FS2002 Graphics Quality: A Very Specific Question

[Guest]

Well, first of all, the frame rates are 18-19 as I approach Seattle. When I get as close as in the snapshot I posted, the rates drop to 14.8-15.8. I don't know why the snapshot was 8.3 although I wasn't concerned about fps at the time, merely graphic quality and had a number of other applications open at the same time. I do notice that the top of the Cessna panel still has noticeable jaggies in both the 3D and 2D panels even at 4xAA, especially the 2D panel. Maybe my AA isn't working 100%.

[Guest]

These screenshots were taken with fsscreen as you suggested. 4xAA, 2xAnisotropic, Mipmapping best image quality, all FS2002 graphic options to the max and all checked. Obviously it's not easy to see the "crawling" and "swimming" in snapshots, but you can see some of it if you study the pictures closely. The first 4 shots were snapped close together at one distance and the second 4 shots were snapped when I was closer. It is easier to see the jagged sides of the buildings in the first 4 (more distant) shots. When flying, the high rises look like they were built in 3 or 4 "steps" instead of single verticle sides.

[Guest]

There's a hugh difference in the power between the ATI9700 and the Ti4600 with AA & AF turned on. I suspect the new GFX NV30 will challenge the 9700 so if it's within your budget, you may want to wait a while for the new Nvidia card. If you can't wait, you can always try the 9700. It can be a bit finicky though especially with 8xAGP motherboards. Mine is rock solid. Runs everything I've thrown at it so far flawlessly. I run 4xAA & 16xAF at 16x12x32 and there are no jaggies and no swimming with one exception. The tree tops twinkle. This is due to the way the ATI handles the alpha textures from what I understand. Not a show stopper though. All scenery is rock solid.I've tried 6xAA and you really have to look to see the difference in FS2k2 between 4xAA & 6xAA. Also tried different levels of AF. This makes a hugh difference. Anything less than 8xAF and the textures go south. They become smudged. At 8xAF the textures are OK. At 16xAF the textures are awesome. The buildings look like something out of a picture. Here's a shot of some buildings in London:http://www.xplanefreeware.net/freehost/mgdbottled/London.jpg

[Guest PaulL01]

Dick, Having looked at your screen shots and your comments I believe it seems there is a little confusion regarding your screen resolution.Where are you changing the screen size? on the desktop or in FS2k2/settings/graphic/hardware menu?It would seem as though you are making changes to the desktop screen size and then running FS2k2 in full screen mode, if that is the case then go into the FS2k2/settings/graphic (or display?)/hardware tab and select your screen size and color depth there.Are we onto somthing here?

[Guest]

Paul,Unfortunately, we are not onto something here with screen resolution. In my testing, I've been changing the screen resolution in the sim. The only changes I have been making in the video driver software is in the FSAA, AF, and mipmapping settings (with the associated check boxes in the sim, of course).Dick

[Guest]

Dick,Something is definitely not right from the looks of your screenshots. I have almost the same system as you and mine doesn't have that look to it.Have you tried going to display propertiessettingsadvancedadapterproperitesdriveruninstall?Then reboot the computer. When it says new hardware found, install the standard vga adapter. Then reinstall your Detonator driver. See if that helps. It really seems like you have a conflict going on.There is also a utility on Guru3d called Detonator Destroyer (removes all remnants of the driver), but I'm not sure if it's been updated for XP.good luck!Steve

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Dick...Sorry I didn't respond last night....After I went home and specifically flew around Seattle (been months since I've flown there, btw--very nice), I did notice the "jaggies" on the sides of the buildings @ 800x600. The Space Needle looked exactly as shown in your shot. As I raised the resolution to 1280x1024 )the max my monitor supports), the jaggies did diminish, but never went away completely, although AA does make a difference. Still, approaching the buildings and now being "attentive" to the issue, I can understand how they might appear to quiver as one approaches them and/or turns away from them. For me, the issue is so minute I've never noticed. But what does make the problem worse--lower framerates. I usually don't max my settings. The "Seattle panorama" at my typical settings yields about 15-25fps (it falls a bit if I look towards KSEA). I usually leave AI off or low, shadows off, and autogen off or low when I'm in the congested scenery areas. I can get away with maxing those settings when I'm flying over an area like Cincy, or Phoenix.I tried to approximate lower framerates, and found myself quickly annoyed with the jaggies. One gets the real impression that the buildings have work crews in 'em, shifting floors here and there. But at higher fps, it all happens too fast for my eye to care.I don't know if this helps, or if it even describes what you've seen. I'd suggest, just as an experiment, to kill the Autogen, AI and shadows. See if the higher fps reduces the effect. If it does, increase each in turn until you reach a "happy medium".Regards,John

[Guest]

Dickwis, you don't by anychance have the 40xx stereo drivers installed do you, or any stereo drivers? These can conflict with the 4109's and gave me a drop of 60% fps, about the same as you were getting in the screenshot with 8fps.CheersBaz

[Guest]

Yes, I've done the uninstall as you suggest, but, in XP, when it says "new hardware found", XP automatically installs it's default Nvidia GeForce driver. That's just the way it works. And Detonator Destroyer has not been updated for XP. Anyway...I've followed exactly the procedure documented by Nvidia so that's probably not the problem. Is the problem the video card? Well I'll find out in a few days as Hypersonic has agreed to ship me a new Ti-4600. I'm hoping that solves the problem.

