In his description of the FXExe VBH mentions frame rates frequently, and had done so in the past on many occasions.
This morning I did tests on both my Win7 and win 10 PCs.
To try to keep things even I used the d3d windower with the frame rate display on, and a game resolution of 1024x768.
As far as possible I kept the setup similar, flying a P51 escort of B17s.

Windows 7 and EAW140:


Windows 7 and FXExe:



Windows 10 and FXExe:


Windows 10 and EAW140 with a heap of Mike's multiskins loaded:




The results were similar, and I noticed the same, but slower, when I was using my old Vista laptop when I was away in Lyon. Unfortunately I do not have a PC that runs XP.

Other people may get different outcomes so please let us know

Hmmm, VBH's frame rates for FXEXE are high on my machine compared to 140. I don't have them in front of me anymore but I do remember they where smooth.
Remember VBH uses a low spec machine so he has to manage the FPS pretty high.
I'll have to give it a test to see if I can run a FPS counter with EAW.

Look at how beautiful those high res contrails are the FXEXE screenshots!


A bit OT:
Jel how did you get the D3DWindower to work without the blue flight window at those higher res? before you couldn't do that. I couldn't get the D3DWindower wrapper to work for either incarnation of the game on Win10.

I did not use higher res that is why I stuck to 1024x768.
I used it because it has a frame rate counter which I needed to display the FPS in the case of the FXExe.
It works in Win 10 at 1024x768.

Mine is unplayable and stutters like hell in f1.

Things get better in f9, as long as I'm not looking at my plane.

Frame rates are about 30, like yours, with B17's and fighters like your screens.

Even on my clapped out Dell, I get 50fps in Glide 3, using 1.29/1.40. D3D is much slower, which is the reverse of what I had before Glide 3. D3D was best.

Win10 seems to have its own built in d3d windower, so there is no need to use it.
I have suspected for a long time that the rates reported by the d3d windower and Win 10 are approximately half of the real rates.
I went back to Windows 7 to test both d3d and Glide without the windower. Running at native 1920x1080 I was getting between 55 and 60 FPS in both. 60 is my refresh rate so I do not expect higher.
I would add that in all of these tests the detail level has been set to the highest level in all these cases.

The EAW.INI in the FXEXE download is set to twice as many planes as default, which results in app. 100 planes if all groups are set active with 16 planes per group. On top of this, viewdistances were increased resulting in more objects visible in screenshots. What is visible in the picture determines the framerates calculated, more planes, lower framerates, more bullets/tracers, lower framerates, more explosions/effects, lower framerates, more objects, lower framerates, higher resolutions/bits per pixel, lower framerates, a longer gameloop with more calculations, lower framerates, more sounds/higher samplerates, lower framerates. It's a universal law in computing.

All of these things have changed in the FXEXE but the effects probably consume the most FPS, because there's way more happening. Each tracer produces sound in external view, impacts also cause sounds, sounds have been added where I thought it would be fun to have them. Both graphics and sounds will only happen when within a certain distance from them and I agree that I may have gone a bit over the top with the graphics. However, I felt that the speeded up gameloop would compensate enough for the enhanced effects but if it doesn't then one can always switch to a lower effects detail setting.

The tracers and bullet arrays can become immense, especially since tracers were programmed to remain visible for a longer period of time, and moving each one takes time. I've already spoken with my aid who set their ranges and it was slightly decreased already. Since he's using a Win98 PIV 800 Mhz I used that for reference, there were no reports of slowdowns in on- or offline games after a few modifications to the EAW.INI.

The goal was to find the limmitations of these actions and learn how far I could take it. Using a Windower running in the background will influence FPS, but I don't need one with my old decrepid Dell Dimension 8100 with 4x AGP.
It's the machine the addon was created for and how it works with additional workarounds and to me unknown operatings systems is not really a concern, knowing that FPS can be influenced by the .INI. If people still have issues after tweaking things than I'm truely sorry for that, there's no way I'll reverse the creation.

However, I'm willing to keep improving FPS the way I've done before, by speeding up the gameloop even more and perhaps incorporate more user choices that can influence FPS better. Ofcourse it's not adviced to use hires aircraft 3DZ's with hundreds if not thousands of useless nodes and polygons in them, these were not taken into consideration when the addon was created. On my machine I switch off all useless running processes when I fly, which results in a nice improvement of framerates.

Framerates are also indicative of what processes users have running in their machines and are no benchmark. I only have explorer running and therefore I have good FPS. However a comparison in the same exact situation is valid, which is why I've always asked the other players in our online games about their decrepid machines, while observing their location. My FPS is much higher nowadays on my decrepid machine then it used to be, inspite of using HD 24'' widescreen today as opposed to using a 19'' Dell monitor in the past. My XP Dell 8300 used for online play also works great with only 512MB memory and a 64MB gForce 550 I believe.

I don't think personal behaviour with any version or addon is worth comparing, it is what it is, if it doesn't work for you then don't play it and try something else. I'll make notes of this thread and see if there's anything within my capabillaty to improve things as I'm sure there is. In a simmilar comparison I already mentioned that 1.28 was unplayable on my machine especially with large bomber formations, the FXEXE is doing way better in comparison and it was created for just that reason, an alternative for those who have or had a simmilar experience or just like to try something different.

VonBeerhofen

BTW Mr. Jelly, the Windows 10 picture is not the release version but the one you mannaged to acquire posing as 'Hector' in Facebook and Chatzy, those contrails are NOT in the release.

And aren't you using Mr.Jelly's uploaded personal folder Col.G.? If so it's possible that your hardware settings are the one's which aren't apropiate to you videocard. Deleting the EAW.INI and allowing the game to create a new native INI may solve your issue. Still as I said I only support my version, not other people's uploads which may use different hardware settings or change the EXE's behaviour accordingly..

VBH

I re-downloaded your zipfile from the link you posted, put the files in a new working folder and re-flew the same mission.
The two pics show the framerate of 30 in a cockpit free view and a rear view taken as an EAW screenie.




If these contrails are wrong then you need to check the zipfile at your link

In that case it's the other one you mannaged to ácquire'. Only one version of the contrail was released, you show two different ones and both are my creations. Perhaps I'm seeing things but something is different in those two pictures.
I'll have to make the other one available now too, which wasn't the plan.

VBH

Mystery solved.
The Hector version is on my PC downstairs and has never been on this PC.

Recently Mark posted a download link and I got a zipfile from it.
This afternoon I re-downloaded the one from the link you posted.
I have put them in the same folder, to show the difference, but had to rename one of them as "(2)"



Note the dates, 4th June (from Mark's link) and 8th June (from your site) which s bigger and probably has those contrail files in it.