Globe Cargo

Hey guys,

I am completely dumbfounded on why FSX is running so slow given the setup I have. It is as follows:

Intel Core2 Quad 2.4 GHz processor
EVGA nForce 780i SLI motherboard
8 GB of RAM
500 GB SATA HDD
2 nVidia GeForce 8800 Ultra GPU's each with 750MB of RAM
Thermaltake BigWater 760is liquid cooling system
1000w PSU

How on God's green earth, with all of this unholy power at my disposal, can FSX be running so slow relative to comparable systems?

P.S I have the FSX graphics all turned to about half

Wow, something is wrong there. My system isn't all that close to yours in performance and I'm getting roughly 20 fps in the 744.

I have heard though that FSX is mostly about CPU and not video card performance. According to what I've heard (I'm no expert in this matter), having SLI'd GPU's won't make much of a difference with FS.

nwadc10 wrote:Wow, something is wrong there. My system isn't all that close to yours in performance and I'm getting roughly 20 fps in the 744.

I have heard though that FSX is mostly about CPU and not video card performance. According to what I've heard (I'm no expert in this matter), having SLI'd GPU's won't make much of a difference with FS.

Through my own experimentation I have found that you are correct, the SLI'd GPU's have no effect on FSX because FSX is not optimized or coded for that matter to accept SLI software/hardware, but even if it is CPU based shouldn't all that RAM plus the 2.4 GHz quad core I'm rocking be plenty to run FSX on full or near full settings? I mean I'm getting 13fps on average but still, I know my system should be able to double that easily. Do you suppose Vista is the problem because I've been toying with the notion of upgrading to Windows 7.

Are you using a 64 bit Vista? If you aren't you should be.

I upgraded to windows 7 on 2 of my 3 computers and I really like Win 7. However, I didn't see any increase in FPS that many claim they got. Maybe I have to do something to get a FPS increase that I don't know about with Win 7. I use 64 bit of course.

I probably shouldn't be the one giving advice because as I said before I'm not an expert. I know several people who frequent this message board are much smarter than I with this stuff and can probably point you in the right direction.

FSX performance is CPU based. Nice video cards won't help you there . I replaced my Q6600 2.4 with the i7 950 and it does make a huge difference. You can't compare fps because there are a lot of factors that contribute negatively to it, like traffic, VC, weather, water effects, heavy airports, etc.

13fps is not bad. If you're considering upgrading to W7, do it. My fps improved (comparing with Vista). With my Q6600, it jumped from 13 (just like you) to 17 18 average.
From PMDG: "PMDG strongly discourages using FSX in the Windows Vista operating system, regardless of how much processor speed, video capability or memory you may have."

Tips:

Limit your FPS. 18, 20 is probably enough.
Disable aircraft cast shadows on itself.
Disable aircraft label.

Some tweaks in the fsx.cfg that might help:

"This variable determines the amount of CPU time given to loading scenery data as a fraction of the time spent rendering. For example, the default value of 0.33 means that for every 3 milliseconds spent rendering, FS will give 1 millisecond to the scenery loader. If necessary, you can use a larger value to devote more time to loading. Or, if you don't have a problem with the blurries and you want slightly higher frame rates, then you can use a smaller value. Again, this variable is only available in the final release version of FSX and is not available in the beta or demo."
[Main]
FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33

This is for your Quad. Tells FSX to use 4 cores.
[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=15

Remove small objects that only consume your processor and limits autogen per area.
[Scenery]
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=800
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=400
SmallPartRejectRadius=3

Your video card supports this number.
[BufferPools]
PoolSize=12000000

If you aren't running a 64 bit OS, than your 8 gigs of RAM are not being fully utilized. Your next best option is to overclock that CPU. If you can get it running at 3.0ghz or higher, you should see a good jump in average fps.

Audiohavoc wrote:If you aren't running a 64 bit OS, than your 8 gigs of RAM are not being fully utilized. Your next best option is to overclock that CPU. If you can get it running at 3.0ghz or higher, you should see a good jump in average fps.

How do I get the program to fully utilize the RAM, I am running Vista 64 but I think I'm going to upgrade to 7. I think it's only $30 USD to upgrade from Vista.

1. As noted FSX is processor dependent - the two video cards are actually slowing you down SLI is not for FS
2. You need an I7 processor overclocked ( you can put the liquid cooling to use) to get to where you want to be

Peter, have you checked to make sure your machine isn't running something in the background? Sometimes, those little pesky things that start automatically get overlooked.

yoni63 wrote:Peter, have you checked to make sure your machine isn't running something in the background? Sometimes, those little pesky things that start automatically get overlooked.

I have a program that shuts down all non-essential programs and systems. It's specifically designed for gaming.

peter wrote:1. As noted FSX is processor dependent - the two video cards are actually slowing you down SLI is not for FS
2. You need an I7 processor overclocked ( you can put the liquid cooling to use) to get to where you want to be

And Peter, I've tried overclocking my processor before but my BIOS locks out that option and I have no idea how to unlock it. I don't know enough to install a new BIOS system myself.

Steve - i know notheing about overclocking - i take my system to a local shop -

Try this :- http://www.nhancer.com/

Brogs wrote:Try this :- http://www.nhancer.com/

I actually installed that program a while ago and it didn't really help anything. I was actually pretty disappointed.

AmundRe wrote:

Brogs wrote:Try this :- http://www.nhancer.com/

I actually installed that program a while ago and it didn't really help anything. I was actually pretty disappointed.

I concur, just gave me headaches and I saw no benefit.