FPS reporting.....

[Guest dek]

Hey guys, will you please stop saying things like "I get 30-40 FPS....".This is absolutely meaningless unless all of your settings and hardware are known. If I turn all of the sliders down I can get over 100 FPS!Sorry, just a little request to clear things up.dek

[Guest Max Cowgill]

>Hey guys, will you please stop saying things like "I get >30-40 FPS....". >This is absolutely meaningless unless all of your settings >and hardware are known. If I turn all of the sliders down I >can get over 100 FPS! >Sorry, just a little request to clear things up. >dek And the point of this was? You do realize this will accomplish nothing, right? Those that state FPS without stating all system specs and settings used are going to continue to do so, while those that do state such specs/settings will continue to do so as well. Unless you're going to start some kind of "FPS Reporting Proper Procedures Awareness Campaign" your post is nothing more than complaining. BTW, you're guilty of doing exactly what you complained about when you said "If I turn all sliders down I get 100 FPS." I don't see your system specs or video settings/config file settings/in-sim settings listed anywhere... ;)Max Cowgill

[Guest dek]

Thanks for the response Max. I'm sorry my post upset you. Let me explain it to you since its not obvious to you. First, it bothers me because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the principles involved. Perhaps some people don't know this and I could set them straight. Second, I was not angry or nasty. This was my way of pointing out that there are many, many variables involved that must be accounted for if you want to draw conclusions regarding performance in FS2002.Third, maybe a chart or table showing what FPS people get with their specific setups isn't such a bad idea. I'll bet there is a lot of useful information about our settings that could be obtained. Why do 2 computers with the same hardware and software give different performances? I think we could all increase performance.Fourth, I did not state my system specs because there was no reason to state them. Practically any computer can get 100 FPS if all the sliders are set to the lowest settings.dek

[Guest]

Not mine!Pentium II 400 Mhz256K RAMGeForce2 MX400 64KBgwillmot

[Guest]

I do agree with him sounds like Bench Mark forum or soemthing like this would be cool.. used to be one :-)I get 13-18 on ground and 18-25 (Lock at 27FPS) in the air in Jet, vary playable low stutter pretty fluid as far as I can expect from my system with everything MAXed out.Everything MAX with lots AI but old non GMAX FS98 gearless aircraft of many liveries as AI Traffic. GMAX aircraft are painted in a way it KILLS my system FPS wise. No blurries or anything ugly like that. :-)Except:Mesh is at 50% and Visibility at 60milesLigting & Transform is off, reflections are off, shadows are offBi-linear filtering@1280x1024x32And sound is down to Basic acceleration through DXDIAG gives me big boost in performance.So if someone else with similar system was getting a lot more FPS I would wanna know his secret.Also usefull to look for what PC to clone next. :-)Cuz this P3 is really starting to swet.ASUS CUSL2Intell P3 866MHz384MR PC-133RAMGForce 2 256GTS 64MB DDR 23.12drivers2x20GB Quantum 7200 RPMSB LiveWindows XP Pro

[Guest]

I love it Max,You are the newly elected chair of the newly founded "FPS Reporting Proper Procedures Awareness Committee".As the committee head, what would you like us to do now?I share the headaches of the other poster and agree with his desire to quit with the "I get xxx fps" as these posts are quite meaningless without a frame of reference.There are so many debates about hardware these days that we might as well rename this the MSFS hardware forum :-lolBTW: Before you bash me too ;-)AMD 1.4c (oc'd depending on acceptable room temperature :-lol)MSI 6341 K7 Master-S rev 1.1 (bios 1.5)2x 256MB Crucial DDR CAS-2 (266MHz - not oc'd)GeForce 3 64MB (not oc'd)SB Live! digitalWD 80GB ATA-100AOpen 16/12/10 CDRWNEC 16X DVDSony CPD-G420S @ 1280x1024 32bb/120Hz (1600x1200 just doesn't look better so no point bothering even thought I can)and about 400 pounds of odds and ends after 20 years of this silly computer hobby...RayPS: I am always amazed by systems that generate in excess of 80 fps when monitor refresh rates are set to 60-70Hz ... I wonder how you see those other updates :-lol

[Guest]

Well I must agree that just reporting just FPS is not a contribution to anyone. If it was stated that I get 100 FPS with hardware and FS settings attached, then this is of sorts since it would be of interest to those who wish to duplicate the findings.Example #1. I get 100 FPS.Example #2. I get 100 FPS which is a 50% increase since I changed video drivers from xx.xx to xx.xxNow it very well could be that someone would post this not understanding the dependencies. This should be accompanied by a reply (gently) to try to determine his/her settings and at the same time (gently) to explain why the hardware and settings are an important part of the equation. We dont want to scare anyone off. Education is the key. Since we dont have an fs2k2 newbie forum then many questions like these need to be addressed with kindness. Dont forget, everyone at some point started at ground zero ???? BobG

[Guest Edam]

Other factors are:Which airport?How much AI traffic?Scenery enhancements with a lot of dynamic scenery?Added gates?And on and on...Dek is correct with his request. There are dozens of variables.

