Why I will never buy another Retail Add-on Aircraft...

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
add-on aircraft market:

1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
Aircraft
2. learn how to optimize GMax
3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly -- no
that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations key
set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on aircraft
5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just can't
handle it any more
8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these aircraft --
documentation is horrible and incomplete
9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite

Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your products
and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably, look great,
fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz
Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE,
WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!

Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
warned!!

Rob.

P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be more
clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn EVERYTHING off
or down".
32 answers Last reply
More about retail aircraft
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    IMHO, that sounds pretty reasonable. But then - I wasn't about to buy any
    aircraft. :-). I always did think that other add-on aircraft were of
    inferior quality to MS's. My main problem was that downloaded aircraft
    generally had different perormance in comparison to MS's - you know hwat I
    mean?

    jkb
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Rob, excellent points. Whilst I'm not a simmer, I spend a lot of my time
    helping out my dad (72) who spends 27x7 on FS2004. He buys a lot of add-ons
    and he often complains about the points you mention, albeit in a less
    technical way.

    I've lost count of the number of times I've had to rebuild his FS2004 or
    whole PC just to get decent frame rates back. Unfortunately it all goes
    wrong again when the next add-on is installed.

    I got so fed up with all this that I recommended he went for the fastest
    gaming system he could afford. So.. I specced up a PC with an ASUS A8N-E
    Motherboard, SATA, PCIEX16, AMD Athlon FX-55, 1GB PC3200 DDR400 RAM, nVidia
    6800 Ultra PCI Express, thinking that would knock any performance issues on
    the head.

    The results? Overall, the machine flies ('scuse pun) but he still only gets
    3-4FPS taxiing on Frankfurt Airport (FlightSim World Airports Vol2). This is
    significantly worse when the ground crew vehicles are enabled (can't
    rememeber what setting that is off the top of my head). How is it possible
    for the developers to have tested this product at with all quality settings
    at MAX? This type of hardware wasn't around when they wrote the add-on! Were
    they just 'hoping' it would perform OK? It beggars belief.

    Anway... the item my dad can most relate to is your point 8: 'Provide
    accurate step by step startup procedures for these aircraft -- documentation
    is horrible and incomplete'
    Amen to that one. Why do all the manuals seem to skip the most basic initial
    steps?

    Rant over. Let's hope the developers and magazine reviewers pick up on this
    feedback and start living in the real world.

    Andy.

    PS: I think what the magazines have is what's known as a clean 'image' or
    snapshot of their test PC that they can quickly load back on to the PC every
    time they test an add-on. This ensure they are only testing it with the bare
    minimum of ancilliary programs installed. This probably means no anti-virus,
    no FS2004 add-ons, no manufacturer's support tools, etc - anything that
    could possibly slow the PC down. Thus they start every test with a 'clean'
    PC and therefore have the ideal conditions for testing. This is obviously
    not the real world!


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
    > add-on aircraft market:
    >
    > 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
    > Aircraft
    > 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    > 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
    > no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    > 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations key
    > set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    > aircraft
    > 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    > 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    > 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    > can't handle it any more
    > 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these aircraft --
    > documentation is horrible and incomplete
    > 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >
    > Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    > products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably,
    > look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my
    > Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme
    > RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to
    > desktop nightmare!!
    >
    > Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
    > warned!!
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    > P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    > reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    > more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    > EVERYTHING off or down".
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
    such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want to
    fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
    > add-on aircraft market:
    >
    > 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
    > Aircraft
    > 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    > 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
    > no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    > 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations key
    > set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    > aircraft
    > 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    > 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    > 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    > can't handle it any more
    > 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these aircraft --
    > documentation is horrible and incomplete
    > 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >
    > Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    > products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably,
    > look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my
    > Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme
    > RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to
    > desktop nightmare!!
    >
    > Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
    > warned!!
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    > P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    > reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    > more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    > EVERYTHING off or down".
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    John,
    If I understand your comment correctly, and with all due respect, I think
    that's a little dismissive of Rob's observations and gripes. There are
    plenty of people who use payware and still don't get satisfactory frame
    rates.
    For example, my father has an Athlon FX-55 PC with NVIDIA 6800 PCI-X
    graphics card and immediately starts to get frame rate problems with his
    PMDG737NG. He flies *purely* for the love of navigation, so frame and detail
    rate isn't a huge issue when flying, but it IS an issue when landing. As you
    will undoubtedly know, any glitch, pause, or intolerable frame rate during
    landing will make it a white knuckle ride, as opposed to a controlled one.
    Flying and landing a standard MS plane is fine - because the FPS are well
    into the 30s at all times.Put simply, you can't blame poor frame rates
    simply on freeware or 'non-payware'.
    Andy.

