Sign in to follow this  
Guest

GF4 4200 Drivers....

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,I know some of you out there have been using a GeForce4...I just have installed an MSI GF4 4200 with the 29.42 drivers. Big problem in my eyes, is regarding Anti-Aliasing. Enabling it in any mode, whether through the driver utility or FS2002 itself brings about a colored, sort of checkered layer over the 2D panel (transparent). Spot view is fine, 3D panel is OK, it only affects the 2D panels/gauges....I know that is rather a nebulous description of the bug....but anyway, I have tried another batch of drivers with same result. (OK, just uploaded an image...hope it helps)So the million dollar question becomes, what drivers are people having success with? Oh yes, I have installed the famous GeForce Tweaker utility as well, and am experimenting with it, but so far no joy. Please no advice about NOT using AA....I have successfully used it with the old Voodoo 5 and Radeon 8500, and I demand my edges to be sharp and true! :-)) While I am here, I might add that thus far that the Radeon looks every bit as good and every bit as fast (faster in some instances) as this GF4...I am still waiting to be dazzled by it... :-))Thanks for listening and for your replies, MHawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I've seen this in various posts. One general solution that seems to help is to change screen resolutions - if memory serves the higher the better.Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the preceeding post said, it could be resolution-related.I'm using the same drivers as yours on an ASUS G4 4600 (1600x1200x32) and I don't have that problem. Try upping it a little. Also, which AA method are you using? Use Quincux (sp?) if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there.That looks like you are running in 16bit colour in Fs2002Not that thats supposed to happen at 16bit colour but the newest nvidia drivers do that and as you have a geforce 4 you cant go back to earlier drivers which run ok at 16bit as theres no support for them. If you run at 32bit colour in fs2002 that problem will go away. Craig Kiltie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,Thanks a lot, changing to 32-bit color appears to have cured it...higher resolutions made no difference, FYI. Thanks again!MHawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiI had the same problem regarding cockpit artifacts using 16bit colour.Although 32 bit corrects this there is price to pay in performance with 32bit and AA enabled even with my Geforce 4 4400.Running at 16 bit with AA i have seen no change in FPS, but as soon as I change to 32bit performance drops around the 20/30% mark,I also get a lot more stuttering .Is this a problem in the MS code as i've not seen this happen in any other software?.just wish It would work ok in 16bit, sure makes the sim a lot smoother.CheersJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi >>I had the same problem regarding cockpit artifacts using >16bit colour. >>Although 32 bit corrects this there is price to pay in >performance with 32bit and AA enabled even with my Geforce 4 >4400. >>Running at 16 bit with AA i have seen no change in FPS, but >as soon as I change to 32bit performance drops around the >20/30% mark,I also get a lot more stuttering . >>Is this a problem in the MS code as i've not seen this >happen in any other software?. >just wish It would work ok in 16bit, sure makes the sim a >lot smoother. >>Cheers >John That is really strange John, as most systems that I have set up with a GF4TI card going from 16 to 32bit color depth impacts FPS in D3D as well as OGL less than 1%. What exact card do you have and if you dont mind what is your system and what driver are you using?Thanks,Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,That 1% perhaps is with Anti-Aliasing disabled? I see a dramatic drop in performance as well when AA is enabled, which is, I think, our main issue here.My SystemShuttle AK31Athlon XP 1900512MB Crucial DDRMSI GF4 4200Windows ME29.42 NVidia driversLatest VIA drivers cheers,Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PaulChanging to 32 bit without aa Enabled has zero performance hit.but even with lowest aa setting ,down go those FPS in 32 bit.With my previous card (Geforce 2 GTS) 1024.768 32 bit 2X aa produced massive hit , with the Geforce 4 card much better but still noticable.Less than a 1% going from 1024.768 16bit 2xAA to the same settings in 32bit would be great to achieve instead of what I,ve got ATM.Just tried the following situations in fs2002London city airport on RW28 no aa 32 bit 1024.768 fps 29-33Geforce tweak aa at 1x2 32 bit 1024.768 fps 23-27Compared with my Geforce2 visually there is no competition.I,m running AF at tap32 and its look great with no noticable performance drop compared with Trilinear filtering.Here's my system:Aopen Ak73pro(a) Latest BiosAthlon 1.3 @ 1.43 FSB @110512 cas 2 133 SDRAMAbit Siluro Geforce 4 4400 29.42 driversSBliveJust wondering if the SDRAM could be a bottleneck.?All the bestJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi Paul, >>That 1% perhaps is with Anti-Aliasing disabled? I see a >dramatic drop in performance as well when AA is enabled, >which