Sign in to follow this  
Guest seev_39

My new system...just "unbelieveable"!

Recommended Posts

Friends, Not braggin', but I just have to tell you about the new system I set up today, and how MSFS likes it.It's just unbelieveable, and I mean it. It's a Dell 8250, ATI Radeon 9700, Soundblaster Audigy THX with 128 mg, 120 gig hard drive, 18" LCD Ultra Sharp monitor from Dell (these LCD's have no problem at all with MSFS provided you have a Digital Video In/Out), 512 megs of Ram (believe me, you don't need any more than this). The monitor runs in 1280 x 1024.I spent all day loading my wife's embroidery software (her hobby), and saved MSFS for after dinner.Set up the frame target at 30, maxed out all sliders, set my usual realism options, and fired it up. OH MY GOD! It was a "smooth as silk". I've NEVER experienced MSFS 2002 this way before. Then set the frame target to 40. Same thing....it stayed at 40. Then 50...and you guessed it. It went right on up to 50 with ZERO STUTTERS!This combination of Video card, processor, and monitor are just so nice. The flying "feels" real.I just can't wait to keep adding planes to my stable now, and try some of the flights I've done in the past.It's just so enjoyable to fly over Chicago and see ALL the buildings. Stan

Share this post


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

That's great. I did an upgrade a while ago as well and was quite pleased with the performance increase. One question:What is the CPU speed on the Dell 8250?Happy flying?Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice rig Stan. What CPU are you running? I'm running whats in my sig and if you have anything close you can set target Frame Rate at 75 and it will carry it. And this is with all settings at max.Good luck with it. Sounds pretty sweet.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome! Just wondering if you're using any AA/AF at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,I chose the Intel Pentium 4 2.80 gig. I read where the 3.06 wasn't significantly better. And in some cases the 2.80 was actually better performing. The ram is PC1066 RDRAM. This makes a big difference, I'm told. AA and AF are set to "application preference". In other words, I let the program use it if it needs to. I can't complain about the clarity of the image. It's extremely impressive compared to the system I had previously (Gateway Athlon 1.4 with Sony Trinitron monitor (CRT), and NVidia Geforce3. Doesn't seem to be a comparison here. The Dell system is over and above my last one.Boy.............am I havin' fun now! Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nice rig Stan. What CPU are you running? I'm running whats >in my sig and if you have anything close you can set target >Frame Rate at 75 and it will carry it. And this is with all >settings at max. >>Good luck with it. Sounds pretty sweet. >>Bobby Thats nice you like your new systems guys, But the FPS you guys are hyping is just plain Poop.Not even 4Ghz-P4-9700Pro-O/C machines run nearly that fast, peroid.Get a reality check boys!BTW, my little O/C XP2600 eats P4-2.8's for lunch. save for your nice 9700pro! :)Keep it real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul....don't call people liars because you can't "fathom" the performance they are getting.There is a guy here who posted screenhots in here with a 3.06ghz P4 with similar equipment to the guy in this thread and his FPS was locked at 50 and he was getting 50 fps. The screenshot showed his performance...and I seriously doubt that he took the time to edit the screenshot so it would say "50 FPS".And Paul, the fact is that you have to OC to get the performance of the P4 2.8 while they have to do nothing.I still can't believe you basically called this guy a liar.And this comment here :"BTW, my little O/C XP2600 eats P4-2.8's for lunch. save for your nice 9700pro!"....Grow up.ShaneP.S. Here's the link to the screenshots I spoke about above: http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...rum=DCForumID47Be sure to go call him a liar as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>and his FPS was locked at 50 and he was getting 50 fps. I can also get that many FPS on my P3 500 Mhz .. depending what I have on the screen...Frankly I am less than impressed with claims about huge FPS. Put Meridian's panel plus maybe some very complex airport on final approach (freeware HongKong ?), perhaps some clouds and then show me your FPS.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing graphics options with computer hardware is a valid argument, but just plain saying what somebody said isn't true is just plain messed up.No to mention immature.Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shane,Paul has never been one to be subtle (or even congenial at times - regardless you know I still luv ya Paullie :-)), but what he's saying here is the absolute truth - as usual.Stating silly framerates like that is simply that: silly. A liar? Probably not. Stating the best the sim can get with the least amount of scenery on screen and representing it as what the sim gets in "normal every day" use? Absolutely - and not right either.There are too many on this forum that have poked, prodded, tweaked, twisted, cajoled and used black magic on FS in about every configuration and with every hardware that is possible (and continue to do so because flying and hardware are our hobbies and business respectively). Making silly framerate claims that many here know as absolutely impossible will always draw a reaction: because we don't like to see others misled.So, blame Paul all you want (I know I do at every opportunity I can LOL), but again, he's absolutely correct.