High All Is the quality of the video card used, the only determining factor,regarding frame rates or is the amount of RAM a factor as well? I'm using an nvidia 5950 ultra and its very good but I notice that as I add more "eye candy" to my airport, my frame rates are starting to take a hit. I try to keep things as simple as possible, but it's hard to resist putting in the details when you know the scene could look better. I've scheduled my aircraft so that there's lots of action, but no more than half the gates are occupied at any one time, which helps. What's the best video card on the mark for flight simmers? Thanks Ken

Ken - The "eye candy" issue with FS9 is more of a CPU issue than a video card issue. Generally, the only thing that will increase the framerate as more polygons (e.g., scenery, AI aircraft, or weather) are added is an increase in the number of available CPU cycles, i.e., a faster CPU. Neither video RAM nor system RAM will increase the maximum attainable framerate. But adding RAM can incease the average framerate (but not dramatically) and overall smoothness. As far as what's the best video card, I'll leave that to others to debate :-) .Doug

Ram does some, video does some or alot depends from what your upgrading from..but.. CPU makes a huge difference.. FS is a CPU Scavenger...the more it can get the more it will take.. the nicer fs runs..AMD64 3200 - ASUS K8V SE - ASUS RADEON 9800XT - SB AUDIGY 2 - 1.5GB CORSAIR XMS - RUNNING XP RPO ON A 320GB BUNCH OF SATA DRIVES

> Is the quality of the video card used, the only determining>factor,regarding frame rates or is the amount of RAM a factor>as well? Unfortunately there is no silver bullet. You must have fast CPU, fast memory and fast video card - all three. FS9 requires that you have a well balanced system otherwise your frame rates/quality will suffer.Michael J.

Ram if you have less then 1 gig have a major impact on frame rates. The more difference the more eyecandy you pull. CPU if you run at low detail of course do most of the work but you can off load it a bit by upping resolution and using more antialiasing/anisotrophic which stresses your video card heavily. Actually all those Polys is mostly drawn by your video card of course.Michael J is right it

What's the current theory for FS9 on locking fps or using the unlimited frame rate setting on the hardware page?In FS2002 it was recommended to lock the fps to say 17, 22 fps or so to free up the resources. I recall reading briefly in an article (AVSIM ?) that for FS9 it was recommended to use the unlimited setting. I'm using the unlimited setting now and just giving the computer it's head to run the highest fps it can.Any thoughts?

"What's the current theory for FS9 on locking fps or using the unlimited frame rate setting on the hardware page?"Insert this line into the "MAIN" section of your FS9.cfg.Ave_Frame_Rate_Display=1Now when you press SHIFT+Z you'll see 3 different framerates... the left one is the minimum, center is average, and the left is maximum. If you get alot of variation between the average FPS (the center value) and the high FPS (the right most value) then you should consider locking your franerates.Hope this helps,Greg

>But number one is make sure you got 1 gig of RAM that will>surely have a great affect and is not that expensive.I don't see how you can rate RAM as the #1 help to increasing frame rates. What info or tests have you done to justify this claim?I've never seen RAM make a real difference in frame rate. Not in any version sim I've used since FS4. And not in FS2004. If RAM helps fram rate, why didn't it help my old celeron 500 with only 64 megs of ram?I added 128 more to increase to 192, and it did not do a thing for the frame rate. Nada, zip, zilch. It did make a huge difference in texture loading though, ect, as much more was kept in ram. But that's NOT a frame rate increase. I will maintain till the day I die...Only the CPU and video card will have any decent effect on true video frame rates. The cpu is probably most important overall, but the video is quite important also. Otherwise, everyone would be happily using cheap low end cards...If you run a high res, a good card is very important. I have a test people can try to see if they need a better video card. Now, I haven't really tested this to any scientific degree, but I think it's a fairly good indicator to see if your CPU is ok, but the video is weak, or if both are weak. Lets say you run 1078x768 full screen and get 10 fps in a certain test area. Save the flight so you can repeat the test over and over to verify...Now , take the sim out of full screen view and shrink the picture down to about 1/2 size of the desktop, or even smaller. Did the frame rate do a large increase? If so, the CPU is doing ok, but the video is weak. If it's still slow, both are weak. If you can take that 10 fps full screen and get 20 fps or more at a 1/4 sized screen, yes, a better video card should help. Of course, even a good card will increase in a small frame, but at least you can see if the cpu is up to the job. A good card would be fast even at full screen. In some ways, I think the video card is more important for fs9, than for any previous version of MSFS. This is open to debate, but I think a CPU of over appx 2.4 ghz is bottlenecked by the video if the card is not high end. If you are in that range CPU, upgrading the video to a high end card *should* do more than upgrading the CPU unless it a huge jump of 1 ghz or more. I know in overclocking my 2.4 to 3.2, the difference in frame rate was quite small. Why? I think my fairly low end 128 mb fx-5200 video card is bottlenecking the works. It just doesn't have the pipelines a 9800 pro does...As a further comment.. Just properly installing my chipset drivers, and doing nothing but increasing my AGP from 2x to 8x, nearly tripled my frame rates. "from 12 fps to 30 fps in one certain controlled test". All the other tests closely echoed those results. The cpu did not change. In not a single case have I seen ram do a thing for frame rates. Smoothness and overall flyability, heck yes! Pure frame rates? Not here...Ever...BTW, I'm running only 512 ram, and I'm on the ragged edge of needing more, but adding 512 more would only slightly smooth things out a bit when I start to really load things up on long flights with complex panels, etc. When you start to run low on ram, textures have to reload from disk cache, etc, and you see the short pauses or stutters...But I'd bet my frame rates would be exactly the same in any of my controlled test areas. Overall, my sim runs pretty good on 512 ram, and I've got everything maxed as far as scenery. 512 more wouldn't hurt, but it's not going to be noticed until I really sap the memory low. At 512 mine is perfectly smooth at texture loading as long as all or at least most the sim is in ram. It quite often is if I boot fresh, and kill all running junk before starting the sim. Like I say, I'm only on the edge of needing more..It only shows if I run for a long time with complex panels, scenery, etc...And even then, the only thing I see is the 1 second stutters while it's thrashing the drive for an "old" texture it lost out of ram. On average, I can run the sim, and have appx 50 or so megs of ram left. Will vary minute by minute...On average, according to dx diag, I only use about half my 128 video ram at any given time...So anything over a 128 meg video card *should* be a waste. What really counts is clock speeds, and mostly, the number of pixel pipelines.A 9800 pro has 8 pixel pipes, vs I believe only 2 on the fx-5200..."4 at the most anyway, but I think only 2...":( Needless to say, the 9800 pro will thrash the fx-5200 at high res.. MK

