Hi WolfgangJust found out in my panel.cfg files that the pixel_size in the vcockpit-sections is already on 512,512 on my system.So I guess I have the only way to delete some gauges or the whole vcockpit-entries to still get some improvement.By the way, I have allways two entries (vcockpit01 and vcockpit02) with different gauges. Do you change both when trying to optimize?ThanksWalter

The VCockpit section of the panel.cfg is used by the sim to generate an on-the-fly bitmap which is then used to texture the surfaces of the virtual cockpit environment. Giving the effect of gauges being in the VC, and that they are updating.The problem is that the sim generates this bitmap all the time, not just when you are in the VC. That explains why if you remove the VC entry in the panel.cfg your performance improves. Which I think is a great thing to know if you don't use the VC often in the big jets with lots of gauges.Three things effect the amount of resources needed every time the bitmap is generated. 1. The size of the bitmap 2. The number of gauges that will be included on the bitmap (how many gauges in the VC) and 3. The complexity of the gauges being included in the bitmap.If I were a serious simmer who loved performance, and didn't use the VC for normal operations, I would get rid of that section in the panel.cfg in a heartbeat. (always keep a back up copy though, who knows you might want to take screenshots some day!)Try something interesting: define the VCockpit area and bitmap name in the panel.cfg, and then use that bitmap name in GMAX or FSDS to texture the surface of a polygon on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft....low and behold...you'll have a dynamically updating texture on the external view of your aircaft. I had a panel that you could look in from the outside using spot view and see the gauges working.Now because gauges don't actually have to look like "gauges" at all, if you can design them yourself, and because they can include all sorts of cool FS internal values... I would think that a few smart individuals could run with that idea...for example...a blimp with dynamic and relevant information on the outside that actually updates....think "Time/Date and Temparature". Etc. Always wondered why we haven't seen more of that kind of thing. Maybe there has been, and I missed it. Seems like largely unexplored territory.

Hi Walter,resize the pixels from 512 to 256. I just tried it with the default FS9 737, which has the worst 2D perfomance of all default planes on my sys. By changing the pixel size from 512 to 256 my fps at KSEA with 100 % AI and fair weather jumped from around 13 up to 19/20. Though the VC gauges are a bit blurry now, but the most important parts are still readable. Do the resizing in the (VCockpit01) section and in the (VCockpit02). The first chapters of both section then should look somethings like this (off course use the [] brackets):(VCockpit01)size_mm=512,512pixel_size=256,256texture=$737_1background_color=0,0,0(VCockpit02)file=737_Panel_Decals_2.bmpsize_mm=512,512pixel_size=256,256texture=$737_2background_color=0,0,0Roughly said, (VCockpit01) determins the left part of the cockpit, (VCockpit02) the right part incl. the clickable autopilot.BTW, as far as I have recognized, the advanced clickable VCs have much more impact on the 2D panel performance than the non clickable FS2002 generation of VCs.Wolfgang

What a great thread!

Well here's some info to throw into the mix.I have given up on FS2004 because of the very low 2D panel fps till I get a upgrade in about a month, but I have a feeling its to do with the way FS2004 draws the 2D bmp's, rather than the gauges, just my thinking but I'll explain why.Someone released the Cessna 182RG from previous versions of FS for FS2004 some time ago. Now this plane as its old has no VC but does have 2D bmp's all around, well, looking to the back left view you have a window and some of the seat and inside of the plane with the 2D bmp, but no guages, and with just the side of a hill and a few tree's outside I got just 17fps, that just can not be right, it should have been at least double and probably a lot more than that.Also if I went into the simple view with just some guages on it the fps would be much higher, and I am taking into account less guages.Example, 2D fps in one default flight parked at gate in default plane I got around 10fps(way way too low for what it is showing, that is just some cloud), but same exact view point in VC is 25 fps, anyone see a problem? Also the 2D panel fps would only go up maybe 2 fps at most if I switched to simple clouds, something is holding it back, and it isn't my system.My FS2002 performance is totally different, it doesn't have this problem, same situation the 2D panel would be something like a difference of 5 fps if I remember rightly, nothing like the performance loss the 2D panel gets in FS2004.

