It's the Editor's Choice Award for FS2004!

[Guest ScottPilot]

I just got my October issue of PC Gamer Magazine and they did a review of FS2004COF this month.The sim received a 90% overall rating and the PC Gamer Editor's Choice award, which means it is a must buy, and I have to agree with them!I have a lower end system (PIII 1 GHZ with a Nvidia Geforce 4 MX440 card) and I am getting GREAT results.The sim is running very smooth with most sliders maxed out and I am getting reflections and water motion effects with my system.I still have FS2002 installed, but honestly, I am not flying in the 2002 version much anymore, now that I have my system tweaked up in COF. In fact, I would say that overall my system performance is much better with FS2004COF than in FS2002.It seems strange to me that many of the users on this forum are having so many troubles getting FS2004COF to run well with much faster systems than what I have, but I guess that's the way it is with so many different system configurations out there.Happy Simming!Scott :-)

[Hornit 3]

Im just curious what kind of frame rates you get with that system? I'm not talking about loooking at the sky either, Try a bit of weather and takeoff from La Guardia or Newark and let me know how smooth your frame rate is. Im not being nasty or sarcastic, I really want to know. Im trying to look at different video cards and systems to see if there are some common threads concerning running this sim smoothly. Also, what OS are you using? Thankshornit

[Guest cw1011]

I'm guessing either the editors didn't use a Radeon 9700 or 9800 card, or they didn't know you could switch the sim out of windowed mode. In either case, I can't believe that the graphics card issues and instablity in full screen mode have not appeared in any of the reviews. Shows just how much you can count on the gaming press for objectivity etc...Colin

[John_Cillis 2,406]

We have very similar systems Scott. I'm curious as to what you're seeing as acceptable. You didn't mention fps, but I'd be curious how you do with the Seattle default, after selecting the fair weather theme.I generally get good performance too even with clouds, except as I near airports. Any airport, of any type. Others have also seen this in systems that seem to span the range of speeds available, from low end to high.It's very interesting that you mention seeing water reflections with your video card. The GEF/2 can't display them, and I thought the 4/MX was based on that. In fact, I think a few have come in and have mentioned that they can't see them. Glad you got your system humming...!-John

[Guest PaulL01]

Hi John,"The GEF/2 can't display them, and I thought the 4/MX was based on that"I wasn't aware of this my self, In FS2k2 a GF2 can display them and yes the GF4MX is based on a GF2, so this seems a bit odd.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Paul,I understand that FS9's use of DX-9 combined with the way the GEF/2 is implemented is part of the issue. Not only can the GeF/2 display water reflections in FS2002--you can port over FS2004's water textures, and you get reflections exactly as they appear in FS2004. If the fan on my GEF/2 hadn't of died, I probably would have kept it.I think one reason we're seeing so many odd issues is that Microsoft may have had to change code to accommodate the cloud and sky visuals. They may have even tried to tweak code to avoid dynamic blurring. Once you mess with the code, so many issues can be introduced that even a year of beta testing won't reproduce the real world scenarios that the community can throw at the sim.In any case, I think it may be a while before we see things mature to the point where it doesn't matter what type of card you have.BTW,--I noted your replies in the other thread and wasn't bothered by them--I would have responded if I was... You know me :)-John

[Guest ScottPilot]

