Track IR4 + Queen VC = Dodgy frames at low altitudes....

[JSACKS 0]

I am still flying FS9 with the Queen and getting used to my new Track IR 4 Pro. Generally, Track IR 4 works extremely well with almost all of my huge fleet of a/c in the VC. However, the PMDG Queen (and NG too) present some serious control and visual challenges with this great piece of hardware.I observe that on takeoff roll in the VC with Track IR, frames are somewhat lower than without TrackIR. I'd estimate maybe 35%-50% lower. They remain low/lower until reaching an altitude that has less cloud and ground texture detail, maybe around 10,000 feet. I just did a flight and found that using Track IR frames were down to as low as 5-8 on takeoff roll and were generally in the range of 5 to 10 up to 10,000' but that in the VC alone without Track IR, they were about double that or more than double until reaching ten thousand feet. My PC is state-of-the-art for FS9 (not FSX!) with 2GB of RAM and a new 7900 GTO card with 512 MB RAM on top of a 3.80 Ghz P4. Is there anything I can do about this relatively disappointing performance, or am I using Track IR incorrectly ?Appreciate any advice, thanks!Jonathan

[Guest pilotbrian0]

unfortunately, as far as FS9 goes, a 3.8 Ghz processor is probably too slow by the time you add one or two high detail gauges and a couple of add on programs. All gauges are rendered by the CPU, not the GPU, and this is probably your problem, as Track IR also is going to be using a large chunk of the CPU (not too much I'd think, it seems they don't have a lot of calculations to make, they're mostly a hardware thing...)-Brian

[JSACKS 0]

I just discovered an interesting thing: I got 13-24 fps (my fps cap is set at 24) in the VC with Track IR at a different airport--the very detailed Kuala Lumpur Int'l add-on airport-- in a different region of the world, high fps at 3000', and a lower range of fps, but still 13-18 fps, on final approach. This seems to be a condition that is obviously affected by some scenery factors by MS in the sim that are unknown (and/or incomprehensible) to mere mortals such as myself. So it does not appear to be a processor deficiency. Track IR does use some power, perhaps more than I thought, but this is yet another interesting discovery in FS9 for me. I guess there are just certain areas of the world to be avoided !Jonathan

[Guest aarskringspier]

>unfortunately, as far as FS9 goes, a 3.8 Ghz processor is>probably too slow by the time you add one or two high detail>gauges and a couple of add on programs. All gauges are>rendered by the CPU, not the GPU, and this is probably your>problem, as Track IR also is going to be using a large chunk>of the CPU (not too much I'd think, it seems they don't have a>lot of calculations to make, they're mostly a hardware>thing...)>>-BrianMy secondary PC is a 3.2ghz with only 1 gig or RAM and a X800XL video card and it runs a maxed out FS9 with track IR4 flawlessly. Its more than enough HP to run FS9.

[JSACKS 0]

I am sure it is. I should've mentioned earlier perhaps that I have a plethora of hardware including a 24" panel running at 1920x1200, and a 18" panel at 1280x1024 plus 9 GoFlight units and 3 CH units along with Track IR4. I s'poze it's a miracle anything even works in the sim for me.I expect a lot from what is maybe just "a little" in today's PC-sim world. I have to say that everything DOES run splendidly in FS9 generally speaking, and TrackIR4 performs brilliantly with all other aircraft. But the PMDG 744 is rather more demanding of processing power, so perhaps I expect too much from my set-up in the circumstances.Jonathan

[Guest pilotbrian0]

I'd say, also, what do you have as far as AI traffic?The three biggest FPS eaters are:Dense AI Traffic (Even traffic on different frequencies, FS is still generating the calls for and that is done in the processor)Complex, or highly detailed gaugesOutside programs.and honestly, with that list, I'm amazed you aren't down to a stutter. I know I personally have some issues SOMETIMES around like KORD or KMSP even on my athalon FX 4200+ (which us dual core 4.2 ghz equiv) But then I have Ultimate Traffic, 100% traffic, FDC, and a couple go-flight panels all running on triple 1280X1024 monitors (adding a 4th soon)-Brian

[JSACKS 0]

35% Ultimate Traffic at all times. Not more. Too difficult to navigate and too stuttery with 100%!I just got back to this PC from flying the CoolSky MD-80 up to NYC. Superb stuff. Smooth as a baby's backside. The rig works just great all the time. Just wish it would be a little smoother with the PMDG Queen with Track IR !Jonathan

[Guest pilotbrian0]

It might smooth out if you go through and do what you can to "slim down the sim" in the PMDG menu. For example, no point getting 20 fps on the VC gauges when you only get 10 fps from the sim as a whole...Also, uncheck conformal compass numbers or whatever it is, that bought 4-5 frames on some computers (and considering what it takes to render slanted numbers, I can see why...)These are things that won't really affect your sim experience, but might buy you back the frames needed to get out of the slide show that the queen can put FS9 into (and WILL put FSX, almost guaranteed, there isn't a computer invented yet that can handle FSX and the Queen :()-Brian

[JSACKS 0]

OK, I shall try that, thanks!Jonathan