Flight Simulator: STILL the most unoptimised game ever *RANT*

[The Crazed Child]

I picked up a copy of Prepar3D V2 yesterday, basically I wanted to get back into flight sim again after giving it up for 2 years. I heard that it was more optimised than FSX was, took advantage of the latest GPUs, etc...

 

Plus all my old DLC from FSX worked with Prepar3D as well, so I thought I may as well give it a go. So I downloaded a copy of Dubai Airport (not the most demanding scenery but it will still tax your system) as well as a basic add-on private jet (Carenado Phenom 100, I love it)

 

Then came the exact opposite of what I expected. After turning the frame limiter to 60FPS, I was getting 14-20FPS during takeoff and similar results at default airports. Remember, this is at high settings with a 280X and i7.

Honestly, I thought Arma 3 is unoptimised. It looks far better than Prepar3D too, depending on what scenery you use. It's off-putting as fuck, and obviously Lockheed Martin haven't got their act together. 14FPS. Same FPS as what I got in FSX. I hate it.

[terrytek]

@AlwaysFSX would be pissed to hear this.

[The Crazed Child]

@AlwaysFSX would be pissed to hear this.

I seriously have no words to explain it. I'm just speechless.

[terrytek]

I seriously have no words to explain it. I'm just speechless.

But you probably have configured it wrong maybe.

[Clyne]

Just wait for the FSX Steam version. It will fix some bugs in it. 

[The Crazed Child]

But you probably have configured it wrong maybe.

I definitely didn't, I spent 15 minutes playing with the settings.

[terrytek]

I definitely didn't, I spent 15 minutes playing with the settings.

Try on lower settings.

[The Crazed Child]

Try on lower settings.

I did lol

[Enderman]

How about google earth flight simulator?

[givingtnt]

I picked up a copy of Prepar3D V2 yesterday, basically I wanted to get back into flight sim again after giving it up for 2 years. I heard that it was more optimised than FSX was, took advantage of the latest GPUs, etc...

 

Plus all my old DLC from FSX worked with Prepar3D as well, so I thought I may as well give it a go. So I downloaded a copy of Dubai Airport (not the most demanding scenery but it will still tax your system) as well as a basic add-on private jet (Carenado Phenom 100, I love it)

 

Then came the exact opposite of what I expected. After turning the frame limiter to 60FPS, I was getting 14-20FPS during takeoff and similar results at default airports. Remember, this is at high settings with a 280X and i7.

Honestly, I thought Arma 3 is unoptimised. It looks far better than Prepar3D too, depending on what scenery you use. It's off-putting as fuck, and obviously Lockheed Martin haven't got their act together. 14FPS. Same FPS as what I got in FSX. I hate it.

these simulators are not desinged to run on 280x's at high settings. and of course, if you turn all of the npc's on., your gona have trouble. yes the game is not as well optimised. but that was not as major of a point in the game developping as it is for another actual game. its a simulator. its ment to be as realistic as possible. not to run on windows XP

[Clyne]

I definitely didn't, I spent 15 minutes playing with the settings.

man, you still don't know that FSX is in 32 bit right? 

[The Crazed Child]

man, you still don't know that FSX is in 32 bit right? 

That only limits the amount of RAM it can use

[terrytek]

I did lol

even the lowest? Looks crap, but what would you rather have? High settings, crappy FPS, or high FPS, crappy look?

 

That only limits the amount of RAM it can use

Means less RAM to perform smoothly.

[Clyne]

That only limits the amount of RAM it can use

and means it runs less smoothly.

Wait for the steam version to fix the bugs or something

http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/flight-simulator-x-steam-edition-arriving-december-18-30021

[The Crazed Child]

even the lowest? Looks crap, but what would you rather have? High settings, crappy FPS, or high FPS, crappy look?

 

Means less RAM to perform smoothly.

