Sign in to follow this  
Guest

What will you trade first for the clouds?

Recommended Posts

If you have to trade other "big" performance-affecting aspects of FS2k4, what will they be?For me, visibility - I usually don't go more than 20 miles anyway, and 10 at most in our humid summertime conditions. That's low and VFR, of course.Next goes mesh density.If the ATC/Traffic works well, I want to keep it heavy...Just wondering -Andrew

Share this post


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

I noticed that cutting visibility in FS2002 does not buy you a whole lot of preformance. Quite opposite to FLY!.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be sacrificing them first.Much as I appreciate the improvement over FS2002's flat versions, I'm afraid there are a hundred and one things going on in FS that are of far more visual interest to me than clouds, especially if they're going to cripple the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>sacrificing them first.As much as I love volumetric clouds I may be doing the same thing (again, depends on results). I love to fly at nights when clouds are not that important anyway. Then I can adjust visibility if I want to have IFR weather. Also when flying at night I can crank down the mesh scenery. There are big advantages flying at night and you are not sacrifycing any realism ;-)Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points.>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>sacrificing them first.>>Much as I appreciate the improvement over FS2002's flat>versions, I'm afraid there are a hundred and one things going>on in FS that are of far more visual interest to me than>clouds, especially if they're going to cripple the sim.>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I remember seeing that the first commercial simulators with visuals were night-only...>>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>>sacrificing them first.>>As much as I love volumetric clouds I may be doing the same>thing (again, depends on results). I love to fly at nights>when clouds are not that important anyway. Then I can adjust>visibility if I want to have IFR weather. Also when flying at>night I can crank down the mesh scenery. There are big>advantages flying at night and you are not sacrifycing any>realism ;-)>>Michael J.>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think I remember seeing that the first commercial>simulators with visuals were night-only...That is correct. I saw such simulator myself and it was based on a PDP-11 DEC computer (the year was 1979). I have to say visuals were very impressive but it was night-only flying. It was obviously not the first commercial simulator (Mr. Link I believe made the first one over 50 years ago) but it was the first of the "modern" era.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. If the main feature of FSCOF is clouds/Wx and they wont run on a users machine, why bother buying COF at all? Why not just stick with 2k2. With regard to what this new sim can & cant do - I'm not interested in guessing, nor in being a guinea pig (Ive been the early adopter on the last three versions, to my detriment). Im going to sit back & see what the forums say. When I am prepared to upgrade my hardware, I'll consider buying FSCOF. Until that moment, Im very happy with 2k2 thank you very much.LonelyplanetXO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already resolved that the clouds themselves will go before anything else. As far as FS2002 is concerned, I could really care for them, because I can't stand the "paper thin" problem. I also can't stand the way the clouds sometimes look when they envelope mountainous areas. And I couldn't be bothered continuously pausing the sim and re-arranging them via the weather menu to fix this. So it's not as if FS2004 will be a backward step, because I already don't bother with clouds much as it is. I know I would be missing out on a great new feature, but I won't miss what I never had.As far as mesh is concerned, this is where I will absolutely not compromise under any circumstances whatsoever. All the AI will have to disappear before I move the mesh slider so much as one percentage point below 100. As a VFR flyer (and by that I mean having a real map on my lap and looking out for geographical landmarks) the mesh is the most essential thing for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be sacrificing them first."Where did you find information concerning the suggestions that the clouds in FS04 are framerate killers? I am just curious. Flight One Software's FSClouds for FS2000 were great if you guys remember. They were large, puffy and generally very realistic. The best thing about them is the the framerates actually went up when they were used. I suspect that what is happening is that the extra lines in the program used to generate general weather conditions, including the clouds, is what would be behind the extra loss of framerates in FS04.Robb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, if you want realism, your gonna have to stick to keeping the clouds in. Go outside and look up and what do you see? Clouds! Flying at altitude, you only interact with 2 things, clouds and weather. Why make them the first to go? Who cares if that mountain that your passing over at FL390 is extremely detailed!! Me, I am throwing my arms up and doing the every 2 year upgrade again! I want everything to run at maz detail/sliders so yes, I am going to have to pony upwards of 3 grand to do it (3 grand figure due to wanting that 21" Dell UltraSharp flat panel LCD monitor). But oh well, if it is your only hobby, might as well make it enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it will be the