is, I think, our main issue here. Yes, you are right, AA is always a performance hit even on the cards yet to come, and you and John are both correct as far as AA at 32bit vs 16bit, I would just point out that 16bit isn't a good idea period unless your system is way under powered, especialy in AA mode as there is way to much color banding in the display. Speaking of which with the introduction of DX9.0 and the newer cards that will support it, banding will be vitually gone even in heavy alpha scenes such as a clouded sky at night as there will now be 40bit color depth support. :)Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>John, >>There is no noticeable difference in FS performance between >DDR and a good SDR setup, especially if you've got CAS 2 >RAM. Memory bandwidth takes a back seat to CPU and video >card power in FS2002. I think thats to general of a statment Greg. If you already lack a powerful CPU that maybe true, you can break it down in fairly accurate terms to, on a 1-2.5 gig system(FS2k2 performance): 60%- CPU x 15%- memory subsystem + 25%- Video card If your memory is slow (sdram) but you run it at faster latency timings (CAS2) guess what? it's still slow! and certainly have an effect on FS2k2 perforamnce. 1.5-2 fps gain is still quite good even if you are only getting 15-20 to begin with, but I dont think its worth going out and buying new ram and a new motherboard that will support it unless you also go for a much better CPU.Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guysInteresting reading about the Ram.I,m running the memory at its fastest via the Bios and have not noticed any improvement between this and more conservative ram settings in fs2002.I was thinking about upgrading to a 2100XP with a new MB with faster DDR ram, but was wondering if the improvement would be worth the outlay.Clock for Clock is there much difference between an XP and my plain old Athlon?.I believe the Xp has more Cache just curious if this bumps up those FPS?.Will probably hold off a few months for the New AMD CPU,if the hype turns out to be true this will really provide the horsepower to feed my hungry card and service the growing fleet of AI aircraft:).CheersJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul and John,First, Paul, I don't agree with memory bandwidth figuring for 15% of FS2k2's performance. I have only seen between 1-3% differences, and have tested and documented these results using a 1.2GHz T-Bird, using CAS2 PC133, KT133A chip Epox board against a Shuttle AK31 (KT266A) and Crucial DDR, all else being equal. Frame rates, smoothness, load times, all remained within the margin of error. I am stating here that simply upgrading from PC133 to DDR (same amounts) and all else remains, you will probably be disappointed as far as FS is concerned; FS and memory bandwidth get along just fine, it does not require extremely high amounts of it. RAM quantity is a different story, as we all know.John, the Athlon XP requires lower voltage and operates at lower temps than T-Bird, and can do a bit more work within the same time cycle. So if you are going from 1.2GHz to XP 2100, you gain some good ground performance wise and put less demand on your system's power supply; good stuff. L1 and L2 cache is unchanged. All that spit out, it certainly won't hurt to jump to DDR! regards,Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,>Hi Paul and John, >>First, Paul, I don't agree with memory bandwidth figuring >for 15% of FS2k2's performance. I have only seen between >1-3% differences, and have tested and documented these >results using a 1.2GHz T-Bird, using CAS2 PC133, KT133A chip >Epox board against a Shuttle AK31 (KT266A) and Crucial DDR, >all else being equal. Frame rates, smoothness, load times, >all remained within the margin of error. I didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, If you're still following this thread, at this point how does the GeForce 4 4200 compare to your Radeon 8500 using MSFS2k2?? I have a Radeon, and can't complain about framerates. But I do wish I could use 4x FSAA, but that seems to cause pausing and erratic running. I had been pondering getting the GF4200, but I fear there won't be too much improvement---what has been your experience, or does anyone else have direct knowledge of the relative performance of these two cards??Richard Ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find mind-boggeling is that I do not have any reflection on the water with my GF4 MX card and I was wondering why ...?Any ideas out there?RegardsTerblanche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick,It is a bit early yet, as the GF4 only arrived Friday and I might have 2-3 hours flying with it. Performance wise check this:Meigs, Cockpit View at 1152 and 2X AA; Radeon 27FPS, GF4 28Spot View: Radeon 36, GF4 19! My Default flight; Radeon 33, GF4 28So, ATI implements AA better, I would say at this point. However, without using AA the GF4 cranks along nicely, and I think has superior reflections, colors, and overall image quality.So far, that is my take on the two boards.Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg--your Radeon numbers are pretty close to mine.Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this