Thank you, Wolfgang, for the tip. I will also try 256,256 and also do some more tests with other default panels.However, I am not so sure anymore if it will really help me a lot. I tried yesterday to improve the default Cessna 152 2D-panel by throwing out all the gauges of VCockpit01 and VCockpit02. The Increase on my system was only marginal (from 12-13 fps to maybe 14-15 fps in 2D-view, whereas in all other views I had 24 fps).So, maybe there is still another reason for this huge Fps-degrading in my 2D-panels. But nevertheless, this thread is extremely important for me, because it highlights my only real problem with FS2004.Thanks and regardsWalter

I allways got a quite good performance with the default C 172 (I guess that's the one you meant), so I have not touched the C172s panel.cfg. It was the default 737 which gave me the worst performance in 2D. And this I could fex with resizing pixels from 512 to 256. The fix was also successfull with all add on panels, which had bad 2D perfomance before. I'll have a look at the other dafault planes tonight.Another idea: In case you have a copy of FS2002, install the default FS2002 C172 into fs9. Since this plane has no clickable VC, the performance should be quite good, I guess. Apart form the VC the FS2002 and the FS9 version of the C172 are identical. This is valid for most of the default FS9 planes which were allready in Fs2002 (exception the Lear and the Mooney).Hope this helps.Wolfgang

Wolfgang, This is a major development. As one who never uses vc's, this development has improved my FS performance immeasureably. I'm running with most sliders 75% of the way right and getting a steady 30 fps in most areas - that's with the frame rate lock at 30. I can get even higher than that. SeaTac now gives me about 26 fps. This is nearly 12fps more :D than I was getting before eliminating the vc.Thankyou for your FANTASTIC discovery! Adam

Wolfgang, I also thank you very much! FS9 continues to improve with inputs from folks like you. Thanks again!Erv KSDF

While on the subject, I've found that multi-part panels are huge frame rate hogs in 2k4. What I mean is that if you, like me, use hot keys (SHIFT-#) to display different cockpit views like an approach view, or the first officers side, etc.- Having multiple "panels" open is a real FPS hog. My suggestion is be sure that you don't have multiple panel views open by first hitting SHIFT-1 to close the main view, then SHIFT-2 or SHIFT-whatever to open the alternate view. Or, just click the appropriate button on the panel if available which should close the previous view, and open the new view correctly. HUGE difference in frame rate.Just an observation.sg

And here is a very clever discovery from Douglas K. (at the bottom of the thread) to remove entirely the VC when in 2D view:Here is the quote: "As far as removing the VC from the A/C model is concerned, it is perfectly possible and actually quite simple to do, involving only a hex editor and two changes to the aircraft.mdl file."and here is the thread:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=14057&page=Thanks Douglas!

Hi WolfgangI did some more testing and of course I meant the C172 (and not C152) in my above statement.I guess on the other hand that you meant the C182RG from FS2002, which does not have a VC at all.I did this test and copied it over from FS2002 but guess what: I have the same problem as with the FS2004 default panels. I have 24 Fps in all views but in the 2D panel view I have only about 12-14 fps even for this plane where there is no VC.Also the resizing of pixels in the VC's of the FS2004 planes to 256x256 did not bring any improvement.I can do what I want, I just have in the 2D panels between 10 Fps (B737, B777, Marciano panel for A320) and at best about 14-15 Fps (Cessna, Lear), while in all other views (side/back views, virtual cockpit, spot plane, tower view, etc.) I have my target Fps of about 24 on average airports.I checked again the 'PanelAsTexture=0' entry in to Display.device section of the Fs9.cfg-file (which seems to help some people). Here it's just the opposite: My Fps in 2D-Panel view drop with this entry below 10.I am at the end of my wisdom, there is something strange about this problem on my system (AMD 1800xp, 512MB DDR-Ram, Geforce3 64MB card, Drivers 45.23, DirectX9.0b, Onboard-sound, WinXP Home).Thanks anyhow for your supportWalter

>Can any one tell me how to delete/remove all the VC(Backgrounds,empty panel, cockpit window frames etc.)Unlike many people ,I very seldom use VC ,I prefer the 2D cockpit so getting rid of VC view entirely would not hurt.Davehttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=14057&page=