Click for Sun
Back to Board Index

Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

23rd Oct 2013
Hi Guys. I have come across Orbx global and am considering purchasing this neat payware. I also have a couple of questions about it, such as;
1) What type of graphics card should be capable of handling the program?
2) Is it frames per second friendly?
3) Is it worth buying?
I have done a bit of research about it and it looks amazing. If there is any alternatives let me know. Thanks!
David Bartlam
United Kingdom

23rd Oct 2013
Ive got it Chris. I have a good computer, good cpu and graphics card yet it has hampered my frame rates. With Orbx and my UK2000 scenery, Id go from nearly 100fps (All high settings with active sky etc), to between 10-15fps.

I stopped using it and bought UTX instead. Its a great bit of software but if you havent got a super computer, to get good frame rates you will need to sacrifice some of your realism settings
Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

23rd Oct 2013
Alright Dave thanks for the reply. Im just looking at UTX now and it seems to be that it is only for Europe and America. I am primarily looking for global scenery. I have accu-feel,ftx weather and now the finishing touch would be the scenery. If there is anything else you can suggest that would be great. Thanks again.
David Bartlam
United Kingdom

23rd Oct 2013
Orbx is by far the best worldwide scenery, in my opinion. Its just a case of tweaking the settings to suit your computer. Well worth the money
Geoff Server
United Kingdom

23rd Oct 2013
Hi Chris
I have had both started with UTX and am now using Orbx Global.
If you purchase UTX USA by some mishap in the software you also get Europe as well! Well you did a year or so ago. But if you purchase Europe you just get Europe..
Anyway Orbx is so much better than UTX and I have seen no frame rate decrease at all. Maybe with a fast jet flying low level frame rate does go down. I do have a good spec PC however.
Hope this helps and if you need any other info do hesitate to ask.
Hope you are keeping well.

Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

24th Oct 2013
Alright Geoff hope all is well with yourself bud and also thanks for the response. I am shifting towards getting global, looking at UTX it does look good but having a scenery that will cover all the areas is a must have. I was looking at a video someone did on the Taj Mahal and India in general with ORBX and it looked amazing. Going there in January so will of course do a pretend flight. Something i always do before travelling. Will have to adjust my settings to see what is best suited. Will get back to you if there is any other quiries. Take care.
Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013
Hey Dave just an update on Orbx Global. Relating to your last post about how the fps would go from 100 to 10-15 fps this is exactly what happened to me. But i always kept it on 25, as above that the human eye can not see fsx run any smoother. Dont ask where i got that info but that is supposedly true. I then installed the update 1.1 which made it even more amazing with enhanced 3D lights and a few extra things. I then looked further into the problem with fps and came across this post by someone else

Point 1 - FSX is not highly multi-threaded and doesn't use multiple processor cores very efficiently.
In other words, four cores are plenty for FSX and it even runs quite well on a fast dual core.

Point 2 - FSX is what is often called "CPU bound". That means it benefits from a fast processor more than from a super-fast high-end video card.
In other words, unless you are running multiple monitors at high screen resolution along with high AA settings, you can run FSX quite well on anything from a GTS250 and up.

Point 2 - As mentioned, FSX likes a fast CPU.
In other words, for best performance be prepared to over-clock your CPU. The generally agreed to "sweet spot" is 4GHz.

Point 4 - Forget "maxed" settings. For the reasons stated above FSX will bog down in some situations (like high AI levels, complex aircraft add-on, dense clouds, when flying near a major airport, for example) regardless how much you've paid for your hardware.
In other words, back off the sliders and then spend time tuning FSX for smoothness at a level of detail that matches your hardware's capability.

Point 4 - FSX needs plenty of tweaking to run well.
In other words, set it up using this guide, use Nvidia Inspector as detailed in this guide, and optimize your fsg.cfg file using this utility which is Venetubo.

Relating to point 4, I only used Venetubo which didnt help much with ORBX but of for FSX it prevented any fatal errors and i could stay in a session all day. I will today follow the rest of the guides as a few other peope said that there frame rate went right back up after completing them.
Will let you know
Dave Wave
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013
Chris, can't let your post go as it's not totally correct.

I can tell the difference between 25 and 50 frames per second. The eye can detect faster but I tend to try and run at 40.

Yes fsx is cpu bound but a good video card makes a big difference. I upgraded from a GT260 to a GTX480, the difference in standard 1920x1080 was amazing.

Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013

The human eye can see an average of 16 to 18 frames per second. Any movement that is above 10fps will appear to use as having a smooth motion. If it goes beyond 50 fps, then some people will find it stuttering because the eye will only get a lot of details from time to time. Answer from
Dave Wave
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013

go try it for yourself and post back if you can see the difference between 25 and 50. I used to think exactly the same but I was wrong big time.

