Well, even though it was optimized to be more efficent, it was (optimized) to run more efficently on Vista.

hope you get that problem sorted out soon

Quote:


...all this autogen scenery, textures and various objects are stored on my hard drive, and ONLY the details which I select in the opening FSX/FS 2004 screen are actually loaded onto my System memory and my Video memory!

So..!

If I select the minimum data , ie; lowest visual quality, why is my System memory and Video memory overloaded by such a drastic amount..?

In my FS 2004 opening screen I select the maximum visual quality, which is far superior in visual effect to my selection in FSX, yet FSX uses far more memory and CPU resources than FS 2004.

I compare the FSX scenery around me which is sparse, to my FS 2004 scenery which is highly varied, detailed and complex and I wonder where all my FSX System and Video memory is going to..?

As for overall speed and efficiency, it compares FS 2004 programed in pure Machine Code, to FSX programed in Sinclair/Commodore BASIC...!

Remember that only my actual selected scenery and effects are loaded from my hard drive into my memory at the start-up, and used by the CPU and graphics card, not the whole of the contents of the 2 DVD's...!

That's why I keep asking this question, my little Grasshopper......!

Paul....8)...!

FSX on sparse already beats FS9 from what i have seen, and i'm able to run it on a medium setting. Heck, i think my system is pretty poor and i cained to think that without my current card it would run better compared to FS9.

Current system:

AMD Athlon XP2400 running on 2000MHZ
1024MB Ramm

1 Gforce FX 5200
1 Gforce FX 6800

Windows XP.

Paul, even with FSX cranked to the absolute minimum, the mesh, terrain textures and landclass textures are 10x larger both in terms of filesize but pixel size as well!

Where FS9 used 256x256 tiles, FSX uses 1024x1024 tiles!!!

simple answer..use resized textures you cant get some from: http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41 ..only one ive tried is autogen resized textures and it got me approx 5fps more and the only difference that i can see is VERY close to autogen trees where the textures are a bit less detailed

Seriously Fozzer, your comparing apples with pears, how did you get the idea that you would get the same amount of framerates?

After looking at these comparison shots, I would have to objectively wonder the same question.  Why would something that does not look visually as good (FSX at low settings) require more resources and give lower framerates than FS9 at higher settings (which in my opinion look better on the screen shots posted above).

Sorry daube - I don't think so....

People are reporting that with autogen turned off performance is still way below FS9. That would knock your theory into a cocked hat. You obviously don't know - it's just your theory.

I don't have the demo installed now and I won't take delivery of the release for a day or so, so this is from memory. In the main folder there's a folder called Shaders, or something like that. It contains bitmaps that apply to a whole lot of different aspects of the sim and it ain't there for fun. My guess is that a lot of graphical horse-power is going into applying fancy effects that you can't see right now on current cards (or at least, only on very high end cards). However, I don't know for sure which is why I'd like someone technical who does, who was maybe involved in the development of the software, to tell me.

There's been a lot of discussion about hardware to run FSX and unfortunately we're all in limbo until we get DX10 (or DX9*!* or whatever it'll be called for XP) and then know something about the cards needed to run it. I see lot's of guys asking whether their AMD 2400 and 6600GT will run FSX. Yes, of course it will run the software, but there's no way the software will perform - there's a difference.

I've said in other threads that MS owe us the courtesy of telling us about the systems they tested this software on and how it performed, but I won't hold my breath as I don't think the news would be good for anyone with low end systems - and then they wouldn't buy it. Cynical aren't I - no, just realistic.

But think about this.

A 6600GT 128MB is now selling in the UK discounted for as low as £55 plus VAT (I know - I've just put one into a PC for sale). The new Radeon X1950 XTX 512MB GDDR4 is being/has just been launched for £300 + VAT.

You'll have a problem finding a new bog standard Athlon XP now in the UK. Athlon 64 3500s are now only £50 + VAT while the lowest price I've seen for the Intel Core2 Duo E6700 is around £360 + VAT.

Where do you think FSX is targetted - at the AMD 2400+/6600GT kit or the twin X1950 XTXs/E6700? I know what I think it was developed and tested on, but I'd still like to know for sure just so I have an understanding of the ball-park we're in.

Anyway, that's my two-pennies worth and I'll have to drop this for now as I've got a lot of web site work to do that I'm neglecting.

Yeah, there is always a whole lot more happening then what is visible to the eye.

Quote:

Some tree textures were much bigger if I remember well, but still in a lighter format!

Quote:

Sure ==> Ouch !


Quote:

Of course, what's the plot in issuing a software that is already outdated ? I'm glad I can play FSX right now with limited settings, and I am also glad that if I decide to spend money on hardware, I won't just get better FPS, but also better image quality, the same if I upgrade once more next year.

Daube is 100% correct.
ofcourse FSX is going to be so much more demanding its a new game! if you can run FS9 on max it doesnt mean your going to be able to run FSX maxed
its like saying wow i can run Half Life maxed settings but i can only run Half Life 2 on very minimun this is stupid. God Sake if your getting crap frames maybe its because you need to update something or tweek something!

if you dnt like FSX stop playing it and just fly FS9 and stop bringing all this crap to the FSX board, if you want to say that you think FSX is crap then do that but why compare it to FS9 when they are totaly diffearnt, it makes no sense! FS9 was realesed 2 years ago to run on hardware released 2 years ago (so the Geforce 6 series) and FSX was realesed 2006 so deisgned to run on GeForce 7series and GeForce 8 series (DX10) You are not going to be able to get the same frames on the same settings in FSX as you do in FS9 because THEY ARE TOTALY DIFFERANT PROGRAMS!!!!

john

....sorry to rant on but its been realy getting on my tits recently!

that sarcastic?

Quote:


The folks at ACES have posted the specs of the computers used in their development studio to program and test FSX.  Read their blog entries if you really want to know.

They have a wide variety of hardware available, but nearly all of 'em are most charitably described as mid-range desktops.  There certainly aren't any "Alienware" spec'ed computers there!

Start here: http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2006/10.aspx
and read.  There are links on the left sidebar to the other developer's blogs.