Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 6, 2009 at 11:08 PM Posted April 6, 2009 at 11:08 PM Ive been using FSX for a while now, and have got decent FPS with very high settings (around 30-40FPS). I installed VFR london scenery, which killed the FPS to around 8. I uninstalled it, and had to fully re-install FSX to get it working again. Now my FPS is around 20 on the same settings. Anybody got any ideas what could be causing this dip? My PC specs are as followed Intel E7500 at 4.3GHZ 4GB OCZ reaper RAM ATI HD4870 1GB and my resolution is 1440x900 Using windows vista 64bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Byrne Posted April 7, 2009 at 01:39 AM Posted April 7, 2009 at 01:39 AM Hi, After you uninstall, are you rebooting? If not, this can leave residual files in the FS folder. For the moment, with a clean install, you could try deleting your FS config file (not sure where it is for FSX) and let FS rebuild it from scratch when it next starts up. This should clean your config in case anything was left in it from the previous installation. You could also try this with your scenery.cfg file also, in case any previous scenery entries were left behind. Hope this helps. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM Author Posted April 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM Cheers for the info. Did reboot after uninstalling and deleted all config files, and I had no scenery files. May have to reinstall FS9 for the time being, as the low FPS (even on medium settings) is making the game sluggish. May try re-installing to another hard drive or re-install GPU drivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Klain 874106 Posted April 7, 2009 at 11:59 PM Posted April 7, 2009 at 11:59 PM Kyle, Do a bit of searching in these forums or the internet. FSX is docomeented to run slower FPS than FS9 on the same computer...but it also gives much smoother and flyable conditions at MUCH slower FPS (as slow as 6-8 FPS by some counts). I don't know of anyone who doesn't see a 10-15 FPS drop when shifting from FS9 to FSX on the same PC. Don't expect to see the same FPS you see with FS9...issue is if what you are seeing in the sim is flyable...Most find it an imrprovement and have to "redefine" their number as to what level of FPS is the minimum acceptable. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted April 8, 2009 at 12:24 AM Posted April 8, 2009 at 12:24 AM Don't expect to see the same FPS you see with FS9... But I think it is acceptable for him to expect to see the same FPS he had before with FSX. He hasn't switched sims, just reinstalled. I'd be curious if some settings had changed, or whether the Service Packs were installed. One should see a significant FPS increase between the RTM version of FSX and SP1. Cheers! Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 8, 2009 at 01:11 AM Author Posted April 8, 2009 at 01:11 AM Yes i have both service packs installed, tweaked my settings abit and runs about 30 FPS which is good enough for me. Would a quad core be an improvement over my E7500? (was thinking Q6600?) or more ram. Ive been thinking of upgrading to 8 GB due to vista eating memory. Might even go back to XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry James 901346 Posted April 9, 2009 at 09:31 AM Posted April 9, 2009 at 09:31 AM Yes i have both service packs installed, tweaked my settings abit and runs about 30 FPS which is good enough for me. Would a quad core be an improvement over my E7500? (was thinking Q6600?) or more ram. Ive been thinking of upgrading to 8 GB due to vista eating memory. Might even go back to XP. Hi, Kyle. Vista might not be eating your memory, per se. It's designed to use all available memory for performance. I haven't ever put 8 gigs in a system yet, but I would be surprised if you found zero memory left after installing that (I believe there's a special configuration setting to have the 8 gigs recognized). With XP you can gauge when you need to add RAM by observing how much you have left when running your applications. Maybe someone else will chime in on how to gauge the necessity for adding ram with Vista, except for just knowing how much a normal optimum environment is. -- L. James -- L. D. James [email protected] www.apollo3.com/~ljames sticky: Not a regular post, but a special thread/message stuck to the top with special meaning… containing important forum information. For FSInn/VATSIM issues, please test the FSInn Installation sticky and linked FAQ. It really works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Millman 1059916 Posted April 9, 2009 at 07:56 PM Posted April 9, 2009 at 07:56 PM It might also be something very simple. When you re-installed FSX, did you defragment your drive? After an un-install and re-install it may have left the FSX install fragmented across two parts of the disk, which seems to really have an impact on performance. A third party defragger, like O&O Defrag, does a better job than the windows-default one. I have 4 GB on Vista-64, in a pretty similarly configured machine, if you were getting good frame rates before, you should still be getting them now. Right after a reboot, pull up the processes list in the task manager and see if there's anything taking up swathes of memory. Vista's (and XP's) disk cache will expand to fill the available memory to a certain extent, but disk caching won't hurt performance, and FSX is pretty good at grabbing the memory it needs from Vista-64. From what I understand Quad-core doesn't make a big difference over dual-core for FSX, but that's mostly from observing friend's machines and stuff.... I've got the same CPU as you, and the same qty of RAM, though I have 2 nVidia 8800's... After much tweaking, I can max out the sliders and still get ~30+ fps in a default aircraft somewhere like KJFK, in heavy weather. The PMDG 747 isn't quite so kind, and the sliders have to go down a bit... I've found FSX is very brittle... too many configuration changes and it decides to pick up its toys and go home, and you're left with stuttery frame rates until you blow everything away, including the stuff in both the Local and Roaming folders in Application Data under your User folder. I find I can get back to baseline with a complete uninstall, then a reboot, then deleting any leftover files and the stuff in AppData, then defrag, re-install, defrag again (the first defrag might be unnecessary, but I'm paranoid that way). Hope this helps! Good luck, and don't go back to FS9.... FSX is a lot of work to get working, but once you get it smooth... it just looks SOO nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 9, 2009 at 09:42 PM Author Posted April 9, 2009 at 09:42 PM Cheers for the advise. Going to re-install and disk defrag over the weekend. I do agree that it is smoother at lower FPS than FS9. I installed FS9 today on vista 64 for the first time, and its soooooo buggy, everytime i right click its like the screen refreshes. The only thing I liked about FS9 was the amount of extras that are available, from planes to scenery, dont think theres as much on FSX. Anyhow, FSX keeps freezing abit as well. TBH, I need a new HDD soon anyway, so may just wait for when i do a fresh install. OOO the decisions. Thanks for the help again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Byrne Posted April 10, 2009 at 02:54 AM Posted April 10, 2009 at 02:54 AM Hi Kyle, everytime i right click its like the screen refreshes That sounds like it could be a graphics driver issue. Have you installed newer drivers recently also? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM Author Posted April 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM No, but I installed CCC 9.2 before, see if this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Byrne Posted April 10, 2009 at 04:48 PM Posted April 10, 2009 at 04:48 PM Hi, That sounds like you have installed the Catalyst 9.2 drivers and the latest CCC for your ATI card. Sometimes the newest drivers aren't always the best. For reference (I use FS9), I am using the 6.1 drivers from ATI and it causes no problems at all. But you may not have DX10 support with those drivers. Try rolling your ATI drivers back a couple of steps. This may help. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Whittle 1102201 Posted April 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM Author Posted April 11, 2009 at 10:35 PM I upgraded my drivers so I could get sound over HDMI, as i also use my PC for watching films etc. Think im just going to do a proper re-install and disk defrag and stick with FSX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts