Thursday, May 30, 2013

Video - Orbx FTX Global vs. Default FSX

FSX/P3D. Orbx has posted yet another FTX Global preview video. This time, we get a better look at the actual FPS impact of the software in dense urban settings. It appears as if there is almost no FPS impact at all. Further, the video provides a very nice comparison between default FSX and FTX Global in New York City and Houston. This time no ENB, landclass, REX, mesh, etc. Video link and description inside.

See the applicable preview thread for the video - click here

John Venema's description of video:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In response to many questions about the FPS impact of using FTX Global textures versus default and also wanting to see a video without any addons, here's a quick 480p grab from my laptop using my iPhone5.

No ENBSeries, no mesh, no landclass, no REX, no other addons. Pure vanilla FSX first, then FTX Global installed. Using my baseline trike aircraft with FPS limited to 30FPS using the nVidia Inpector external limiter. I chose two really dense urban areas in the USA; New York and Houston. The FRAPS counter is running purely so you can see the FPS.

Result? Basically no FPS impact at all."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

See the developers website - click here

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

FPS impact can not be measured with limited frames in FSX, it's pointless.

Mark Hrycenko said...

Okay...but did you notice how the frames were higher in NYC using FTX Global vs. default?

Anonymous said...

The opposite can also be said for the Houston. (The FSX Default held more steadily 30FPS.) Not a valid comparison Mark.

Anonymous said...

How it that pointless? What a stupid comment is that to make!! If FTX Global had a substantial impact the frames would be much lower but they are not, so it's an entirely valid comparison to make.

Seriously, the trolls must be hungry, they are clutching at straws now LOL

Anonymous said...

As much as I love using the OrbX stuff, I get annoyed with these attempts at comparison. The true performance comparisons occur when you are pushing the FSX envelope. There are no clouds at all in either set up, it is limited to 30, and it is the trike. I don't fly the trike ever, and I cannot remember the last time I flew FSX in a totally cloudless sky...
But at least you get to see the set up without ENB and so on, so praise to Mr Venema where praise is due...

AE

Mark Hrycenko said...

Right, which is why I think it is reasonable to assume the impact is minimal either way.

Anonymous said...

Damn, it is the same as you want to run a benchmark (3dmark for example) and limit the frames @ 30. Ofcourse the fps will be alway 30 locked when you fly default plane. I'm getting over 35-40fps with extremely dense autogen over big cities, so...
If his frames were around 40 with default FSX, and 35 with FTX Global, that is a proper benchmark.

Todd said...

Simply put, not everyone is going to be happy no matter what. Plus, it's a fact FPS has nothing to do with how smooth the sim is. That's been a known fact for years now. Who cares about what the FPS readings are. The point is there is no performance hit going from FSX default to FTX Global.

Additionally, there is no way Orbx is going to be able to do a perfect comparison. Not everyone flies the same aircraft, with same weather, with the same ATC program, with the same airport add-ons, using the same computer with the same FSX tweaks. Way too many variables. The only fair comparison is exactly what was done.

And I personally like what I see. Some areas are going to see a bigger difference than others obviously.

Mik said...

I agree with you "Anonymous" the comparison IS NOT valid...

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.