[Guest]

John,Well it's interesting to have someone say that the buildings are something other than "rock solid". So I'm not the only one that sees all this movement. I was disappointed the first time I saw all that "swimming, jagging, stair-stepping, distortion, etc.), but I started this discussion stating that I was just trying to find out what are realistic expectations. As I mentioned in a prior reply today, I'm getting another TI-4600 to try so we'll see what happens then. Maybe I'm just being too "picky". I didn't expect the Seattle buildings to look smooth like a film or video, but just hoped it would be better than it is. If not with a second TI-4600, then maybe, for a "mere" $499 I can see what a new GeForce FX will do.Dick

[Guest]

Baz,Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by 40xx "stereo drivers". I currently have 40.72 installed, but I did also try 41.09 and saw no difference.Dick

[Guest]

Hi Dick,I had the same problem with my new system when I checked your particular flight path. I was upset because I have a pretty powerful system and didn't like what I was seeing. After considerable searching and experimentation, I have solved "our" problem. Here is what you need to do:(1) Turn OFF antialiasing within FS2002. When I have it turned on, my system crashes and burns with my GEForce4 Ti 4600 card.(2) From your desktop, right click anywhere on the screen and choose properties, then display settings, then advanced, then GEForce4Ti4600.(3) From there choose additional properties, then 3D antialiasing settings. In that window choose 4X. Other settings don't work for me. Click "apply" then back out choosing OK as you leave the windows. Now go to your SEATAC flight and cruise into Seattle at 1000 ft. The buildings are now rock solid for me except for the legs of the Space Needle, where the whiteness of the legs still has a bit of instability.I took a FPS hit on my system from a solid 30 fps down to 20 - 24 fps, but that is still fast enough to be butter smooth. Here is my system:P4 2.8 GHz512 Mb Rambus1600 ramGigabyte MOBO 533 Hz FSBAlbatron GEForce4 Ti4600 128Mb VideoWindows XP Professional, with all critical upgrades and SP1 installed.Enjoy your new smooth system!!Let me know your results.Randy

[Guest PaulL01]

Dick,Clearly, without a doubt you are not using a high res setting. at leats as shown in your pic,(reply #11).You maybe choosing a high res mode with-in FS2k2 but then perhaps you are going into "windowed" mode at a low res desktop setting or else you have somthing else wrong.But clearly by way of your screen shot as the size of the red text indicates you are not running FS2k2 in any kind of high res mode, and until you figure out a way you will continue to suffer the visual artifacts that you complain about.http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/46_fps.jpg

[Guest]

Randy,Well, you may have solved "your" problem, but you haven't solved "my" problem, at least not completely, but you sure did make a noticeable improvement. I setup as you suggested and then first ran FS with AA checked in FS and then ran it without. My system runs just fine with AA checked, but I did notice a significant improvement in graphic quality with AA unchecked. Can't even begin to imagine why that should be, but sure appreciate the tip from you. However, the high rise building sides still can't be described as "rock solid" and still show movement, some stair-stepping, etc. I'm beginning to think that's normal and I'm the only one looking that close since this is all new to me.I would appreciate it if you would provide ALL your display settings so I could compare results even more exactly. Here are my settings for this particular set of tests:Driver properties page (Nvidia driver 40.72):AA 4X (manually selected - applications don't have control of AA)No texture sharpening checked.Anisotropic Filtering 1XSettings in FS2002:Display-Hardware: 1024x768x32, target framerate 24, lights 8, all options checked except AA, trilinear filteringDisplay-Scenery: everything maxed and checked except cloud density at 50.My fps doesn't quite equal yours, but then my cpu is a 2.53 instead of 2.8 and my RAM is DDR PC2700 instead of Rambus. Oh well, had to limit the cost somewhere.Dick

[Guest]

Paul,First of all, I'm not really "complaining" as much as I was just trying to find out what's normal/realistic. My normal desktop resolution is 1024x768x32. That's what I personally prefer. I initially ran FS2002 in the same resolution, but then tried higher ones like 1024x960, 1600x1200, etc. I really saw little if any difference in the artifacts. I still saw moving/distorted windows in the high rises. I still saw some high rises looking stair-stepped like the Empire State building rather than slab-sided as they are continually being redrawn. Like I said, maybe this is normal and I'm looking so closely because it's all new to me and others don't notice because they aren't looking that close because it's not all that important to them and they've become used to it. I've since seen some others snapshot that show the same offset building sides as mine so I'm not alone, but I've already seen some that look perfect. Maybe the perfect snapshot was taken with the sim paused, huh?Your snapshot looks great. How in the world do you get 41.6 fps??? Must have some supersystem???Dick