Jon Clarke Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I would appreciate some performance details from those who have already installed GEN. There appears to be a ot of detail in this addon and before i buy I am looking for some user experience regarding performance to date. Is it like KLAX in SCA around major airports near cities for example? I am looking for 30+ fps in the built up areas. Is that doable? I ask because I don't always get the highest performance around major German airports near major German cities just using OLC EU. Hamburg, Berlin etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 It's certainly system dependent. I get 20+ fps over the center of Berlin with my dated system (i7/2600/3.4GHz GTX970). On my system, performance is definitely better than the combination OpenLC EU + Vector which I used so far (aside the fact it looks lightyears better). Nick, you must have a Helium-cooled monster to get 80 fps, if I read that right. Here's a shot by me: Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev D Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Nick, I agree with Michael!!!. I have a machine and motherboard the same spec as you, and 80 fps is way beyond my wildest dreams.. You must be hiding a mamoth mainframe somewhere!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Nyberg Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 WOW I can see my house in the picture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 You might both try exactly the same shot, location, zoom level content and aircraft and see what your frame rate is then. Mine is not 80 everywhere and I despair of those who chase frames. Routinely, mine is locked at 31 but the question was how is performance. It looks like performance is good, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Clarke Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 FPS is only a "guide" to potential smoothness of the flight. I understand you can have "smooth" at 20fps but as a guide to the performance then fps is useful as you can then trim that setting to get the best smooth performance. As far as I know most people are not chasing fps but what other guide is there? Thanks for the pic with details. It looks like you have sold me on the purchase idea. Much appreciated. Marcus, I can see your house too ! Exactly which one is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Nyberg Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I think that should be about right! I often go to Tempelhof (the closed airport that is now a park) in the left of the image, with my dog or to take a walk down the runway in sunset. Beautiful place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Berlin at sunrise to add to the question at hand about performance, fps locked at 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogtrack Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 What a fabulous image Wolter. Not given to commenting on screenies as a rule. There is always an exception though, so I am told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Thank you Arnie here at the same spot looking the other way just above the Brandenburger Tor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconAF Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Any individual frames per second number is meaningless in a static picture. You could be flying along with 60 FPS displayed with totally blurry ground textures, pause the sim and let the texture loading catch up (still showing 60 FPS), then take the static picture that shows 60 FPS. That's why FPS itself doesn't mean a thing. What matters are two things: 1. Can your sim keep up with loading the scenery so it displays properly at the FPS shown? 2. Is the FPS consistent, and not jumping around all over the place? FPS is meaningless if it jumps from 60 to 30 to 15 to 45 to 10 to 100 to 30. A consistent, smooth 20 FPS that can keep up with loading the scenery without blurries, stutters, etc works just fine in a slower aircraft. 100 FPS flying over scenery at Mach 1 resulting in blurry ground textures because the computer can't load them fast enough is not what anyone should consider as "bragging rights". That kind of "bragging" belongs in the kiddie-core First Person Shooter gaming community...not for flight and racing simulator enthusiast's communities like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, FalconAF said: What matters are two things: 1. Can your sim keep up with loading the scenery so it displays properly at the FPS shown? 2. Is the FPS consistent, and not jumping around all over the place? 1. so far it does it for me 2. of course there is some variation mine goes between 24-30 3. personally I couldn't give at rats ass about the FPS as long as the sim runs smooth and stutter free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmorvay1971 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, FalconAF said: Any individual frames per second number is meaningless in a static picture. You could be flying along with 60 FPS displayed with totally blurry ground textures, pause the sim and let the texture loading catch up (still showing 60 FPS), then take the static picture that shows 60 FPS. That's why FPS itself doesn't mean a thing. What matters are two things: 1. Can your sim keep up with loading the scenery so it displays properly at the FPS shown? 2. Is the FPS consistent, and not jumping around all over the place? FPS is meaningless if it jumps from 60 to 30 to 15 to 45 to 10 to 100 to 30. A consistent, smooth 20 FPS that can keep up with loading the scenery without blurries, stutters, etc works just fine in a slower aircraft. 100 FPS flying over scenery at Mach 1 resulting in blurry ground textures because the computer can't load them fast enough is not what anyone should consider as "bragging rights". Not to add insult to injury but your statement now opens a new can of worms concerning the posting of screenshots and how the fps counter may be in fact deceiving everyone. If someone does pause their sim to take screenshots, that statement may be valid but I know from my own experience taking screenshots, I do it while the sim is running and I never get the fps counts as shown above, unless I am in FSX with the default Cessna and no weather and 3rd party scenery installed, then the counter hits around 115. