COF back in box....For now...

[Guest wathomas777]

I have been playing (tweaking) FS9 for almost a week now, and I am sad to say that I have to put it back in the box for now.I have a real low end machine a 600Mhz Celeron with 394Megs of Ram and a GEForce 3 MX420 Video card with 64 Meg of Ram.On the average, my fram rates have been 5 FPS lower than FS2002. Which really isn't too bad. If I could get 10 to 15FPS on FS2004 at all times, I would be delighted.The problem is, I can't. Nothing drops me out of suspension of disbelief than sudden drops in frames. FS2000 had it in spades. (bad programming). FS2002 was unbelievably smooth. COF however is a mixed bag. I am amazed at the amount of detail and Mesh Complexity I can push out, but weather wise, I can't find a happy mediu.FS9 is one of the most schizophrenic programs I have ever used. In one scenerio, I am cruising over a very densely detailed Hong Kong at dusk with absoultely beautiful 3d clouds and smooth frames.(10 to 14)The next minute, I am trying the Island Airlines flight with rain and low visibility and I'm stuttering at 6 to 8.One flight I did with winter wonderland had me take off of Renton and heading out in beautiful cloud cover over the cascades. After Landing in Easton State, I take off to return, and run into a blizzard as I approach Mercer Island that slugs my computer so hard, that I would not be suprised to see a "hit any key to see the next frame" message pop up.The dissapointing thing, is that people with computers 4 times faster than mine are reporting problems with the clouds as well. So I am wondering if even after my eventual computer purchase, if I will be able to find a consistent 10 to 15FPS or better yet 15 to 20 FPS. Another slight complaint I have is with the Garmin GPS. It's an XML gauge and on slower systems, it drops 3 to 5 frames when it's up.Well, I use it to shoot precision approaches because the approaches are built in. But approach is the LAST place you need to take a 3 to 5 FPS hit when autogen is starting to come in, and you are on final.I am sure after getting a 2200+ Athlon CPU I will be able to get a comfortable 10 to 15 FPS, 90% of the time. However, until that day comes, I will just have to stick with FS2002. And to be honest, If I had to be "stuck" with a flight Simulator, 2002 is not a bad one to be stuck with...

[Dark Moment 0]

Hear hear! Your post hits the nail right on the head. There is nothing more important to a good flight sim, surely, than acceptable FPS and this baby just ain't got it unless you're running a Whizzbang 4 Gigglehurts 9 million megabottom superconducted jingleblodger.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

Oh, you mean Deep Thought...;-)http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[vector 7]

KenWhere did you get the slogan in your signature from - is it Shakespeare or something like that or is it classic Salter??:-):-)David

[Guest]

>After Landing in Easton State, I take off to>return, and run into a blizzard as I approach Mercer Island>that slugs my computer so hard, that I would not be suprised>to see a "hit any key to see the next frame" message pop up.I just wanted to say thanks for the chuckle :) That was pretty funny.I feel your pain, though not to the extent that you have been suffering.Yes, the clouds are pretty demanding. I keep the 3 clouds at 60% unless there is a lot of them, and then I turn them down to 20%. This gives me good fps, but of course it had better since my system is fairly more powerful than yours.It seems like you might be able to get comparable FPS with FS2004 by perhaps cranking the 3d clouds to 10%. Surpisingly, this still looks pretty good in most situations, especially in overcast. The clouds closest to you are still drawn in 3d. If that still pulls down your frame rate, your only option is to go with 2d clouds, but that woudn't be any worse than FS2002, and I think the overall apperance (with the new skies, horizons, etc. would still look better).I'd suggest dumping autogen or setting it very low, simplifying the weather as much as you can stand, and overall just start with the sliders at their minimums and start to turn things up and see waht effect they have. Save some flights in varying conditions and use those as your benchmark. Remember that you can make changes on-the-fly to accomodate the kind of flight you are taking, the terrain, the current weather, etc.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

I wish I was that creatvie - that comes from Ren and Stimpy.Another favorite of mine is:"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."Guess where from?http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[B777ER 2,486]

>>>is it Shakespeare >>that comes from Ren and StimpyOnly if an english lit professor could read this, he would have a heart attack..LOL!!

[Guest wathomas777]

Thanks for the tips. I have tried many of those suggestions, and sometimes the 2d clouds also get demanding.The thing I DON'T like about the 2d clouds is they don't get better form as you approach them.Some people hated that, I didn't mind it. That was the way it was done in Pro Pilot 99 and was a good compromise.My biggest issue, is with dynamic weather, you can't hobble the sim to draw less clouds automatically. So as overcast sets in, what was nice now becomes ugly. What would be good, is to have the "clouds" and "traffic" tied into the Frame rate counter. Thus, if my frames keep dropping, then the cloud density, or the very least the "levels" could start dropping. I think the problem is with most people is that as a front moves in or as the dynamic weather updates, it tends to overload all the systems.I'm kind of suprised Microsoft didn't have a way to address this. Perhaps if this is a big enough issue, Microsoft can perform a patch that will keep the sim from imploding in on itself due to it's weather maker.....

[Guest The Ancient Brit]

I like that quote

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, Flight Sim is the most demanding ressource in for pc software, any version of any flight sim will require to have a good system. Rendering from the sky to the ground x, y, z.If you want inovation and improved feature you will have to paid the price, millions of user comments on how bad weather in fs2002 engine, 2d clouds,paper thin, non far and all of the tons anomalies you know etc..Impossible to have everything to works with everything it is impossible. Impossible to make miracle. Making clouds a la IL2 sturmovic in a CV Sim will not be realistic, few cotton balls here and here, it is not even considering as a weather but a truly fake weather.FUIII weather system was terrefic but was worser then fs2004 at the release for performance, not flyable. Flight Sim = System ressource etc. For clouds performance and performance boost see the readme first in this forum on the top.Finally Ms improved the weather system I will not blame them with the frame rate, the weather require frame rate and I am happy they add far clouds, many clouds layers, clouds types, unlimited layers..I don`t want to have better frame rate with limited stuff that`s we have seen before = UnrealisticThey will continue to improve the weather for futur and they will have more room with better system available in the market. See this picturehttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=71444&page=ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest wathomas777]

I'm not complaining. All I am saying is that the weather system on FS2004 is too taxing for me. So given the choice between dynamic weather and some fake clouds, I take the fake clouds.(Especially when those fake clouds come in the form of FSW's FS sky world, great job guys)The thing that seems to frustrate me a bit is the all or nothing bit with the weather. And even at it's lowest setting (10% detailed clouds, 30mi draw distance, low cloud density) It can still bring my system to it's knees given the right circumstances.I don't want weather turned off, but I do want a predictable frame rate during each flight, and if I use dynamic weather, then I get dynamic frame rate.That's all. Like I said, when I get a new box that is further away from minimums, I am sure that I will be happy. But until then, I get a more realistic performance using FS2002.

[Guest wathomas777]

Luckily the Garmin is resizable, but I still find it sucks frames down.

[JSkorna 137]

>I wish I was that creatvie - that comes from Ren and Stimpy.>>Another favorite of mine is:>>"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.">>Guess where from?>>http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg>"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"Ken,Your music maker quote is from Willie Wonka after the folks lick the flavored wallpaper. Please send me my prize to my e-mail!!Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Support