Aircraft design and FPS

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I have many freeware payware aircraft. Even on my 'old' PC I can get a rock
steady 22 fps with the Dreamfleet A36.

Yet some 'less' complex aircraft seem to jerk and cause my fps to drop.

What causes these differences - just bad programming?

Clive

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:03:39 +0100, "Clive" <someone@nospam.com>
brought the following to our attention:

>I have many freeware payware aircraft. Even on my 'old' PC I can get a rock
>steady 22 fps with the Dreamfleet A36.
>
>Yet some 'less' complex aircraft seem to jerk and cause my fps to drop.
>
>What causes these differences - just bad programming?
>
>Clive
>

There was a discussion some time ago about framerate.. whether it
was effected more by MDL size (in MB) or total Texture size.

Large .mdl files (2.5MB or greater) typically come with lots of
textures and can hit framerate more than a smaller .mdl (785KB)
with reduced textures.

As an example.. one livery could use numerous 4 or 5 MB 32-bit
textures in addition to dozens of smaller ones. OTOH a small .mdl
with DXT1 textures at 512x512 pix (129k each) would be less of
a graphics `load'.

Any examples to mention / discuss?


-g

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Gregory" <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:74mqe19ur4bg805v1ti5f19i51jap9h8cg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:03:39 +0100, "Clive" <someone@nospam.com>
> brought the following to our attention:
>
>>I have many freeware payware aircraft. Even on my 'old' PC I can get a
>>rock
>>steady 22 fps with the Dreamfleet A36.
>>
>>Yet some 'less' complex aircraft seem to jerk and cause my fps to drop.
>>
>>What causes these differences - just bad programming?
>>
>>Clive
>>
>
> There was a discussion some time ago about framerate.. whether it
> was effected more by MDL size (in MB) or total Texture size.
>
> Large .mdl files (2.5MB or greater) typically come with lots of
> textures and can hit framerate more than a smaller .mdl (785KB)
> with reduced textures.
>
> As an example.. one livery could use numerous 4 or 5 MB 32-bit
> textures in addition to dozens of smaller ones. OTOH a small .mdl
> with DXT1 textures at 512x512 pix (129k each) would be less of
> a graphics `load'.
>
> Any examples to mention / discuss?
>
>
> -g
>
I like the Dreamfleet Bonanza A36 - good frame rates, yet excellent 'eye
candy'.

I also like the Flight 1 PC12 - but even though the graphics seem a little
less 'pleasing' to the eye, I can't get it to run without 'jerking and frame
rate hopping from single figures to low teens

Clive

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:31:56 +0100, "Clive" <someone@nospam.com>
brought the following to our attention:

>
>"Gregory" <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:74mqe19ur4bg805v1ti5f19i51jap9h8cg@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:03:39 +0100, "Clive" <someone@nospam.com>
>> brought the following to our attention:
>>
>>>I have many freeware payware aircraft. Even on my 'old' PC I can get a
>>>rock
>>>steady 22 fps with the Dreamfleet A36.
>>>
>>>Yet some 'less' complex aircraft seem to jerk and cause my fps to drop.
>>>
>>>What causes these differences - just bad programming?
>>>
>>>Clive
>>>
>>
>> There was a discussion some time ago about framerate.. whether it
>> was effected more by MDL size (in MB) or total Texture size.
>>
>> Large .mdl files (2.5MB or greater) typically come with lots of
>> textures and can hit framerate more than a smaller .mdl (785KB)
>> with reduced textures.
>>
>> As an example.. one livery could use numerous 4 or 5 MB 32-bit
>> textures in addition to dozens of smaller ones. OTOH a small .mdl
>> with DXT1 textures at 512x512 pix (129k each) would be less of
>> a graphics `load'.
>>
>> Any examples to mention / discuss?
>>
>>
>> -g
>>
>I like the Dreamfleet Bonanza A36 - good frame rates, yet excellent 'eye
>candy'.
>
>I also like the Flight 1 PC12 - but even though the graphics seem a little
>less 'pleasing' to the eye, I can't get it to run without 'jerking and frame
>rate hopping from single figures to low teens
>
>Clive
>
>

IIRC.. there was a post (or reply to thread) by Fr Bill about frame-
rate and textures, etc. Perhaps do a newsgroup search.. it might
have been a year ago!

-g

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Gregory" <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:74mqe19ur4bg805v1ti5f19i51jap9h8cg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:03:39 +0100, "Clive" <someone@nospam.com>
> brought the following to our attention:
>
>>I have many freeware payware aircraft. Even on my 'old' PC I can get a
>>rock
>>steady 22 fps with the Dreamfleet A36.
>>
>>Yet some 'less' complex aircraft seem to jerk and cause my fps to drop.
>>
>>What causes these differences - just bad programming?
>>
>>Clive
>>
>
> There was a discussion some time ago about framerate.. whether it
> was effected more by MDL size (in MB) or total Texture size.
>
> Large .mdl files (2.5MB or greater) typically come with lots of
> textures and can hit framerate more than a smaller .mdl (785KB)
> with reduced textures.
>
> As an example.. one livery could use numerous 4 or 5 MB 32-bit
> textures in addition to dozens of smaller ones. OTOH a small .mdl
> with DXT1 textures at 512x512 pix (129k each) would be less of
> a graphics `load'.
>
> Any examples to mention / discuss?
>
>
> -g
>
I like the Dreamfleet Bonanza A36 - good frame rates, yet excellent 'eye
candy'.

I also like the Flight 1 PC12 - but even though the graphics seem a little
less 'pleasing' to the eye, I can't get it to run without 'jerking and frame
rate hopping from single figures to low teens

Clive