Sign in to follow this  
Dark Moment

What is an acceptable framerate for FS2004?

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.. I like everyone else has been sitting in FS2004 trying my hardest to get it to perform the best that it can. Now I have to ask the question. What is an acceptable framerate? This morning there are quite a few clouds in the Seattle area. So I downloaded the real world weather data and when I sit on the runway at Seatac, I only get around 14-17 fps. Now mind you I'm not even moving. I know once I take off and make a turn its going to chug down a bit. So what is a minimum framerate that we should be striving for? My system specs are below. I would think that with a system like below I have below that I'd be able to get something better than 14-17fps with a lot of clouds in the sky. This is even with default settings.I read that article about the guy with the Radeon 9800 Pro that has everything maxed out - no clue how the heck that gets over 10 FPS. This is indeed frustrating. Any info any of the ATI users out there might have for me, please let me know. If I left any details out, please let me know.My system is as follows:Dell PowerEdge 400SC (Same mobo as the Dimension 8300, 875 chipset)Proc: P4 2.8GHz HT 800MHz FSBMem: 1Gb of PC3200 ram in dual channel mode (2x 512mb sticks)OS: Windows XP ProVid: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128mbDrvr: Cat 3.6 Radeon driversDesktop: 1600x1200x32FS2k4 Res: Windowed mode, full screen @ desktop res aboveDX: DirectX v9.0bSnd: Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (latest driver installed)HD: WD 80gb 8mb cache HDD-Jaime

Share this post


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

I'm happy to stay between 15-20 FPS, which I'm able to most of the time with display settings very high.System:Asus P4PE 2.53Mhz P41024mb ramWindows XP ProGeForce 4 Ti4400 128mbFS Setting: 1600x1200x32 no AADirectX v9.0b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole business is crazy. With a setup like yours which is near the top of the range, one would expect reasonable FPS, but you are not happy with them, clearly (original poster, that is). With my P4 1.8 GHZ 512MB setup I'm lucky to get over 3FPS in any decent cloud cover. With a default installation and aircraft! Makes FS9 a joke to me. I think Microsoft has totally oversold this puppy.This has been covered a hundred times, of course. FS2002 stays, until either I get a new computer (yet again) or FS2006 comes out. My gutfeel is that that will be a better version.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my p4 2.8ghz machine with 512mb ram and a Radeon 9800 I am getting in the mid twenties with about half to 3/4 sliders. This is fine with me and I can enjoy most of the improvements. However, with any AI (above about 30%) and some complicated weather layers my machine can easily be brought to its knees. Right now I fly with medium to simple weather, not realtime, and I am liking this sim a lot more. The changes to the sky colors and environment are great. I will say I have NOT uninstalled 2002 yet, but as things get upgraded for 2004 I am flying it less and less. If you can live with a bit of compromise this sim is just fine. I do agree with Mark on this one though, it reminds me a lot of CFS 3 and how it was recieved by the community. The bottom line is we are a bunch of excentric hobbyists and dont really matter in the big scheme of things to these software developers. Yes we get consulted and usually come up with the best add-ons etc but we are not the meat of who MS is selling to. I daresay most folks who buy this sim will never get to see or use any of the fabulous add-ons that are available, they just dont care! So we get what we get and do the best we can with what we have. Im pretty sure this was worth the money I paid for it. With all the enjoyment I get out of tweaking and painting its money well spent!Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been various threads on this in the past, a search will show some heated discussions. Many people, myself included, feel that anything below 25fps decreases the reality of control responses and reduces fluidity to unacceptable levels. And its been shown that the eye requires that speed to be tricked into seeing constant motion, though some debate whether the FPS used in FS corresponds to the FPS required of, say, a movie or TV show. I lock my FPS at 30 and my system manages to keep it near there most all the time.The problem isn't only the visuals- more important is the invisible difference between what you see on screen and how your control inputs are reflected in those frames. At less than 25fps there is too much "lag" between what you do with the stick and what is shown on screen. This becomes most problematic on landing approach, and is less of a problem during cruise (less control input and response necessary). At the end of the day FPS becomes a matter of priorities given the system you run on- eye candy vs. fluid accurate motion. Some prefer the former, some the latter, and most find a compromise in between. The best solution, if financially feasible, is a top-end system that can provide both- but know that even the best can't be maxed out in heavy scenery without taking an FPS hit.Best,Joel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I fly only without panels (full external view) and I can't live with a frame rate bellow 30 FPS, in my opinion smooth simulation, smooth turns, smooth pitch changes only happen above 35-40 FPS, in FS2004 low auto-gen setting helps in smoothness in my system: Athlon XP2400+, 1gb RAM DDR333, ATI Radeon 9800pro 128mb in AGP 4x, win XP Pro. I can get most of the time FPS between 35 and 60, but in KLAX rwy ready for take off (view zoom at 0.75) I get about 28-32 FPS). I use autogen OFF, Scenery Complexity MAX., Clouds at 50%, cover medium, view range at 60mi, global texture HIGH Terrain at 60%, 1280x1024, AA6x, AF8x.Ulisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really depressing!!! I was going to upgrade before FS9, but I am getting better performance that I got with FS2002, so I decided to wait. Well I am still thinking about it as I would like it to be a bit smoother and with some more performance. The depressing part is this, all you guys have much stronger systems than I do (Athlon 1 gig T-bird, Radeon 7200 64mb, 1 gig 2100 DDR, XP pro), BUT you are getting worse performance than I am!!!!!I can't lower the sliders for 90% of the visuals, just isn't an option, luckily, I can have all sliders maxed, no AI, or a few if need be, light to no clouds, no addon scenery other than the ones I have made, most aircraft, in normal settings, not LA or NY, and get a constant 18-24.9 (locked at 25) FPS, which is much smoother than those numbers in FS2002. Turn on real weather or heavy AI and it gets rough at times, which is why I was going to go ahead and upgrade, but lately with all the posts I seen, including this one, I really think I could get worse performance than better if I upgrade to another MOBO, which I will need to do as my current Shuttle one only supports up to XP2000.I guess I will upgrade what I can on my current system and wait till a sure way to get 30+ FPS comes along.Guess it could be worse!Regards, 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

