Low Frame Rates -- My FS9.CFG File

[krishcanag 0]

HiI cannot understand this whole subject. My PC is compaq standard PC:ASUS P5BW-LAE64002G 666MHz250g h/d7600gt 256m1440 x 900 x 32Now if I load default flight I will get fps changing rapidly between 60 and 90. At EGLL (heathrow) it is 50 with LDS767 2D view it drops to 31. My setting are all display set to HIGH, traffic set to 69%. No changes to .cfg no further add-ons. Wht am I getting more fps than you, why does it seem that everyone that has similar rigs have very different results, why is there some much differences?PS. No fpsI have tried these to no avail.1.TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.500002.(DISPLAY)TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40 <------------ to a higher value ex: 400(microsoft site says this will actually reduce fps)3.Antialiasing: 4xAnisotropic: 8xImage Settings: QualityVertical Sync: OnForce Mipmaps: TrilinearConformant Texture Clamp: OnExtension Limit: OffTrilinear Optimization: OffAnisotropic Mip Filter Optimization: OnAnisotropic Sample Optimization: Off or OnTriple Buffering: Off or OnNegative LOD Bias: ClampThis one does reduce the flicking effect but when you are close to ground and you pull hard on stick you notice a consisitance micro stutter, that is when you do this on the nvidia card.In the end I have not made any changes unless someone can reall tell there will be a noticable difference in performance without loss of quality, ever going to be the case, you gain in one therefore you must lose in the other.krishan

[Kimchoc 1]

17fps is smooth. Again, it depends on your settings and add-ons. We are running a lot of addons and they eat the FPS up. I cant tell you exactly what .bmp file is an FPS eater in every scenery. I did go through one airport and narrow some down. But I'm not about to go through every .bmp file in every scenery to find 1-2 FPS. The 1-2 FPS adds up over time and one day you wake up, or somebody says "I get much better FPS that that with my ""similar"" rig", and then it starts. You think something is wrong with your rig.Well there isn't anything WRONG with it. Its just overloaded and it has been overloaded slowly over time until you just now notice it. BTW, turn off the FPS counter and you'll not notice it as much. You know that alone is worth .5 FPS dont you? The counter? You can tweak away and get some FPS back but mostly you are going to compromise and turn something down or get lucky and install a sound card and get a free gain. Speaking of sound cards, I too thought that would help. I mean, it has to doesn't it? Free up the processor from the duty of on board sound? Well I posted the question in here as to whether it would be a FPS gain. The response was, "maybe" and "not much". But,,,,,, I did it anyway. My result was NO improvement in FPS. Life is tough.Like I said earlier, there is no magic bullet. Theres a couple good tweaks that work on MOST machines but the one that works the best is the one where you just turn stuff off or down or unload some of those offending .bmp's. >>>No thats not my system. LOL I just post it for inspiration every once in awhile. Like this one:http://eecherrors.homestead.com/flightdesk.jpg

[Chuck_B 2]

