FS2004 - Observations #1

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

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.

[Naji 5]

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

[Guest]

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,

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"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. :)

[Guest]

>[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

[Guest captbulldog]

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

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

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? :)

[Chris Willis 8]

Tom, There is the Weather display, go see and tweak the clouds according to your AMD 1.3gig and 64 meg video card. I don't think you will able to run Full clouds details + enabled with a 64 meg card.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest Dominique]

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

[Guest Milio_B]

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!

[Guest Marvel]

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)

[Chris Willis 8]

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

[aguiar 22]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[Guest Max Cowgill]

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