    "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote:
    >I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
    >such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want
    >to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
    >> add-on aircraft market:
    >>
    >> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
    >> Aircraft
    >> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
    >> no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    >> aircraft
    >> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >> can't handle it any more
    >> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>
    >> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably,
    >> look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my
    >> Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme
    >> RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to
    >> desktop nightmare!!
    >>
    >> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
    >> warned!!
    >>
    >> Rob.
    >>
    >> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    >> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    >> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    >> EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?

    Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to an
    external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
    distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically don't
    let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you develop wings
    neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself which is more
    "game" like?

    So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest my
    observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
    substance.

    Rob.


    "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
    >such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want
    >to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
    >> add-on aircraft market:
    >>
    >> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
    >> Aircraft
    >> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
    >> no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    >> aircraft
    >> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >> can't handle it any more
    >> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>
    >> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably,
    >> look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my
    >> Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme
    >> RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to
    >> desktop nightmare!!
    >>
    >> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
    >> warned!!
    >>
    >> Rob.
    >>
    >> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    >> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    >> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    >> EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb who
    thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your comments
    seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market size which
    limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to matter what
    computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate erosion. The
    processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions get more complex.
    I believe many users have poor computer setups, insufficient memory and the
    wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find the default a/c operate a lot
    better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.

    Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may want
    to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it he may
    want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large community of
    heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your system. 4-5
    FPS should never happen with his machine

    John.


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >
    > Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
    > an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
    > distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
    > don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
    > develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
    > which is more "game" like?
    >
    > So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    > party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
    > my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
    > substance.
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    >
    > "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
    >>such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want
    >>to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>
    >>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
    >>> Aircraft
    >>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
    >>> no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    >>> aircraft
    >>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>> can't handle it any more
    >>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>
    >>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't
    >>> turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair
    >>> Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps
    >>> crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>
    >>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
    >>> warned!!
    >>>
    >>> Rob.
    >>>
    >>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    >>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    >>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    >>> EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    John,
    I guess some tweaking is in order, then. I'll take a look at AvSim. What I'd
    really like to know is whether setting AA or AF is best done at the graphics
    card driver level or within FS2004. There are simply too many settings and
    variables for the common man to take in!
    Andy

    PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
    you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
    reason.. ;-)

    > Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    > including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
    > want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it
    > he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
    > community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your
    > system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
    >
    > John.
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >>
    >> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
    >> an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
    >> distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
    >> don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
    >> develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
    >> which is more "game" like?
    >>
    >> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    >> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
    >> my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
    >> substance.
    >>
    >> Rob.
    >>
    >>
    >> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
    >>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
    >>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
    >>>> default Aircraft
    >>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
    >>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    >>>> aircraft
    >>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>>> can't handle it any more
    >>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>>
    >>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
    >>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
    >>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
    >>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
    >>>> been warned!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Rob.
    >>>>
    >>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    >>>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    >>>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    >>>> EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at CL2.5-3-3-7,
    ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K rpm SATA drives
    (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external Koolance water cooling
    units.

    My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
    seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
    cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software. However,
    with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG 737 and
    weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).

