up with high demand add-ons which the original game was never designed for.

 

-Pv-

I'm just waiting for that "I get over 1000 fps" guy to show up here, lol..

Wish we could show him the Original Flight Simulator, running on a 4.77 MHz 8088 from a 5.25" floppy.....

 

Jorgen

I don't understand the problem. I'm getting over 1000 FPS...LOL...

"Wish we could show him the Original Flight Simulator"

 

There are links to various vids of early FS versions and platforms on this forum and YT.

When I ran it on the Sublogic version 1 on the Atari ST, it was perfectly smooth on a 500 KHz CPU. There were no add-ons, clouds, AI or autogen.

 

-Pv-

Thank you, but any help with even 1 more frame is appreciated, I will leave this up for me and likely all others who are willing to help out on my and similar systems to get better frames.

Bottom line for frame rate - a faster CPU. End of story. Sorry, but that is the way it is, and it's not fun to have to tell you that.

 

My own CPU is an i3 running at 3.3 GHz, and I cannot overclock it with the BIOS I have. My frame rate is kind of barely acceptable, but what I focus on is eliminating stutter. I do that by having Windows on one hard drive, FSX on another, and my photoscenery on a third, and keeping the last two reasonably defragged. I am not entirely successful in eliminating the stutter, because the drives are all 5400 rpm ones. But it does run what I feel is acceptably, except for very long load times.

 

Jorgen

"Bottom line for frame rate - a faster CPU. End of story. Sorry, but that is the way it is, and it's not fun to have to tell you that."

 

Yup and when he gets a 3.3 Mh'z CPU, the frames will not be enough and he'll get a 4.0 processor and still not enough and a 4.4 processor and he still cannot run all the options at max with all the add-ons he wants.

 

"help with even 1 more frame is appreciated"

 

Lower ANY of the graphics or scenery options and you will get one or more frames improvement. I suspect I'm not appreciated because that is not what you want.

 

-Pv-

I gotta say it again.....FS2004.....

what's up and andyjohnston should compare notes. Maybe they are getting hardware advice from the same source.

 

"I gotta say it again.....FS2004....."

 

Yea, if frame rates rule, I ran that with 60 frames full out. Alas... I'm willing to trade 30 frames for a more entertaining simulation in FSX.

 

-Pv-

Yea, but the problem is, he's not going to have a more entertaining simulation in FSX. It still all comes down to CPU cycles. If you want to learn about flying (and flight) FS2004 still offers an awful lot. Not so much on the eye-candy side but flying the Kai Tak IGS in FS2004 ain't all that different from FSX.

 

Doug

I used FS2004 for it's whole life cycle. It's a matter of taste. I'll never use it again.

 

As a developer, the MUCH more sophisticated flight modeling tools in the FSX SDK lets me design a MUCH more authentic aircraft flight model. I can do things with FSX which were impossible in FS9. I'll never go back to that.

-Pv-

I agree, I won't go back either. But I'll bet neither of us are running a 2.6Ghz CPU. I gotta say it again...for anyone with a 2.6 Ghz CPU FS2004 is the answer. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Doug

" we'll just have to agree to disagree"

I dont' think we're disagreeing about anything important, just phraseology.

 

I didn't mean to imply FSX is the best sim to be running on a 2.6 CPU. In that respect I agree though some do it and have decided to be happy with what they have.

You know who you are ;)

 

To put my comment back into context (since you have to page back to read it now:

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?286514-FSX-General-FPS-Issue&p=1900592#post1900592

 

"Yea, if frame rates rule, I ran that with 60 frames full out. Alas... I'm willing to trade 30 frames for a more entertaining simulation in FSX."

 

I have frame rates to trade on my 3.5GHz system, The 2.6GHz guy does not, so his decision is a lot like a certain dog eared friend of ours. He learns to like whatever he can get out of the sim or trade up. When people first started running FS9, they had the same troubles as now only the affordable computers were 2Ghz slower.

 

-Pv-

I'm sure he can get a lot of fun out of fsx on that. He will have to give up on things like pmdg and flytampa.

You won't be able to use them with any pleasure unless you buy a much faster system. Sorry OP.

Uninstall those, and you will have smooth flying, especially landings. And landings are most of the fun. Even with default scenery and airports and default airplanes (and freeware addons), you will have to use conservative settings.

You asked how to get more fps, this is the answer. It will more then double your fps I estimate. And flying will be fun at last.

il88pp.

Yeah, FS2004 alright, but is PMDG 777 compatible with FS9? And for overclocking, my Nvidia Inspector warns me that "These options may damage your hardware or destroy it completely". Is it just meant as a fair warning? Is the "destroy it completely", possible, I am a careful person, does anybody have experience with overclocking with Nvdia Inspector for approximately the spec of my machine?