60+ FPS...What Does it REALLY take?

[tomviator]

OK, I'm asking alot when you consider I have FSX running a shameful amount of addons, Nearly EVERY notably decent GA payware aircraft, GEX, REX, ORBX everything, and on and on. (I'm not sure how much of stock original FSX is left TBH) I'm also trying to run it in 4K resolution with most, if not all, of the sliders all the way up. I turned off the normal framerate robbers like light bloom, ground shadows, and yes, cockpit tool tips. Very often I can get extreme frame rates, but near some cities it gest terrible again. Sub 20 at times.

Im running an Alienware Aurora R5 with Dual 6th generation quad-core i7-6700 CPU's clocked at 3.4GHz, 64GB RAM, and Dual (yes TWO) Nvidia GTX 1080 GPU's.

I also have everything installed on a solid state drive, so please, someone tell me what hardware does it take to beat this old ass game into submission and get high frames even in dense urban areas? Cities to be specific.. I can fly areas with thousands of houses and autogens all the way up and the frames are still good, but add a few skyscrapers and my frames drop like I'm running a PC from 1997!!!

[loki]

FSX benefits most from single core CPU performance, not more cores or dual GPUs. Try overclocking to get your CPUs over 4GHz if you don't want to turn settings down or remove any add-ons.

[JSMR]

FSX benefits most from single core CPU performance, not more cores or dual GPUs. Try overclocking to get your CPUs over 4GHz if you don't want to turn settings down or remove any add-ons.

 

 

My FSX performs better with a slower but more cores CPU.

 

 

What cloud resolution is he using? AA? SGSSAA? AI level? Autogen levels?

[jorgen.s.andersen]

JSMR, did you read what Loki wrote?

 

He wrote that because FSX is coded as a single-threaded application - that means , it simply cannot use more than one core.

 

End of story.

 

For the OP - if your CPUs are not the 6700K model - the K is important - then you cannot overclock them. You'll have to get the K model of the 6700 or 7700 - both should be able to fit on your motherboard - and the K model runs at 4.2 GHz right out of the box. Also take a good look at and implement as necessary the tips in Kosta's tweaking guide, posted as a sticky at the top of this forum.

 

Jorgen

[loki]

JSMR, did you read what Loki wrote?

 

He wrote that because FSX is coded as a single-threaded application - that means , it simply cannot use more than one core.

 

End of story.

 

That's not what I said at all. FSX can make use of multiple cores with one handling the bulk of the load.

[loki]

What CPUs did you compare? What were the core counts? Models with the same architecture?

 

As with everything computer related there are always exceptions. However, in general, FSX performance is pretty closely tied to single core performance.

[jorgen.s.andersen]

I sit (somewhat) corrected, Sir.

 

I guess that what I said is what you're saying as "bulk of the load"... other cores may handle some tasks on the side.

 

I can only say that before, when I lived in the Philippines, I had an i3 running at 3.3 GHz, and FSX was slow. Here, in my desktop, I first had an i7 6700 running at 3.4 GHz, some improvement, but I believe that was also because I went from a GT 640 graphics card to a GTX 960. The real improvement happened about a month ago, when I upgraded the CPU to an i7 7700K at 4.2 GHz.

 

But even with this rig I cannot run with the settings maxed out. Even so, it's good, and I plan on changing my RAM from 8 GB of 2133 MHz to 16 GB of 3200 MHz sometime. That (the 3200 MHz part) should help some. And then, way in the future, is maybe a GTX 1080TI, or whatever nVidia can come up with when we get that far.

 

Jorgen

[jorgen.s.andersen]

Plus that the OP will still have to tweak the system, and that involves going into FSX.CFG instead of just twiddling around with the sliders. It will be long, drawn-out work and plenty of trial and error, but the end result will be worth it. And you learn a lot about FSX and your system in the process.

 

There are several resources available online for tweaking FSX, but a good place to start is Kosta's tweaking guide at the top of this forum.

 

And, it will be a good thing to tweak Win 10 also, and get rid of unnecessary background stuff plus whatever other resource-hungry crap that MS put in there.

 

Jorgen

[JSMR]

Always exception to the rule. But I’m a believer in more cores then high speed based on what I’ve seen.

 

But the OP never answered the questions that often directly effect fps :

 

What cloud resolution is he using? AA? SGSSAA? AI level? Autogen levels?

 

 

But I’ve seen others use 4096 cloud textures and high AA! Uh huh.. :/S

[jorgen.s.andersen]

The really good thing would be if the OP would post his FSX.CFG here......

 

Jorgen

[JSMR]

The really good thing would be if the OP would post his FSX.CFG here......

 

Jorgen

 

 

Post anything. Even a joke.

 

An Irishman, Englishman and a priest walked into a bar. The barman said, "What IS this? Some kind of a joke"?

 

 

:D

[tomviator]

The main thing you need to get 60 FPS at 4k is a good imagination!

 

Did you really mean dual i7-6700s??? Not something I've ever heard of in a consumer-grade system.

 

As others have already commented, your CPU is holding you back to a certain extent. The 6700 (non-k version, base frequency 3.4GHz) has a max turbo of 4.0GHz and there's just no substitute for clock speed if you want the best performance in FSX.

 

Also, assuming your two 1080s are in SLI, this has very little effect in FSX. Indeed, some people have even said that it can cause stuttering and removing one card made things smoother without materially affecting performance.

 

Yes my mistake. 8th Gen? i7 6700's times 2. (clocked at 3.4) And yes I've noticed the dual 1080 SLI setup has a slight issue with another game I play, but seems to have no effect on the performance or display of FSX.

