NZFF

Hi guys,

Before you all abuse me, I know there are probably heaps of topics on this, but I have recently brought a laptop. It's a Toshiba Satellite (about 2k worth). I'm running quite a few programmes, all my music (10gb), a few games (incl Far Cry 2), all photos etc, everything. Plus I am running FS9 on high settings with REX and quite a few other addons - and I still get 50-80 FPS.

My question is: Should I purchase FSX and reload all my addons (obviously FSX versions), and hope to get good FPS still (25+ FPS)? Or stick to FS9?

How much better is FSX?

It's just I have seen this VLC (Vector Land Class) that is on its way on FSX and it looks amazing!

Cheers,

ScottyB.

I'd say ... totally unscientifically (as you don't mention CPU or GFX spec) ... that if you get 50-80fps on a fairly loaded FS9, then you should certainly manage 25fps. I'd say "go for it"!

To be honest - I don't think this fps thing is the best benchmark. With the latest tweaks, I still only get 10-15fps on my system - but I have everything pretty well maxed out (with a truckload of add-ons). I just *love* the visuals ... and it's still perfectly flyable. It may be *slightly* choppy, but I don't seem to get big pauses or long texture updates.

If you could tell us your full specs and OS of your laptop then I might be able to help.

Toshiba Satellite A500
Windows 7 Home Premium 32bit
4 GB Ram
320GB Hard Drive
ATI Radeon Mobility HD 4600 Series Graphics Card (2gb approx memory)
Intel Core 2 Duo Centrino Processor (2.1gHz x 2 cores = aprrox 4.2gHz)

I'd definitely go for it, if just for the fact that a lot of the best addons coming out now, particularly aircraft, are for FSX only.

FS-9 = more freeware add ons to choose from and a lot of payware add ons that can also be cheaper to purchase and good FPS - I would stay with FS9 if I am flying complex airliners into detailed airports

FSX = equals better detailed scenery and better detailed aircraft (not always the case though) - the way to go if you are into VFR flying, GA and warbirds - as mentioned above a lot of the new add ons now been released are FSX only

Ive been running FSX for a number of years now on my old super fs9 3.0ghz p4 single core ,3gig ram and a 8800 gts card computer ,frames sit well at 25 jumping to 45-60 on the counter most days with my trusty tweak Nhancer ,though some say its not for Radeon cards ? only nivida run drivers i think ,anyway i actually get better performance now than when i had fs9 on this pc ,only thing that has changed is that ive updated the card to 8800 GTS from a 8600 GTS ..
Jump in the deep end , FSX is pretty cheap now and you can always revert ..

I prefer to do more VFR cross country flying etc. Rather than long haul.

I would love a sim where I can land in a chopper in many 'random' places in Fiordland with a lot of autogen/vegetation to make it realistic.

So you all think FSX would be better suited for me?

ScottyB wrote:

QUOTE (ScottyB @ Apr 22 2010, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would love a sim where I can land in a chopper in many 'random' places in Fiordland with a lot of autogen/vegetation to make it realistic.

So you all think FSX would be better suited for me?

Bingo. I've been sitting on the fence here, as I know that a fully-setup FS2004 built on a payware mega-realistic aircraft can be pretty hard to beat. Plus for those who go chasing FPS it can be a bit of an issue as well.

But if you want to fly a chopper into the valleys around Fiordland etc, and see something truly freaky, then FSX+VLC is the way to go.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 22 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo. I've been sitting on the fence here, as I know that a fully-setup FS2004 built on a payware mega-realistic aircraft can be pretty hard to beat. Plus for those who go chasing FPS it can be a bit of an issue as well.

But if you want to fly a chopper into the valleys around Fiordland etc, and see something truly freaky, then FSX+VLC is the way to go.

Cheers toprob.

Any screenies from Fiordland you could care to leak?

Keep up the good work with VLC too. Looks amazing.

Also,

If I am getting 50-80 FPS on FS9 which has a lot of addons including REX, 75m Mesh, Airports, sceneries etc; what should I expect from the DEFAULT FSX?