    I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
    polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
    1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
    these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
    resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious problems
    with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a 512MB of
    video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few programs
    that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it is perhaps
    the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.

    What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't work
    with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal &
    drinks.

    Rob.


    "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
    > who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
    > comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
    > size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
    > matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
    > erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
    > get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
    > insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find
    > the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.
    >
    > Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    > including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
    > want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it
    > he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
    > community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your
    > system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
    >
    > John.
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >>
    >> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
    >> an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
    >> distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
    >> don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
    >> develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
    >> which is more "game" like?
    >>
    >> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    >> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
    >> my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
    >> substance.
    >>
    >> Rob.
    >>
    >>
    >> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
    >>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
    >>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
    >>>> default Aircraft
    >>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
    >>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
    >>>> aircraft
    >>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>>> can't handle it any more
    >>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>>
    >>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
    >>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
    >>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
    >>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
    >>>> been warned!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Rob.
    >>>>
    >>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
    >>>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
    >>>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
    >>>> EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
    > you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
    > reason.. ;-)

    If it's me that is "jfb" :-). I'm not going to try any flaming. Not a very
    nice thing. So, John will be OK :-)).

    jkb

    PS: This isn't a flame.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
    work
    > with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal
    &
    > drinks.

    What else would you give them? :-)
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    A used Wireless G router (linksys), a used HD Sat receiver (samsung), a used
    Tivo Series 2, and Eclipse Car Stereo?? A CH products throttle -- (not
    quadrant, the Fighter Jet style one).

    To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
    all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
    suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely utilize
    both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
    Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked BIOS.


    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:esiCpdKiFHA.1460@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
    > work
    >> with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal
    > &
    >> drinks.
    >
    > What else would you give them? :-)
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
    > all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
    > suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely
    utilize
    > both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
    > Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked BIOS.

    I don't think I'll do that. After all a Sapphire Radeon 9250 AGP 8X isn't
    exactly a SLI-capable card. Besides - I go with ATi. You could try
    Crossfire. :-)

    jkb

    PS: Is the reward used parts that you don't use?
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Yes, they are used components that have been replaced with bigger better
    components with the latest go faster stripes. :)

    I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
    card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
    bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600 x
    1200.


    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:%23B4EK$KiFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >> To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
    >> all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
    >> suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely
    > utilize
    >> both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
    >> Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked
    >> BIOS.
    >
    > I don't think I'll do that. After all a Sapphire Radeon 9250 AGP 8X isn't
    > exactly a SLI-capable card. Besides - I go with ATi. You could try
    > Crossfire. :-)
    >
    > jkb
    >
    > PS: Is the reward used parts that you don't use?
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Always set up your AF and AA within the Graphics Card. You can still setup
    up bi-linear or tri-linear with FS without much effect on performance. It
    will help FS9 run much smoother.

    John


    "Andy" <andy.cippico@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42d625e3$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
    > John,
    > I guess some tweaking is in order, then. I'll take a look at AvSim. What
    > I'd really like to know is whether setting AA or AF is best done at the
    > graphics card driver level or within FS2004. There are simply too many
    > settings and variables for the common man to take in!
    > Andy
    >
    > PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
    > you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
    > reason.. ;-)
    >
    >> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    >> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
    >> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
    >> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
    >> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
    >> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
    >>
    >> John.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >>>
    >>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
    >>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
    >>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
    >>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
    >>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask
    >>> yourself which is more "game" like?
    >>>
    >>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    >>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
    >>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments
    >>> with no substance.
    >>>
    >>> Rob.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
    >>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
    >>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
    >>>>> default Aircraft
    >>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
    >>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every
    >>>>> add-on aircraft
    >>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>>>> can't handle it any more
    >>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
    >>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
    >>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
    >>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
    >>>>> been warned!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rob.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
    >>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
    >>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you
    >>>>> turn EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    I think we will have to wait for FS10 for it to be able to help you. I do
    envy your system though but wonder why it runs so slow even at that
    1600x1200 setting.

