Aaaargh!!! NORTON??...................... that programme slows everything down like treacle!!!! :sicky:I use Norton
FS9 Performance: memory, CPU or graphics card?
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
I bought my current computer last year and it was custom built for FS only. It's working perfectly on FS 9. However, the supplier told me that Norton was his favouite software - 70% of the servicing side of his business came from errors created by Norton. I chucked that and McAfee out years ago. I use Steganos and Acronis. Cannot fault them.
Ralph
Ralph
-
airboatr
gevers1
CHeack out Driver Cleaner from Guru3D
Just released today here http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?na ... w_topic=80
I just found this version And will be giving it a try myself
CHeack out Driver Cleaner from Guru3D
Just released today here http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?na ... w_topic=80
I just found this version And will be giving it a try myself
Well,it's 1am here, just completed the uninstall - defrag - reinstall - of FS9. Made some minor graphics cards changes as recommended at tweakernet.com.
But before I started on that exercise, I ran FS9 with the FSAutostart utility, shut down a host of services and managed to get a relatively steady 26-30fps on the dornier do-27 at PAJN, using default weather (so no active sky etc)
So now, with a clean install the Cessna is sitting at KSEA, again default weather, 1280x1024, fps unlimited.
Spot view: 97fps
2d view : 56fps
VC : 60 fps
Much better than before anyway, so some improvement already.
Some initial observations:
FS9 loads up like the proverbial sh*te of a shovel, < 9 secs as opposed to 30-40secs before.
FPS is much more steady, so no wild swings in FPS
Tomorrow then, install the carenado and dornier, no scenery addons, see how we go!
g'night all!
But before I started on that exercise, I ran FS9 with the FSAutostart utility, shut down a host of services and managed to get a relatively steady 26-30fps on the dornier do-27 at PAJN, using default weather (so no active sky etc)
So now, with a clean install the Cessna is sitting at KSEA, again default weather, 1280x1024, fps unlimited.
Spot view: 97fps
2d view : 56fps
VC : 60 fps
Much better than before anyway, so some improvement already.
Some initial observations:
FS9 loads up like the proverbial sh*te of a shovel, < 9 secs as opposed to 30-40secs before.
FPS is much more steady, so no wild swings in FPS
Tomorrow then, install the carenado and dornier, no scenery addons, see how we go!
g'night all!
Well, you asked for it. Some initial results ...
Ok, like i said, reinstalled and bechmarked again. The following benchmarks are taken with a standard fs9.cfg (no mods at all), A/C engines running, switching views, 15 seconds after the scenario has loaded (to give FS9 a chance to settle down).
Terrain Complexity 60
Terrain texture size: High
Terrain detail: Land only
Water Effects: low
Dawn/dusk texturing on
Special Effects Detail: high
Autogen Density: normal
No add-on dynamic scenery
Sun flare/lens flare on
VC Gauge quality : high
A/c casts shadows
Landing lights
Detailed clouds
Cloud coverage density:medium
Sight Distance: 60m
Cloud Draw Distance : 30m
3d cloud percentage: 50
Bilenear Filtering
Render to texture
TRansform and lighting
Anti-aliasing off
MIP: 4
Hardware Rendered lights: 6
GLobal Max Texture size: High
Initial memory 2048mb
Weather: Fair Weather
Time: 20:45 (so dusk, with lights)
Glacier Bay V2 Installed
F1View (for vc panning)
FPS unlocked (so that I can measure true FPS)
FPS measurements in order --> 2D -- VC -- Spot -- Tower
----------------------
@KSEA
Cessna 172: 53 52 91 130(!)
Carenado : 46 43 65 120 (!)
Dornier : n/a 28 65 87
@PAJN (glacier bay addon)
Cessna 172: 48 47 82 92
Carenado : 39 40 64 61
Dornier : n/a 25 64 57
I also took some benchmarks for all these a/c at RAWL (meaningless for those of you who dont have Glacier Bay installed) where, surprisingly, the Dornier had very good FPS rates, beating the Carenado in the Spot and Tower views (by 7 and 5 fps respectivly)
Next benchmarks will be with more complex weather, such as heavy rain and snow.
I guess it's safe to say there has been an improvement across the board. Ok, so it's a pretty vanilla installation, settings wise, and i'm not running active sky like I normally would.
I'll be doing some more tests over the coming days. Initial results are encouraging, but lets see what happens when active sky is added and when i take these a/c for an extended flight.
Ok, like i said, reinstalled and bechmarked again. The following benchmarks are taken with a standard fs9.cfg (no mods at all), A/C engines running, switching views, 15 seconds after the scenario has loaded (to give FS9 a chance to settle down).
