Sign in to follow this  
Toys_R_Us

Is ACOF running well for anyone ???

Recommended Posts

If you have a P4 2.6 or higher, I would like to hear from you IF you are finding that FS2004 is running very well. By "well" I mean smooth & fluid, with a high level of detail. I have a PIII 733 and run FS2002 with most sliders about half way. I have the frames locked at 15 and find this acceptable in most cases. I am planning to upgrade to a P4 2.8 or higher so that I can load up 2004 but with all of the negative comments from people with very high end systems I am rethinking this purchase. All comments appreciated.Mark.

Share this post


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

Nope:Two Screen shoots, one of FS2004, and FS2002. Same airport, same time, same bat channel. If I were to add clouds to FS2004, I'd get better performance using a slide projector..Just a little disappointed with FS2004, but very happy to still have FS2002...:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had exactly the opposite experience. I've got all the sliders maxed in FS2004 except the water reflections and effects, which I don't like. I've also got Chris Willis's fps fix installed.I have my fps locked at 25, and it sticks there most of the time. I do drop to the 15 -17 range when passing through clouds and on approach to a mid size airport like CYVR or KSEA (I haven't tried it on the really detailed airports).When I take off from a small airport with dense autogen in FS2002, I get arround 15 - 20 fps. At the same airport in FS2004, I'm at 25, my fps limit.Here's my specs:Dell 8250 2.4 GHz PIV, 533 MHz fsb512 MB RDRAMRadeon 9700 TX (that's the non-pro)If you're going to buy a new computer, do yourself a favour and buy a Dell. I've always made my own in the past, but the Dell just seems to work really well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark - I don't have a 2.6 or higher, but I don't have any problems either :-) . I'm beginning to believe a major factor in one's satisfaction level with FS9 is the video card. More tests to do but it appears that with the enhanced clouds and large number of polygons required by the autogen that the faster the video card the better the overall experience. Anyway, I really don't see an overall framerate difference versus FS2002. I'm happy with it the way it is.DougNorthwood 2.2a at 2.508Ghz (Intel HSF)Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800ATI 9800 128MB ProCat. 3.6's DX9b WinXP ProWD's 20GB, 20GB, 60GB, 120GB, 120GBInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p4 3.061 gig ramti 4600 xp home50+ hrs of totally fluid performanceno glitches, no bugs, perfectionalmost everything maxed outdon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark,yes it does on my PIV2.4B, ASUS P4PE, 1 Gig RAM PC333, GF4Ti4200 128MB. Built that computer myself last fall, so it isn't what you'd call a highend system right now but still quite decent. FPS are locked at 22 (1280x1024res, 4xAF, NO FSAA) and they usually don't drop except in very dense sceneries with lots of clouds. Anyway, I have to admit that I maxxed out almost everything (sacrificed FSAA for that). The overall graphics quality is excellent and the new atmospheric FX definitely rock - can't imagine to go back to FS2002. I've just flown through/above a major thunderstorm at nighttime with the default 747. OK - not much about the plane itself, better ones will come - but it was absolutely stunning to fly above the puffy cumulus overcast with the towering stratocumuli among them, lit up by various, very realistic lightning effects. WHOAAAH! Never seen anything like this in another sim.Regards, Thomas :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I've had exactly the opposite experience. I've got all the>sliders maxed in FS2004 except the water reflections and>effects, which I don't like. I've also got Chris Willis's fps>fix installed.>>I have my fps locked at 25, and it sticks there most of the>time. I do drop to the 15 -17 range when passing through>clouds and on approach to a mid size airport like CYVR or KSEA>(I haven't tried it on the really detailed airports).>>When I take off from a small airport with dense autogen in>FS2002, I get arround 15 - 20 fps. At the same airport in>FS2004, I'm at 25, my fps limit.>>Here's my specs:>>Dell 8250 2.4 GHz PIV, 533 MHz fsb>512 MB RDRAM>Radeon 9700 TX (that's the non-pro)What's scary, is that I get almost the same performance as you, on an Athlon 1 gig with a Radeon 7200 64 nb card with all sliders maxed and the clouds at default. I was about to get a 3 gig Intel system, but now I'm scared to upgrade I might lose this performance! LOLRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, No problems here, all fs2004 at full expect shadow, 1024x768 32 bits,Full Screen Mode, 2X AA or disabled, I lock to 20 fps, I am very happy fluid and smooth.Intel P4 2.53 GHZ 533, 512 Ram 333, P4P800 8x running at 533, Gforce4 TI 4200 128 MB 8X. Official Nvidia v45.32 DriverThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory, call me crazy, but I think the problem that most of us are seeing is with the video card, like has been mentioned before. I could be wrong, but I think having to run it in window mode is limiting performance and the "incompatibility" of the ATI drivers is also creating problems. I'm putting FS2004 on hold until I get some new drivers and then see if it's that bad or not. My feeling is a new driver suite will make FS2004 sweet. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget RAM. I have a p4 1.7 with 768 ram and a ti4600.. FS9 runs with 20fps average with all sliders totally maxed out.Luhiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiAMD 2400 o/c to 2600 1 gig RAM GF4 4200ti. All sliders to max with full screen set to 1280x1024x32 and 17-21 fps on final app to Heathrow at the inner marker. The only glitch is switching from windowed to full screen the screen goes black. Tried all the Nvidia drivers. Got the latest WHQL ones released this month at the moment 45.23.MikeLiverpool, UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lobaeux, I'm running in windowed mode - I always have because I don't like the sim to minimize on task switching, as it does when you are full screen and try to use a squawkbox window. I do have the menu bar hidden to increase the screen size, and I have my task bar on my second monitor, so it's like having full sceen. Anyway, I don't get any degradation in performance from running windowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have an AMD 2600, Leadtek FX5600 graphics with 256Mb of memory, 1012Mb PC2700 RAM, AGP aperture set at 256Mb, WIN XP Home, Leadtek NFORCE2, AGP 8X mobo. Nvidia 45.23 drivers on DirectX9B I have frame rate locked at 25FPS and achieve this most of the time, the lowest I have seen is 20 FPS. I have two 19" Monitors running in full screen mode, main cockpit panel on one and GPS plus extra panel windows in the second. It took a bit of work and some post reading time but it has finally come together. All settings are high or greater, except shadows which have never added to my enjoyment. However, my current ai traffic is stock so the real test is yet to come. Anti aliasing is via Nvidia driver settings. I really do feel sorry for those suffering problems, it makes me feel guilty enjoying M$'s latest incarnation. My big problems are some of the M$ stupidities left over from FS2002 like traffic reported at your 6 o'clock (I still don't have an eye in the back of my head), we still no IFR approach separation, we still have active runways that have no ILS when conditions are at minimums and the discovery that you still can't change the active(s) runway(s) which M$ implied you could. However, the new weather is very good and my C421 taxies and handles the ground work like a dream and its air handling is similar to FS2002. I have found that the default GA aircraft seem to be very sensitive particularly in elevator response but this is getting personal. Ah well, win some, lose some, but I few complaints compared to some - sorry. Yellowjack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My system is also a PIII-733. I've got 512Mb and a 64 Mb Geforce2 graphics card. I also ran FS2002 with the settings roughly midway and the FPS locked at 15 and found it acceptable in most cases. And I also was planning an upgrade to a P4!But I've found that FS2004 performance is about the same as FS2002. I'm still getting 15 FPS most of the time. And it still slows to a crawl if I hit an area with lots of complex scenery - just like FS2002 did.So I've put the upgrade off for a few months. I can enjoy the new features of FS2004 in a "diluted" form for a while, and then when I upgrade the machine I can start to turn the heat up a bit.I like the new clouds in moderation. They add a bit more realism to VFR navigation, making the simulator that little bit more "immersive". And I like the way the virtual cockpit is now clickable. You can almost do the whole flight in VC mode now. The Flight 1 C152 is particularly nice for this!But I think I might go for a video card upgrade so that I can turn on the anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - hopefully the video card will sharpen things up a bit while the PIII plods away maintaining that 15 FPS.Good luck!Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that most problems seem to be video card related.I have a fairly average system:1.3ghz athlon512MB DDR ramGeforce4 MX 440 64MBI am running the sim with quite a few terrain and scenery features turned up, and am having no problems keeping 25fps locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,I have basically the same system as Luhiss above. But, the point that I don't think most people grasp is regardless of what the sliders are set to, it's WHERE you are flying that makes a huge difference.For example, if I max my sliders and fly around KORD - my systemcrawls to 5 FPS.But - if I fly in a desert out west - the FPS are fine.So, to say great with MAXed out sliders does not help much unless we know where you fly. Remote areas will have less AI and autogen (regardless if the sliders are maxed), compared to a huge city like KORD.JerryG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runs perfectly on a PIV-2.4 with a geForce 4Ti4200. Nothing overclocked, no "high performance" (in other words hacked) drivers to crash thing.Performance is similar to or better than FS2002 with the same settings (meaning most things fully maxed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athon 1800, 1MB., GF3/64 -- Clearly not getting it !!!!Sliders about 1/2, Frame rates 5-11, border line jumpy landings.Still... at this set-up it's only a little worse over-all than FS 2002 at it's best.This machine is just not enough, but I can live with it for now. I think I'll jump in at 3.5 to 4 Ghz, on a new machine. I've accepted the fact that the latest technology goes with the territory for great FS performance.