    John


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:e$KnN8JiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at CL2.5-3-3-7,
    > ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K rpm SATA
    > drives (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external Koolance
    > water cooling units.
    >
    > My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
    > seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
    > cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software.
    > However, with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG
    > 737 and weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).
    >
    > I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
    > polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
    > 1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
    > these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
    > resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious
    > problems with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a
    > 512MB of video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few
    > programs that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it
    > is perhaps the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.
    >
    > What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
    > work with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a
    > meal & drinks.
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    >
    > "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
    >> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
    >> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
    >> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
    >> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
    >> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
    >> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
    >> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find
    >> the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.
    >>
    >> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    >> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
    >> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
    >> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
    >> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
    >> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
    >>
    >> John.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >>>
    >>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
    >>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
    >>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
    >>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
    >>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask
    >>> yourself which is more "game" like?
    >>>
    >>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
    >>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
    >>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments
    >>> with no substance.
    >>>
    >>> Rob.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
    >>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
    >>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
    >>>>> default Aircraft
    >>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
    >>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
    >>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every
    >>>>> add-on aircraft
    >>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>>>> can't handle it any more
    >>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
    >>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
    >>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
    >>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
    >>>>> been warned!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rob.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
    >>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
    >>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you
    >>>>> turn EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
    > card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
    > bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600 x
    > 1200.

    I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
    single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
    512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was intending
    to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious reasons)
    but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's 512MB
    X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050223104659.html

    Glad it's ATi

    jkb
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it be
    released at all?

    I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out on
    my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.

    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
    >> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
    >> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600 x
    >> 1200.
    >
    > I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
    > single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
    > 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
    > intending
    > to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious reasons)
    > but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
    > 512MB
    > X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050223104659.html
    >
    > Glad it's ATi
    >
    > jkb
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on the
    video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
    either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
    quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
    Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
    card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.

    I run Ultimate Traffic set high, real weather using 3D cloulds set at 80
    miles and other stuff operating in the background. My PMDG operates nicely
    this way.

    The first two places I would check are my AGP Aperature (actually smaller is
    better than larger 64K works for most users), check to see that the latency
    of the Video Card is set low also for best performance. Lastly, I would
    make certain I had the latest Motherboard drivers and BIO's as sometimes the
    originals have a bug or two.

    Since you get good 3D mark scores, I would guess the difficulty may be in
    the FS settings. Try deleting your FS9 config file and let it rebuild. You
    won't lose anything and may gain a lot.

    John


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:OdCTX$MiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it
    > be released at all?
    >
    > I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out on
    > my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.
    >
    > "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    > news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
    >>> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
    >>> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600
    >>> x
    >>> 1200.
    >>
    >> I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
    >> single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
    >> 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
    >> intending
    >> to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious
    >> reasons)
    >> but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
    >> 512MB
    >> X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050223104659.html
    >>
    >> Glad it's ATi
    >>
    >> jkb
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on
    the
    > video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
    > either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
    > quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
    > Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
    > card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.

    For small texture programs - big VRAM will mean little or nothing. For a Big
    Texture program like FS2004 - big VRAM will mean a lot. VRAM is used to
    store textures. The more textures near(and therefore easily accesible to the
    VPU) - the more performance. FS2004 will like a lot of VRAM especially when
    set to use big textures.

    jkb
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    John, I have NOT seen many users run FS2004 at 1600 x 1200 and without you
    listing ALL (not just a few) the exact details of graphics card driver
    settings AND your FS 2004 graphics options, making fps comparisons has ZERO
    usefulness to you, me, or anyone reading. I see it all the time, people
    saying they get great fps and list a couple of details about their settings
    and when pushed for a complete list of details they disappear into the
    ether.

