Com-Central.net

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

com-central.net/index....1144#41144

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.... )

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

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

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


fled

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 ) and have no regrets...

Thanks for bringing it up here, Fled!