I have several other recent posts in this forum that list my system specs and settings that people with lower end systems can use as a starting point. If you want the specifics, just search this forum under my user name (ScottPilot). I have a couple of posts that list in detail my system and COF's configuration, so I won't re-list them here.I get on average 12-15fps (Locked at 15) in areas like Seattle, L.A., Denver, ect.Yes the frame rates can vary depending on where I am at (on the ground, in the air, 3D clouds on/off, ect.) but the sim is staying smooth for me. No stutters and I am getting nice looking scnerey (no blurries 98% of the time). I havn't seen my FPS drop below 9, when monitoring the FS counter. In FS2002, if the FPS drops below 10 on my system, I would start to get some stuttering, but with FS2004, this hasn't been the case.Another observation is that the "smoothness" doesn't alwys seem to be directly related to FPS in FS2004, like it is in Fs2002. My FPS can slow don (around 9-10) and the sim stays smooth. Guages move as they should (no-jerkiness) and the outside view is pertty darn smooth.I'm not sure why this is, but I am finished "tweaking" COF for performance on my system, since I have finally found the optimum setting for my system.I use the weather themes, Active Sky downloads, and I am getting good results. I have the 3D cloud density slider set to 100%.I don't know what to say other than, I am very happy with the performance of FS2004COF. For me it is performing just as well as FS2002 did, if not better at times.I didn't write this post to "slam" anybody that is having problems getting the sim to run well (been there myself), but there are some of us who are having good results, and with all the negative posts on this forum about scrapping COF, I thought a positive one was in order too.I have read PC Gamer for many years and found most of their reviews to be right on. I just thought that I would let the Av-simming community know that they have a good review of the sim in the next issue of their magazine.Finally, I find it interesting that I am having good results with GeForce 4MX card (which is despised by most simmers these days) and the users of higher end cards (FX cards, Radion cards, ect.) are having so many problems. It is most likely driver issues, but everyone seems to be blameing the sim. I think that over time, those problems will get worked out. They did for past sims.The only only effect that I don't get wih the MX card is water reflection (I do in FS2002).I do get aircraft reflection, water motion, texture, and waves on the beach. The water color also seems to be pretty good.So, that's were I am comming from with regards to this post. If you want to see how my stystem is set up, just go to the other posts that I have written within the lat couple of weeks, and it's all there!Hopefully that information can help someone else!This will be my last response to this thread for now, since I am off to work.Scott :-)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Thanks for clearing up the water reflection mystery Scott.... Pity Microsoft couldn't have figured a way to get them to work for COF for the 4MX's and GEF/2's.I don't think anyone would take issue with you for the way both your posts are presented. But for me at least, I don't even perceive 15 fps as smooth whether it's FS2004 or FS2002. In neither sim did I see stuttering, however--lucky I guess.In FS2002 I got the fps up to my liking by flying with Autogen and AI off. In FS2004, I get around the issue by doing the same, and spending as little time in the pattern as I can.I posted in the screenshots forum settings I think a low end system can cope with. I still think them valid, as I don't think there's any combination of settings to rid FS2004 of the airport bottlenecks I've seen. RealityXP does have a good tweaking guide for general use. I think anyone who studies it will get the best performance they can.-John

[Hornit 3]

Hey, no problem with your post man! I was honestly just curious. As John has mentioned there are some strange and interesting things going on with this sim and the more data we can collect the better. Personally I cant live with a sim running below mid to high teens, Right now I have decent eye candy and nice frame rates in the mid twenties most of the time. The only problem I see, and its definitely NOT a driver issue, is the fluidity for those of us with the horsepower to run this sim. It just ins't there. If I cant run at something near 25 most of the time I don't consider it worthwhile. Flying becomes choppy and frustrating, espcially IFR tasks, (I like handflying IFR) How do I know its not a driver issue.....well just so you know, I have been simming for over 10 years, I build and maintain my own systems and I dont run ANYTHING ELSE when I sim. I know most if not all the tricks and I use them. I have tried four different sets of detonators and two vid cards with this sim and nothing makes any real, measurable difference. One test of the fluidity is to set the frames to unlimited and see what you get. This sim is all over the map if I do that, anything from midteens all the way up into the 60's, and I have even seen low 70's on a few occasions. It all boils down to personal taste I guess, Some will be happy with what you have and thats great. I think it should run better, but it doesn't, even on lots bigger hardware than I have. All in all its pretty good software for 50$ and I'll do my best to make it better for others If I can! :)Hornit

[Guest]

hornit,my specs: duron 1.3ghz512 mb pc 133 ramgeforce fx 5200 128mb30 GB HDWin ME3d clouds @ 100%; cloud coverage set to low scenery complexity very dense; autogen scen normalno watereffectsmip mapping 5traffic 10%most texture sliders maxedframerate slider set to 15visibility set 20 - 30 miles in custom weather with fair weather cloudsmost compromises had to be made with clouds, AI traffic and scenery density.Framerates: 13 - 15 in rural areas or medium size cities; 8-10 during approach to Boeing Field, Seattle.Good Tailwinds,Daniel, CYCW

[Guest PaulL01]

>Paul,>BTW,--I noted your replies in the other thread and wasn't>bothered by them--I would have responded if I was... You know>me :)>-John Thanks John. :)