Films are slightly different as they use motion blur to trick the brain. I'm trying to find the article I posted before for you.
Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013

I believe you bud, unfortunately getting 50 fps for me on FSX is near enough impossible anymore with ORBX. I just took another person's word. My apologies if you thought i was debating about it.
Dave Wave
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013
No probs Chris, found the link for you.

Worth bookmarking.
Dave Wave
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013
Note also that the new x box and PS4 will run at 60fps.

The current models run at 30fps.

Chris Pringle
United Kingdom

7th Nov 2013
Had a read through it and you were right. Forget Xbox the PS4 is a winner in my opinion. It looks amazing.
Tony Koskinen

8th Nov 2013
Ok let me clear some stuff up for all ya guys.

How many frames per second can the human eye see?
This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact, that this question is NOT the same as:
How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid?
And it's not the same as
How many frames per second makes the game stop flickering?
And it's not the same as
What is the shortest frame a human eye would notice?

Also another extremely important thing you need to know is that the FPS you see in game is not necessarily the FPS you will see on your screen. my Monitor refreshes at 50Hz (=50FPS). So does having more FPS actually make anything better?

Well, the easy answer is there is never enough FPS. You can always argue that it is not enough for whatever reason. Obviously the more the better, if I have 100 FPS in game and my monitor can only show 50 FPS, it will still make the game look more "fluid" than if I only had 50 FPS in game. The human eye will be comfortable at 30 FPS. It is true that the eye can not detect a difference in >> FPS << above 30, BUT it will make the game a lot more fluid.

Now regarding FTX Orbx Global, it's a fantastic product. It will lag as much as the default scenery will. Let me give you a quote from the website "zero FPS impact".
The reason for this is that it does nothing other than replace your existing textures with better looking ones. It's not super sonic HD scenery, its completely normal scenery. Meaning that you decide in the graphics settings how much detail you want to see, like the default scenery. I have it, I love it, got it running smoothly on my medium-end (up to 3.0 Ghz AMD Processor) PC at 50 FPS (my fsx is completely custom tweaked to work best on my computer) and that is more than enough for me to enjoy the best of FSX. :)
Now if only I can get that damn Flight Strips to work... :/
Matthew Nelson
United States

1st Apr 2016
Hello all!

I noticed you all were talking about how FTX ran in FSX... This was all great information, but my question here is, does it run well and get crazy FPS drop in P3D v.2? Or v.3... Thanks
Allan Egginton
United Kingdom

6th Apr 2016
Hey guys, hope you're all well.

In relation to ORBX FTX and FSX/P3d, I have experimented a lot recently between these products. In my opinion P3D is the stronger Sim to combine with ORBX due mainly to it's ability to correctly process data using the GPU.

Here's some figures I have recorded from my personal use, all within the UK flying.

FSX with ORBX Global, Global Vectors & Open LC's Europe & North America and REX 4 Texture Direct..... MAX Settings and tweaked to 4096 texture etc.

Rural areas, Locked frames to 40 FPS, rarely drops below 30 fps.

Large towns/Small Cities, Locked to 40 FPS, deviates between 26-30 FPS, With high cloud coverage and high quality payware aircraft can drop to 20-24 FPS.

Large Cities/Large Airports (Heathrow e.g.), Locked to 40 FPS, Struggles around 14-18 FPS. With High cloud coverage and payware aircraft struggles @ 10-14 FPS.

As you can see, even with a good computer, FSX run with many add ons will struggle at max settings.

Now for P3D, Version 3.1 Academic.....

P3DV3.1 Run with ORBX Global, Global Vectors, Open LC's Europe and North America, ORBX England, Wales, Ireland, Norhtern Ireland, Scotland, Trees HD, And all of the UK ORBX Airports, With REX 4 Texture Direct. MAX Settings (other than shadows which are medium), 4096 Ultra textures etc.

Rural areas, locked to 40FPS, rarely even flickers from 40FPS.

Towns/Small cities, Locked to 40FPS, good weather 38-40FPS, heavy clouds and payware aircraft 35-38FPS.

Large Cities/International Airports (Heathrow), Locked to 40FPS, good weather 28-32FPS, heavy clouds and high quality payware aircraft 20-25FPS.

As you can see the numbers are far stronger for P3D until you start playing with the shadow options, Prepar3d has amazingly high detail shadows which literally thieve frames!

Also worth noting that 20FPS in Prepar3D looks a lot smoother than 20FPS In FSX.

Here's my PC Specs for reference....

Intel i7 4790k Devils Canyon CPU @ 4.4ghz,
Z97 Board,
Gigabyte Geforce 980ti 6GB GPU,
Corsair Gaming Ram, 8GB,
Corsair Neutron XT SSD,
Corsair Gold Rated 800W PSU,
Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit.
Sony 1080p Bravia TV.

You need to Log on to post a reply.
Back to Board Index

Forum help

No politics, just flying
FSopen © 2009 - 2017
Page views: 857897298