Sign in to follow this  
Guest jason2112

FS2004 - Observations #1

Recommended Posts

Have about 3 hours on FS 2004 now, and have some observations for you. My system; AMD 1.333, GF2 Ultra 64 Meg, 512 Meg Ram...[ul][li] VFR to IFR transition: sim now allows you to elect to go to IFR in flight. Selecting IFR transition in ATC window brings up flight planner. Haven't tried it yet, but assume that ATC will pick you up at your current position and respond as normal IFR flight from that point forward.[li] ATC provides step climb instructions: now ATC in an IFR flight will give you step instructions for climb instead of going directly to your planned cruise altitude. Example, KIAD to KATL at FL250: first assignment = 14,000. Second = FL220, and third was FL250.[li] ATC now gives you choice to request higher or lower cruise altitudes in flight.[li] ATC now allows you to change your destination while in IFR.[li] Weather updates now automatic if you so select (15 minute intervals), or you can get weather download and leave as a one time setting. Also the weather selection UI is much more friendly without all the scalers and what have you. You can also set the degree of weather "dynamics" (not sure what that is yet, still exploring).[li] Screen shots of weather don't do it justice. This is pretty good stuff folks. "Volumetric" clouds at last in the baseline.[li] Clouds are a real FPS killer.[/ul]I will give more as I can.

Share this post


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

Thanks, Tom. This is badly needed input! Please be more generous in your next feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning, Tom.Did you test new AI-engine and AI planes approach behavior? Is there any chance to see holding pattern (or whatever) in new sim? How do planes use multiple runaways in huge hubs like KATL (KORD,KDFW)?Would apreciate your response,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Give 'em an inch and they demand a mile"... :-lolWe have a full team of folks working on a monster review. I don't want to get too far ahead of them and steal their thunder and ruin your reading experience. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>[li] Clouds are a real FPS killer.[/ul]>Tom:Just a guess, but I wonder if a newer video card would improve your FPS with clouds?Looking forward to the "monster" review!James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>[li] Clouds are a real FPS killer.[/ul]just as expected :(Warm Regards,Preston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I am sure a new video card would go a long ways toward taking care of that issue. Anyone want to send me one of those 128 meg monsters? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom for the post and the pics on the other forum, much appreciated ! I hesitate to distract you from 2K4 :D. Say, from your observations, - have non-tower airports AI traffic now ? It is sorely missed in 2K2 in mid sized airports...- Does ATC respect the flightplan you've notified or does it redirect you about 60 NM from destination like 2K2 making impossible to fly IFR AND simulate a STAR ?- Can you consult a map inflight like in Fly!2 without exiting the simulation ?Dominique:-beerchug AVSIM forum pages are getting a little slow to get from Europe, I wonder why :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm...if clouds are that FPS killer, then I definately could live without volumetric clouds, and I wonder, will there be a way to keep using the old clouds that FSW Group has made? They look amazing and are not that ahrd on FPS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