    I have a spreadsheet with fps comparisons on my system, I have over 60
    columns to hold the specific options available to the graphics card and FS
    2004 graphics options. Each option can have serious fps impact and
    sometimes not and sometimes it is a combination of options that pushes the
    graphics card over the top. But for the details I enjoy, I can assure you
    that video memory is the KEY in my situation (level of detail) as I can see
    the textures being swapped out and pulled into memory. But I'm not
    surprise, 1600 x 1200 requires A LOT bandwidth and video memory.

    I've deleted the FS9.CFG many times. I've also gone thru many of the
    optimzation settings I've discovered at AVSIM.

    I can make the PMDG 737 work well, but it requires some serious detuning of
    my graphics settings & FS 2004 settings. So much so, that it is
    unacceptable (especially when compared to the FS2004 default AC).


    "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:O8aoohNiFHA.1480@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on
    > the video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
    > either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
    > quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
    > Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
    > card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.
    >
    > I run Ultimate Traffic set high, real weather using 3D cloulds set at 80
    > miles and other stuff operating in the background. My PMDG operates
    > nicely this way.
    >
    > The first two places I would check are my AGP Aperature (actually smaller
    > is better than larger 64K works for most users), check to see that the
    > latency of the Video Card is set low also for best performance. Lastly, I
    > would make certain I had the latest Motherboard drivers and BIO's as
    > sometimes the originals have a bug or two.
    >
    > Since you get good 3D mark scores, I would guess the difficulty may be in
    > the FS settings. Try deleting your FS9 config file and let it rebuild.
    > You won't lose anything and may gain a lot.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:OdCTX$MiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it
    >> be released at all?
    >>
    >> I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out
    >> on my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.
    >>
    >> "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    >> news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the
    >>>> only
    >>>> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
    >>>> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600
    >>>> x
    >>>> 1200.
    >>>
    >>> I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
    >>> single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
    >>> 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
    >>> intending
    >>> to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious
    >>> reasons)
    >>> but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
    >>> 512MB
    >>> X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050223104659.html
    >>>
    >>> Glad it's ATi
    >>>
    >>> jkb
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Don't think FS10 will solve anything -- newer versions of FS in the past
    have never helped decrease my fps. Even if they code true threaded
    multi-CPU specific code, the issue isn't my Processor, it's the graphics
    card memory limitations.

    I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has been
    5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
    vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
    make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their SLI
    setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
    providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a single
    6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.

    Rob.

    "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:%23M468aNiFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >I think we will have to wait for FS10 for it to be able to help you. I do
    >envy your system though but wonder why it runs so slow even at that
    >1600x1200 setting.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:e$KnN8JiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at
    >> CL2.5-3-3-7, ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K
    >> rpm SATA drives (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external
    >> Koolance water cooling units.
    >>
    >> My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
    >> seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
    >> cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software.
    >> However, with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG
    >> 737 and weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).
    >>
    >> I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
    >> polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
    >> 1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
    >> these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
    >> resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious
    >> problems with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a
    >> 512MB of video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few
    >> programs that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it
    >> is perhaps the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.
    >>
    >> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
    >> work with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a
    >> meal & drinks.
    >>
    >> Rob.
    >>
    >>
    >> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
    >>> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
    >>> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
    >>> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
    >>> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
    >>> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
    >>> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
    >>> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't
    >>> find the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the
    >>> PMDG737NG.
    >>>
    >>> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
    >>> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
    >>> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
    >>> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
    >>> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
    >>> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
    >>>
    >>> John.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
    >>>>
    >>>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
    >>>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
    >>>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
    >>>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
    >>>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so
    >>>> ask yourself which is more "game" like?
    >>>>
    >>>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over
    >>>> 3rd party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
    >>>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic
    >>>> comments with no substance.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rob.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
    >>>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
    >>>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
    >>>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
    >>>>>> default Aircraft
    >>>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
    >>>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
    >>>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
    >>>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control
    >>>>>> configurations key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system
    >>>>>> for every add-on aircraft
    >>>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
    >>>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
    >>>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
    >>>>>> can't handle it any more
    >>>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
    >>>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
    >>>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
    >>>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
    >>>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
    >>>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB
    >>>>>> 500Mhz Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID
    >>>>>> system into a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
    >>>>>> been warned!!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Rob.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
    >>>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
    >>>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless
    >>>>>> you turn EVERYTHING off or down".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has
    been
    > 5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
    > vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
    > make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their SLI
    > setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
    > providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a single
    > 6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.

