256MB - enough for all ground textures ?

[michal 44]

With the new generation of 256MB video cards already hitting the shelves I was wondering what is the total size of all ground textures in FS2002. If they could all fit within the card (plus some for aircraft, cockpit) then maybe we could almost have situation that little new data would have to be send to the card during a simulated flight (except perhaps airports and some weather stuff ?). That could have profound effect on performance. It is pure speculation on my part ...I wonder what you guys think. I recall very well late Richard Harvey was saying the 256MB on a video card would have dramatic effect on his FLY! sim.Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Michal, Msfs use 206 meg for complete total generic world wide ground texture, but they never use the 4 season texture and night texture at the same time in fs. (fall, summer, spring winter and night texture.-58 meg of various texture in fs2002texture, they never use them all at the same time..-160 meg of texture for the detailed Cities and Airports.-Near 10 meg of vehicule and various texture in scenedb as well.-Aircraft size depends on the add-ons?ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[michal 44]

Thanks Chris for the data. Well, it sounds then like maybe 128MB would be enough. I realize that you would not use say summer and winter textures at the same time nor day/night. So what do you think about 256MB card versus a 128 MB ? Or is it useless capacity ...Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Chris Willis 8]

HI, "So what do you think about 256MB card versus a 128 MB ? Or is it useless capacity ..."Useless no, The sim will run smotter with more details enabled and less problem with the dynamic texturing update. Specialy if there is alot of clouds in your screen..256meg card will be very usefull for futur version of Msfs..Btw, the best flight sim rendering ground system, I have seen for microsoft, it was Ms cfs1, the rendering was like Il2 Sturmovic, no matter the speed you fly, any view or low cpu you have, the texture was always clean below and near the aircraft and smooths. Impossible to see any dramatic texture update, the higher mip maps are synchonized in horizontal line with a very subtile way and have a great transition texture from far to near the aircraft.See the screenshots in the Attach. (compression shots).I am wondering why they never still use this system.

[Guest]

As you probably know, the ATI 9800 Pro out performs the 9700 Pro by about 20% when AA and AF are used. With 256MB, the ATI 9800 Pro will out perform the 128 version by 16.7% when 4X AA and 8X Anisotropic Filtering, for example, are used together at 1600x1200. That is a big bump in performance.So, what we are looking at is almost a 40% increase in performance over the 9700 Pro, which is alread a damn good card.The 256 version 9800 Pro will retail for about $500.00 See anandtech.com for more details.Robb

[michal 44]

well, if one reads anandtech and all these guys it looks like Nvidia FX5900 Ultra would be the card to get at the moment.I don't use 1600x1200 however, many add-ons (even some of the best)don't work with it, I hope 256MB would bring some value even at 1024x768.Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest]

You are right! I just read that... The NV35 5900 looks like the one to buy. I don't know why I did not read that sooner. I guess I got it mixed up with the NV30 5800, which was a flop. The NV35 is what I thought the NV30 was going to be.

[Guest Milio_B]

I think it could have an effect on performance, but I don't think it will be THE reason FS will be smoother...Try running a some Simflyers (or any other HiRes) scenery without any textures. FPS variations are very little. What will be noticeable though is the changing views speed, or even blurries.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

That's a really good question Michael. Without having read any of the other replies, I know in the case of Fly it would have made a huge difference. I well remember the texture load readouts, and what would happen if one exceeded the limit of your graphics card RAM.In the case of FS2002, I've seen a lot of anecdotal reports saying that the extra graphics RAM in the 128 meg cards hasn't made a big difference. One has to wonder how much texture RAM FS is actually using at any given time. Too bad there is no utility similar to that included with Fly!, that would help one measure what was being used and help identify those bottlenecks caused by exceeding the limits.-John

[Noel 4,486]

I am wondering if you would have better switching of views with the super dense textures like the Falcon 50. I have the 128mb 9700 Pro and the Falcon 50 has some delayed loading of textures when switching between 2D and virtual cockpit views. In all other aircraft there is no delay in switching views. Probably only see some benefit in some of these high res views.Noel

[Guest DanWalloch]

Just like to pop out a question: Videocards with expandable memory, like a motherboard....could this work?

[Guest Funky D]

The old Matrox G200 card had expandable memory. I don't think it would be very feasible today; the costs would probably be huge.Paul