I have just upgraded from a Nvidia 4200 (128mb) to an ATI 9800 Pro (128mb). I just wanted to crosscheck with a few of you guys to make sure that we are all on the same page here as far as the numbers are concerned. What I have found is very little increase in overall framerates. However, I can turn up most settings to the max, where as I could not with the 4200ti. Here is my scenario: Weather Clouds: scattered Visibility: 30 miles Precipitation: none Wind Speed: noneDefault Seattle International Airport with C-172 on 34R

Man, that hurts, I don't ever think I have gotten a non-response post before. Is the question too complicated? I'll try and break it down if you don't understand what I am asking.Robb

That may not be enough processor for those settings. I would recommend turning down AA to 0 or 2x. You will not really need more than that at 1600 x 1200 resolution. Max sight and cloud draw should also be kept at 60 miles for added performance and realistic haze environment. If you want greater visibility, I would purchase and utilize the registered version of FSUIPC which has a graduated visibility function. This can be set from 20 miles or so at ground level to 80 miles or so at any altitude you choose. This also enhances realism and performance. A little less Autogen and AI will really help performance as well, while not reducing realism much There is a new 4.8 Catalist out which is much newer than your current driver, so you may also want to check that out as well.Best of luck,John M.AMD FX-51 @2400 Mz80G Maxtor HD1Gb Corsair RamATI 9800 XT 256XP Home

Think you should try turning down the settings. 1200*1600 with 4X AA is will bring almost any video card to its knees, and most older cards cannot even run with such setting.-

Robb,Switch off Ground Scenery Shadows. That is a HUGE frame rate eater and has been for evey version of FS for as long as I can remember. I'd agree with the other recommendations - if you're running at 1600*1200 why do you need any AA? Either reduce your resolution or turn off AA. I'd also reduce AF to 8X.Come back with some frame rates once you've changed those and we'll have another think if things are still low. One other thing and this isn't just aimed at you as most people never report it... are you running in Windowed mode or full-screen (ALT+ENTER) mode? I've found that frame rates stay higher in windowed mode.You're doing the right thing by creating a test scenario and using it to measure performance. I have one for Meigs Rwy 36 (can't get used to Seattle!) and with light cloud cover I get 48fps with a P4 3.0 / Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb with most settings maxed out.Cheers,

The funny think about it is that when I reduce my settings to those you suggested, I get maybe .5 frames per second increase. That made me wonder if there was something wrong with my computer setup. They definitely would have hurt my 4200, but not my 9800. I think my processor is the main culprit. I will enjoy the extra sliders to the right. You look as if you have a sweet system. With your setup, do you ever have framerate issues?Robb

You would think that would be the case, but there is very little difference at the lower settings when compared with the higher settings with my computer. RH

Hi Ray- I have not tried turing off the ground scenery shadows yet. Thanks for the suggestion. I am running in full screen mode. I will try the windowed mode and get back to you. What settings don't you have maxed in your test scenario?Thanks,Robb

Robb,<>Why not? It is a big hit on performance as I said. Turn it off and notice the difference. You may not need to change anything else.I have Terrain Mesh at 80, AutoGen: Very dense, Cloud Draw Distance at 70m, MIP Mapping at 4, Hardware rendered lights at 6. Render to Texture is off as is anti-alias (within FS).Cheers,

Hi Ray -- I guess I never thought about turning off the ground scenery shadows, but I will give it a try and get back to you. What are your card settings?Thanks,Robb

Hi Ray-I have a system very similar to yours, with the ATI9800 & the latest Catalyst drivers. Are you usng the Catalyst or Omega drivers?I don't have a problem with frame rates, however I do experience intermittent short stuttering, where the action seams to freeze for a fraction of a second.Just wondering, if you could please post your video card & fs9.cfg settings, I would live to see where I have gone astray.Also, will you be attending the AVSIM Convention this month in Denver? I would love to finally meet you.Regards,

Robb,See my reply to Howard.Cheers,

Hi Howard,I use the Omega drivers v2.5.67. I also get occasional stutters - I don't think there's anything you can do to aleviate this. It's just dependent on the scenery. I get most when on the ground - when I'm airborne the sim is very flent.I should mention at this point that I have two networked PCs and my flying machine only displays a full forward view with no panel visible. I run Project Magenta software on the other PC linking the two with WideFS. This allows the processor on the flying machine to concentrate fully on scenery processing whilst the processor on the other PC concentrates on navigation.I'm attaching a screenshot of my Omega settings. Rather than post lots of info on my FS9. CFG settings you may find it more useful if I send you a test flight I use to judge driver performance. This places my aircraft at Rwy 36 at Meigs (I could never get used to Seattle!). I turn the fram erate limiter off and set Ai Traffic % to zero. I'm getting 49fps with this test. If you would like to try it send me a private message at [email protected] (remove _NoSp_am_ so it reads RayProudfoot).I won't be at the show unfortunately. Living in the UK gives me little or no opportunity to make the trip. However, one of the Radar Contact group of testers will be there so if you find them say hello to John Burgess who's responsible for much of the trig in version 4.Cheers,

Yes, even with my system and the settings I recommended, I do see frame rates in the teens flying around Seattle(I live there). Seattle is probably tougher for FS2004 than just about any other area due to combination of mountains, buildings, water, and tons of clouds.