>>Well it's MS's fault.>>>>After all the tweaking etc i've done (and hardware upgrades)>>FS still runs like crap. it runs OK (15fps not with default>>scenery and planes of course) but i can't use AI traffic or>it>>all goes south... >>>>i've run benchmarks and devastated supposedly faster>systems,>>and everything else i dump on this system flies. >>>>but not FS. >>>>Then you hear stories about people getting some mindboggling>>performances with some resource hogging addons that i can't>>help but tell myseylf "lies" because there is no way unless>>they defy the laws of computing. >>>>>Like my reply said above... have a look at www.fs-gs.com you>will not be sorry, best $100 I have ever spent.>>Cheers,he has nothing of use to me. i am as qualified as he is, but thanks for advertising him once again.

Ord Chinese plovelb says: This buggel is broody light!Jaap Verduijn (or is it Velduijn - grin?)

Running a BBS, when there were only 27 in the world, the second one in CA. As a Fidonet Sysop for over a decade. A TBBS Sysop for 2 decades. Supplying the Internet Free, (email & Forums) to local users, for years with 9 lines before most ever heard of it... Will not only confirm your statement, but second the "motion."I've have been operating the FS with the same attitude, since the early 80's..... It deserves repeating... over, and over, and over, until everyone "gets it." You are a pioneer, writing software, with minimal memory, and to run on Floppy Disks, or very small HD's, Fidonet ran some of tightest, most well designed, good operating software in the History of Computers. It accomplished things others did not believe could be done. The Internet might not even have been available to millions today, without those who began networks of BBS' in the Late 70's, and early 80's.... Fidonet was the forerunner of the Internet.Quote:"I think I know a little bit what good software benchmarking means. In the old days some twenty years ago I was programming this and that piece of software in good old ansi C for the FidoNet with some companions and we did not only have to fight the lack of ability to write optimum code but also the limitations of the hardware which forces us to optimise our software to the limits. That means to examine modules under very specific and exactly defined conditions for their runtime behavior which becomes more and more complex the more modules have been linked together and again influence each other in sometimes unexpected ways.What I want to say is simply that every change in settings and it's effects or side effects must be repeatable and this is only given on absolutely equal systems and exactly equal conditions! One different texture, a different daytime, a little bit different weather conditions, not to talk about other aircraft models and/or panels, another autogen library, other viewpoints and all of all is worthless. It might be good for one person under exact the circumstances he had at this moment but under other conditions or even other machines it is not reproducible and in so far worthless.So my dear fellows, don't you let yourself get frustrated! 'Sit' down in your favorite airplane, prepare your flight, fire up the engine(s), get the takeoff clearance and ENJOY your flight. And if your sim gets into stuttering, consider it as a simulated pilot hickup which cause him temporarely optical disturbances and continue your flight until a hopeful happy landing!!!SincerelyMick!" Unquote!

