±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big

Welcome Anonymous


Latest: freaknikz
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6598

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 99
Total: 99
Who Is Where:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Photo Gallery
04: Home
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Community Forums
09: Photo Gallery
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Photo Gallery
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Photo Gallery
21: Photo Gallery
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Home
32: News
33: Home
34: Community Forums
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: CPGlang
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Community Forums
46: News
47: Community Forums
48: Photo Gallery
49: Photo Gallery
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Photo Gallery
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: CPGlang
59: Home
60: Home
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Photo Gallery
64: Photo Gallery
65: Downloads
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Photo Gallery
70: Community Forums
71: Photo Gallery
72: CPGlang
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Photo Gallery
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Photo Gallery
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Photo Gallery
82: Photo Gallery
83: Photo Gallery
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Photo Gallery
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: CPGlang
99: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Did a little testing...... :: Archived
A forum for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X
Post new topic    Revive this topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  FSX

Topic Archived View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
Posts: 5832
Location: Group W bench
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:56 pm
Post subject: Did a little testing......

...in reference to this topic right here which I see is getting a lot of press on various other places tonight too:


Well you know me....I gotta know...I gotta test......Because I'm always curious about real vs. perceived gains from tweaks and stuff, I did something similar to the CFS3 Tweak Guide setup in setting up a test scenario.

I used FS Recorder and recorded a 4.8 minute long flight, so I can replay it back and let the aircraft do the flying while I sit in the cockpit and watch. That way, I get the same flight in the same circumstances each and every time.

Then I used FRAPS logging and recorded to total frames, frame length, min, max and average.

I started out with a baseline using my tweaked "VFR" settings which have some eye candy and look very good, but are very close to my 20FPS limit. Also to see the effect of different resolutions (and since I stay pretty close to my target framerate) I decided to stress the system a little farther by loading it up some, and used 3 different display sets, which are color-coded below. The idea here would be that any gains will be more visible using settings the system was struggling with, prior to any tweaks, of course.

Here's the results:

Baseline FSX Performance "VFR" Settings (1152x864x16):
2007-01-04 21:24:36 - fsx
Frames: 5274 - Time: 288021ms - Avg: 18.311 - Min: 10 - Max: 21

Baseline FSX Performance "VFR" Settings (1280x1024x32):
2007-01-04 21:46:21 - fsx
Frames: 5124 - Time: 283498ms - Avg: 18.074 - Min: 0 - Max: 21

Baseline FSX Performance "Stress" settings (1280x1024x32, Water Mid2x, Special Effects High):
2007-01-04 21:55:07 - fsx
Frames: 4079 - Time: 283990ms - Avg: 14.363 - Min: 4 - Max: 21

Began the .Net Framwork 3.0 Install / 1.1 Uninstall steps, keeping the "Stress" settings:

Installed .net Framework 3.0 Update and rebooted: (1280x1024x32, Water Mid2x, Special Effects High):
2007-01-04 22:13:36 - fsx
Frames: 4125 - Time: 284263ms - Avg: 14.511 - Min: 5 - Max: 21

UnInstalled .net Framework 1.1 and 1.1 HotFix, and rebooted: (1280x1024x32, Water Mid2x, Special Effects High):
2007-01-04 22:30:38 - fsx
Frames: 4087 - Time: 283340ms - Avg: 14.424 - Min: 5 - Max: 21

Ran RegVac (removed 1082 bad entries!) and rebooted: (1280x1024x32, Water Mid2x, Special Effects High):
Frames: 4045 - Time: 284500ms - Avg: 14.218 - Min: 6 - Max: 21

Tested against the first two baseline runs one more time:

Reset to standard "VFR" settings but at 1280x1024x32:
2007-01-04 23:01:43 - fsx
Frames: 5141 - Time: 285137ms - Avg: 18.030 - Min: 9 - Max: 22