As the late and great Richard Harvey stated in the FlyII forum a couple of years ago, 15FPS plus = movie quality. So anything above 15 is acceptable for me. Unfortunately, the FPS counter jumps around occasionally while flying (from 15 to 2 to 17 to 6 to 24FPS, etc., but just for an instant). So to maintain the constant smoothness, I guess it would be nice to have higher frame rates than 15 but I'm very happy with what I get and don't mind the occasional stutter when the framerate goes below 15. Think of the stutters as air pockets... You have a fairly good system which should give you good frame rates. I have the same except mine's a self-built P4 2.2 Ghz system with the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra with 256 mb. I think you should turn off HT as someone recommended as it's too new and I don't think the current video cards and software are ready for it. It will be nice in the near future though as new driver's come out.Jim Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, The problems with frame rate is some user put higher resolution and use full antialasing, this is not a good solution, Did you noticed each release of Msfs, there is no computer available to handle all feature to full slider right, high resolution and full Antialasing? for high frame rate ?, same thing was in happend fs2002, until higher computer available later. It`s easy to said I run fs2002 with my 2.0 ghz/2.5 GHZ and brand new card, but I was not able to do this at the fs2002 release at all. It`s nothing near the CFS3 performance.Fs2004 Shots http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=78544&page=With my mid system, I can have stable 20 fps with all fs2004 at FULL,mesh 85%, clouds ms ultra high, clouds % to 100%, right except shadows, Use 2x Antialasing, 1024x768 32 bits, 2.53 ghz, 512 ram, p4p800 Asus board 8X, gforce4 TI 4200 128 MB 8X-The frame rate stick high from 40 to 85 fps above 10 000 altitude when there is no detailed scenery and no weather, but all fs2004 At full slider to right!-20 fps are near detailed scenery with two layers of cumulus clouds. Remove clouds add 10 fps more.-Frame rate degrade with huge weather layers to 15fps still smoothNow my system is only a mid, that's will be a low system after couple of month, I run this to FULL slider to right! I can manage fs2004 to run higher by reducing slider. You can manage your fs2004 to run right with your computer system there is no excuse.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a quick test I did, reducing the clouds from 100% to 30% increased a lot the FPS, even with coverage at high or more (XP2400+, 1gb RAM, ATI 9800pro)Ulises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 5-6 with sliders about 1/2 way. Clearly not very good, but OKfor basic flying.I need a new machine for this sim and I know that. Just waiting for the next jump up.I have no problem with MS here. 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