helloreally looking forward to the "monster review". Bad news for clouds that hit FPS hard. Most of all,I hope that FS2004 would be scalable enought that I can torn off some details (without effecting realism) so it could run good enought on my lowly system (Tualatin1.2@1.4, GF2MX400 64MB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "Mmmm...if clouds are that FPS killer, then I definately could live without volumetric clouds, I would not said a quick final conclusion on clouds that's are real FPS Killer when there is the weather display custom setting and option setting according to your system, and there ALWAYS a way to improve it the frame rate. Conclusion came only when you have all try these option."and I wonder, will there be a way to keep using the old clouds that FSW Group has made? They look amazing and are not that ahrd on FPS!""Expect NO, they have redone the weather engine. I will redone these in fs2004 from scratch actually working on it, they will look 2x better if not more and use the FULL capability in fs2004 that's fs2002 even can't approach, comparison are apple and candy.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Tom,Can hardly wait for the monster reviewFrancisco Aguiar>[li] Clouds are a real FPS killer.[/ul]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>ALWAYS a way to improve it the frame rate. Yes Chris, but knowing life "improve" means jus that - improve. It does not mean make them "acceptable". You can improve from 3 fps to 9 fps but still end up with unplayable situation. I am afraid there will be no magic for those volumetric clouds unless maybe you have absolutely lastest in hardware and even this may not be enough.Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we should all keep in mind when discussing the new clouds and their impact on performance on Tom's system, is that his video card isn't exactly new by any means... I mean, we're talking year 2000 here folks. There have been 4 whole generations of video cards released since that time (Geforce 3[NV20], Geforce 4[NV25], Geforce FX[NV30], Geforce FX 5900 Ultra [NV35]) not to mention the many wonderful ATI cards out so there are plenty of upgrade options available. If you want to have all the details and still have the sim be flyable you can expect that you'll need new hardware to do this. You can compromise image quality or flyability on lower-end hardware but don't complain about it when you have to sacrifice one or the other. Such is the cost of advancement. Tom, this is by no means a knock against you or your choice in computer hardware, just a reality check to keep everyone from blowing a gasket over the "low performance" clouds.regards,Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the monster review. Theres been much mention of the new weather engine so hopefully during this monster review your good folks might talk about all the other new features and goodies like the improved AI and ATC.examples would be:Do just AI jets receive pushback like how it should be or do all AI now get pushback?Does AI give off wake turbulance?Hows the new ATC on providing seperation on inbound planes?When creating a flight plan can we now select a terminal to park at as well?Anything new with the kneeboard?How well does the new weight and balance work and what are all the options for loads and can you load the plane out of CG?Things that we havent heard we be great in this review. Not things that have been mentioned time over.Many thanks,Kilstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,On a GeForce2 I'm not surprised - a GF4 or ATI 9xxx series card should help, but I thought this is where MS said they were using the multithreading capabilities of the multithreaded P4's?Does Avsim have a test system with everything the same except one has multithreading and one not? It would be interesting to see the difference between them.P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My system; AMD 1.333, GF2 Ultra 64 Meg, 512 Meg Ram..."---Tom A.As weird as this sounds, I'm actually glad to hear that the clouds are making this rig stumble a little. By todays gaming standards, this would be considered a low end machine, and I wouldn't expect full detail out of the flight sim that we will have for the next two years. I remember when Tom talked about getting this system, and at the time is was right up there as far as gaming goes, but technology marches forward. At the time, I was drooling over his rig, but just two months ago, I gave away a comparable rig to my young nephew.I would much rather have FS9 be slightly ahead of the top computers of the day (3gig P4 right now with a 3.2gig ready to be released)to allow us to "catch up" to the game. This allows for people with high end machines to have a great experience with the game, as well as allowing people with a lower end machine to scale things back and still enjoy many of the new features.I have a P4 2.53gig + ATI 9500 Pro + 512mb ram. I would consider this a slightly better than average gaming machine, so I do not expect to run FS9 with everything maxed. I know going in that there will be compromises to be made between eye candy, features, and performance. (That is until the P4 3.2gig is on the shelves and the P4 3.06gig drops in price so that I can justify a gaming processor swap with my personal "Minister of Finances"...LOL)Anyhow, my point is that most new games lead technology by about a year, and not too many people can run them in all of their glory on the release day. This in my eyes is good, because by