Simulators differ radically in performance - questions

I deliberated on whether this was the best forum, noting there are hardware/software forums here also. I'm open to being redirected, if need be.

I'm newbie to flight sim as well as new to this forum , so if this is like a 20 year old question - I'm sure somebody will head me in the right direction to research it.

I would expect Microsoft FSX and X-Plane 11 to perform differently. However, the difference is so great, I really have to ask what I might not be aware of. While Microsoft FSX reports 60 FPS to me, X-Plane complains it has not yet been able to run full speed due to system constraints (very low FPS). That is an eye opener. Either these are two completely different architectures, or I am doing something very wrong.

Admittedly, I have not started digging deep, rather came here first. I didn't want to start a science project if this is a well known circumstance.

Anyone ?

The two programs are very definitely different in their architectures. There's no commonality at all, and they each take a different approach to pretty much every feature, including aerodynamics. FS is table-driven, and I'm pretty sure that Austin built aerodynamic flows into the program, instead.

Sceneries are different, weather is different, in short everything is different, so it's no surprise that there's a large difference. Also, X-Plane has continually been updated, while FSX hasn't changed in a decade and a half.

Apples and plums...

The two programs are very definitely different in their architectures. There's no commonality at all, and they each take a different approach to pretty much every feature, including aerodynamics. FS is table-driven, and I'm pretty sure that Austin built aerodynamic flows into the program, instead.

 

Sceneries are different, weather is different, in short everything is different, so it's no surprise that there's a large difference. Also, X-Plane has continually been updated, while FSX hasn't changed in a decade and a half.

 

Apples and plums...

Thank you. The fact that you are not surprised helps me approach the problem. A cursory look, using the simple tools available on Windows, leads me to believe X-Plane (the Plum) depends more on resources from the Graphics card than FSX does. My graphics adapter is admittedly the least modern piece in the machine, but it has not bottle necked anything else that I do. So, I must prioritize. Just how important is my curiosity regarding X-Plane? Is the experiment worth the $$ for a new Graphics card ? I will have to chew on that for a while.

At this point in the process, X-plane does not seem to have a larger airplane selection. In fact it seems smaller. You mentioned scenery was coded differently, but did not say it was better.

You also mentioned frequent updates, which could be a plus or a minus. However, no updates (meaning = 0) in years on FSX ? That is really odd for a product with "Microsoft" in it's Title.

Thanks again for the architecture comparison.

THowever, no updates (meaning = 0) in years on FSX ? That is really odd for a product with "Microsoft" in it's Title.

It's not altogether that surprising as Microsoft drops support for older products all the time. Think they typically support products for about seven years or so, and FSX was released in October 2006. And they did release two service packs for FSX in the year or two after release. On top of this, unfortunately, Microsoft dumped the entire ACES team that developed FSX in 2009 as part of wider company layoffs.

X-Plane has been under continuous development during that time, and added things like better multi-core support, 64 bit processing and is now working on updating the graphics engine to use the Vulkan API.

More recently, Microsoft has gotten back into the flight sim world with their upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a new sim and more modern sim than FSX, and looks to run better on modern hardware than FSX does.

Do not fall into the dreaded analysis paralysis trap..

Mostly, it's the developers that give is the sim engine, and the add-on guys give us the bells and whistles, as have happened for all the sims so far. Since the demise of Microsoft's ACES Gaming Studio's, things have been stagnant, apart from Microsoft selling the licence to develop ESP (that's the commercial version of FSX) to Lockheed Martin for them to develop as a 'not for entertainment'product, & licensing FSX to Dovetail Games to slightly modify it & optimize it for modern computers.

Having said that, there is still a very vibrant add-on market out there, both freeware & payware, for all the sims, including the 16 year old FS2004.

Yes, we are all awaiting Microsoft's new Microsoft Flight Simulator that's due for release on 18 August 2020. However.... always an However...

It is said that this sim will be resource hungry, for computer hardware, and internet bandwith. So we are waiting to see what early adopters will have to say.

Interesting times indeed. The search for the Holy Grail in simming goes on..

Also, for fun, have a look at the freeware FlightGear. It's bveing constantly updated & has a huge range of aircraft. Scenery is actually very good, & the sim, being free, is worthy of a look.

https://www.flightgear.org/

More recently, Microsoft has gotten back into the flight sim world with their upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator. .

You have identified my reason for investigating the other Sim products.

Treading lightly, as not to draw the wrath of a moderator for introducing a political discussion - Microsoft has made no secret of its intent to compete with Google and Facebook selling behavior patterns as a core element of its business model. IMO, if they decided a flight app was worth prioritizing, it is to support that dimension of the business. App licenses don't generate the kind of money that gets their attention. Behavior does though. So, yeah, I'm done with them.

Having said that, if the other Flight Sim majors are doing the same thing....

then I'm done with Flight Sim.

I have other interesting hobbies that do not spy on me for profit.

Paranoid theory ? Nope. Its all public. and real.

Do not fall into the dreaded analysis paralysis trap..

 

Also, for fun, have a look at the freeware FlightGear. It's being constantly updated & has a huge range of aircraft. Scenery is actually very good, & the sim, being free, is worthy of a look.

https://www.flightgear.org/

Hi,

Interesting timing, I recently flew (sim) around in the Capetown area for quite a while. It was a lot of fun. I normally fly the Bombardier Lear Jet. However, in Capetown I parked it and chose a Beech 58 so I could play with that "big rock" by the ocean. There is a lot of interesting stuff to look at on the approaches also. Cool stuff.

So yeah, I spend most of my time in the analysis trap. Not just regarding Flight Sim, but in almost everything. I do look at "the trap" differently than most. To me, sorting out the complexity of things is the fun part. Possibly more so than actually doing them.

I did have a look at FlightGear. I'm going to keep it in mind. FlightGear is involved with Sourceforge to some extent. I will need to be sure I can download the Sim without having to deal with a Sourceforge installer before I am willing to try it. Also, FlightGear describes themselves as a meritocracy, which is a political position. Normally I would not get involved with that either, but how hypocritical it would be -- I'm using Microsoft. (Hah !!!)

Thanks for taking the time to write. I hope to try out the FlightGear Sim, if I can get it without SourceForge.

Rebrecs, I havent read the other replies, so someone could give a better answer..

I think you are comparing apples with bananas, or two different sims in timeline

FSX is from 2006 while Xplane 11 is from end 2016, more than 10 years!

You should be comparing Xplane 11 with Prepar3d v5

What is 'real' is that you MUST have Windows 10 to use the upcoming FS2020. And, as we all know, Windows 10 tracks ALL your 'behavior' (and 'farms' every bit of personal information on your PC) no matter which Sim you use. I use Windows 7 Pro and will ONLY have FS9 and FSX Accel and NOT FS2020 ($100) even if it's FREE. They got you worried about FRAMES to distract you from what they are doing.

Chuck B

Napamule