[tomviator]

Thanks for the tip, I've been looking at the guide. Noticed it right after my Original Post.

[tomviator]

Thanks, I've started looking at the tweaking guide..

[tomviator]

The really good thing would be if the OP would post his FSX.CFG here......

 

Jorgen

 

https://1drv.ms/f/s!An3tzeJKHTp6u3vU1NQhfokF65Sb

[JSMR]

[DISPLAY.Device.Intel® HD Graphics 530.0]

 

 

???

 

 

GADensity=100

FreewayDensity=30

ShipsAndFerriesDensity=100

LeisureBoatsDensity=100

 

 

????

 

 

“I'm also trying to run it in 4K resolution with most, if not all, of the sliders all the way up”

 

 

?????

[jorgen.s.andersen]

Tomviator,

 

In your FSX.cfg there are three (3) instances of the [DISPLAY.Device] sections. You should get rid of the 2 that has the Intel references in them. They look like this:

 

[DISPLAY.Device.Intel® HD Graphics 530.0]

Mode=3840x2160x32

Anisotropic=1

AntiAlias=1

 

Also, for readability, insert blank lines between sections, like this (random example):

 

FrameRate=2,1

LockedFrameRate=2,2

GForce=2,3

FuelPercentage=2,4

 

[slewTextInfo.1]

Latitude=1,1

Longitude=1,2

Altitude=1,3

Heading=1,4

AirSpeed=1,5

 

[slewTextInfo.2]

FrameRate=1,1

LockedFrameRate=1,2

 

[slewTextInfo.3]

Latitude=1,1

Longitude=1,2

Altitude=1,3

Heading=1,4

AirSpeed=1,5

FrameRate=2,1

 

And have fun with the tweaking guide!

 

Jorgen

 

PS: Set FreewayDensity to 5 - known frame-rate killer.

[jorgen.s.andersen]

Also, add this section to your FSX.CFG:

 

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=84

 

This will distribute the load between cores of your CPU as best as possible, provided you have Hyperthreading turned on. To see if you have that, you need to go into the BIOS on your motherboard.

 

Another thing that will help is updating said BIOS to the latest level available from the manufacturer.

 

But, a word of warning here! You have to be exactly sure of what you are doing and how to do it, and be really really precise. And, if power goes out during the upgrade, your motherboard, or at least the BIOS, is dead.

 

Jorgen

[CrazyDaveIowa]

Stupid question.

Here in 2017 would it still be not possible to build a 8 to 10 GHz single core CPU?

Is the tech still not here?

MSFS was built counting on this to occur; then multi core came into being.

I know there are great sale limitations; but think of the millions(?) of FSX Users (Count me) that would pay a handsome sum to run this game at full potential.

Many of us (count me) have collectively thousands of dollars wrapped in the system to enjoy what comes down to 25% of the program.

$5000.00 for a CPU that would attain nirvana would be a small price..............

[loki]

Stupid question.

Here in 2017 would it still be not possible to build a 8 to 10 GHz single core CPU?

Is the tech still not here?

 

Nope, still not there and the laws of physics say we won't be there for some time yet, if ever.

[lnuss]

Nope, still not there and the laws of physics say we won't be there for some time yet, if ever.

 

Which is one major reason they started producing more cores.

[jorgen.s.andersen]

Instead of all the NiceToHave stuff and the vaporware, we need to concentrate, as any soldier and boy scout knows, on the c*** we are issued......

 

Jorgen

[CrazyDaveIowa]

Which is one major reason they started producing more cores.

How did MS/Aces miss it so badly?

FSX as I understand it wants 5 GHz as a minimum.

[lnuss]

How did MS/Aces miss it so badly?

 

Miss it badly? With a program that was released about 12 years ago, thus was being mostly developed even earlier? They provided all kinds of adjustments (sliders, parameters, etc.) so that, even with the processors back then you could get a reasonably smooth frame rate, while allowing the program to still be viable 12 years after release. And you can still get pretty good performance from the program with today's higher end equipment, except when you get into extremely dense graphics areas, such as big cities, provided you don't max everything.

 

How many other programs could do that, let alone graphics intensive programs, in a universe where no one is a prognosticator? Especially when they couldn't possibly know what capabilities systems would have 5 years later, let alone 12 years later.

 

Besides, you can get smoother graphics (with a decent processor and graphics card) with more features if you change to P3D, based on the same engine, and allowing a lot of (not complete) backward compatibility.

 

I think the ACES team did very well indeed.

 

FSX as I understand it wants 5 GHz as a minimum.

 

I ran it for many years with a LOT less than that (as did many others), but then I didn't ask it to do the impossible by turning all the sliders and other parameters to max, with a desire for 60 + fps and a huge (UHD) screen.

 

What you're asking seems to me the same as asking why don't we have everyone in a flying robot car today? -or- Why didn't we have that 12 years ago?

 

A better understanding of physics, chemistry and the innards of computing might help you to lower your sights a bit.

[mrzippy]

 

 

 

I think the ACES team did very well indeed.

 

 

 

I ran it for many years with a LOT less than that (as did many others).

 

What you're asking seems to me the same as asking why don't we have everyone in a flying robot car today? -or- Why didn't we have that 12 years ago?

 

 

+1 I'm one of the many others and still running smoothly. By the way, my flying car is parked in the garage and my "Commando Cody" rocket jacket is hanging in the closet! (I must be the "Rocketman" dipwit is talking about?) ;)