Cloud FPS Fix: Here's the proof!

[Jimmy Angel 19]

I think this is a fairly definitive test of the results of Chris Willis' cloud fps fix for FS9.First, here's a screenshot with the original MS textuures. This is sitting on runway 34R at KSEA, with real-world weather downloaded. I am running the sim at 1600x1200 (these are scaled down, obviously) with 4xAA and 4xAF, and the cloud sliders at 40 miles visibility, 100% 3d clouds, and full coverage. Most other slides are 3/4-full, except for autogen, which is set to normal. The red number in the corner is the FRAPS result with a 10 second benchmark. 16 fps on average (range was fairly stable at about 15-17).http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/30028.jpgI exited FS9, copied over the cloud textures, and reloaded the same exact flight. The exact cloud formations is of course not going to be the same. However, if anything, there are more clouds. Notice also that the FRAPS counter now says 20, with the same 10 second benchmark. The range here was 19-21.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/30029.jpgI repeated this test three times (copying over the texture back-ups and then replacing them with the new ones), and I got the same results every time. The texture fix truly does have a signifigant impact on performance. The clouds appear a bit "softer" but certainly not to the point where there is an obvious loss in visual quality.This is a great updated from FSW Group (thanks Chris!).For those who missed it, here's the link: http://fsw.simflight.com/FSWFs2k4fix.html

[Guest HeavyFan]

I AGREE 100%!!!!!! I have a lowly old Ge Force2MX400 32MB AGP card, and those 3d clouds really make my sim crawl when i am above those3D clouds!! Now with CHris FPS Clouds Fix, I am getting a constant 11-sometimes a steady 19FPS!!, when before the new clouds my FPS would drop to like 4-5 FPS with the 3D clouds! I have the FPS slider locked at20FPS, now i am really starting to enjoy my FS9!! with this amazing looking weather, and until my new Vid card arrives, i kinda know what to look foward to!!-:) -:), Also thank's so Much CHRIS!! I love the work you have done for us simmers, and look foward to more of your new Clouds in the future!! And Please keep it FREEWARE! -:) -:) MIKE

[Guest HeavyFan]

BUMP for everyone!-:)

[Guest Daniel Pimentel]

Doesn't tell me anything, sorry. Just because it works in YOUR system doesn't mean it'll work in anyone else's. In the case of my system, for example, running the default clouds or Chris's makes no difference, I still get awful frames. :-lolCheers,DP.

[JimmiG 244]

Didn't notice much of a difference on my system, but then I'm not a huge fan of reducing image quality to gain performance either.I have found these settings work best for me, and they get me about 15 FPS at KSEA with the same kind of weather:All Display settings in FS2004 maxed except visual range at 90 miles.Mipmap slider at 4, 8X Performance AF, 4x FSAA. 1152x864x32 @ 100 Hz

[Guest jase439]

I suspect those that notice the biggest difference are people with lower end graphics adapters with small video ram and/or small texture bandwidth.I noticed no appreciable gain or loss with these textures, but I have a fairly high end system.J

[Guest HeavyFan]

hey Jimmi! well i do not notice any decrease in the Qality of Chris new Clouds, if you look at the orginal post with the Pics before and after, there is little degrade in Quality??, I am all for decreasing Qality a little bit, but not to the fact that it looks horrible, but for me it works and I'll take getting better smooth FPS whenever i can!-:) If it does not work for some people sorry to hear that, but for me it amkes me happy, hehe MIKE-:)

[Noel 4,502]

I just noticed less detailed clouds. I am fortunate to run the default ones with no significant performance hit.Noel

[Guest product]

I actually prefer the low res clouds- seem softer and more realistic to me. The originals can be a bit "cartooney" at times.Best,Joel

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Jimmy, I've seen the same....If I minimize cloud settings, then there isn't as much of a difference. I think there's a minimum overhead for just getting the 3-d clouds on the screen. But I can run with thicker layers before I start to see performance fall off. And, I have a 128meg card, so I doubt that vidram has as much to do with it as does the amount/size of textures being fed to the card.I was also able to bump up the cloud distance by 10 miles...and that's a big bump since I had it at the minimum of 30 before....-John