Sign in to follow this  
Guest Allan Jones

Frame rate observation Fly v X-Plane

Recommended Posts

Yes, I'm still flying the same old Beige G3. As you know, I've spent most of my air time in X-Plane since upgrading to OSX. I gave up on solving the Fly! II control device problems under X and, frankly, can't remember the last time I booted into OS9.A few weeks ago, the GPU cooling fan on my Radeon started making ominous noises so I had it out for a few days. To keeping using X-Plane and some other apps that need more hardware acceleration than the on-board ATI Rage 64 chipset can provide, I reinstalled my old ATI Rage Orion 16MB vidcard while working out the problems with the Radeon fan.I used the Orion for beta-testing FlyII and until about 14 months ago, when I scored the Radeon 32MB. Back then, switching from the Orion to the Radeon had virtually no effect on FlyII frame rates, although I could set some of the view options a notch higher. (And, you old-timers may recall, upgrading my processor from 300 to 500 mHz had almost no effect on FlyII yet improved every other OpenGL program I had.) Downgrading to the older vidcard had an immediate and unpleasant effect on X-Plane.In X-Plane, you can set a minimum desired frame rate--default is 12.5 frames/sec. As the rates approach this setting, the sim starts cutting back on max vis distance to compensate; it does this on the fly--a cute trick. With this method, rates seldom reach the minimum except with very large aircraft with wild paint jobs. With the Radeon, in-cockpit rates with panel are around 17-18 fps (settings:1024x768; 32-bit color; "high" detail setting, which is, on a scale of 1 through seven, a four or five).When I installed the old Orion card, I reduced the detail setting one notch before running X-Plane. Even so, rates dropped precipitously to the 12.5 fps minimum, and likely less based on the choppiness. I reduced the detail setting even further and could not get good rates. As usually, setting color depth to 16-bit had no effect--this is said to be a characteristic of the ATI cards with many programs.Worried that something had gone dreadfully wrong with the installation, I hurried the bandaged Radeon back into the computer. Back to normal good performance.A bunch of us beta-testers had the discussion "way-back-when" about rates and OpenGL implementation. Rich Harvey contributed that FlyII relied heavily on front side bus speeds, and the Mac at that time had no faster than a 166 mHz FSB. Thus no one got great rates. This all leads me to think that a) Rich was right as always, and :( that X-Plane is much more dependent on VRAM than the processor for rates.I know this is a cross-sim subject, but I was sitting after work nursing a Henry Weinhart's (here's to you, Rich) and the results of tests over several years sort of coalesced to a conclusion. Maybe one of you young guys will do a sim some day and these observations may be of help.Regards,

Share this post


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

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