Some of the older ones (like the Shrike) with C+ gauges dropped frames to 18-25 for me (from 35) although I am not certain that is the cause. The later Aero Commanders ported very well with no changes but the prop texture, minimal frame hit (running 30-34). XML gauges for FSX would likely be an improvement as well native format textures.ĮDIT: I just went to check some of my other port overs. I have not tried converting the textures to DDS to determine impact but this does conclude for me that better performance for port overs is attainable with some minor tweaks.ĭraw calls are important so fewer texture sheets would help. However, with a few changes to the VC setup, I jumped it to 25fps and 34 in the air.

I got 15 in the VC, 25 in Spot view, and 34 in the 2D panel. When I first put it into FSX, I changed only the prop texture. In FS2004, I maxed out to my FPS lock at 35fps in the VC, the Spot view, and 2D panel. It's not always the number of polys, or the textures, but may be the gauges used, or how the gauges are displayed, or the number of vcockpit sections.įor example, I just did a quick conversion portover of our AC500S Shrike. If these textures were in DDS, it might be in equal performance with FSX models.īill, I say yes primarily because FS2004 constructed aircraft are not 'tuned' for FSX. Mind you, the 797 does 'not' have DDS textures, so the test wouldnt be a 100% 'match' for performance, and the 797 uses 'alot' of 32bit high rez textures. So, if no bump maps are required, and you convert the textures to DDS, couldnt you have an equally 'smooth performing' FS2004 mesh in FSX?Ĭoncerning DX-10, I believe the only thing DX-10 requires is DDS textures.įor those that would like to test this, they could try running an airliner in FSX, checking the frame rates, and then running the Boeing 797 Blended Wing (download here at new addons section) and again check the frame rates. One of the reasons I bring this up is that I can now make highly sophisticated aircraft mesh in FS2004 format that is equivalent to FSX mesh (basically the same) and it appears to run perfect in FSX.

Now the Skylark utilizes all the nice FSX materials such as bump mapping, even enabling surface deformations as well as the rivets and screws, etc.īut on some planes, I am wondering if they can just be in FS2004 format. I could actually see no reason to convert the monster into FSX. The pixels for the rivets would be scaled the size of plates, so it would have looked goofy. If a plane has no bumps to bump map, and the glass and chrome in the FS2004 port-over look reasonably good already, then why make it in FSX format? For instance, the Boeing I just created was so huge, that you really cannot bump map it. Now, before you immediately answer yes, think about if they 'really are' performing worse? This is going to be a difficult question for alot of you that are FSX hardliners.ĭo you think that FS2004 planes run worse in FSX then FSX planes?

Boeing 797 blended wing fsx planes