My point is that they have barely even fixed the game which is a pretty shitty thing to do

[Clyne]

My point is that they have barely even fixed the game which is a pretty shitty thing to do

December 18

http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/flight-simulator-x-steam-edition-arriving-december-18-30021

[The Crazed Child]

December 18

http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/flight-simulator-x-steam-edition-arriving-december-18-30021

I'm still unsure

 

I doubt they'd fix major things

[XTankSlayerX]

It's kind of amusing how we're going on about EA and Ubisoft being shite, meanwhile Bethesda cant even make a engine and Minecraft runs like balls.

[terrytek]

It's kind of amusing how we're going on about EA and Ubisoft being shite, meanwhile Bethesda cant even make a engine and Minecraft runs like balls.

Minecraft doesn't run like balls. It's great.

[Laurysss]

It's kind of amusing how we're going on about EA and Ubisoft being shite, meanwhile Bethesda cant even make a engine and Minecraft runs like balls.

Minecraft runs bad?? It runs grate even with shaders..

[Davehaslanded]

I've spoken to Dovetail games who are developing the Steam Edition, and i wouldn't get your hopes up. Their licensing deal with Microsoft only allows them to patch out bugs and switch Microsoft games for windows to Steam. Pretty sure they can add dlc to steam too. However they have no plans to update FSX to any new APIs. It will still run at 32Bit on Directx 9 i believe. I'm under the impression this deal was more aimed at getting hold of the old technology, programming and the Flight Simulator Brand, so that Dovetail can build future flight sims with something to start from. They have already stated they have intentions to release future versions of Flight Simulator (Under the Flight simulator Brand)

[Guest]

Thought of trying X-Plane?

 

Not the best looking series of sims but they run buttery smooth. At least 9 does. 

[The Crazed Child]

Thought of trying X-Plane?

 

Not the best looking series of sims but they run buttery smooth. At least 9 does. 

I've heard it's a well-optimised game, but none of my addons will run on it.

[deathjester]

I picked up a copy of Prepar3D V2 yesterday, basically I wanted to get back into flight sim again after giving it up for 2 years. I heard that it was more optimised than FSX was, took advantage of the latest GPUs, etc...

 

Plus all my old DLC from FSX worked with Prepar3D as well, so I thought I may as well give it a go. So I downloaded a copy of Dubai Airport (not the most demanding scenery but it will still tax your system) as well as a basic add-on private jet (Carenado Phenom 100, I love it)

 

Then came the exact opposite of what I expected. After turning the frame limiter to 60FPS, I was getting 14-20FPS during takeoff and similar results at default airports. Remember, this is at high settings with a 280X and i7.

Honestly, I thought Arma 3 is unoptimised. It looks far better than Prepar3D too, depending on what scenery you use. It's off-putting as fuck, and obviously Lockheed Martin haven't got their act together. 14FPS. Same FPS as what I got in FSX. I hate it.

 

FSX is VERY CPU bound and like almost all old games is 1-2 core optimized. If you can grab a good clocking Sandy Bridge K that would get much higher performance. I5 K would run just as well as the I7.

 

To be honest that new cheapo dual core pentium on a OC would destroy your I7 Sandy at 3.4 in FSX and is probably the best cheap option for a FSX computer, but you would need a new board for that and the CPU is bad for other games going forward.

 

Single core performance is what matters in that game, so your performance will look like this. You can test single core on your I7 2600 in cinebench r15 and see how it compares.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

[The Crazed Child]

FSX is VERY CPU bound and like almost all old games is 1-2 core optimized. If you can grab a good clocking Sandy Bridge K that would get much higher performance. I5 K would run just as well as the I7.

 

To be honest that new cheapo dual core pentium on a OC would destroy your I7 Sandy at 3.4 in FSX and is probably the best cheap option for a FSX computer, but you would need a new board for that and the CPU is bad for other games going forward.

 

Single core performance is what matters in that game, so your performance will look like this. You can test single core on your I7 2600 in cinebench r15 and see how it compares.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

Yeah but the problem is that Prepar3D was meant to fix all that - honestly I see no difference in performance when compared to FSX.