Sign in to follow this  
rhumbaflappy

50-100fps in FS2004, Gainward GF FX5600 Ultra 256MB ?

Recommended Posts

Hi allI've just heard some interesting info today. 50-100 fps in Fs2004, is this true?.. here's the details I have, written by someone else:"Opened FS2004 set framerates for max, with sliders at medium fps is 75-100. All sliders on 40-55 depending on altitude but not a large factor.Gainward GF FX5600 Ultra 256MB DDR AGP, Machine/ Athlon 2.Gig 512 DDR Ram Western Digital HD. Before I installed this card I was getting 6-8 fps. Had an old Diamond Stealth 32 mb."Now, what I want to know, can this be true, and are there any other good bits of hardware one should buy to BOOST the power of FS2004?My current system:Athlon 2100XPGf3 ti 500 64 RAM512MB 2700DDR RAM60GBSB PlatinumCheers ;)

Share this post


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

Will,I too read that post over at flightsim and was wondering the same thing. I'm having pretty much the same system as he does, so I'm wondering if a video card can really have such an impact on performance.I do however believe him, since it's no other than Aaron Swindle and he's been around almost forever in the flightsim community. I'll be following the findings in the other forum, maybe this is a video card to consider after all.Cheers,Petehttp://members.aol.com/pzsoulman/myhomepage/logo.gifAthlonXP2000,AbitKX7-333(latest4in1),512MB/2700SDRAM,WinXP,DirectX8.1,Geforce3TI200(128MB)(Det.30.82),SBlive(WDM5.1.2601.0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, it would be nice to know what conditions these frame rates were obtained? What aircraft? What view? What resolution? What location? What altitude? I actually have acceptable performance on my setup, but whenever folks talk about frame rates, be they good or bad, I wish we had more details than the typical poster gives us.Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't pay much attention to any claimed framerate numbers no matter who posts them. Without knowing the specifics of the FS9 configuration FPS numbers are meaningless. Like all prior versions, FS2004 is highly processor-bound and the video card continues to play the smaller role. One thing for sure, when to comes to FS9, magic is unreliable.Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wouldn't pay much attention to any claimed framerate>numbers no matter who posts them. Without knowing the>specifics of the FS9 configuration FPS numbers are>meaningless. Like all prior versions, FS2004 is highly>processor-bound and the video card continues to play the>smaller role. One thing for sure, when to comes to FS9, magic>is unreliable.>>Doug Well, for peak fps I'd agree, you need a faster processor. But the processor doesn't handle the detailed texture functions or the advanced options - that is handled by the graphics card and its own processors. So for image quality and average frame yield you need lots and lots of graphic powerRaw speed = CPUVisual Quality + Average Speed = GPUAs the code for FS9 has been better optimised than the equivalent for FS2002, I'd be surprised if the balance hadn't shifted much more toward the GPU. Whereas in FS2002 I'd have definitely put the CPU upgrade at the top of the list, with FS9 I'm not so sure. Although upgrading your card won't yield faster frames, it will yield better -looking and higher average frame rates.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wouldn't pay much attention to any claimed framerate>numbers no matter who posts them. Without knowing the>specifics of the FS9 configuration FPS numbers are>meaningless. Like all prior versions, FS2004 is highly>processor-bound and the video card continues to play the>smaller role. One thing for sure, when to comes to FS9, magic>is unreliable.>>Doug I would wholeheartedly agree Doug. For starters, altitude as a variable is pretty dang minor by comparison to multi dense cloud layers and maybe autogen density etc. On my system, it takes heafty weather to bring it down, which is usually 100% remedied by switching down to 1280 x 1024. Again, not much difference from altitude alone as a variable. All claims to performance must in the context of a very detailed description of conditions right down to the nitty gritty--which is why you can hardly duplicate it. Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent a lot of time futzing around with my system, I have come to the conclusion that frames are not a good indicator of performance. For me it is the quality and speed of texture refreshing, and the ability of the sim to keep sharp images close to the airplane. I have had many situations with my p4 2.6 and Radeon 9700 Pro where frames have been in the 40s and 50s - yet the lag time for some texture refreshes is not very quick. I also have found little evidence that the frame lock really makes any difference on this. So, what I want to know, is does the new card help with this issue. My frames are fine - its texture I care about. Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi all>>I've just heard some interesting info today. 50-100 fps in>Fs2004, is this true?.. here's the details I have, written by>someone else:>>"Opened FS2004 set framerates for max, with sliders at medium>fps is 75-100. All sliders on 40-55 depending on altitude but>not a large factor.>>Gainward GF FX5600 Ultra 256MB DDR AGP, Machine/ Athlon 2.Gig>512 DDR Ram Western Digital HD. >>Before I installed this card I was getting 6-8 fps. Had an old>Diamond Stealth 32 mb.">>>>Now, what I want to know, can this be true, and are there any>other good bits of hardware one should buy to BOOST the power>of FS2004?>This is probably in a default aircraft over the water with not all textures turned on, not a cloud in the sky, and the aircraft detail on medium. I could get 100 fps to if I turn down all my effects and sliders. Here are my specs:Windows XP SP1Motherboard: Epox 8RDA + main boardProcessor: AMD XP2500 Barton CPUMemory: PC2700 1gb Geil DDRHard Drive: SEA HDD IDE 40GB 7M 40GPPHard Drive: Western Digital 40gb 8mb cacheMonitor 15 LCD Flat Panel Display (15 viewable)Video Card: ATI Radeon 9500 ProSound Card: Creative Labs Audigy 2 The kind of performance I am getting is 20-25 FPS in rural areas with the sliders and effects almost to the max and about 15-20 in places like New York and Paris.I am very pleased with what I am getting and who is to say a 256mb video card might take me up to 30+ in the city areas and with my current FS9 configuration. I am not calling anyone a liar, because I am not there to see it for myself. Anything is possible. But because this is such a graphic intense game I would think any computer would have a difficult time getting to 100fps. Like I said though, I guess anything is possible.....:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to beleive Aaron , but...If you have a cray then maybee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all.I can get 40's in rural areas and 20's in NYC, with a Radeon 9500 Pro. I don't find it hard to believe the original claim at all.Dick

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