Alas.. is this it?

[Guest]

Just like everyone else, I hunger for maxed sliders and huge frame rates. After recieving an insurance settlement I decided to take a huge plunge and upgrade to what I considered would give me a super computer.2.6 AthlonXP, GigabyteKT400 Mobo, 512 2700DDR Ram, Win 98SEGeForce 4 Ti 4200.I could barely contain myself on the way home as visions of smooth flying and monster frames danced in my head.I was very disapointed to discover that FS2K2 still slopped along at 20 - 25 fps. If fact, flying in Alaska with Full terrain mesh, trees and all the other scenery I could find, with the Dreamfleet Archer, I recieved no more than 20 fps dipping to 15 - 13.Nothing but Systray and Explorer in background.. I know the guys with the Dell systems are reporting 50+ performance but for the most of us, is 20 - 30 basically what we can expect forever amen?Your thoughts please.....Darryl

[Guest DooRoo]

I don't know if it is true, but I heard somewhere that Win98 can only support 256MB of RAM, can anyone confirm ?It might solve the problem if it is true ...Secks woz hear ...

[Guest Edam]

Forgetting about the framerate number, which should essentially be ignored, are you saying that the sim is not relatively smooth, or are you just going by that number? And what's wrong with 20 - 30? Some people would kill for that.

[Guest]

512Windows98Se will not run on more than 512 without editing although ?I have heard this has been rectified with patches and updates.

[Guest]

Your right.20-30fps is a great performance. We worry about fps too much. If it is smooth who cares what the fps is.But I would assume that if you are like most, you want to know that what you have put your money into is giving you the best return in performance.The performance I am getting now, is not that much improved from what I had before, many $$$ ago.It makes me feel like I should have just left it. It is a case of unmet expectations. I thought if I upgraded all this stuff, it would net me huge returns in frames and visual appearance.AthlonXP 1.6 to an AthlonXP 2.6256meg PC2100 DDR RAM to 512 PC2700 DDR RamGeForce 2 to Geforce 4 It didn't.So my question still remains.... Is this just how MSFS2k2 is? Or do I need to go looking deeper to find some other problem?Darryl

[Guest]

It's the old symptom of the framerate junky.They're never content, no matter what fps they get.If they got 1000 fps and a completely photoreal world and aircraft that load instantly they'd still complain about not being able to get more.I get 10-20 fps almost everywhere, and that's enough. Most places it also looks great, only blurring in the far distance and that with most things set to max (only mesh complexity and ground shadows turned down).

[LAdamson 240]

15-20 may be okay while flying at higher altitudes, but approaching the 30 range or beyond is REAL noticeable when I'm flying lower. I doubt I'd ever be happy with 10.BTW---- I believe it is a "water setting" which I run at about halfway on the slider scale, that makes quite an fps difference.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XP

[Ed 0]

Hi,I know it's not just the Dell guys. I just built a p4-2.4 with 512 ram and a ATI 9700 pro video card. I run with everything maxed except shadows and max visibility. The frame rates average about 45 with WinMe but I keep mine set at 30.Ed

[Guest]

Hey guys. To be honest I'm starting to think its the graphics cards. I've got a Dell P4 2.0ghz 512mb DDR, and a Geforce 4 4400 and I get anywhere between 10 and 25. Maybe its just me but the guys that all seem to have the ultra high frames are ATI owners. Dunno. I'm buying a 9700pro this week in place of my geforce 4. guess I get to find out for myself

[Guest]