    You could try the 3DLabs Realizm 800. It has 640MB of 512-bit memory.
    Dual-VPU. AFAIK, standard VC's only have 256-bit VRAM - double bandwidth. A
    separate geometry processor. Texture sizes up to 4000x4000. However - it
    seems to cost a lot and probably takes up a lot of case-space. Go here for
    more info: http://content.3dlabs.com/Datasheets/realizm800.pdf. It's pretty
    impressive.

    jkb
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    The nVidia 7800GTX is out, but again no 512MB version -- Single 7800 shows
    about 25% increase in fps, without that 512MB I bet as soon as textures
    overload it the same issues will happen as do with my ATI X800XT PE.

    The 3DLabs units are nice, but will they work well with FS2004? They are
    optimized for CAD/3D rendering so I don't know how well they'll perform for
    games/sim like FS2004.

    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:Ov9MB2WiFHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has
    > been
    >> 5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
    >> vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
    >> make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their
    >> SLI
    >> setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
    >> providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a
    >> single
    >> 6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.
    >
    > You could try the 3DLabs Realizm 800. It has 640MB of 512-bit memory.
    > Dual-VPU. AFAIK, standard VC's only have 256-bit VRAM - double bandwidth.
    > A
    > separate geometry processor. Texture sizes up to 4000x4000. However - it
    > seems to cost a lot and probably takes up a lot of case-space. Go here for
    > more info: http://content.3dlabs.com/Datasheets/realizm800.pdf. It's
    > pretty
    > impressive.
    >
    > jkb
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > The 3DLabs units are nice, but will they work well with FS2004? They are
    > optimized for CAD/3D rendering so I don't know how well they'll perform
    for
    > games/sim like FS2004.

    They do full-hardware support for DX9, and I reckon that's what counts.
    FS2004 uses DX9. CAD people will use them because of there high-performance.
    If I had the money and wanted ultra game performance - 3DLabs Wildcat
    Realizm would be my choice.

    jkb
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Full-hardware support for DX9 may not necessarily mean full DX9 feature
    support. It just means the card is compatible with DX9 and it may or may
    not accelerate the various features that are included in DX9.

    Too bad FS2004 isn't SLI compatible, that would solve A LOT of issues at
    1600 x 1200.


    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:%23J6Tj36iFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> The 3DLabs units are nice, but will they work well with FS2004? They are
    >> optimized for CAD/3D rendering so I don't know how well they'll perform
    > for
    >> games/sim like FS2004.
    >
    > They do full-hardware support for DX9, and I reckon that's what counts.
    > FS2004 uses DX9. CAD people will use them because of there
    > high-performance.
    > If I had the money and wanted ultra game performance - 3DLabs Wildcat
    > Realizm would be my choice.
    >
    > jkb
    >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > Full-hardware support for DX9 may not necessarily mean full DX9 feature
    > support. It just means the card is compatible with DX9 and it may or may
    > not accelerate the various features that are included in DX9.

    OK, my mistake - I meant full-feature support. Look here:
    http://www.3dlabs.com/products/product.asp?prod=293&page=1. Browse around
    and look at the datasheet.
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Found a review that was interesting

    "Until we are able to test the top-of-the-line NVIDIA and ATI graphics
    cards, the Wildcat Realizm 800 is on the top of the heap. But keep in mind
    that game developers will still prefer an NVIDIA or ATI based solution for
    their superior DirectX support. Hopefully after we get the rest of the cards
    together, our full review will be as interesting as our first look. Stay
    tuned!"

