Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

Is It Fly! Faster than FS?

Recommended Posts

Hi,Please, this topic IS NOT to start a sim war, just a question that I have: Fly! runs better or worse than FS2k2 with same resolution? At least here in my computer Fly! wons but I

Share this post


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

You really can't compare just FPS. In FS I for example have the FPS set at 18 MAX so I couldn't get any more than that. This is my personal tradeoff between FPS and scenery quality, etc. You should really look at the overall smoothness, stutters, how low FPS dips in some extreme cases, etc. In this respect I get significantly better results with the FS though I would have hard time to quantify it. I still use FLY!2k which is probably the most fluid simulation I ever saw on my PC but FLY2 is definitely the worst. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settings vary too much. As you can see in my comparison to yours, I'm running higher detailed terrain and surface objects. FPS is 20+. and FS2002 resolution is 1600*1200*32. In my experience with both simulations, it's all a matter of where, terrain detail, etc. FLYII has a tendency to bog down more at detailed airports, than high above the terrain.Your pic again:http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d80cda35155e00d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Larry,I don't have 2002 so I'll not comment on fps. As you state FPS cannot be compared anyway as there are so many variables that affect it, and also that FPS is not the speed that the sim is running but merely the speed at which the software updates the info to the screen. What did draw my attention to this thread is that evidently in ms 2002 you can lock/limit the max FPS. I don't see the point of this; I mean what is the problem with just allowing the screen to update at whatever the program dictates?? Why limit it.?Cheers,Roger @YSSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>see the point of this; I mean what is the problem with just >allowing the screen to update at whatever the program >dictates?? Why limit it.? Roger,I personally think it makes a lot of sense. But first - in FS2002 you don't have to use the "limiter" - you can set the FPS to "unlimited".But the reason behind the option to limit the FPS is that instead of concentrating its power on keeping the FPS as high as possible the CPU can shift its resources to maintaing the scenery quality. If you specify unlimited FPS you may loose some scenery quality - this is how overloaded CPU will react. It makes perfect sense and I wish TRI had a similar scenery engine where you can set your priorities. Keeping aircraft flying is the most important task - the scenery update is definitely a less important task. In FLY these tasks seem to be on the same priority level causing a lot of stutter for some of us.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ALL.It seems that Fly! runs faster only with Nvidia cards, but FS runs better with all cards. BTW, Nice Panel Larry.Keyton Cabral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thank you ALL. >>It seems that Fly! runs faster only with Nvidia cards, but >FS runs better with all cards. >>BTW, Nice Panel Larry. >Thanks, and BTW----- I'm running a Nvidia Geforce3Ti500/Athlon1900XP

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