I'm still in the process of upgrading, from essentially the same level of computing power where you where at (in my case, an Athlon 1.4 T-Bird @ 1.53) to an Athlon 2100+ T-Bred @ 2600+. I'm all but done, just doing stability tests to decide where to leave things. I didn't do any rigorous FS benchmarking before beginning the upgrade, but I know there has been improvement. Maybe not as much as I expected, but it could be at these levels of CPU power, we're pretty much maxing the performance of FS. In the past, I've espected pretty much linear improvements in performance with CPU upgrades. Here, with the CPU increasing from 1.53 Ghz to 2.09 Ghz, a linear increase in performance would be 37 percent. In areas where I was seeing 15 FPS, a linear improvement would be 20 FPS. My gut feeling is that the improvement in the densest areas has been less than that, maybe only 20-25 percent. I fly only in Alaska, and sometimes see 50+ away from the dense scenery I have in Anchorage. In and around Anchorage, I see 20-30, dipping below 20 in some areas. These are just quick impressions. I haven't done a lot of flying with the new computer yet. I have only the FSGenesis mesh -- 78m statewide, 38m Denali -- but a very active AI/ATC environment.I'm thinking that maybe (1) you should be seeing more improvement than you're seeing, but (2) maybe not as much as you were expecting. I don't want to appear overly critical of the new system, but I do have a couple of comments or observations. First, you describe it as a "2.6 AthlonXP". I'm assuming that you mean the Athlon XP 2600+. The 2600+ is a PR (performance rating), not a chip speed. The chip speed is 2.13 Ghz, not 2.6 Ghz. So keep that in mind when thinking about what kind of performance you are expecting. Second, everything I've read about the new Athlon XP chips is that the only way to go mobo wise is with a motherboard with an nForce2 chipset. That is supposed to be a killer combination. But your mobo has a VIA chipset. So you may not be squeaking all the performance out of that Athlon XP 2600+ that is possible.Don't let the guys with the "Dell systems" (whatever you mean by that) determine your expectations. I don't believe half of what I read about people boasting about their 'puters, especially with FS, because there are so many variables, and no rigorous benchmarks. Turn your FPS meter off and just fly for a week or two. Does it fly smooth? Personally, I do think the better systems make FS seem "smoother" even when the FPS is below 20. I admit, I look at the FPS like everyone else, especially now, when upgrading. But when I'm done, I'll lock it at 20 or 22, and turn it off. That's the best antidote to buyer's remorse that I can think of.-Basil

[Guest]

There's so many variables in the settings for FS2002 that it's no surprise folks are reporting a wide range of framerates. Turning on AI alone will decrease the frames considerably as AI is running off the processor. AI doesn't have a thing to do with the graphics card. Same with flight models. From everything I've read, FS2k2 is dependent upon both the CPU and if you want to run eye candy, your graphics card also. And fast ram. Of course everyone wants to run eye candy, so it would be fair to say that FS2k2 framerates are dependent on how powerful your graphics card is if you're running eye candy. The major difference between the mid range Nvidia cards up to and including the Ti4600 and the ATI 9700 is the shear power of the 9700 when running AA & AF (eye candy). No doubt about that. I can run with frames locked at 20 max at 4xAA & 16xAF all quality settings and enjoy a beautiful picture because of the graphics card and the size of my processor. If I increase the lock, I lose picture quality. Mostly, the number of objects on the ground decrease as frames increase) My frames run 18, 19, and 20 because that's where I have it locked and the image quality is excellent with all the sliders maxed out. Except AI. If I want higher frames with the settings that I'm running at, the theory is that I'll need a bigger processor. How much I'll derive from a bigger processor is a good question. I don't have any reason to dispute that theory. I suppose a lot depends on how well the software is written.Also, folks need to report high and low frames. Highs mean nothing. Averages mean nothing. It's that lowest framerate that's all important as far as I'm concerned when measuring the performance of FS2k2 on a particular computer. If I lock at 20, my framerates pretty much stays at 20. However, if I lock at 40, my framerate swings between 20 and 40 depending on the situation at the time. Same, if I lock at 60. My framerate swings between 20 and 60. So, anyone reporting a framerate of 60 to 80 either has his sliders turned down or is ignoring the framerate when landing at Seattle, or San Francisco or LAX!!

[Justin Toposim 16]

HI Darryl,Bump your Terrain Detail slider back to about 96 and you'll see a 25-30% improvement right oiiff the bat with no discernable visual difference.Justinhttp://www.fsgenesis.net

[Guest byoung]

Try other flight sims... X-Plane, and Fly II and see if you get the same results...Microsoft's philosphy is do more with A LOT MORE (required hardware that is)! FS 2002 does have more bells and whistles over previous versions, though.Barry

[Bearracing 3]

Darryl,One of the things we learned during our original review, (here at AVSIM) by the review team, of FS2002 is that the framerate number was of little or no value whatsoever. Smoothness was all that counted and that seemed to be fine, no matter what our specific systems were between the team members. Your new system may not read any fps above 30 fps because you've got your fps locked at 30, have you considered that?Working directly with a couple of fellows from the MSFS design team at the AVISM conference last year, the suggestion was made to lock the fps at 16 - 18, which should yield excellent results and I have found that to be true. I don't have a super system like what you have, but with my system setting locked at 16 fps, my results are more than satisfactory and if I had a system like your's I would probably lock it at the upper end of 18. The numbers themselves mean absolutely nothing, its the end results of how the program appears; is it clear and sharp and most importantly is it smooth?Bear!

[Guest]

your PC is a beast, running winxp will definitely help you out. win98 is good for lower end systems but once you have the horse power, you really should be running xp.