Sign in to follow this  
Guest

"Better" framerates in ACOF?

Recommended Posts

A thought has crossed my mind that, 1.- after reading that MS intends to do some code optimization in ACOF and 2.- considering that it appears that ACOF uses the basic FS2002 engine, "MAYBE" we might see that we don't need equipment upgrades to run it. Perhaps it will have "better" framerates than FS2002 . I have not seen any mention of this in the limited reviews I have read.Barry

Share this post


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

I've been wondering about that too. with the exception of the weather/clouds, I haven't seen anyhing mentioned that should have a significant hit on framerates. And the impact from the weather is controlable. I'd be delighted if we could run FS9 without having to upgrade hardware..again :-). Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually worried about things getting worse. The new weather engine sounds fantastic, but what affect will it have on frames? Although if they don't change the terrain it is quite possible that we could see improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, You will not have any final information on that's simply because it still in alpha, and they adding stuff and optimized code for each phase/ feature, until the last beta before the release you will able to get some hint on preview.In the avsim preview they stated: an 2GHz Dell using nVidia's GeForce 4 ti4600 video card).http://www.avsim.com/pages/0203/century_of...ry_preview.htmlDon't forget each release of Msfs normaly you have to upgrade your system if you want all feature at full with acceptable frame rate, and they use the pentium 4 Intel's Hyperthreading Technology http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/ for the new graphics engine in fs9.0.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could get worse. I tend to prescribe to theory that nothing is free in this world. Volumetric clouds for free ? I would be sceptical. Also they say minumum specs for F9 is 450 Mhz, wasn't the min spec for FS2002 around 300 Mhz ? That could perhaps give us some hints ...Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi allI think we could have a bit of luck with FS9 when they rework the core code so that it's a bit more rescorce efficient.It could be that the frames are about the same despite the new bells and whistles.I hope that it's not too P4 biased,what about all the AMD users out there(including me!)Any opinions out there?Regards Grahame EDHL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unlikely that they will be able to optomize the code enough to not see an increased load with all the bells and whistles added. In other words, it will probably not perform as well as FS2002 on your current setup if you run it with the newer features (e.g., weather engine, clouds).I'm sure a fast Athlon will run FSCoF fine. Without HT, it may not run as fast as a comparable P4, but it will still run well. You may see a few less frames/sec, but nothing to worry too much about. For the Athlon fans, hopefully AMD will develop something to take advantage of HT code. I doubt it though.Regardless, I'm not overwhelmed with HT thus far. I believe "Hyped-up Technology" would be a slightly more accurate name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pleased to see that they are working from the existing engine. Up until now, I had been wishing that they simply would skip a year in their FS release schedule and let me enjoy the current version for a while longer and avoid another expensive computer upgrade.So, if they can manage to refine the existing engine and not put too big a load on it, I'll be pretty happy.The weather engine concerns me. Those of us who flew the Flight Unlimited series will remember what happened from FU2 to FU3. FU3 had only fairly minor updates to teh graphics, but the new dynamic weather engine had a signifigant cost, and there was about a 50% reduction in performance between version 2 and version 3 on the same machine.Nevertheless, at this early stage it seems like they are implementing all of my main wish list items in FS2k4, and I am wondering if I should wear a tinfoil hat to keep them from reading my mind any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FS9 weather engine does prove to be a big performance hit over FS2002, I'd probably be willing to trade using complicated weather scenarios for the improvement in other areas (such as ATC). The other thing that might hit the performance is the new GPS. Although if this is the case it might be possible to use the GPS out of FS2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yippee, the framerate junkies have arrived in the speculation about the next version.And me thinking they were so stuck in their continuous attempts to squeeze more fps out of their existing system to even notice it had been announced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yippee, the framerate junkies have arrived in the >speculation about the next version. >>And me thinking they were so stuck in their continuous >attempts to squeeze more fps out of their existing system to >even notice it had been announced. It's a valid thread.As far as a "frame rate junkie", if my quest to keep my fps above 15fps makes me one, so be it, but anything lower than that turns the sim into a real slideshow. Those of us on limited budgets have alot of concerns about FSCOF, before we shell out money for the new release. I'd like to know if it'll run ok on a modest system without having to run it with "all sliders left". You can't trust the manufacturer's to give realistic system specification requirements because they're trying maximize sales. Come on, try running FS2k2 on a 300mhz system and tell me that's aceptable.Ok, I'll step away from the soapbox now.P4 1.5736meg RamGF4 4600 tiActive Sky RC3My Traffic I average about 22 fps with this setup with AI around 66% unless I get around LAX, Miami, Dulles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jeroen,Its beginning to be a toss up which is more prevalent: the "framerate junkies" or the "anti-framerate junkies" - like yourself.Both seem to be religions, you see. Why do I say that? Because both camps seem to preach an awful lot.I think most of the community is in the middle ground: they simply want fast enough framerates (like the rest of the games in the industry) to run without actually seeing any frames drawn on the screen. Unfortunately, FS still has that problem in places no matter what the machine. Its no wonder both religions exist here.Lets just hope it stays above the "if you're not in my religion, you are going to hell!" tendency - from either side. :-termTake care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with people fixated on framerates is that they're not happy whichever number they get and often have completely unrealistic expectations of what they can expect.There's nothing wrong with wanting decent performance, but my eyes can tell me that better than any number on my screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elrond, I'm not a frame rate junkie - but I'm definitely a scenery junkie! That's why frame rates are important. It's not because I want 50 or 100 FPS - in fact my frame rate lock is on 16 FPS and I'm happy with that. But if the system can deliver 50 FPS on normal scenery then it means I can happily turn up the sliders or use very dense add-on sceneries, and still get acceptable performance. To put it simply, high frame rate capability means you can simultaneously enjoy high scenery quality and fluid frame rates. Best regards, Chris

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