>Hi>>I cannot understand this whole subject. My PC is compaq>standard PC:>ASUS P5BW-LA>E6400>2G 666MHz>250g h/d>7600gt 256m>1440 x 900 x 32>>Now if I load default flight I will get fps changing rapidly>between 60 and 90. At EGLL (heathrow) it is 50 with LDS767 2D>view it drops to 31. My setting are all display set to HIGH,>traffic set to 69%. No changes to .cfg no further add-ons. Wht>am I getting more fps than you, why does it seem that everyone>that has similar rigs have very different results, why is>there some much differences?>>PS. No fps>I don't know about anyone else but FOR ME 15 FPS is the magic number -- that's the number where your eye and brain start having real trouble distinguishing anything higher. So once I hit 15, everything else is gravy. I lock my rig at 24 FPS as there's no need for anything higher except to see a larger red number in the corner of my screen. Plus, I have so many addons it's crazy: Activesky, Ultimate Terrain USA and Canada, Terrain Mesh down to 19 m, Ground Environment Pro, AES, Flight Environment, RealEnvironment Pro, complex freeware panels, THREE SCREENS with 180 degree field of vision, immediately come to mind. And I run AI consistently at 55%.The default MS airports run at my locked 24 FPS very smoothly; the 17 was at the payware airports, sharp images, with service traffic driving around me, scurrying about on the highways surrounding the airport, sailboats sailing just off the runway, silhouettes of waiting passengers moving in the windows, static aircraft, detailed building and beautiful palm trees on the edge of the property. AND I have Airport Environment Services to boot running underneath most of those, that has a marshaller to park my aircraft, fuel and catering trucks, and jetways that actually hook up to my planes.Lastly, and this is a big performance drainer that I haven't read much about about recently: I remain connected to my home network of 6 computers when flying, just in case I need to grab files from elsewhere "on the fly." That robs me of computing cycles because a computer has to react whenever another computer makes a connection or a request of the network.I have a (new) middle to low end Dell dual core -- not a gamer -- so, yeah! I'm pretty happy at 17 FPS while on the ground taxiing in one of FlyTampa's airports.Hope this helps explain my point of view, and why I'm now pretty happy with what I have. I certainly wouldn't complain if Microsoft cut their code and made the program more efficient, but knowing the parameters of the current offering, I know I've done pretty much everything I can do (read: willing to do") right now. As I said, now I want to fly!Chuck B.

[Kimchoc 1]

>I'm pretty happy at 17 FPS while on the ground>taxiing in one of FlyTampa's airports.>>Hope this helps explain my point of view, and that I'm not>just settling!>>ChuckI'd love to have 17 in an airport. My old AGP system is lucky to get 10. So right there is a great comparison of systems.I can get much more if I get rid of my PCI card that runs two of my four monitors for a starter. That hit me for 10 at least. But I compromise for the sake of a near 180 degree field of view and can get by with 10. I just fly less busy airports. I too am locked at 22FPS and get that easily while flying at altitude. Its the scenery's and basically whatever we 'render' is what kills the FPS.Chuck, I don't think your networking is causing any cycles or hits that you are noticing. What you say is true but it is insignificant. It is certainly less than flying with real weather every 15mins or flying with a live ACARS server that reports your position every few minutes. I havnt seen any loss when using Live Acars.ehehehe, turn off that red counter and enjoy!Mariohttp://eecherrors.homestead.com/ap_panel_install.jpg

[Chuck_B 2]

>Chuck, I don't think your networking is causing any cycles or>hits that you are noticing. What you say is true but it is>insignificant. It is certainly less than flying with real>weather every 15mins or flying with a live ACARS server that>reports your position every few minutes. I havnt seen any loss>when using Live Acars.I agree 100%, Mario; relatively speaking it doesn't compare with what ActiveSky, custom clouds, static scenery, et al, do, but on top of everything else it's still a factor that I rarely consider (so what else am I "not taking into account"?). I have a very loud CPU fan on one of my other computers and you should hear it kick up and work every time another computer on the net is simply turned on. With printer sharing, lots of shared files and "Network Locations" all over the network, assigned IP addresses, VOIP connections, routers, switches, and different O.S.'s, each station has to work all that much harder when connected. I'm not going to sit down and do an actual study, but I know my computer is dealing with all that in the background, too, while I'm happily flying around Sao Paulo, Brazil. :-)PS, Mario: you MUST find the bandwidth to make the pics on your website BIGGER for all of us to enjoy! Some of us don't use (or want to use) Firefox! :-DChuck B.

[Kimchoc 1]

eh? The picture opens the same on IE.... I just tried it. Looks identical. Are you seeing only the link? If so, uncheck the box above that task about formating the message in plain text.What are you seeing? Should be say, 4"x6" on a 17" ,monitor..Renaldohttp://eecherrors.homestead.com/DCP_1790.JPG

[Chuck_B 2]

No, sorry, I guess I wasn't clear -- I'm talking about the one page on your website, the one with about 20 or 30 thumbnails on it. I can't zoom in on them to get a real good look.Those posted here look fine.Chuck B.