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stan, I'm likely going to do another upgrade in the not too distant future especially because I want to be good and ready for FS2004. I've been hearing reports from a lot of happy people about the Radeon 9700. May have to consider this as part of my upgrade. Right now I have a TI4200 and P4 2.4. I've tried overclocking my cpu but can't get past 2.52 without Windows errors. I'm running WinMe plus the board is reported as a poor overclocker.Glad you're enjoying your new system. I bet it DOES kick but! Take care, Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear your having such a positive experience! Just one question - tell me more about the LCD monitor. Do you like it? Is it as good as a CRT one?J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear what you say Elrond,Which is why I started the thread on a benchmark. What if FPSFREAK had followed all the standards proposed (ie a C172 on the active at Meigs, everything maxed). That's a reasonably challenging environment, and it at least gives us an indication of the RELATIVE performance he is getting compared to everybody elses systems.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul; you probably didn't notice that he's still running in "Application Preference". A high end PIV with the 9700 Pro and PC1066 ram just literally screams in "Application Preference". I mean, it just screams and then screams some more. After the init - it shows exactly why you got the framerate you did.What most regulars on this forum know for a fact is: there is absolutely *no* hardware combination out there yet that can run Flight Sim at 75 frames per second all the time - or even 40 fps. How do we know this? Because collectively we run a huge, wide variety of systems: from the lowest end to the absolute highest end. And we regularly test and run FS on them. What you don't seem to realize is: this forum and hobby are made up of mostly established and older business people, not 20 year olds (I think the average AVSIM user's age was 38 in the last survey?). Many, many of us FS enthusiasts are in the hardware business directly, and test every piece of hardware that comes across our desks (or bench) with FS.In typical, every day flight: no PC can get 75 frames per second - for more than a few seconds. Typical of course means: 4x or 8x Aniso, QC or 4x AA, mips at -.2 or better, highest of resolutions, all sliders at max, using addon complex mesh, using detailed addon scenery, landing at complex airports - in cockpit view with addon complex aircraft - with the .ini tweaked for best visuals. Thats what FS is used for every day... Not removing the cockpit, pointing the plane at sparse landscape, with low detail video settings - just like your screenshot.So, in summary: its the average fps we're all shooting for, not some atypical moment in time (screenshot) with low settings and high framerate - we don't want to decieve anyone about performance they might get with specific hardware. Since you seem to be talking about what FS *can* do at one moment in time: I and I'm sure everyone else here fully believes you.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Paul let me ask you a question. I'm going to try and stay >nice here becuase we are all adults I think. Oh, and now I'm an Adults? http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/arge.gif>Do you argue claims about everything your machine or car or >whatever you have can't do that someone elses can?.No sir, I Just have a hard time letting others get misled into thinking that certain hardware upgrade$ or whole system upgrade$ will allow them to run FS at "sustained 50-75FPS with all sliders maxed"What a let down that would be for the poor bloke who divorces his wife just to get a system that will only sustain FS at a real average of 18-28 FPS with "all sliders maxed" etc...:-eek :)I wont repeat what has already been stated for you by Elrond and many others here that actually know the game as well as system hardware but that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Richard,I replied to you in that thread to keep things organized.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your screenshot seems to be pretty sparse on scenery/skyline for having everything maxxed. ?? Kurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your description, I thought I would add a piece to support you. I have the Dell 8250 3.06 HT CPU, 512 RAM, and theRadeo 9700 Pro video card. Here are some actual FPS results:Target Framerate : 50All Sliders : MAXEDAI Traffic : 100%WideFs on Alternate Computer : FSMETEO, FS Timekeeper, FDC, RCV3, FS Flightkeeper.All KSWF Rwy 9 - LIFR OVC HVY RAINFlight1 Cessna C421 w/ Reality-XP GNS530 - ACTUAL FPS : 27-30FSD Piper Cheyenne w/ Reality-XP GNS530 - ACTUAL FPS : 25-30PSS B747-400 - ACTUAL FPS : 50 SOLIDRFP B747-200 - ACTUAL FPS : 50 SOLID (I've heard the Reality-XP GNS530 eats up some FPS. I guess that be so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, Perhaps I should start this one over. You first stated that I mislead people by thinking they could run FS at 50-75 FPS sustained w all