Use that command line suggested. More RAM increases the minimum fps very very much which means you get more smooth flying with higher minimum refresh rates which are the only one that really count ;).Anyone that has went from 512 to 1024 can testify what difference it makes.Now if you talk video RAM it

Use that command line suggested. More RAM increases the minimum fps very very much which means you get more smooth flying with higher minimum refresh rates which are the only one that really count ;).>>>Again, I've tested and tested, and have never seen such a thing...Ever... As far as the cel chip, it was actually fairly flyable. The frame rate wasn't too good, but after adding the extra ram, it was ok. The main problem was the lack of a dx9 video card. But even still, if what you say is correct, I should have seen a frame increase...I didn't. It was exactly the same, even though the sim flew about %200 smoother with more ram. I saw a HUGE difference in performance in going from 64 to 192 ram. But again, not a bit as far as frame rate. With 64 ram, I'd have to wait for each texture load. IE: change view direction, and I'd have to wait...And wait...And wait...Adding the extra 128 cured that totally. >>>>But really if you think your video card or cpu is the only thing that really matters then you unless you are constantly gaming at 640x480 you will never get good performance! FS 2004 uses more then 800 mb of memory and at times over a gig! You think Harddrives are even remotely as fast as RAM>>>Again, you are sorta confusing the issue...We are not debating hard drive speeds vs ram. We are debating whether more ram increases the frame rate. I've never seen it. Ever. And I'm quite a fastidious tester...Also, if fs2004 uses that much ram, why am I running 512 ram, and able to have maybe 30-50 mb or ram available, before dipping into the cache? Yes, I do not have to many add-on's as far as scenery, etc, but mine does not use that much ram. Mine seems to use around 400 or so...Using the higher resolutions will put even more importance on the video card. Myself, I usually run 1078..But I can run 1200 ok. >>>You can have the fastest CPU and video card on earth if you can

But really you haven

>Again, smoothness and frame rate counts>are not the same thing. maybe they are not the same thing but they are very closely related. I recall when I did not have enough RAM I would get very drastic variations in fps - it could be 20 then plummeting to 5 in a blink of an eye then going back to 20, etc. Horribly stutter and stutter is nothing else than sudden drops in fps. Therefore saying there is no connection between RMA nd fps is only true provided you have enough of RAM. Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

It

>As for movies>they run at 24 or 25 fps but use motion blur and tons of>antialiasing as well as other techniques to make it appear>smooth :). It is a bit off topic but since you wrote it I have to comment on it. Yes, this sort of opinion one can find once in a while on internet yet I have a big problem with this logic. Take for example old Disney's animations, say "Snow White and Seven Dwarfs". It was made in 1937 (!). No blurrying or antialiasing techniques existed at that time, it was strictly 24 hand-drawn (sharp) images/sec by Disney's artists. Sorry, you can say what you want but it is as smooth as silk - I do have the tape.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

I don