I can get 12-15 with most things set on High, that is very respectable for my system, I just might hold on too this old Dimension for a little longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense but I find it a little funny how some people are so stingy about things... "I CAN'T live without AA/AF, I CAN'T live with a resolution lower than 1600x1200, I CAN'T live with less than 30-40 fps..." I can understand preferences... like preferring to do what can be done to maintain a 30 fps average, preferring to use 1600 x 1200... but when they start saying that they can't live with something being less than super resolution or super frames... its like... I don't know... it feels like some people take this too seriously. Hope I'm not the only one out there that feels like that. BTW, 15-20 fps, locked at 20 and 1024x768 resolution :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this message directed to me? If so, I don't remember saying that I couldn't live without 1600x1200 or anything else for that matter. I was mearly questioning what was reasonable to get out of the product for a system like I have. If what I'm getting is normal thats fine, I'll play around and tweak it some more. But if people would have came back and said "Hey, I have that same class of system and get double that fps." then I'd start to look at what differences there are so I might be able to get some better framerates.-Allistah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to run 15 to 24 my max.. anything uder gets a little choppy, anything over is just too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no not directed at you... not at anyone in particular really... I'm not trying to lash out... sorry if it seemed that way :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you already flew in a professional flight simulator, you are a pilot, you spent more than US$ 5,000.00 in hardware bulding your home cockpit and you have a screen projection of more than 50", you will easily understand the "can't live" expression. Sure I can live without flightsim and a good performance, but I will be a lot happier with it :)Question of references.Ulisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 11-14 in CPU resource hogging areas like Seattle, New York Chicago dense scenery and I'm happy as heck! Above the clouds and away from these areas I can get upwards to 25-30 fps. My system is inferior to yours. It's a Compaq 2.0g HD with 512MB Mem and Nvidia GeForce Ti4200. I've followed all the tweaks and was getting at best 16 -18 fps above the clouds and believe me the tweaks have had a positive effect on my system. Especially Geofa's fs9.cfg tweak where I am able to run with, get this, autogen slider right off over to the extreme left and believe it or not, my framerates will decrease if I start moving the slider to the right at all. My settings just to give you an idea are:Terrain mesh - 90%Terrain Tex size - all way to RightTerrain detail - Land OnlyWater effects - none (Don't care)Scenery complexity - Very denseAutogen - none (Don't ask me, it just works on my system0Aircraft Quality - Low (and Landing Lights)Weather (3 sliders):60 mi40mi3-D = 90% (could have this at 100% I guess with no effect)cloud coverage density - 100%Hardware:Target frame = 25fps (could be lower for smoother processing)1024x768x32T & L (Transform & Lighting)Filtering = TrilnearMIP Mapping quality - 4Hardware rendered lights - 7 (not much effect no matter what I use)Global Tex. size - highSo, if was able to get the fps range I stated above on my machine, especially what you get in dense area such as Seattle, I would be happy. Don't get me wrong if I had your specs I would be wondering too. But to get, as you say 14-17 fps in a dense area like Seattle , with a lot of clouds, that is darn good, to me anyway. I am happy with my FPS. I fly a lot of IFR so when I get those 25 fps above the clouds enroute to destination I couldn't be happier. I'm through tweaking at this stage though. I just want to enjoy flying instead of wasting all my time tweaking, trying to get the optimun FPS. Because no one will ever be happy with what they have. I didn't buy FS2004 to tweak to my hearts desire. I bought it to enhance my flying experience in this great hobby.....just a thought though, with all the negative talk re: the Redeon cards, that could be one of your problems. I don't seem to see too much negative talk about the Nvidia cards.... Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a radeon 9800pro and autogen has a high influence in frame rate, mine is set to OFF as well.I suggest you to do 2 additional tests to improve your FPS:Terrain mesh = try 60 or 70, still good visually and helps.Clouds 3-D = try 30% to 50% (it is not an immediate change, fly a little)Ulisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut your ground shadows, has a major influence on FPS and they don't look especially good anyway.Joel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep it locked at 20 (default). I have a new system, and my fps rarely drop much below that with my detail sliders set rather conservatively.

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