Thanks

35 to 40ish or more I would think if you install all the SP packs....FSX can be quite smooth all the way down to about 15FPS not like FS9 so you will have plenty of room to move

ScottyB wrote:

QUOTE (ScottyB @ Apr 22 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any screenies from Fiordland you could care to leak?

Not official VLC beta preview shots, as there are some changes coming which will greatly affect this area. The bush is very early days, so just an impression at the moment. Also there's a change to the landclass coming which gives a better bush coverage on steep bits -- I have tested this around Te Anau, and it looks fantastic. (Mitre Peak, for instance, will be a lot more bush-clad.)

Here's some Milford shots, no blabbing, though...

Don't be surprised if it runs like a dog. Autogen, while the one of the most appealing features of FSX (along with high-res ground textures), comes with one of the biggest framrate hits. Autogen at max settings on my rig can bring framerates to unacceptable levels (especially with FTX). 10-15fps is not enjoyable, no matter what anyone says, and certainly not smooth.

Clouds and weather also bring systems to their knees. On my 8800GT 512MB, rainy and stormy weather would cripple framerates, taking them from 40fps to 20 or less. The GTX275 handles weather much better with very little framerate drop.

- Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
- 4GB DDR2-800
- GTX275 896MB

This rig for me, produces acceptable framerates with default scenery, but things like FTX kill it. Hence I am waiting till we get some good NZ scenery before booting up FSX again.

With your laptops CPU and GFX I don't expect you'll be able to run high autogen. Let us know your results.

s0cks wrote:

QUOTE (s0cks @ May 10 2010, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be surprised if it runs like a dog. Autogen, while the one of the most appealing features of FSX (along with high-res ground textures), comes with one of the biggest framrate hits. Autogen at max settings on my rig can bring framerates to unacceptable levels (especially with FTX). 10-15fps is not enjoyable, no matter what anyone says, and certainly not smooth.

This brings me back to my soap-box... For me, Autogen has very little effect. However some people benefit from one less than full autogen, and many would be better off going with the 'normal' setting. The things which affect performance on my system are:

Anti-aliasing -- the main culprit;
Clouds -- a big problem with ATI cards;
Water effects.

All these issues could be solved with a bettter graphics card. Then I'd begin to notice problems with processor-related things like autogen.

If Microsoft has intended everyone to run FSX at full settings, then they wouldn't have given us sliders and options. However they would have had to take out some features. I like having the choice. I'd love to have a system which has no limits, but that isn't going to happen.

But come to think of it, regarding the original post, there is a system which allows most of us to run at full settings, with reduced features -- it's called FS2004. So for some it would be the ideal choice.

toprob wrote:

QUOTE (toprob @ May 10 2010, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This brings me back to my soap-box... For me, Autogen has very little effect. However some people benefit from one less than full autogen, and many would be better off going with the 'normal' setting. The things which affect performance on my system are:

Anti-aliasing -- the main culprit;
Clouds -- a big problem with ATI cards;
Water effects.

All these issues could be solved with a bettter graphics card. Then I'd begin to notice problems with processor-related things like autogen.

If Microsoft has intended everyone to run FSX at full settings, then they wouldn't have given us sliders and options. However they would have had to take out some features. I like having the choice. I'd love to have a system which has no limits, but that isn't going to happen.

But come to think of it, regarding the original post, there is a system which allows most of us to run at full settings, with reduced features -- it's called FS2004. So for some it would be the ideal choice.

Yes, clouds don't go well with ATI cards. The new nvidia cards (GTX2xx and GTX4xx) have much faster buffer speeds and can chew up clouds all day long. The biggest FPS killers are autogen, water, and traffic. Reducing water to 1.X and autogen to "normal" will probably give you acceptable speeds, but then I'm one of these people who can't see the point in flying FSX if it's not going to look substantially better than FS9.

One thing I forgot to put in my list -- shadows. I actually love FSX shadows, even if they are a bit buggy. Living in a country with high sunshine hours and very little ozone layer means that shadows play a bit part in what we see. One of the first things I learnt in photography was to see shadows as objects. And there are plenty of airports in NZ where you'd need to rely on shadows to orient yourself amongst all that bright tarmac.

But FSX shadows suck power from my system. That's one of the main reasons why I'd love to upgrade my computer -- everything else I can cope with, but I miss my shadows.