Reset to standard "VFR" settings 1152x864x16:
2007-01-04 23:09:38 - fsx
Frames: 5168 - Time: 284013ms - Avg: 18.196 - Min: 9 - Max: 22

Finally, killed all extra processes (similar to a "clean boot" but quicker) and re-ran the flights in different resolutions and settings (comparing against first 3 again):

Ran SmartClose and kept "VFR" settings 1152x864x16:
2007-01-04 23:20:19 - fsx
Frames: 5348 - Time: 284926ms - Avg: 18.770 - Min: 10 - Max: 23

Repeated with "VFR" Settings higher res (1280x1024x32):
2007-01-04 23:26:30 - fsx
Frames: 5272 - Time: 285951ms - Avg: 18.437 - Min: 9 - Max: 22

Killed ATI Tray tools (no AA or AF), repeated with "Stress" settings (1280x1024x32, Water Mid2x, Special Effects High):
2007-01-04 23:35:21 - fsx
Frames: 4189 - Time: 289042ms - Avg: 14.493 - Min: 6 - Max: 21

So, my summary on my own system is, no real gain, but this could be specific to certain system configurations, possibly beneficial to those short on RAM maybe (since I have 2Gig), I dunno.....

Didn't defrag becuase I just did that last night.

Kinda tired after all that, but would be willing to discuss test details and/or post my test flight files ("saved flight" file plus FSRecorder .fsr file) if anyone's interested in similar consistent measurement scenarios....

(and I told myself I was gonna stay away from the Shift-Z key and just enjoy this sim.... Rolling Eyes ) Mr. Green

"Once your reputation is ruined, you can live quite freely."
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Aircraft Demolition Expert

Offline Offline
Joined: Nov 27, 2004
Posts: 4369
Location: Blaricum, The Netherlands ~GMT+1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:16 am
Post subject: Re: Did a little testing......

Thankx Stoopy!

Most enlightning your in depth report,
must admit I haven't done much testing yet as I haven't been a wee bit busy with work, but my first impressions where that all in all the fsX ran smoother and fs9 also, faster loadup times and also less stutters, my first impressions where alltough maybe subjective that it ran smoother ,loaded faster and I could set the settings a lil higher again Laughing

for example I first had my fps locked at 20 and moved it up to 25 in fs9,

in fsX have it locked at 20, first averaging somewhere 13-17, now hitting the 20 allmost constantly and it feels like it's running smoother than before

As for the shift + Z .................... I use it only for position indication Wink

we'll need to dig deeper in the matter and get some more people involved "testing" this.

Back to top
View user's profile ICQ Number MSN Messenger Photo Gallery
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
Posts: 5832
Location: Group W bench
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:28 am
Post subject: Re: Did a little testing......

I failed to mention (becuase it was late) that yes, there are certain things that FRAPS logging fails to show or make evident....smoothness for one, this is a somewhat subjective but nonetheless important result. Also, stutters (or lack of them) are hard to "see" in the log unless you pay strict attention to the "Min" FPS....note that the lower res settings have a higher minimum FPS, and I can tell you that definitely equates to a much, much smoother sim. When you see a Min of zero, well, it means the system failed, at one point in the flight, to generate any screen for a full second....yeeecccchhhh....

And overall I happen to agree with the other observations on system performance......my system seems to boot a bit quicker now (I think) and just feels a bit "peppier". How much of that is real, how much is placebo effect, I don't know...and don't care, really, because it's done, updated, running well, and I'm one more step ahead in the endless game of system maintenance, updates, and upkeep. And I don't have to be tempted to do it or wonder if it helps any longer. In that respect, I feel it was well worth doing (as long as you aren't running the MEdia Center edition of XP Wink ) and have no regrets...

Thanks for bringing it up here, Fled!

"Once your reputation is ruined, you can live quite freely."
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Revive this topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  FSX
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Archive Revive
This is an archived topic - your reply will not be appended here.
Instead, a new topic will be generated in the active forum.
The new topic will provide a reference link to this archived topic.