Sign in to follow this  
Guest

could someone help me with my frame rate?

Recommended Posts

hi this is ke621 living in korealet me first tell u about my computers specs.PT-4 1.7GhzAsus P4T mobo512RDRAMGeforce 3 Ti-200Samsung 40GB 5400 RPMWindows XP PROand i would like to know why with this spec i get low frame rates?i dont think my spec is bad.some people who uses less spec than me gets like 15 frame rate in simflyers KLAX scenery..but i get round about 6and i tested now that using piper archer from dreamfleet from KLAS by looking from spot view looking at the Lasvegas city i get round about 7 ..isnt it to small frame rate for this spec?so i would like to know how to get good frame ratesplease tell methanx

Share this post


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

Hi, The low framerate could be several reasons, here's the major ones:1) Default AI Traffic at 100%2) Reflections (a major killer when AI traffic is visible too)3) Autogen Scenery (if you want it on, DON'T GO PAST 'NORMAL')4) Clouds (not a real problem if you keep the 'Cloud Density' to about 20 on the slider.5) Dynamic Scenery There could be a few more things like dragging texture slider back a bit. If you notice FS2002 runs 'perfect' with no add-on scenery. Personally I don't use simflyers scenery the Frame rate is really low on that alone.I have an AMD 1.7Ghz with 512RDRAM and a GForce 3.Hope this helps!Regards. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a PIII800 with 384mg pc100 sd ram and a GF2GTS64 card at 1600x1200x16 full FSAA (not enough power for 32bit color) and average around 20 frames. Leaving or coming into LAX around 15 frames. Turn your AI down. I run mine from zero to no more than 20 percent. Aircraft Reflections make no noticeable difference in frames. Currently running clouds at 60%. Autogen, Scenery Complexity and Dynamic Scenery at very dense. Aircraft settings maxed out. The AI, Water Reflections and 32 color and terrain mesh set over 80% and poorly optimized cockpits will kill my framerate. I avoid em'. Being able to run the rest mostly maxed out, I contribute to a good video card cause I certainly don't have a high end processor.http://www.x-plane.org/users/mgdbottled/Graphics.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,You can look at my FS2002 settings and frame rates from my post this AM. May be you can up some more with a few changes to your settings. I am still learning how to optimize FS.Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post showing your settings.... I get comparable performance on virtually the same type of rig, making similar compromises in display settings. Since I do a lot of bush flying, sometimes I'll turn AI completely off, and max the mesh, cloud and scenery complexity. Can still maintain about 25fps, using the other tips you've mentioned--simple and/or optimized cockpits make a big difference.... I also think my frames are slightly higher than yours as I run in 800x600, as my monitor's higher refresh rate at that setting is easier on my eyes....-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to run the rest mostly maxed out, I >contribute to a good video card cause I certainly don't have >a high end processor. You seem to be stuck on the false idea that your Video card is what is helping you here. Here is some news MG,Your right, you dont have a high end processor because if you did you would get FPS like this with your settings:http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/50miegs.jpghttp://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/100miegs.jpgAll of the settings that you have turned down with the exception of 32bit color are ALL CPU intensive to illustrate what a CPU can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoooooa....Paul... What's this post all about? Is it some inside joke, or are you just trying to prove (brag) that you have a fast cpu? If it's a joke, forgive me, but if it's some type of feud with MG, perhaps it's better left out of this thread.... Just my 2 cents...-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Whoooooa.... >>Paul... What's this post all about? Is it some inside >joke, or are you just trying to prove (brag) that you have a >fast cpu? If it's a joke, forgive me, but if it's some type >of feud with MG, perhaps it's better left out of this >thread.... >>Just my 2 cents... >>-John Yeah, John its a feud between the false idea that a video card enables performance in FS, I will be very quick to squelch this idea as it has resulted in a lot of folks running out to spend money on hardware that will only disappoint if they listen to this kind of talk.MG continues to insist his belief in the face of real facts, and to me that just takes away rather than contributes to the forum.As for my tone, I agree, and thanks for keeping me inline. My reply has been edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John; Paul seems to have a problem with me or anyone claiming the video card is a large part of FS2002. I say both processor and video card are very important. Paul is right in that you need a high end processor to run the AI high, water reflections and the like. It don't take a rocket scientist though to figure out what is processor dependent and what is video card dependent. I figured that out myself just