FSX: Four years later and it still runs like ****.

Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by Mobius1aic, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Mobius1aic

    Mobius1aic Quo vadis?
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    244
    Thoughts? Seriously it pisses me off that four years later I still can't run a game smoothly that is well over what it should need to run smoothly in the first place. Anyone have any special tweak files to get it to run better? Even with everything at bare minimum graphics/settings, it still runs terribly. I've also noticed that it maxes out one CPU core and leaves the other three cores just kind of running at variable processing loads. Obviously multi-threading wasn't implemented too well here. It's just amazing that over the years I've ran the game on various systems, to about the same kind of success when it comes to performance.

    Here's to hoping MS Flight actually utilizes modern CPUs properly and uses DX11.

    *Feels like Angry German Kid* :mad:
     
  2. homerdog

    homerdog donator of the year
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    904
    Location:
    still camping with a mauler
    It is massively CPU limited for some reason.

    It also takes and extraordinary amount of HDD space, although that is hardly an issue any more.
     
  3. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389
    What CPU do you have?
     
  4. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,852
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    ms fired the dev team your only hope is that one day ms release the source code like they did for allegiance and mechcommander and mechwarror 4
     
  5. Neb

    Neb Iron "BEAST" Man
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    8,391
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    NGC2264
    It's massively CPU bound if you crank up the sliders for 3D vegetation and buildings. At max it allows around 8000 trees/vegetation objetcs and around 6000 buildings all in your FOV and rendered. That said there are flight games with several times that which runs at 60fps or more on old hardware. I think the problem with FSX is bad draw call management, polygon/graphic management put on CPU with trees/buildings.

    Anyway putting slider for vegetation down and only have special buildings shown, a PC from 2005 would run it well (Well my old one did run it well like that and the rest on max).
     
  6. ShaidarHaran

    ShaidarHaran hardware monkey
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    34
    Two things:
    1) yes it's coded poorly and makes minimal use of modern CPU hardware and absolutely none of GPUs
    2) your PC isn't fast enough if you're making this comment

    I just built a system for a client that has been a flight simmer for years, and he's running FSX nearly maxed out w/tons of add-ons including all the most popular heavy hitters like UTX, UT2, ASX, 3rd party AC, etc. Specs are as follows:
    i7 930 @ 4.2GHz w/HT and turbo off
    Corsair H50
    Gigabyte X58a-UD3R
    6GB OCZ DDR3 1600 kit
    Gigabyte GTX 480
    Coolermaster HAF 932
    2x 1TB Hitachi 7200 RPM HDs

    and that's all you need to see FSX in all its glory. Even my own Core 2 Quad 9550 @ 4GHz + GTX 285 system runs FSX very nicely at mostly high settings. Of course you have to tweak the game config file to get the most out of it, if you're running a stock config file you're missing out on some performance and image quality enhancers that make a tangible difference.
     
  7. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,852
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    :D :D
     
  8. Mobius1aic

    Mobius1aic Quo vadis?
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    244
    I've got two systems.

    First one:

    Phenom II x4 2.8 GHz
    Radeon 5850 1 GB
    2 x 2 GB DDR3-1333
    MSI 770-C45 Mobo
    1 TB 7200 RPM HDD + 160 GB 7200 RPM HDD
    Win7 64 bit + WinXP 32 bit

    Second one:

    Athlon II x4 2.8 GHz
    2 x 1 GB DDR3-1333
    Geforce GTX 460 1 GB
    MSI 785GM-E51 Mobo
    1 TB 7200 RPM HDD + 320 GB 7200 RPM HDD
    Win7 32 bit + WinXP 32 bit

    Despite the RAM differences, difference in OSs (64/32 bit) and different degrees of graphics capability, they both seem to run FSX kind of slow, even with all the settings at bare minimum. I remember getting the same performance on an Athlon x2 5600 2.8 GHz, 8800 GTS 320 MB, 2 x 1 GB DDR2-800 back in the day. Any videos I see seem to show the game very much favoring Intel CPUs (obviously more capability per clock), though I remember using the game on my previous Asus laptop: 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo P8400, Geforce 9800M GS 512 MB, and 4 GB DDR2-800, still getting the same mediocre performance. One thing that came to mind is the possibility that I didn't have the memory running in dual channel mode like it should be and it is in both machines. What about ganged and unganged modes? How would that affect it?

    For the hell of it, I gave the X-Plane 9 demo a whirl on my little Sony Vaio (Core i3 @ 2.16 GHz, Geforce 310M 256 MB GDDR3, 4 GB DDR3-1066) and even at that title's minimal settings it ran at a snails pace. It seems to suffer from the same issue as FSX: high usage on the first thread/core but to an even a higher extent than X-Plane. I might install FSX on this lappy just to see how things turn out.

    Oh and one more thing I didn't mention: I have Acceleration installed with SP2 as well if that makes a difference.

    So I think in the mean time, I'll install the base FSX on my lappy with SP1 (just to see if there's any change) and I'll install the X-Plane 9 demo on my Athlon II x4 machine. Afterwards for the sheer fun of it, I'll put Ubuntu on it (I've been meaning to do it lately) and see if the Linux X-Plane 9 demo renders any performance differences opposed to the Windows build. It'll also give me a chance to see how Amnesia's Linux demo runs too. I would've done this already had Nvidia graphics Vaio's not had an EDID issue with Linux OSs that for me isn't worth the time to fix (yes, there's a fix).
     
    #8 Mobius1aic, Oct 1, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2010
  9. green.pixel

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Europe
    It would demand at least 2x times less if it was coded properly.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...