    DX has always been a weakness for these cards.


    "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
    news:OqXAYp%23iFHA.3336@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Full-hardware support for DX9 may not necessarily mean full DX9 feature
    >> support. It just means the card is compatible with DX9 and it may or may
    >> not accelerate the various features that are included in DX9.
    >
    > OK, my mistake - I meant full-feature support. Look here:
    > http://www.3dlabs.com/products/product.asp?prod=293&page=1. Browse around
    > and look at the datasheet.
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > DX has always been a weakness for these cards.

    Who said that? I'd like to read that. TIA. DX being a weak point for a card
    like that sounds funny.
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    Sounds about right to me -- DX is often limited and/or can't do what these
    high end cards require/support. That's why game developers don't look at
    them when coding for DX platforms.

    Doesn't mean the card is weak, just means it's focused on specific
    tasks/programs and those programs are not games/sims. It sure looks like
    CAD and 3D rendering is the focus of these cards 4Kx4K textures.

    Do a google search on "realizm 800 review" -- you'll find articles.

    I may end up just getting SLI setup using the new 7800GTX and just disable
    one card when running FS9, probably go with FX55 or FX57 CPU. FS9 also
    doesn't seem to make use of memory above 1GB -- at least I haven't seen my
    physical go above 1GB yet (sysmon). Since I'm having g2d.dll crashes to
    desktop with FS9 now, it might be time to try an upgrade anyway.

    "jkb" <nospam> wrote in message
    news:u9VXrRMjFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> DX has always been a weakness for these cards.
    >
    > Who said that? I'd like to read that. TIA. DX being a weak point for a
    > card
    > like that sounds funny.
    >
    >
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > Sounds about right to me -- DX is often limited and/or can't do what these
    > high end cards require/support. That's why game developers don't look at
    > them when coding for DX platforms.

    DX isn't up to the workstation cards quality, yes. But the WCs should be
    able to take DX like a breeze and wish for more.

    > I may end up just getting SLI setup using the new 7800GTX and just disable
    > one card when running FS9, probably go with FX55 or FX57 CPU. FS9 also
    > doesn't seem to make use of memory above 1GB -- at least I haven't seen my
    > physical go above 1GB yet (sysmon). Since I'm having g2d.dll crashes to
    > desktop with FS9 now, it might be time to try an upgrade anyway.

    You could try ATi's Crossfire and 2 256MB X850s. I don't know how good
    Crossfire is in comparison to SLI, maybe a Google search would bring results
    and reviews.
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    I'll look into that.

    I was able to solve my crash to desktop with g2d.dll error -- had to turn
    ATI Overdrive OFF and stability returned.


    "jkb" <nospam> wrote in message
    news:OpPynYXjFHA.3972@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >> Sounds about right to me -- DX is often limited and/or can't do what
    >> these
    >> high end cards require/support. That's why game developers don't look at
    >> them when coding for DX platforms.
    >
    > DX isn't up to the workstation cards quality, yes. But the WCs should be
    > able to take DX like a breeze and wish for more.
    >
    >> I may end up just getting SLI setup using the new 7800GTX and just
    >> disable
    >> one card when running FS9, probably go with FX55 or FX57 CPU. FS9 also
    >> doesn't seem to make use of memory above 1GB -- at least I haven't seen
    >> my
    >> physical go above 1GB yet (sysmon). Since I'm having g2d.dll crashes to
    >> desktop with FS9 now, it might be time to try an upgrade anyway.
    >
    > You could try ATi's Crossfire and 2 256MB X850s. I don't know how good
    > Crossfire is in comparison to SLI, maybe a Google search would bring
    > results
    > and reviews.
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (More info?)

    > I was able to solve my crash to desktop with g2d.dll error -- had to turn
    > ATI Overdrive OFF and stability returned.

    Good for you.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games