Terrain Complexity 60
Terrain texture size: High
Terrain detail: Land only
Water Effects: low
Dawn/dusk texturing on
Special Effects Detail: high
Autogen Density: normal
No add-on dynamic scenery
Sun flare/lens flare on
VC Gauge quality : high
A/c casts shadows
Landing lights
Detailed clouds
Cloud coverage density:medium
Sight Distance: 60m
Cloud Draw Distance : 30m
3d cloud percentage: 50
Bilenear Filtering
Render to texture
TRansform and lighting
Anti-aliasing off
MIP: 4
Hardware Rendered lights: 6
GLobal Max Texture size: High
Initial memory 2048mb
Weather: Fair Weather
Time: 20:45 (so dusk, with lights)
Glacier Bay V2 Installed
F1View (for vc panning)
FPS unlocked (so that I can measure true FPS)
FPS measurements in order --> 2D -- VC -- Spot -- Tower
----------------------
@KSEA
Cessna 172: 53 52 91 130(!)
Carenado : 46 43 65 120 (!)
Dornier : n/a 28 65 87
@PAJN (glacier bay addon)
Cessna 172: 48 47 82 92
Carenado : 39 40 64 61
Dornier : n/a 25 64 57
I also took some benchmarks for all these a/c at RAWL (meaningless for those of you who dont have Glacier Bay installed) where, surprisingly, the Dornier had very good FPS rates, beating the Carenado in the Spot and Tower views (by 7 and 5 fps respectivly)
Next benchmarks will be with more complex weather, such as heavy rain and snow.
I guess it's safe to say there has been an improvement across the board. Ok, so it's a pretty vanilla installation, settings wise, and i'm not running active sky like I normally would.
I'll be doing some more tests over the coming days. Initial results are encouraging, but lets see what happens when active sky is added and when i take these a/c for an extended flight.
Last update then:
I've managed to get a reasonable performance now from my machine. I can get a steady 35fps on average with complex scenery and a/c like the carenado and the default FS9 a/c. Something like the Digital Aviations excellent Do-27 hits a little harder (about 25fps depending on outside scenery) but it's still pefectly flyable.
Also, other complex addons like the Flight 1's MD80 are just fantastic, again, a steady 30fps. The real bonus though is that Captain Sims 757 and LevelD767 are completely useable. Both a/c now give me 23-25fps on average which, given these where in single figures before is a real improvement.
On the downside, Flight1's ATR72-500 with which i did all my Avsim flying around ireland is not performing well at all: 17-18fps. It's odd, because it always flew so smoothly before.
So, all in all was it worth it: yes, but only just given the investment I've made. I think the clean reinstall of FS9 helped, the extra memory probably helped the CS757 and LevelD767, and the graphics card makes everything a lot smoother. Even though in places i still get 13-18fps (for example approaching EGPD from the north with Scotflights scenery, but this is a known issue) when the fps does drop you dont notice it as much as before.
I've got a pretty clean FS9 now, with only a few a/c installed. I've installed only the scenery I want (glaciery bay, ISFD Irish scenery and Scotflight) and a bog-standard FS9.cfg. Framerates locked at 26.
What would I do differently? I'd probably have bought the processor and the memory and kept my old 1300X graphics card. This is probably an ill-researched comment, but I cant help thinking I'd have gotten better performance with that combination. I'll eventually buy the processor too, but i just want to let the bank balance settle down after all this.
Anyway, it's been a frustrating journey but I've learned a lot. Lastly, I just wanted to thank all the forumites for helping me out and putting up with my daft questions.
Final spec: AMD Athlon 64 3700+ | Sapphire Radion X1950XTX 512mb | 3gb RAM
I've managed to get a reasonable performance now from my machine. I can get a steady 35fps on average with complex scenery and a/c like the carenado and the default FS9 a/c. Something like the Digital Aviations excellent Do-27 hits a little harder (about 25fps depending on outside scenery) but it's still pefectly flyable.
Also, other complex addons like the Flight 1's MD80 are just fantastic, again, a steady 30fps. The real bonus though is that Captain Sims 757 and LevelD767 are completely useable. Both a/c now give me 23-25fps on average which, given these where in single figures before is a real improvement.
On the downside, Flight1's ATR72-500 with which i did all my Avsim flying around ireland is not performing well at all: 17-18fps. It's odd, because it always flew so smoothly before.
So, all in all was it worth it: yes, but only just given the investment I've made. I think the clean reinstall of FS9 helped, the extra memory probably helped the CS757 and LevelD767, and the graphics card makes everything a lot smoother. Even though in places i still get 13-18fps (for example approaching EGPD from the north with Scotflights scenery, but this is a known issue) when the fps does drop you dont notice it as much as before.
I've got a pretty clean FS9 now, with only a few a/c installed. I've installed only the scenery I want (glaciery bay, ISFD Irish scenery and Scotflight) and a bog-standard FS9.cfg. Framerates locked at 26.
What would I do differently? I'd probably have bought the processor and the memory and kept my old 1300X graphics card. This is probably an ill-researched comment, but I cant help thinking I'd have gotten better performance with that combination. I'll eventually buy the processor too, but i just want to let the bank balance settle down after all this.
Anyway, it's been a frustrating journey but I've learned a lot. Lastly, I just wanted to thank all the forumites for helping me out and putting up with my daft questions.
Final spec: AMD Athlon 64 3700+ | Sapphire Radion X1950XTX 512mb | 3gb RAM