the nature of computer gaming, we are in a continual state of upgrade with our systems, and it keeps the game from becoming stale.If you expect compromises with a new release, you won't be disappointed.JMHO.Oh yeah, I too am looking forward to the "monster review".Tim13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but with a P$ 2.53 dont you think you would just need to buy the next best video card? I mean FS doesnt eat up all your CPU. I have a P4 2 gig + gForce3 64 ram + 512ram and plan on buying the Nvidia FX 5900 ultra when its released which has far better video card parts then what I'm using plus it has 256 ram. I get good to very performance out of my set up now so I figured that I could expect Very good to great out of this new card and it would save me about 1500 over buying a new computer to to have more CPU power idling. I plan on getting a 3.06 hyper thread once it becomes mid range but other than that it seems the video card will be the better upgrade performer.My thoughts.Kilstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to here your enjoying yourself!!!One quick question:Have you had a look at the new R22 yet, what's it like (inside and out, flight dynamics, sounds etc).Well two questions actually!!!Could you please post some screenshots of the R22 and Jetranger in the screenshot forum as I'm sure this would be really appreciated by the helicopter community as screenshots of helicopters are often thin in the ground.Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I am getting Dell's gamer machine, the XPS. Gonna plop the 3.06 chip in there (or 3.2)and for the heck of it, 2 gigs of RAM with a ATI 9800 PRO. Comes with extra cooling fans already installed. Hook it all up to a 21" Ultra-Sharp flat panel display and away I go. Like someone up above said, you want everything maxed with 3rd party complex addon aircraft/panels/scenery, your gonna have to pony up the money and stop sitting on the wallet. Do that and you can spend more time flying and less time whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michal, Accurate "talk" on performance on clouds and flight simulator should be made when testing the details slider/option and quality option on each feature wich make a HUGE difference. Test made should be especially on near the MID System 2ghz and gforce4 128 meg at least for not judging and make the final conclusion for the product on low end system (for any games available in the market) even not the final build with the final code. Consider a 2ghz and gforce4 128 meg will be the low system market after a while when fs2004 will be released. Very important, since Msfs is for two full year, they consider the computer market according to the product release.2003 System Market Aprrox.-Low system 1.4ghz 3d card 64 meg, 256 ram-Mid system 2.4ghz 3d card 128 meg, 512, ram -High system 3.4ghz & +, 3dcard 256 mb, 512 or 1024 ram.(From these above, Video 3d Card are the last generation ) System Market before Fs2002 Released-Low system 500mhz, 3d card tnt 32 mb,-Mid system 900mhz, 3d card gforce 64 mb mx, 256 ram-High system 1.5ghz and more, 512 ram.. 3d card 64meg, (after a while 128 meg) I will only consider accurate quality review for those made at least from a little lower than a 2003 years mid system cpu 2ghz/gforce4 128 meg,512 ram, which any games run very very well with many detail enabled.I predict volumetric clouds will run great with no problem performance mid and high with many setting enabled, or great on lower but with some autogen, mesh and reduced or disabled.In fs2002 it was the same thing, performance problem occur on lower system if many details enabled, but can much more improved and flyable by disabling, such as autogen and AI traffic and mesh. And even reduce the clouds density.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tom..........What are you doing tomorrow ?I can travel - !! Want to play & test ???Sounds great !! IFR/VFR transition is "my" biggest complaint with FS2002. Step climbs are sweet music - picking up on the great aspects of ProFlight ! I hated losing my IFR for a "snack" break !I've always been impressed how you guys can run "tests" with less than 90% "state-of-the-art" hardware.... as - I've usually been in that catagory myself - and - never - able to reproduce the performance. This time - I hope I'm ready...... hardware ready.Great post - and Thanks ! Get's the "juices flowing" !!!Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point here that might have been overlooked.....One of the biggest effects on FS performance, even on older (now considered 'low-end') rigs is what the computer's doing 'in the background'.Using utilities like 'End It All' to free off resources can make a huge difference to frame rates and should be a starting point before any system comparisons are made.Without it, there's no 'level playing field' and three identical rigs will render three vastly different results.Just a thought....Toni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time will tell, but I have a gut feeling that the GF2 Ultra isn't the problem with the clouds. I've used the Ultra enough to know that the FPS problem(s) with FS200x has very little to do with the age and capabilities of this particular video card. The problem is the MS refusal to let the GPU to the job it was designed to do. Nothing much has really changed as far as the base engine goes and I fully expect that the "more CPU is better" philosophy will continue with FS9.Trip

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