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)AMD, Athlon XP, 1800+MSI, K7T266 XP ProPC 2100 DDR, 1024 MBXP, Home Edition Elsa GLadiac 920, GF3/64Mb andPNY, Verto nVidia TNT 2-M64/32WD, 100 MB, 7200, Ultra 100Sound Blaster, Audigy MP3+CH Prod, VPP Yoke - Sound CardCH Prod, Pedals - Sound Card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments on the pictures of the 1st reply...Any benchmark that is realized in FS and any other game, software, has to be done in certain standardized conditions, the Add on Plane, or panel takes out the validity of this comparison, It may has code that ran well on FS2002, and does not in FS2004 for problems in backward compatibility.when I do any test:Same Machine, almost at the same time.Reboot Computer, (Wash out memory leaks)Stock scenery, Stock aircraft, Same processes runningThe software has to be run as it is out of the box!!!, otherwise I am comparing how 2 sims run with a given Add on, in this case the Panel/AC, and that does not necessary mean that FS2002 runs better that FS2004 in standardized conditions.and we also have to consider that FS2004 is a optimized platform from FS2002, some of the BGL code has been Changed, and it has confirmed by the gurus in the Scenery Forum...and also the graphic display has changed, Not until at least a year passes and new drivers from VIdeo cards that run with this new optimized code are released, any benchmark has real validity.FS2002 runs at least 20% better now, than it did almost 2 years ago in my machine, and I think this is due to new set of drivers for my aging video card...Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok no one mentioned the slowdown everyone else sees after 30 minutes or? Suppositely the autogen causes it.Also, at cruise I get a major slow down as well, especially over an overcast with lots of cumulus clouds (that is lots of polygons). i'm talking 3 fps at most. Other than that, I get 20 most of the time. My system is a P4 2.56, 512 DDR RAM, nvidia 4600 with 128 DDR video memory on it. For those of you with a similar system, what are your settings? Windows settings and FS9?Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FS2004 runs very well on my system, which is comparable to a P4 at 2.8 GHz. The only problems I have are the now documented ATI driver bugs, but that will be fixed in a matter of weeks with a new driver from ATI.I get the same or better performance than FS2002. FPS is locked at 23 and stays there almost all the time except at complex airports where it drops to about 16 FPS. I think I have virtually every slider maxed and every box checked in the display settings :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! LOL FS2004 is running excellent on my 1.2GHz Athlon and Radeon 7200 64MB. I got most sliders maxed and the still hums along happily at 20fps, where it is locked. Textures are very sharp too, there is no blurry problem for me LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'dayScreams along on my system.No slowdowns with autogen on high.Around 20-24 FPS at ORD everything except water maxed out and also running ultimate traffic.Lowest FPS i have seen is 14 with couds at 40nm and set 3d clouds 100% and density to high.HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most of these guys claiming great framerates with maxed or nearly maxed settings on medicore systems with medicore video cards aren't saying is that they're running with no AA & no AF with their other card settings minimized and at some off the wall low resolution at 16 bit color. FSim is great in that it's very scalable for different systems. Claims of this framerate and that framerate mean nothing unless everything is factored in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a DELL 8200 2.53 Ghz with 1024 RDRAM and Ti04600 card. As I type this on my other PC, I swear I am getting an a constantly changing range of 35 to 72 fps over Puerto Rico with very broken cumulus below. Flying through heavy cumnulus, my fps drop to 14-18 but for moments here and there. I am capped at 24 fps.I have been tweaking FS2004 for 2 weeks now, changing drivers, and DiSPLAY settings, nVidia card settings, etc. I have nothing maxed out but most sliders are 2/3 to 3/4 right. VERY DENSE autogen and scenery. Clouds sliders about 3/4 right. I am flying without FSAA and the res is 1600x1200x35 @ 85 Hz on the primary monitor; I use a DELL UltraSharp 19" as the secondary monitor although that ain't much use with full screen mode (!) since I can't undock.Tonight I installed the nVidia 45.23 drivers and all looks great. I get some occasional texture flasing above and through clouds but nothing I can't live with. Texture Sharpening is ON. The image is fantastic. The tweaking has been maddening at times, but it is slowly getting better. I have resisted the temptation to add on a/c and panels for now (I have 150 add-on a/c and panels in FS2002) because I felt that getting performance optimized first was more important this time round. Hope this helps!JS

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