PilotEdge Forums

I mostly fly around in the Carenado Baron 58 and get "reasonable" frame rates (given my struggling hardware) of about 20 -25. In the stock 172 it's a little higher (holds steady at 25+). I'm very interested in the A2A C172 and the RealAir Turbine Duke (v1 and/or v2), in an effort to learn more about GA systems (and because they look bloody lovely!). However, I'm not keen on forking out the money if they won't run well on my current computer. Unfortunately, neither company provide a demo. So I was wondering if anyone who had any of these planes would do the following for me...

1. Fire up the stock FSX C172. Sitting on the ground, parking brake on, engine at idle. Jot down the average frame rate.

2. Change planes to the Duke v1 / Duke v2 / A2A C172. Same scenario, and jot down the average frame rate.

3. Post results back in this thread, e.g. "FSX 172: x fps, Duke v1: y fps, etc."

I know all computers are different and that this is not a very scientific/controlled test. But if I can get a general idea of the relative drop in frame rate between something that I also can test and these products, then maybe I can make a more informed decision.

Thanks in advance

FWIIW, I have been doing some testing with X-plane, Linux, and PE and have had some "interesting" results. Some good. Some not so good. The results that may be of interest to you is how X-plane/Linux runs on old hardware.

For example one of my test mule systems is basically a late model Pentium D/early core 2 duo with an older Nvidia card. Clearly hardware that's long in the tooth. With the correct rendering settings, I'm getting 30-40 FPS!

My main PC is an I5 Haswell with an Nvidia 750. Under Win7 64 bit I was getting 90-100 FPS. Under Linux I'm getting 140-160 FPS!

Disclaimer. My testing has shown that the X-plane rendering setting can have a HUGE impact on frame rates. On the C2D system, increase clouds, cars, trees, ect and the frame rate drops to 8 FPS. Clearly not playable.

What this also shows is that X-plane doesn't have to be a resource hog that everyone makes it out to be. Remember YMMV!

The Linux option isn't for everyone. There's a lot to over come. But I can honestly say that with Unbuntu 14.04 and X-plane 10.31 the Linux configuration is much simpler that the prior attempts. But this offers a "possible" low cost option if looking for ways to made your hardware go further.

FWIIW, I did a poor man's dual boot system. Linux is installed on a separate hard drive. I simply move the SATA cable from the Linux HD to the Windows HD to switch back and forth. So far the only negative I have found is the need to re-set the system clock whenever there's a switch.

FWIIW2, IMO it's likely that you will find X-plane does a better job is utilizing multi-core CPU's. For the most part FSX is limited to the speed of a single core.

Thanks. That's good feedback about XP. I do own XP10 NA, but wasn't happy with the performance on my current system. Yes, I took all the render settings down(gradually, one at a time) and found that to get an acceptable rate, I would have to be content with something that looks like a 10 year old desktop flight simulator; and, while I'm not into eye candy for eye candy's sake, I do like a few things to look reasonably realistic... and this is why I'm going to stick with FSX until I upgrade my hardware.

I'm starting to forget what 25+ fps looks/feels like now

Anyone able to help me here? Should take no more than 3 mins next time you're on to get the results.

(again, just looking for relative results to see how your fps is affected when using these high res aircraft)

I realize this is a moderately old post, but I had the time and felt the results were worth sharing.

All "tests" were performed with FSX set to allow unlimited frame rates, at idle, parking brake on, from the same parking spot, in 3D Cockpit View with all avionics powered on.

FSX stock Cessna 172: 49 FPS
A2A Cessna 172: 39 FPS
RealAir Turbine Duke v2: 35 FPS

Thanks so much, David. I'm actually on a(nother!) self-imposed flight-sim hiatus at the moment, due to other priorities and commitments.

But I'll definitely take your results into account when I'm back in the cockpit.... one of these years.....

Cheers

Cannot test now, but from previous experience I'd say Duke v2 is better on FPS than Duke v1 and A2A is considerably better than Duke v2.
Duke v1 should not be in the list at all - no arguments over v2 which is much better.