autogen. I will reduce the amount of autogen, and world detail. A flight simulator is just that: flight. Very little time is spent in the departure and arrival phase, so the lowering of ground detail for me will have a minimal impact. Since the majority of the time is spent in the atmosphere amongst the clouds, they will stay in all of thier glory.Tim13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sim shines in all categories; on the ground we see buildings and trees (autogen) decorating the horizon instead of a flat one; in the air fabulous clouds in all shapes and sizes now extending towards the horizon; 100% mesh for those all important vfr; 100% ai for filling up the empty gates and now being pushed back with lights during daytime. Who wants to sacrifice any of these goodies? If I can't run the sim at the max (and I know I can't) I'll have to do the obvious; a new rig. just a thought..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>For me it will be the autogen. I will reduce the amount of>autogen, and world detail. A flight simulator is just that:>flight. Very little time is spent in the departure and>arrival phase, so the lowering of ground detail for me will>have a minimal impact. Since the majority of the time is>spent in the atmosphere amongst the clouds, they will stay in>all of thier glory.>Living in the Rocky Mountain region as I do, my real life flying revolves around mountainous peaks, valleys, and "autogen"!! :)I'm hooked on low-level back country flying, and would love a real life Aviat Huskey (STOL aircraft) for just that. But non-the-less, I hear that FS2004 will perform well even on a machine such as mine ----- Athlon 1900XP/GeforceTi500/512DDRram ...... clouds and all!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will not trade anything. if my p4 3.06 maxed out gaming 'puter will not allow me to run all sliders maxed as i now do w/fs2002 i will spend whatever $$ are necessary until it will.$$ spent on fs are chickenfeed compared to the costs of operating/maintaining my real aircraft.i know not everyone feels this way but you asked :)don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If you have to trade other "big" performance-affecting>aspects of FS2k4, what will they be?First, I'll trade my processor/mobo/memory for a new, faster one.Then I'll trade my nVidia 4200 for a new, faster one (of any brand).Then I'll trade insults if it still doesn't perform as I want. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Michael,I can't seem to find his post. Can you link it for me please. ThanksRobb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Don,I was just thinking. I'm on my fourth computer in 8 years. The grand total for computers and upgrades over the past four years amounts to aproximately $10,000, not including pay-ware add-ons, yokes, pedals, and joysticks, charts, FS itself, etc.Even if you add the other items in the total cost, I still spent only enough to get my PPL, and then fly roughly 30 hours total in a rented aircraft. Over a period of 8 years! That works out to 3.75 hours per year compared to the thousands of hours I've spent flying in the sim. And the various types of aircraft I've flown in the sim would not even remotely be possible in the real world.Yeah it'd be nice to have my PPL and a 150 to bang around in, but I like to fly too much. More than I can afford anyway. So the 10 or 12K I've spent on flight sim is fine by me. But hey, a rich friend in need of a flying partner wouldn't hurt either :)And as for detail in FSACOF, I just bought a new PC and am enjoying the crisp visuals, high detail, etc. etc. to ever want to go back to lower details now. I'll buy the new version, but if I can't run it properly, I'll stick to FS2K2 for the time being.CF-AOAKyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. If it's too slow with all knobs and sliders turned up, I'll upgrade my PC ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have a question. If the main feature of FSCOF is clouds/Wx>and they wont run on a users machine, why bother buying COF at>all? Why not just stick with 2k2. According to someone on the screenshot forum who played with COF at this year E3 show "sunsets/sunrises sell this game". Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't realize that upgrading the PC was an option for this question. Then without a doubt, I will swap out my 2.53gig P4 for a 3.06gig P4 as soon as the 3.2's hit the shelves. It will be worth the couple of hundred bucks for the upgrade.Now, that was easy! LOL. Tim13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robb, "Flight One Software's FSClouds for FS2000 were great if you guys remember. They were large, puffy and generally very realistic. The best thing about them is the the framerates actually went up when they were used. I suspect that what is happening is that the extra lines in the program used to generate general weather conditions, including the clouds, is what would be behind the extra loss of framerates in FS04."Clouds can be tweaked for increase alot on performance, I have did that's on fs2000 50% better performance with the same quality (I did not do that in fs2002, it was not needed for performance). I recommended you to wait for an accurate full preview before reading any quick premature talk on performance, specialy with fair system, with combination setting/slider. This can take up to 4 days to see the result. There some Important thing on preview they will not able to reveal, because they are simply not developper.Cheers!Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris, will do but was wondering just what Tom had actually said in reference to Michael's previous post.Robb

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