Hi,So pull those sliders to the left. You can't have it both ways...--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Hello!> Running a BBS, when there were only 27 in the world, the>second one in CA. As a Fidonet Sysop for over a decade. A>TBBS Sysop for 2 decades. Supplying the Internet Free, (email>& Forums) to local users, for years with 9 lines before most>ever heard of it... Will not only confirm your statement, but>second the "motion."It is really nice to find such a prehistoric rock in this forum ;-)Nodelist.211 --> 2:2410.202 that was me :,202,A&M-SOFT,Berlin,Nicolai_Zoern,49-30-45199774,9600,V32B,V42B,CMNicolai represents me as a node taking over my complete installation, because at that time I lived already far from home in Indonesia. And to run a FidoNet Node from there was a bit above my finacial resources :-)I was running first a BBS based on QuickBbs. My network initiation took place around 1985 and after a short existance as Fido Point continues as a Fido Node on my good old Atari Mega ST, 1 megabyte ram with Motorola 68000 cpu with <<<16MHz>>> (Please dont misread MEGA Hertz, not Giga...)Later with a 68030 cpu with 32 MHz and the unimaginable amount of 4 megabyte ram, man that machine was fast!So as you can see I was already quite spoiled with system resources!Also at that time I get infected by Sublogic Flight Simulator II (ST-version, 640x400, 16 colors)>You are a pioneer,>writing software, with minimal memory, and to run on Floppy>Disks, or very small HD's, Fidonet ran some of tightest, most>well designed, good operating software in the History of>Computers.The laurel wreath does not belong onto my head ;-) As mentioned above, I was already in a privileged position. I could address the memory up to 8 megabyte without the wellknown DOS limitations... The problem was only to keep the code ANSI conform, so it could be transfered to MSDOS systems with minor adjutsments.My two cents to (mostly Atari nodes) Fido Net was a logfile analysis to give the sysyop (does anybody here still knows this expression :-) ) a full and gapless overview what went on on his system. Even the TOS version (similar to DOS) had about 5000 lines of code in 20 modules with about 131kb and a 95kb executable.The version for GEM (similar to Windows interface) had already about 45 modules with 18000 lines of code with 447kb and a 268kb executable.The biggest problem was the memory management. On the ST no problem, but how you handle a 780kb system.log on an MSDOS system?!? And that without scrambling the memory with countles gaps which occurs guaranteed if 90% of your program is string analysis.My companion find an absolut perfect way with a linked list memory management module he wrote which allows you to deallocate any tiny peace of memory in exactly the opposite order you allocated it before.And then writing the docs with LaTex and Tex...Okay, I think I'm going quite out of topic now in this forum and half of the other readers alreay fell asleep ;-) Sorry for this boo boo! I couldn't resist and am to excited to find here sombody who was a part of the so called "good old times".>It accomplished things others did not believe could>be done. The Internet might not even have been available to>millions today, without those who began networks of BBS' in>the Late 70's, and early 80's.... Fidonet was the forerunner>of the Internet.Agree! Who do not remenber names like Binkley Term, Squish, Crosspoint and so on...Mick!

John,I have a simple question. When you ran the 9.1 patch, where did you run the patch from?-JW>It seems no hardware I buy is good enough for this sim. Now I>have an AMD dual core, SATA hard drive and a Geforce 7800 GFX>video card. Even that does not cut the mustard.>>If I load up the Boeing at JFK with 100% Ultimate Traffic and>real time weather and start to taxi, the frames I get are only>12-14 on average. And thats with default scenery. With>Simflyers it would be around 7-8.>>I can hear the the hard drive is going crazy alot of the time.>Are the textures being cached in memory?? Is 256MB not enough>graphics memory? Would 512MB graphics memory solve the>problem? What is the bottleneck? I left task manager open and>the CPU is not maxed out at 100%. >>In Pacific Fighters the graphics are smooth 100% of the time.>I have never even tried looking for the FPS counter in that>game. Why does FS have such a bad performance?>>John.>

>John,>>I have a simple question. When you ran the 9.1 patch, where>did you run the patch from?>>-JWI have successfully run it from my network fileserver drive with no issues. So anywhere really.That being said, Rule of Thumb... run all patches and driver installs from the win install drive to be sure. I have had some updates choke when installed from a non-local drive.CheersShad

If you didn't run the 9.1 patch from within FS9 folder, you will run into performance problems as you have corrupted several of the files. If you check the FS9 patch page it states, to make sure you run it in the FS9 directory path.Just something to think about in the future.