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Hobson Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Those are great shots, Wolter. You could just as well be taking them from your pilot's seat in RL. Nice stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 LOL ! Thank you Stew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Falcon, thank you for the lecture and for condensing what I wrote in five lines into ten. Jim, the frame rate counter is best left switched off, which is what mine usually is, unless someone asks for an indication as to how a product might perform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 737 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 11 hours ago, Nick Cooper said: You might both try exactly the same shot, location, zoom level content and aircraft and see what your frame rate is then. Mine is not 80 everywhere and I despair of those who chase frames. Routinely, mine is locked at 31 but the question was how is performance. It looks like performance is good, doesn't it? What sort of answer/question is that? it was a valid question from an interested customer. Do we 'really' have to be completely explicit to get a straight answer and not a rhetorical question in response? what really are the frames, unpaused, FPS locked at 30, zoom .6, flying at 150kts with 'some' traffic?!!! sometimes it really is difficult not to feel misled here on these forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Andrew The post was specifically in response to the two expressions of surprise at the apparently high frame rate seen in the preceding screen shot. It is clearly an answer to those two posts and not to the original question or to the questions that you have added at the end of your post. You might both try exactly the same shot, location, zoom level content and aircraft and see what your frame rate is then. It may be possible that my particular shot has produced a high frame rate because of the aircraft, the content of the shot and the zoom level which is displayed at the top right of the screen. Perhaps I can suggest that you try to replicate the shot exactly and see if your frame rate is similarly high with this specific view on the screen. Mine is not 80 everywhere and I despair of those who chase frames. I do not consistently experience these frame rates throughout Germany or indeed anywhere else in the world of Orbx but I do not spend much time monitoring frame rates and I despair of those users of flight simulators who find themselves obsessed with frame rates rather than what they see before them on the screen. Routinely, mine is locked at 31 but the question was how is performance. Whenever I use my simulator, I lock the frame rates at 31, however, as the question posted by the author of this topic, Jon was "I would appreciate some performance details from those who have already installed GEN" I decided to temporarily unlock the frame rate and set it at unlimited. Having done this, I made the screen shot which I think illustrates just how well the detailed scenery of Berlin performs. It looks like performance is good, doesn't it? Do you agree that it does appear to perform very well considering the amount of detail that there is in the picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconAF Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 C'mon everybody. Why do people have to assume and criticize a post designed to be "educational" for new flight sim users? Who might also be new ORBX customers? I was NOT implying that anything "sneaky" was being done with the screencaps. I was a Instructor for a large portion of my 25+ years in the Air Force. I have a degree in Instructional Systems Development that allows me to recognize when something could be confusing when being presented to a "student" trying to learn something new, like a new flight simmer or a new ORBX customer. There is more than just ONE way to "teach" something. Depending on the audience, 5 lines may work. For others it MAY take 10 lines. I wasn't ACCUSING ANYBODY of doing ANYTHING with the screencaps. Those of us who have been flight simming for years or decades already know that 80 FPS in NOT a requirement for our flight sims to "perform" properly (or they should at least know that). In earlier days of 60Hz monitor refresh rates, having anything OVER 60fps was a joke, because if your monitor was only capable of updating the screen 60 times a second, any "fps" your flight sim could produce over 60 you would never see anyhow. Yet some people...even today...still think "the more FPS, the better." MY post was just to "educate" some new(er) flight sim users and ORBX customers who may be reading these posts that they should NOT get caught up in any FPS "debate". This post started with someone asking about "performance". Then a screencap was posted. Then someone asked about the 80fps indicated in the screencap. Then it started turning into a "How to compare FPS on two different computers." THAT kind of comparison is meaningless. It doesn't matter what someone else's computer's FPS are. Or your's for that matter. FPS is not a "performance" indicator. It is strictly a "benchmark" number, and is totally useless if you are still getting slow loading, blurry textures or stuttering in the simulator. Nick, I'm sorry if you got PO'd at me. But you DID say (quote), "Jim, the frame rate counter is best left switched off, which is what mine usually is, unless someone asks for an indication as to how a product might perform." FPS is NOT a valid indicator of how our flight simulators "perform". We aren't "gamers" playing First Person Shooters where someone getting only 55 FPS might get shot "first" by someone getting 60 FPS. Sorry my post took 10 lines to your 5 to provide new flight sim and ORBX users that information. But we most definitely provided DIFFERENT information in our two separate posts. Peace (I hope) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.