Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Parhelia review at SimHQ....review...

Recommended Posts

On the SimHQ Parhelia review,Well written review but very disappointing as they stated that FS2k2 with surround setup:

Share this post


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

Hi Paulwhy care about the surround frame hit when the card is even too slow to run FS2002 with decent frame rates and resolutions in normal full screen mode?Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul,It is great of Bubba to include FS2002 in his reviews, but unfortunately, they are not a precise as they could be, and thus the information they offer is limited to us flight simmers. What would be great is if he could get multiple cards and or CPUs and run flight sim in a review so direct comparisons can be made. Also, he needs to be more precise as to his setup so that we, at home, can make comparisons.What is your thoughts concerning the newest Pentium IV 2.53 (533bus) in combination with say 1Mb of 1066 RDRAM and a 4600TI? As you know, I posted the idea previously. Is the the cure all we would like it to be, or are there situations you foresee where even this setup would be a slide show? What do you believe to be the minimun frames per second to get "smooth" frames, or what is your standard, in other words? Right now, I am using an Athlon 1.2G (100 speed bus; 200DDR) 512 PC133 SDRAM, a GeForce256DDR 32MB videcard running at 1600x1200. I use all sliders to the max but in weather I go sparingly on the clouds and only to 10 miles visability which I think is more realistic anyway. If in a setting with my current machine I am getting say 10 frames per second or 5 frames per second, could I expect to double my framerates with the aformentioned system to say 12 and 10 frames respectively? I am just trying to get a grasp on this thing and decide when would be a good time to jump into a new computer. You posts on hardware issues have been super helpful, and I would like your input.Thanks Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,>>It is great of Bubba to include FS2002 in his reviews, but >unfortunately, they are not a precise as they could be, and >thus the information they offer is limited to us flight >simmers. What would be great is if he could get multiple >cards and or CPUs and run flight sim in a review so direct >comparisons can be made. Also, he needs to be more precise >as to his setup so that we, at home, can make comparisons. Right, Or at the least give us some numbers along with the settings. Just makes you wonder.>What is your thoughts concerning the newest Pentium IV 2.53 >(533bus) in combination with say 1Mb of 1066 RDRAM and a >4600TI? As you know, I posted the idea previously. Is the >the cure all we would like it to be, or are there situations >you foresee where even this setup would be a slide show?Perhaps you missed some of my comments in responce to the hyped P4- back in that thred, this pretty much sums it up:The new P4-B's are really great solid machines.However...I've had Fs2k2 running on many a P4-533FSB machine with the DDR as well as Rdram PC1066 on Intel/Asuss boards with a few setups o/c all the way up to 3.0Gigs which make for one great machine. These machines are very much the "go to" machines but expect good solid figures of around 20-30 but can go as low as 10-15 at LAX or other detailed areas with AAx2 at 1280x960 and this is with very high O/C Ti4600 cards (315/750).Edit:And just to put a lid on the "dreamers" (but my P3 can do 20-30FPS!) The key words here are >ALL:) To see performance of which will put us all prety much in the "clear as far as FPS go, just at a plain old AAx2 at 1280x960x32 in most kinds of detailed areas with a good amount of ATC with ALL settings maxed you will need around a 4.0Ghz 8xAGP R9700/NV30 machine, at the least. And will there still be occasions with that kind of hardware where FPS will still be a slide show? Bet on it! There is almost no limit as to how detailed and thus how CPU intensive scenery, Aircraft and panels can be made and as hardware performance goes up the detail will follow, much like a teeter totter If you want to see some published numbers of good P4b systems please have a look at http://www4.tomshardware.com/ or here's a decent review of exactlt this hardware on FS2k2 at Simhq: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/reviews/p42530/ >What do you believe to be the minimun frames per second to >get "smooth" frames, or what is your standard, in other >words? Again consider how much detail you want to push...but if I had to pick a reasonable number I would say that with ALL settings maxed and at high resolution and AAx4 Anywhere above 30FPS average would be awsome! At least FS2k2 is playable all the way down to 15, so it would probably be fair to say that it is possible to be completly content with Fs2k2 performance on hardware that is available right now.Also consider that sometime this fall the NV30 is due out (this Oct-Nov) as well as some new CPUs from Intel and AMD plus a host of 8x AGP motherboards, if you really want truly satisfying hardware it would advisable to wait as hard as it is as we are about to turn another corner with the number of advances that will quicly leapfrog what we have seen in hardware from the last stage of more than a year ago, then agian there will be bargans...>Right now, I am using an Athlon 1.2G (100 speed bus; 200DDR) >512 PC133 SDRAM, a GeForce256DDR 32MB videcard running at >1600x1200. I use all sliders to the max but in weather I go >sparingly on the clouds and only to 10 miles visability >which I think is more realistic anyway. If in a setting >with my current machine I am getting say 10 frames per >second or 5 frames per second, could I expect to double my >framerates with the aformentioned system to say 12 and 10 >frames respectively? I am just trying to get a grasp on >this thing and decide when would be a good time to jump into >a new computer. You posts on hardware issues have been >super helpful, and I would like your input. >I would suggest that you pick up a t-bird 1.4 ($100)and O/C it a tad to 1.5 and grab a GF4TI4200 for $150 and turn a few key settings down like Mesh and shadows etc. and you will get performance close to a decent P4b 2.2 system and can just wait it out till the great new stuff has got all the driver support and the prices even out.Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did get your general response, but you ledt out specific FPS numbers on your reply in my previous post. I probably will wait. I am thinking that December will be the time to jump. From what I have read, the NV30 will be able to grind out x4 FSAA without loss of frames. That will be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be getting a Parhelia real soon and could post some impressions then. It's for work but I do play FS2002 regularly. I'm not too worried about performance, from Matrox support forums:============can't imagine that they would want to play a flight sim on TH @ 14Fps..Just tried it on our XP1800+ system with faa forced, and every slider set to max, I get ~ 30fps when the terrain is in view and then ~ 72fps when I'm in the sky.btw Haig, what res were u running? 2400 x 600, 3072 x 768, or 3840 x 1024?I was in 1920x480 with cockpit view.Going to 800x600 drops me down to an average of 40fps in both the sky and terrain with all sliders set to the max and faa on.edit -> You can't get more than 1920x480 in FS becuase of a DX limitation with custom resolutions------------------HaigMatrox GraphicsTechnical Support Manager===========

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:Could I get your input on below:Is a 1024 image projected on a white plaster wall sufficient to showcase FS2002 eyecandy?As a matter of personal preference would you say a 21 inch monitor image at higher res is substancially preferable to the 1024 projected image?Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Just tried it on our XP1800+ system with faa forced, and >every slider set to max, I get ~ 30fps when the terrain is >in view and then ~ 72fps when I'm in the sky. It makes little impression on me unless the "terrain" are some detailed airports like LAX, ORD, etc. And how about puffy clouds/no clouds ?Over generic terrain I also get high frame rates on my 3 year old rig.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Over generic terrain I also get high frame rates on my 3 >year old rig. >>Michael J. I know that, I'm currently using a 3 year old Matrox G400 16Mb :-)Hopefully I'll have a Parhelia up and running next week.

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