My new system...just "unbelieveable"!

[spilok 1,132]

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

[Guest abent]

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

[Guest FPSFREAK]

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

[Guest Stratus_Fractus]

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

[spilok 1,132]

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

[Guest PaulL01]

>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!

[Arklight1 140]

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.

[michal 44]

>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.

[Arklight1 140]

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

[Guest]

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)

[Guest abent]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest Richard_H]

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

[Guest Bigshot]

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)

[Guest PaulL01]

>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