The Ever Popular Frame Rate Conundrum

[Guest]

Like beating a dead horse, I know this topic has probably been beat to death and answers are all over the place. I searched for a while to help me understand all the items that go into improving and damaging frame rates.After excellent information from all of those who have contributed to the frame rate discussions in the past, I achieved no less than 18FPS with an average of about 22-25FPS (30+ at altitude). I

[barryward12345 0]

I don't know about this particular piece of addon scenery that you are referring to -- but, in general, the only addon scenery that I have seen that is any good is stuff designed and built in Gmax. All other scenery built using the programmes that have been used in earlier versions of Fsim seem to just kill framerates to the point where they are unusable. I thought that maybe it was because I only have a Pentium3/1000 -- but you have a much better machine than me and you also have the problem -at least with this addon. I completely fail to see the point of elaborate scenery that only runs at 5FPS - that is unflyable!. What gets me the most is - are the scenery designers aware that their scenery only runs like this? -- or are they using Cray computers or something? It is difficult to believe that , while designing the scenery, they do not realise that it is unflyable. They must discover this during beta testing, etc.Barry

[Guest]

It is the Airport 2002 Volume 1 available from Wilco Publishing. They have some really nice add-ons which is why I think maybe I am missing something or could improve my system somehow.Thanks for the reply. I am hope someone can shed some light on this for me.For what it

[Guest]

I don't own it, but my understanding is that Airport 2002 may be the least FPS-friendly scenery add-on ever. You may want to try a search on the scenery title and see if you can get some of the old threads which discuss it. There have been many, many comments which should prove instructive.Trip

[Guest]

I'll look around again. That's what I was afraid of based on what I had read earlier while digging through the forums. I thought maybe someone had struck gold with making this work.Thanks Trip.J. BirchCFI,CFII,MEIMobile, ALwww.clearedasfiled.com

[gosta 0]

Hi there,it seems your system meets the minimum sytem requirements and reconmmended configuration. If the product doesn't work on your machine satisfactorily, it's obviously faulty. Return it and ask for a working replacemnet, or your money back.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest]

Most people will disagree with this because they have been told throughout the years that FS is only CPU dependant.But I know this from experience. Your GeForce 2 is your current bottleneck, regardless of which addon you are using. You have all the other components of a top notch system. You are actually crippling your system with that card.I have a motherboard with a built-in GeForce 4 MX which is about the same level as a GeForce 2 Ti. When running Flight-Sim with the built-in video, the framerates are low. When I installed an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, my FPS went through the roof. I was also making compromises with the GF4 MX with the display sliders, AA and AF. Now, with the 9700 Pro, all sliders are maxed except max visibility at 60 and the FPS is still better than with the GF4 MX. And on top of all that, I also run 6x AA and 16x Anisotropic filtering with a screen res of 1280 x 1024 x 32.So is FS mostly CPU dependant? In some ways, YES! However, after seeing it with my own eyes, there is a large improvement when going from a lower end card to a higher end one like the 9700 pro.As an added bonus, if you were to switch to a 9700 pro, all your other games would now ROCK.Be sure to only get the ones that are "built-by" ATI and not just "powered-by".If you were to wait another month, the prices are set to drop significantly on 9700 pros as the 9800's are set to take the top spot.Jay

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

>Be sure to only get the ones that are "built-by" ATI and not >just "powered-by". Why? Aren't most, if not all, 9700 radeons that are assembled by other manufacturers built to the same ATI reference design, hence perform basically the same and are only separated by the software bundle? Tom seems to think so - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200211...o-cards-24.html

[Guest]

>Why? Aren't most, if not all, 9700 radeons that are >assembled by other manufacturers built to the same ATI >reference design, hence perform basically the same and are >only separated by the software bundle? Tom seems to think >so - >http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/200211...o-cards-24.html Personal PreferenceJay

[Guest]

Not only that, but all "Built by ATI" cards are *not* built by ATI anymore. All ATI cards are outsourced to one company now - regardless if its an ATI card or an ATI partner card (Sapphire, etc).ATI is nearing completion of its own NVidia model: they are fabless. Some future ATI chipped cards will be built by their respective partners (such as Hercules, etc) but not to date.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

[Guest]

Hi Jay,I don't disagree, but I think it'd be better if you qualified your statement and explained the reason why - you don't want to mislead people into spending money on something they might not have to.If a person doesn't plan on using Aniso or Anti-Aliasing, there's absolutely no reason to get a better card: FS will remain completely CPU bound. If planning on using the great visual options of Aniso and AA, a better card will indeed make a difference. With something like FS, AA and AF are extremely important so I fully agree with you, but again its always best to explain why.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N)

[Guest Salbado]

Airport 2002 by WILCO makes a wonderful coaster for a cold beer or a frosty martini but it is a dog in FS. I too was duped by the hype and I could not get it above 3-5 FPS with a 64Meg Ge Force card. It's not your system, it's this program. It did however motivate me to upgrade to a Radeon Pro 9700 and now I average 30FPS...all sliders maxed (Vis 60). I use the Simflyers Airports, which yield about 11 - 15 FPS in a very dense environment, and at wheels up, I immediately go to 30 FPS and stay there. I have 5 computers networked in a home cockpit with Project Magenta. The boards are full of threads on the crappiness of the WILCO Airports 2002 (no dynamic scenery unless you build it!). I suggest you slip it under your beer and keep your coffee table clean...

[Guest]

Elrond,Did you read my original posting? All I asked was how to speed up what I thought was a really neat looking product. I am not selling, marketing, or even providing opinions on any piece of merchandise sold on the simulator market.ALL I asked was,

[Guest]

The only thing I do with my PC is fly. Currency (instrument practice) as flying approaches are much cheaper on the sim. The visuals are for fun! Gotta have a little!Your posting has been the biggest help and thanks for the tip on the Radeon card. If that is what it takes to kick my frames up, then that is what I will do. I will be sure to look at the label for ATI.I'll hang on for a month as well and watch pricing. Thanks for the advise and I am glad to hear that there is some hope on making this work.Best regards,J. BirchCFI,CFII,MEIMobile, ALwww.clearedasfiled.com