Clouds size further fps gain (64x64 -> 16x16)

[fs9_2023 0]

Hello everyone. First time posting here.
I just tried to resize the small clouds from active sky from 64x64 to 16x16 and I gained ever more fps on this 15 year old laptop.

So, yes, if you thought 64x64 was small, try 16x16. I can now have 100% 3d clouds with full coverage running at around 18-22 fps (average). with 64px it dropped down to 8 to 10 fps.

To be fair the visual difference is not that huge and at 16x16 they still look like clouds.

If there is interest I can post some screenshots.

edit. obviously there is a visual difference but if you need performance and proper IFR flying through low hanging clouds etc. bad weather and all that, then yes, it does help a lot.
 

Edited April 24 by fs9_2023

[Luis Hernandez 663]

What laptop do you have? 15 years ago it was 2009, maybe you can do even better.

[fs9_2023 0]

🤣

for sure. soon I will get a proper rig. its an old HP elitebook, with an AMD gpu. it was a very good laptop for its' time and it runs fs2004 on almost highest settings, lets say 4/5.
the last fps hog were the clouds. i've tweaked pretty much everything else. i've made sure to use dxtfixer on all textures, fs9.cfg tweaks which had some actual effects. tried also many tweaks which did nothing so basically, this installation will move over to a more powerful computer and I can finally get 200 fps in KEWR in New York. I dont think I can squeeze out any more from this install.

 

edit: some screenshots with average fps encircled in green.

the last remaining fps hog is complex airport scenery. I really dont know how to go about improving that without removing detail or making the scenery unuseable. for now, its good enough as it is. the next step is stepping up in terms of hardware. in theory, this fs9 install should scale well when given the chance.

 

the difference in fps between screenshots is mostly due to zoom level field of view.

Edited April 26 by fs9_2023