[Guest]

>Except: >Mesh is at 50% and Visibility at 60miles >Ligting & Transform is off, >>ASUS CUSL2 >Intell P3 866MHz >384MR PC-133RAM >GForce 2 256GTS 64MB DDR 23.12drivers >2x20GB Quantum 7200 RPM >SB Live >Windows XP Pro If you have GeForce 2 GTS as you say turn Transform & Lighting on, you should see big boost on performance.

[Guest Max Cowgill]

Thank you oh wise one for the lecture in FS2k2 performance! Why, before you came along and set me straight I was stumbling along in the dark without a clue or a light to save me but now I have seen the light! :-roll Your post didn't upset me, I don't take offense at statements that aren't even directed towards me in the first place. Since you mentioned gathering performance/system info (as though it were a new concept) I take it you are not aware of fsbench which is hosted by Avsim (www.avsim.com/fsbench). Granted, there is no FS2k2 benchmark (as of yet) but I and several others have mentioned creating one in these here forums!"Fourth, I did not state my system specs because there was no reason to state them. Practically any computer can get 100 FPS if all the sliders are set to the lowest settings."Eh, I hope you're exaggerating when you say this, or else you are truly misguided. I can show you plenty of systems that are not capable of running FS2k2 @100FPS or anything near that, but are quite capble of running virtually any consumer application with ease.Max Cowgill

[Guest Max Cowgill]

>I love it Max, >>You are the newly elected chair of the newly founded "FPS >Reporting Proper Procedures Awareness Committee". >>As the committee head, what would you like us to do now? >>I share the headaches of the other poster and agree with his >desire to quit with the "I get xxx fps" as these posts are >quite meaningless without a frame of reference. >>There are so many debates about hardware these days that we >might as well rename this the MSFS hardware forum :-lol LOL Ray! Folks, don't get me wrong here - I hate it when people make silly posts relaying their FPS but without any sort of qualifiers. The intent of my response to Dek's message was to relay the fact that his rant was futile. People are going to make "I get xx FPS in FS2k2" posts no matter what you do about it. Not everyone realizes that such statements are useless without lots of additional information. Not to bash newbies or anything but I would say that it is mostly the newbs who are guilty of this. Of course there are many FS and Avsim veterans who will do the same, but I think we can all agree that newbs are far more likely to do this. The only way to solve this is to either a) ban the newbs ;) or :( try to educate them. I prefer option a but I don't think that will ever happen (just kidding folks). Option b is quite a large undertaking though, and a never-ending task at that. Even if you tell every single member of this forum not to make useless posts regarding FS performance without qualifiers, there will always be some who will do it anyway, that's just human nature. just my 3.1415926535 centsMax Cowgill

[Guest]

You're right, but it won't help.Those who think fps are the holy grail ®© will not listen, just as they don't listen when people explain that framerates are not a godsend and numbers higher than 15-20 are pointless for FS as that provides quite fluent animation (and responses in milliseconds are not required in FS anyway).

[Vulcan 14]

Thanks to link to 'fsbench' Max, I hadn't stumbled across it before.Back in the good old days when Compuserve had a thriving FS community a similar project was started there by Ray Proudfoot with slight differences in the set-up.A quick look at fsbench seems like the user has to set up a lot of FS variables. The test scenario at CompuServe used a *.cfg file to set the variables as well as a default start point, the test was static, no actual flying involved.A performance database, based on a fixed starting point, can be invaluable in determining what upgrade to go for.

[Wolfko 0]

Max,Why are you so aggressive?Dek only requested something, which makes sense!

[Guest cornclose]

Everyone,There is an easy way to get what ever fps you want (almost). How ?Tweak away and reduce your sliders in various combinations until you reach the minimum fps you want in your worst case sim situation.Sounds stupid doesn't it, and it is. What irritates me the most is those who want fantastic fps and don't want to sacrifice anything else, such as detail or visual quality etc. Its all down to whats most important to you as a simmer.fps is always such a big issue, yet some folks just won't reduce the load they put on there system. So, just give it a try and see. You won't miss all that detail after a short while...Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)