sliders maxed. How is that misleading? Will the scenery match your requirements? No but not everyone is looking for photorealistic scenery. It's funny but at 50-75 FPS the scenery would make most "Average" flight simmers very happy from what I have read. Not everyone is looking for what you are looking for. If someone divorces his wife to get a system.......Well thats another forum. (I know it's just an expression) For someone who has never met me it's seems very shallow of you to ASSume what I do and don't know. My machine can carry the framerates I speak of they just dont meet your visual quality specs. Who was using DX9 benchmarks for a DX7-8 game. I was putting figures up. For no other reason. I don't see nor remember me doing what you speak of. As for your pic of 504 FPS it speaks for itself. Funny but proof of what?? I used triplanes by mistake. (see I can admit to my mistakes LOL) As for MAximumPC being a Lousy commercial source. Um yeah OK. Show me one of your sources that shows your 2600+ killing a 2.8P4. Now for my turn back to reality. I'm finished. It is truly a waste of space. You seem well versed in what you speak. I don't know you so I won't argue that. But maybe instead of taking classes and studying hardware a personality class may help. LOL But in all seriousness, It doesnt matter wether im running 60 fps or 20, the object is to enjoy myself. My system allows me to do that. Thanks for the time and forum space.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Paul, >> Perhaps I should start this one over. You first stated >that I mislead people by thinking they could run FS at 50-75 >FPS sustained w all sliders maxed. How is that misleading? >Will the scenery match your requirements?Not my "requirements" Bobby, You are the one who stated "all sliders maxed" clearly as your pic shows that is not the case and clearly experience shows that your numbers do not add up.Yer pic, very absent of maxed sliders:http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e62102d63a5c6ba.jpg>No but not >everyone is looking for photorealistic scenery. It's funny >but at 50-75 FPS the scenery would make most "Average" >flight simmers very happy from what I have read. Not >everyone is looking for what you are looking for. I'm not sure what plane your on or what dimension of reality your in or not in?, what has "photoreal" have to do with this post? My pic above was taken on an old system very inferior to yours with stock scenery with the exception of the fact that I added in the missing river to the stock FS Chicago terrain textures, the files however are identical in type (DXT1) and size, and indeed it would seem by the number of post and qualified individuals involved "that" was exactly the kind of image quality "we" as a group where looking for (besides the missing AA) no blurries etc..> My machine can carry the framerates I speak of they just >dont meet your visual quality specs. No, they just don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, I was really hesitant about getting the LCD monitor...however, I'm really pleased with it, and have no refresh problems at all. I think it's important to have Digital Video IN and Digital Video OUT on monitor and graphics board. I love the 18" that came from Dell (the Ultra Sharp model), and I especially love the way it looks, and the little space it takes up.I also like the way FS looks at night on the LCD. On my CRT, night flying was less definitive and definately darker. The night around Chicago (that's all I've done so far since yesterday)seems easier and the airports and runways look way better. Maybe it's just my imagination, but so far, I think it's a big improvement. Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe for me the best frame rates would be at around 25 and up fps in any simflyers scenery, with all sliders maxed and maybe 50% ai traffic Of course the default stuff is going to give you higher frames but if you really want to test stuff to the max then have a posky aircraft with say simflyers dfw or lax. Its been said many times before the 3dmark 03 benchmark is made for directx 9 and it really isnt a great bench mark anyway 2001 is better, but too really test games you just do ingame testing get quake 3 or or even ms2002 and enable the fps counter and get your answer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice system. I just built a P4 2.66 (533Mhz) / ATI 9500 / Asus P4PE / 512k 2700 for a non-simmer friend. I did manage to install FS and copy my huge AI data and planes over to test it out. On my current P4 1.9 (400Mhz) I see 8-11 fps when departing KPDX with freeware scenery, 100% AI, clouds, etc. The same on the 2.66 rig was 17-22 fps. And that is with the sliders maxed on the 2.66 vs. mid settings for my 1.9. That enough of a difference to make it fly smoothly. And the graphics and colors from the 9500 are incredible compared to my old 7500.I'll wait until I see the reports of how FS9 runs before I upgrade. By then Prescott should be out and we should be seeing one or two more drops in pricing of the 3.06. Glad you're enjoying you new machine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these discussions when everyone "goes off on a rant"..certainly entertaining.Hacksaw:-grnmd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread.... I love the jealous "sour grapes" replies. :-lol :-lol :-lol

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