Hi,I have a question for all you gurus...My frames are dipping as low as 15 at times ( locked at 22 )using lots of addons, AI etc... now when I check processor usage it shows 35%-45%.I therefore assume the processor isn't the limiting factor. Textures take some time to come in, so maybe the problem is the video card? My question is related to screen resolution. I am running at 1280x960 and maybe the video card is struggling with this? How much of a factor is resolution on frames IF the limiting factor is the graphics card?If I were to reduce it, what would be a good alternative to the 1280x960 in order to keep a good looking PMDG744,LDS,DF A36 and B58, which are the main aircraft I am flying? I use mainly 2D panel, if that makes any difference. I use a 19" CRT monitor.Computer spec.AMD 3800x21gb DDR 400ATI 850pro 256mb AGPI last question, my hard disks are pretty full, with about 20% free space. I use o&o defrag ( complete name defrag ) often. Does the fact they are quite full effect anything?Thanks,Paul

>You also said you have a GeForce 7800 GFX (GTX?) video card.>That's all good and well for games like Doom 3, FarCry or>Half-Life 2, which make extensive use of the latest graphics>processing goodies. FS2004, however, is a "far cry" (pun>intended) from that. It does not take advantage of advanced>shaders, instancing (which would be great for autogen and>clouds) and what will you have.I had to laugh when I read that. Keeping in mind we are only talking about the videocard here, if his card is a 7800 GTX, then it should be PLENTY fast enough for this game. Recommending a "faster" videocard somewhat supports what the original poster is saying. lol7800 GTX videocards usually (depending on Manufacturer) have a Core Clock of at leat 430 mhz and a Mem. Clock of at least 1300 mhz. (a few have 1200 mhz Mem Clocks though).

>If you didn't run the 9.1 patch from within FS9 folder, you>will run into performance problems as you have corrupted>several of the files. If you check the FS9 patch page it>states, to make sure you run it in the FS9 directory path.>>Just something to think about in the future.While the instructions do indeed say to do that, I have not found any article (I looked) that suggests doing it elswhere leads to any issues, nor I have I experienced any.YMMV of course.Cheersshad

>>You also said you have a GeForce 7800 GFX (GTX?) video>card.>>That's all good and well for games like Doom 3, FarCry or>>Half-Life 2, which make extensive use of the latest graphics>>processing goodies. FS2004, however, is a "far cry" (pun>>intended) from that. It does not take advantage of advanced>>shaders, instancing (which would be great for autogen and>>clouds) and what will you have.>>I had to laugh when I read that. Keeping in mind we are only>talking about the videocard here, if his card is a 7800 GTX,>then it should be PLENTY fast enough for this game.>Recommending a "faster" videocard somewhat supports what the>original poster is saying. lol>>7800 GTX videocards usually (depending on Manufacturer) have a>Core Clock of at leat 430 mhz and a Mem. Clock of at least>1300 mhz. (a few have 1200 mhz Mem Clocks though).>I think thats what he said. :) He is correct when he says that FS9 does not make use of the advanced features found on a 7800GTX.CheersShad

>>>You also said you have a GeForce 7800 GFX (GTX?) video>>card.>>>That's all good and well for games like Doom 3, FarCry or>>>Half-Life 2, which make extensive use of the latest>graphics>>>processing goodies. FS2004, however, is a "far cry" (pun>>>intended) from that. It does not take advantage of advanced>>>shaders, instancing (which would be great for autogen and>>>clouds) and what will you have.>>>>I had to laugh when I read that. Keeping in mind we are only>>talking about the videocard here, if his card is a 7800 GTX,>>then it should be PLENTY fast enough for this game.>>Recommending a "faster" videocard somewhat supports what the>>original poster is saying. lol>>>>7800 GTX videocards usually (depending on Manufacturer) have>a>>Core Clock of at leat 430 mhz and a Mem. Clock of at least>>1300 mhz. (a few have 1200 mhz Mem Clocks though).>>>>I think thats what he said. :) He is correct when he says that>FS9 does not make use of the advanced features found on a>7800GTX.>>Cheers>ShadYep, unfortinately, it also does not seem to take too much advantage of the cards speed either. Though I must say, my computer runs FS quite bit better with a lot of clouds around using a 7800 GTX.