Sign in to follow this  
Bert Pieke

Graphics card swap - GF2MX to GF4 4200ti

Recommended Posts

I ordered my GF4 4200ti a week or so ago - and have read the threads recently regarding upgrades with some interest, although they have generally lacked screenshots. Just to show you what a difference the upgrade makes I took some last minute screenshots with my old GF2MX and then duplicated them with the GF4 4200ti (after using NVMAX to retune it).......The pictures are as follows::::Birmingham (UK) - GF2MX / GF4 4200tiAnchorage - GF2MX / GF4 4200tiThe GF2MX shots represent the best quality I could get out of the card. Still working on the GF4 !!!!Hope you agree there is a vast improvement.. .. ..

Share this post


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

I'm sold... even if I don't upgrade the CPU for now, I'm getting the card!!Thanks for the visual confirmation!!Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but i dont see any differenceonly difference i can see is the new card it is abit more brighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just made the same swap and also like the visuals.. but now my hard disk is on almost constantly while flying.. even when I pause the sim, the hard drive activity continues (in little dribbles).Only when I push the ALT key (to bring up the file menu) does all disk activity stop.. it continues when I return.. Has anyone else seen this?Abit GF4 4200 128 megDrivers: 29.42, DX8.1 (both came with the card)System: 1Gig Celeron, 384Meg RAM, Win98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too can't see much if any constructive difference in those shots.I'm know it is a better card in terms of smoothness and FSAA quality, but based on those shots, I wouldn't even bother taking the lid off....Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on your view of things I guess - one of the things that has consistently annoyed me about FS2002 is the fact that the scenery turns into a blurred mess after a short distance - in the shots Birmingham city centre is just a grey blob on the old card and textured on the new one. If you look at the Alaskan shot the best way to see where the "blurries" end is to look at the roads - crisp on the new card !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The card is telling the CPU that it can handle more and larger texture files (which is also why you get more crisp textures, higher res mips are used).Because of your low system RAM (384MB only) the CPU can't preload all of that and is constantly accessing the drive to load textures and swap out stuff.Mind that with Win98SE you can only go to 512MB as Win98 cannot address more than that.Were you running Win2000, you could use up to 2GB at least (granted, only if your mainboard can house it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeroen, I believe you are on the right track, it seems scenery related.. the disk drive activity slows down when I fly out over water and there are few new textures in sight, and speeds up in complex terrain. But.. when I look at main memory usage, I have 50-100 Meg free and no use of the swap file at all..I still do not fully understand.. this is unique to FS2k2.. in CFS2 and WW2 Fighters there is no disk drive access and everything is super smooth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeroen, I found it... I had Cacheman optimization enabled.. from way back when..It totally strangles the new card with its 20Meg Vcache limitation.When removed, the problem was fixed!Now all works great with no hard drive access at all.Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,to disappoint you, but these shots do not proof anything. The shots are taken from different angles, different altidudes (!!!) and it looks even with different weather settings (the GF4 Anchorage shot has definitely a rduced visibility afaginst the GF2 shot). So don't fool youself.If you want to have a fair comparison take a shot, save the situation exchange the video card, restart the situation and then take the comparison screenshot.Regards,Wolfgang"Men always believe, what they like to believe"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you want to have a fair comparison take a shot, save the situation exchange the video card, restart the situation and then take the comparison screenshot."...and use the same FS2002.cfg file, because this is where all the FS2K2 display and other settings are stored. They are not saved in the *.FLT file.Stamatis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to "##### on your parade" so to speak :-), but I see no real difference in the pics. At least not much to warrant an upgrade.Stamatis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stamatis, I do not have the before and after shots to prove it, but here is my subjective assessment after upgrading from a 32Meg GF2MX to a 128Meg GF4 4200 card..Visibility into the distance is definitely improved.. I can see cities from further away.. in the Los Angeles basin, I can see downtown buildings from LAX as well as buildings in the surrounding cities up against the mountain ranges.The performance is so much better that I have upgraded from 1024x768x16, locked at 20fps to 1280x960x32, locked at 24 fps. Both at 2xAA.4xAA works fine too, but has an fps hit.. this is fine for CFS2 which now runs at 50+ fps, but still not worth it IMHO on FS2k2.All this on a system with a Celeron1000, Intel 400BX chipset and 384MegRAM.. hardly world-class in today's terms.. but works great and MSFS2k2 is like a new simulator for me, very smooth and very "real".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and it is awfully hard to make compare shots due to the restriction in file size on avsim which requires jpg compression-therefore you lose the clarity and abilty to really see the difference. I am sure the shots it their full resolution probably were very convincing.In my case-same deal. Went from sliders halfway-to sliders all full right, visually a totally new difference, and smoother better performance. It only makes sense that going from 32 megs of video to 128 that there should be a difference-and there is.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough I will not be swapping the card back, I took the shots to show a comparison - believe me it is like a new simulator, so much better - I am not fooling myself.Apologies for those that do not like the shots or cannot see a difference (it is easier to see on a brighter monitor), personally I like the way that roads and rivers disappear into the distance rather than turning into a blurry mess after about 2 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured I do not claim that there is no difference. I am simply saying that just by comparing the attached scteenshots, in all honesty I do not see much difference, and probably this below explains why:"....and it is awfully hard to make compare shots due to the restriction in file size on avsim which requires jpg compression-therefore you lose the clarity and abilty to really see the difference."Stamatis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Geof, your Debonair is one the most improved airplanes since the card upgrade.. I think it is because you used high resolution bitmaps for the panel.. either way, it is really convincing with the cowling up front and the instruments "in your lap".. for you it must be even more mind-bending since you fly the real thing!Other favorites of mine: the C177 Cardinal and the SF260 Marchetti..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stamatis, here is a view from LAX airport, looking north.. this should give you a feel for viewable distances... easy to replicate on your system..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first pair of pix, the difference in clarity to the horizon is clearly visible. The second pair do suffer from low light and contrast. Hard for anyone not wearing the glasses everybody keeps telling me I need to get, to see a difference.However, the fact that I can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. I just got through reading a NTSB transcript, where the pilot's response to a traffic advisory and query "do you see the traffic?" was "Negative". His failure to see the traffic, did not mean that the traffic wasn't there -- as the subsequent midair illustrated. You can't prove a negative!Funny, though, how people are -- the ones who can't see a difference, want to (and I quote) "##### on your parade". Oh, sure, he says he doesn't want to...then follows with that "but", which does it to you anyway.And thus, it feels like those who can't see a difference blame you for their own inabilities. Nobody has said anything really bad...it just feels like they did. The general tone I get from this thread is people telling you to go away, because you're wasting their time. As for me, I'm glad you posted the pix, and thank you for doing so, as I'm planning work soon that will hopefully give me similar results! --BeachComer Stephen "Beach" Comer Real World Pile-it Commercial ASMEL, Instrument Airplane 4500 TT, 2500 BE20 & BE10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Mind that with Win98SE you can only go to 512MB as Win98 cannot address more than that<http://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the benefit of hindsight I would have cleared the weather on all of the pics and done "daytime" screenies since it would have better shown the point I was trying to make. It is also more noticeable on "flat" area's although the mountains are also improved.For those that cannot see a difference then I guess there is no point them upgrading - perhaps this thread will save them money. Glad to see some can see the point of it.....

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