I am at a loss...!

I have just run both FSX and FS 2004 to compare the System Ram, Video Ram, and CPU usage between the two programs using a small Memory Status program running in the background: MemStatus 2.50 (Kevin Reems).

System RAM = 1.5 GB
Video Ram = 128 MB (nVidia GeForce BFG 6600 GT 128 MB RAM)
CPU = AMD 2800+ MMX.....2.2 GHz

FS Autostart.
Both programs operating in the same scenery area.
****************************************************

FSX with mostly default settings, (very minimum!):

System RAM usage = 75%.
Video RAM = 100% usage.
CPU usage = 75%.
****************************************************
FS 2004 with Maximum settings including various add-ons:

System RAM usage = 37%.
Video RAM usage = 45%.
CPU usage = 42%.
****************************************************
I cannot figure out why FSX is consuming so much of my resources in a low quality mode, when it is supposed to be optimised to be more efficient, and less demanding than FS 2004..!!
The whole of my Video RAM, AND MORE, is being swallowed up!
...and three quarters of my total System RAM!

The difference in consumption between the two programs is alarming...!

There is no comparison between the visual quality of the two programs. My FS 2004 is far superior!

Very strange. I am almost tempted to uninstall FSX, and continue to run FS 2004 with its maximum settings, and all its present extras!

Paul.......!

I still can't figure why people keep asking that kinf of questions...  ??? ???

In a normal scenery, you have the terrain, the buildings, and the trees (plus other stuff, but let's consider only the most important ones). In the video memory, you have to store all the textures used for eack kinf of object.

Now FSX show MUCH MORE objects than FS9, so it's more heavy on the proc (video proc and cpu as well). Additionnaly, there are MUCH MORE types of autogen objects than there was in FS9, so that's much more different textures to load in the video memory for a single piece of scenery.

See what I mean ? Because there are more variety in the objects displayed by FSX, more different textures have to be loaded in memory, and because there are much more objects on the screen and more graphical effects, it's more heavy on the CPU and video CPU.

Could you add a pair of screenshots, so that we can have a concrete comparison between "sparse FSX" and "maxed FS9" ?

Because I still think that even with "sparse" autogen in FSX, there are still more objects displayed than in FS9, or at least a greater number of different objects, meaning more textures in memory.

Remember: if you display 10 identical buildings, you will have just one texture in video memory.
If you display 10 different buildings, you will have 10 textures in the video memory !! And exactely the same applies to the trees !

Quote:


No sooner suggested, than done....>>>

Approaching Petaluma Airfield, California.
FS 2004. All settings maxed, scenery, texture, effects, etc..

FSX default minimum settings, no traffic, no effects, etc.

FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


FS 2004


FSX


Note the comparison in scenery to try and achieve a similar frame rate in FSX....!!
..and tell me where all my system and video memory has gone to in FSX...?

..and my towns and cities are crammed full of colourful buildings in FS 2004, with ground textures, Autogen trees, scenery, roads, rivers, etc , maxed, with very little memory, or CPU time used......!

Paul.......!

Quote:


Hi n4.... ...!

Comparing the first two screen shots, what benefit is there in the larger tile size which consumes so much memory and CPU time, and therefore seriously restricts everyone achieving an acceptable overall scenery appearance, as depicted in the FS 2004 screenshots...?

Cheers...!

Paul...  ...!

<typo>

Quote:


A tip from one of the lads on the forum!

Dear old Google......!

What would we do without her?...."Mem Status"...>>>

http://www.programmersheaven.com/download/5759/download.aspx

Paul...!

Run it in a window, together with your program.....!

???
Of course he's comparing apples with pears. For goodness sake, everyone stop keep defending FSX and answer the question.  

Where has all the memory gone in FSX when the results you can see (and that's the ONLY thing that counts) is infinitely poorer in FSX than in FS9 in identical situations. It certainly hasn't gone on mesh, fancy water, autogen, birds, animals, slithering reptiles, baying hyenas, bumpy rivets etc etc, that you can SEE anyway.

Straight answers only please - no waffle and no talking out of backsides allowed  

If you are not technical and don't know keep quiet. If you are technical and do know, spill the beans because I'd like to know as well.

Thank you.

PS I can't remember who it was in a posting above - you don't stand a cat's chance of running FSX in anyway shape or form that (a) will compare to your FS9 and (b) you will like, on an AMD 2400 processor. All of the screenies posted so far that I've seen from lower end processors show FSX with sliders well down to the left and then the appearance does not compare favourably to FS9. Sorry.

Quote:


I have ALREADY ANSWERED the question.

Look at the threes in the FS9 shots.
Look at the threes in the FSX shots.

In FS9, you get something like 4 or 5 differents trees (not counting the fix scenery palm trees, which are not autogen)
In FSX, just in the second shot, you can already spot more than 10 different trees, which have probably bigger textures than the trees in FS9.

Got it ? In FSX, for the same scenery, you need to load at least 2x more textures in memory, and if the textures are heavier (which I'm almost sure), you get yet another reason to consume more memory.

The number of displayed object has no influence at all. It's the number of different object types that will load your video memory with countless textures !

There's a patch to limit the number of different textures for FSX. There's also a tweak for limiting the size of those textures, and I'm wondering if there's not already a pack of resized (smaller resolution) textures for autogen.