Sign in to follow this  
PeterR

Slow frame rates in FS2004

Recommended Posts

I just got the new FS2004 and am somewhat dissapointed in the frame rates I am getting versus FS2002. My machine is a PIII 1000mhz (100mhz bus) and the video card is an old original GeForce 32mb. Any suggestions and what are the key commands to see the frame rates. Thanks

Share this post


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

A hearty welcome to you from Phoenix, AZ....Your video card may be the weak link. I have a slower cpu, but a newer vid card, and as long as I don't go overboard on the Autogen and Weather (I limit Weather to two cloud layers, and try to keep them at 3/8ths or less), I get between 20-25 fps.Some other things:~Turn off AA if it's on--your card will struggle to handle it...~Go to your display settings, then your weather settings. Max all the sliders, then cut your cloud distance down to 30 miles. For some reason, I get best performance under that setup vs. using the 2-d clouds~Limit Autogen and Scenery Density to "normal". That approximates "Maxed" in FS2002. ~Fly away from the big cities (having said that, with no Autogen and two decks of clouds, I'm getting 15-20fps with the Seattle default flight)~If your RAM is less than 384 megs, get it to that point. Anything less than that, and FS2004 will use ALL of your RAM.~If you've turned off AGP (assuming your card is an AGP card), turn it back on. If you don't know what I'm talking about, likely you've never turned it off, so you have nothing to worry about :)~Limit your resolution to 800x600x32, and see if you get better performance. Bump it up if you do, until you see where your card starts to struggle. The resolution you can run at is more dependent on your card than the cpu.~DO NOT try out dynamic weather or real weather. They both can kill a slower system with too many cloud layers, or cloud layers which are too thickI hope this helps. In clear skies and cities of comparable detail (I use Sacramento and Reno as good benchmarks), my performance in FS2004 seems a bit better than FS2002. The weather engine is more complex, so it costs a bit more in performance.I won't let go of FS2002... I tend to prefer it for simulating the long haul, realtime flights. It's slightly more fluid on landing in the bigger cities, in part because the bigger cities are less detailed than those in FS2004...Hope I've been a help...And welcome again!Hope this helps....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same system.HAD that 32 M card, its no good now.I bought the cheap budget card NVidia FX 5200 and it works wondersOnly solution and WORTH IT if you want a good simAllenBeen simming since FS1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old card? Use simple clouds, not the detailed 3D ones. Big difference!Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums ModeratorRenegade/Seawolf Design Group (RSDG)[table border=2 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=1][tr][td][table border=0 cellpadding=8 cellspacing=0][tr][td bgcolor=#540000]http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75t.gif[/td][td align="center" bgcolor=#FFFFF6]Bush Flying Unlimited"At home in the wild"Looking for adventure? Come join us! * [link:bfu.avsim.net|Web Site] * [link:www.cafepress.com/bfu,bfu2,bfu3,bfu4|BFU Store] * [link:bfu.avsim.net/join.htm]Join!][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table

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