FPS on mid-end computer

[Guest Totti10]

I'm flying with less details, I tried nearly every FPS tweaking tricks posted here on AVSIM forums (also FS9.cfg editing), I use reduced cloud and autogen textures for better FPS, nearly every slider on my graphic card setting is far left for best performance (and no antialiasing), I have new clean installation of FS and I don't run any unnecessary tasks in the background (such as ICQ and so on), but I still think that I get too low FPS for these settings.On EMPTY default EGLL with no traffic I got about 25-28 FPS with default cessna and about 20 FPS in PMDG 2D cockpit. On add-on sceneries I get about 15-18 FPS in PMDG... do you think, that it is enough for my computer and my FS settings posted below?P4 2.8 GHz1024 MB RamATI Radeon 9600 (256 MB) - latest drivers and DirectX 9cASUS P5P800Win XPMy FS9 Settings:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165940.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165941.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165942.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165943.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

Personally, I'd up the terrain settings, and lower the water slider. High water settings have a tendency to use frame rates.

[Guest Totti10]

But around the water I got very high FPS - there is no problem for me. I have problems at the airports or when flying above ground.And the major question was, if my FPS (about 18-20 ... on airport sceneries bit lower, during flight bit higher) with PMDG are reasonable. Or if they should be higher with my settings.

[Guest fitzmier]

Perhaps a foolish question ...I have read many posts on this forum in which simmers talk about frames per second rates. I know where to set the target rate in FS2004, but are you guys actually getting readings? Actual FPS performance numbers? If so, where?JF

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,While in flight, SHIFT + Z, two times.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[Guest MikeGTO]

FS9, even though it's old, is still demanding on hardware. Your system is "comparable" to mine (Athlon 2600+, 1 GB RAM, and a ATI 9800 Pro 128 MB)...you have a little bit of CPU power over me, but my video card should be faster than yours. With my settings I get a range of 28-31 FPS at Heathrow, default Cessna 2d cockpit, Fair Weather, just idling as the flight begins. Unfortunately I don't know of any accepted "benchmark" for FS2004 that really covers the range of weather and terrain.There are so many variables, I'll just comment on the major ones I can think of. On my system, different weather has a huge impact on performance. Ground level fog really bogs me down in urban areas, down to 15-20 FPS. Also, air traffic can have an influence, I have mine at 20% at the moment. Big cities or airports with lots of structures can sometimes drop my FPS into the low 20s, even lower on some aircraft with detailed panels.As far as your graphics settings, I'm running "low" water effects. Even though having water on "high" didn't seem to drag my FPS down directly, it seemed to make my texture loading and overall game play less smooth. I also have the "terrain detail" slider set to the middle notch...terrain only I think. I have special effects on high...I don't think this really hurts performance (maybe in a crash-type situation.) The "scenery complexity" setting can make a big difference in some cities and at some complex airports. Sometimes I turn mine down to "dense" but right now I have it at very dense. I have lens flare turned off.I use 100% 3-D clouds, and detailed clouds, but I have the "cloud coverage density" slider on Low, so you might consider reducing that cloud density slider.As to hardware settings, I'm running a little higher resolution than you, and using more graphics options (render to texture, trilinear filtering, global texures set to massive). These settings may not work as well on the 9600 card, I really don't know.

[Guest]

The 9600 is a very weak card and tends to not like a lot of work. though your FPS are about normal. you can probably max all the terrain settings and 100% cloud coverage and get no FPS drop. you can bump up the special effects too, increase the VC quality (if you use it) to maximum, do the VC texture scale line in the fs9.cfg. the autogen tweak works on really really really slow computers so that won't benefit you one bit. drop the cloud draw to 30 miles. that will help. put the scenery complexity to dense and autogen to maximum. see how that works.

[Guest tango papa]

I too, have an old PC, AMD 700Mhz, 384Mgb, GeForce FX5200/128mgb, and 1028/720 RES. Before I upgraded from MSWin98ME, I struggled to get the FPS close to 10, my FPS just about doubled with MSWinXP SP2. Most of my settings are in the middle. I'm not trying to brag, but I'm more amazed with the improvements running XP.Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like -M.Twain

[Guest]

>I too, have an old PC, AMD 700Mhz, 384Mgb, GeForce>FX5200/128mgb, and 1028/720 RES. Before I upgraded from>MSWin98ME, I struggled to get the FPS close to 10, my FPS just>about doubled with MSWinXP SP2. Most of my settings are in>the middle. I'm not trying to brag, but I'm more amazed with>the improvements running XP.>>Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like>-M.TwainThere is no windows98METhere is windows 98, 98SE and ME. Also there is no improvement from XP alone. What probably occured was that the upgrade fixed the butchered up OS of before (whether that was 98 or ME, not clear from your post) and perhaps updated the drivers. cheers

[DaryllB25840 1]

Is there another way to measure a computers performance when using FS9 besides FPS ?When we try and communicate our computers performance in forums, it has been and still resorts to FPS in the discussions.I am guilty of using FPS as a measure of a computers performance with FS9 as well because the readings are there and easily accessible.I have my FS9 locked at 18 FPS. That 18 FPS lock gives different performance today than a year ago in the emersion quality of the sim. This is even considering that I'm using an ATI 9550 compared to the 9800 Pro that I started with.For me sim flying should be equal to real flight in trying to recreate the silky smooth movement through the air that the eye sees.1. If you have one of the Carenado airplanes (why can't all animated pilots look like theirs?) look out of the window at low altitude and fix your eyes on a scenery object as it passes by. Ask yourself if the object stutters while in your view. If so how big (magnitude wise) are the stutters. Are the stutters repeating at regular intervals or irregular intervals? Are the stutters distracting from your sim flying experience?2. Some have altered their pan rate with the hat switch. I have mine at 500, default is 400. In the VC do a 360 degree pan to load the textures in your card. It might stutter on the initial pan as the card's memory loads. After that you should be able to hold the hat switch as it pans around in circles without any stutters. What this means as a sim pilot is that you should be able to look side to side in the VC, around 180 degrees, without any stuttering. I have my ATI 9550 card's 3D settings at AA 4X and AF 4X with high quality checked for Texture preference and Mipmap detail level.3. Fix your view in the VC looking straight ahead. Do a standard rate 360 turn and observe if there is any stuttering in the turn. If not that's good.My rig is a Dell 8300 with a Pent 4 3.0 MHZ and 1 gig of ram. When I bought this 3 years ago I expected to plug everything in and go stutter free which wasn't the case. I can sympathize because I started with a 800 MHZ machine running ME. When I bought my first payware airplane I could only fly it from an island in the Pacific without stutters.To reiterate my point. The 18 FPS I have now is different than the 18 FPS from a year ago in how well I can be immersed in the sim.Daryll

[rwy12 16]

Hi MartinI think you should be very very happy with that level of FR with your machine-I have got pentium 3.4e,3gig ram and ati x800xti 256 card and I get 11/12 frames at egll with pmdg 744-how do you think I feel.I have re-installed 4 times and i still have the same-however in a generic fs9 747 I can get 24/25 frames .My sliders are about same level as you.I have been told cpu tempareture can a play a part????Don't know how that will matter.Qas :-O