playing with the options. Autogen, Scenery complexity, aircraft settings and dynamic scenery are very video card dependent. If you want all the eye candy, you gotta pay the piper for the video card. If you want lots of AI traffic, high mesh settings and water reflections, you gotta pay the piper for the processor. A good mid range machine like ours does fine. I turn the mesh up to around 80 when flying in the bush. If I turn my framerate lock off, I run between 50 and 80 frames in 16x12 but my autogen displays little on the ground. So Paul is right and stubbornly wrong about the benefits of a high end video card. I think he just explains himself differently. I read many of his posts and I agree with him even though I have to read between the lines sometimes. Hello Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary; I already unchecked the T&L in the sim and picked up a couple frames. Also got rid of that annoying runway flash at certain airports. My video card still provides T&L in the sim even with that box unchecked. Having done that, I also unchecked my antialiasing box and found that I lost frames as I have my video card FSAA set to the max so I rechecked antialiasing in the sim. I have to run FSAA full even at 1600x1200 to get rid of that last little bit of jaggies. The sliders are a balancing act between video card and processor. I try to make my video card do as much of the work as I can to compensate for my PIII800 just not having the horsepower. Getting the balance just right makes for one beautiful picture. What you see on your monitor is a function of the video card. How fast it's running frame wise is a function of the processor and to some degree the video card. That's why I'm not surprised at all when folks go from an MX card to a full blown Ti card either GF3 or GF4 and report substantial increases in framerates while others don't see any real change. The neatest thing about this sim is that it's so scalable for all the different machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Autogen, Scenery >complexity, aircraft settings and dynamic scenery are very >video card dependent.Not in any way, shape or form MG, if you did any scenery design or a had a little bit more knowledge as to what is going on with FS you would know that all those things are all done on the CPU long before it is sent to the GPU, as will be shown to you one last time and if you still cant figure it out, (no comment). :)"If" AG, scenery complexity and any of the like were "video card dependant" and we now compared two video cards on the same machine running the exact same benchmark with exact same drivers and settings-GF3TI calculating 30 million vertices/second-Vs.GF4TI calculating 136 million vertices/second-Also of note is that a GF4TI has almost twice the fill rate of a GF3TI-we should expect to really see a great difference in performance when comparing the two side by side at a medium and high resolution with no AA as there will be no "ceiling" (as we all know that AA is done on the card). So what do we find when we run the benchmark in a highly Autogen and high scenery complexity environment?Look Close MG, that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should run that test comparing a TNT1 or 2 or even a GF1 card with the latest greatest GF4Ti4600 and post the results. Then you'd have a more valid quantifiable (sp) test. Comparing a GF3 and a GF4 isn't gonna get you much spread cause they're both great cards. And run the test with everything mostly maxed out with both cards. Especially the Autogen and Scenery Sliders. You'll end up with the first one choking to death while the Ti4600 runs nice and smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You should run that test comparing a TNT1 or 2 or even a GF1 >card with the latest greatest GF4Ti4600 and post the >results. Then you'd have a more valid quantifiable (sp) >test. Comparing a GF3 and a GF4 isn't gonna get you much >spread cause they're both great cards. And run the test >with everything mostly maxed out with both cards. >Especially the Autogen and Scenery Sliders. You'll end up >with the first one choking to death while the Ti4600 runs >nice and smooth. No comment! :-lolSimple math should have spelled it out for you, as there is much more of a performance difference between a GF4TI vs. GF3TI64mg than a GF3TI vs. GF2GTS in terms of raw video card performance.MG, as many here know I used to run FS2k2 as well as developed my 600mb texture Photorealistic scenery on a Tnt16mg equipped machine and ran the gamut of video card upgrades from a GF2mx200 to a MX400 to an ultra then to the GF3TI200 hoping for that great improvement that so many had talked (hyped) about, fortunately I have access to a computer store where I am able to freely try all sorts of hardware combinations that finely yielded the facts, erasing the need to wonder or speculate as you continue to do.Where are your facts? Where are your benchmarks? What different systems have you used to compare that led you to your results?Please do go into detail on how you figured this out and came to your conclusion...I wonder how many days, weeks and months will go by as we wait to see the supporting facts of this case.Should we file a motion to dismiss?

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