FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Chicago O'Hare for FS9 => Topic started by: gmcg on July 29, 2012, 11:49:36 pm
-
Hi there,
I'm a new member and have a question about adding the default terminal's 2 and 3 back to KORD :o
I've tired everything to get the FPS up to where I have them locked and restored to finally removing the .bgls for Terminal 2/3 since I never use those gates and they seemed to be where I experience the greatest FPS hit. It seemed to work for the most part (now I get 25 FPS while having it locked at 29 compared to 20ish before) but now I have a vacant area and wonder if I could get the default FS2004 scenery back for that to make it look a little better.
Also, was wondering if there is a list available of all the .bgls in the scenery folder so I know what they are and such? I only figured out the terminal .bgls since they had T2 and T3 in their name. Finally, is there anything else I can do to make the FPS go up to 29 like I have them locked at? I've tried everything. Settings in my graphics card, changing the textures to DXT3 and then DXT1, and removing .bgls as well.
Thanks!
-
Sorry, but we can't support such modifications. Your fps are abnormally slow, so they surely aren't caused by KORD scenery but, most likely, too many AI. KORD is very well known to be fairly light on fps, and nobody really complained about it.
Instead of destroying the airport, try to lower your AI first.
-
Don't use AI and all my FS2004 settings are on minimum. My system can peak out at 60-100+ FPS but I like to keep it locked at 29 so it doesn't work as hard. So don't give me that "KORD isn't the issue blah blah" stuff. KORD FSDT is the only scenery I use that gets poor FPS close to the terminals. It gets up to 29 when I'm away from buildings. All other FSDT products I have work very well too (expect for KLAX and I returned it).
I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh but I've been tweaking/messing with KORD for months before I even decided to join the forums and the general tone I get from FSDT is that it isn't their fault ???
Do you have any other suggestions? I've literally probably tired it all before though.
-
Don't use AI and all my FS2004 settings are on minimum. My system can peak out at 60-100+ FPS but I like to keep it locked at 29 so it doesn't work as hard. So don't give me that "KORD isn't the issue blah blah" stuff. KORD FSDT is the only scenery I use that gets poor FPS close to the terminals. It gets up to 29 when I'm away from buildings. All other FSDT products I have work very well too (expect for KLAX and I returned it)
Since KORD is very well known for not being fps heavy, it's fairly obvious you either have a system problem or something else is interfering.
I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh but I've been tweaking/messing with KORD for months before I even decided to join the forums and the general tone I get from FSDT is that it isn't their fault ???
Because it obviously isn't, and if you made a bit of research around the various flight sim forums on the good reputation for fps ALL our sceneries have (with the exclusion of KLAX for FS9, that wasn't really made for FS9 in mind, and is not as fast as our other sceneries), and especially KORD, you would have had poof of this.
But of course, you don't have to take my word for it, just have a look at the attached screenshots on my system. As you can see, with the framerate locked at 30 fps, the scenery can keep with it easily, and it goes at 40 unlocked, without removing anything.
This, compared to your reported 20ish figure with all the scenery in.
So, if my system, which is not really the most adequate for FS9 ( it's a MacPro 8 core @ 2.66, but since FS9 doesn't really use more than one, it's similar to a 2.66 Core Duo, and the graphic card is an ATI 4870 with 512 MB, so it's almost obsolete by now ), runs DOUBLE the fps you are reporting, it's clear the problem is NOT the scenery, but something else you installed.
Do you have any other suggestions? I've literally probably tired it all before though.
Have you tried searching for other sceneries around ? Do you have FlyTampa Midway, for example ?
-
FSDT KORD is the only only scenery where I get the less than what I have locked when near terminals. All other payware scenery (including Hawaii Vol 1/2, PHNL, and yes Fly Tampa KMDW ) could max out at 60+ FPS near the terminal if I allowed my computer to do it. Same add-on aircraft is used as the constant.
It seemed I even got better FPS with KORD version 1. My biggest hit with terminal's 2/3 bgls installed is at gate B1 and around the Hilton and then into Terminal 2/3. I've even noticed a hit when a animated vehicle cuts me off.
No other KORD scenery is installed (unless version 1 is conflicting with version 2 somehow), all drives are up to date, and all my textures for ORD have been downgraded to DXT3.
-
Plus again.... I get good FPS away from the buildings. It is when I get up close parked at the gate or taxing in to the southport that it starts to drop.
-
FSDT KORD is the only only scenery where I get the less than what I have locked when near terminals
Fact is, you are the only one reporting this, we had many reports of low fps with KLAX (due to how its being made) or maybe JFK (because it lies in a very fps heavy area already), but not really KORD.
my textures for ORD have been downgraded to DXT3.
That wouldn't be a "downgrade" or a good idea anyway. First, because DXT3 is NOT a downgrade, it might be in case a scenery or airplane was wrongly made with 32 bit textures so, by compressing to DXT3, you are reducing size and gain speed COMPARED to the original 32 bit format.
But KORD, since is very well know to be fps friendly, it's ALREADY optimized, since there are no 32 bit textures to reduce, and some textures are in DXT1 and others are in DXT3 which means, if you think to have downgraded them, you instead simply recompressed at the same size (losing visual quality, because it's wrong to recompress something which was already compressed) those that were already in DXT3, and *increased* their size in case they were in DXT1
The rule is: if a texture has an Alpha channel, it must be DXT3, if it doesn't or the Alpha channel can be expressed with 1 bit (just black and white), it must be DXT1.
Remove everything, including your modified textures, and try the scenery as it is.
And, try to reduce the "Max textures size" parameter one notch to the left. This will let you know if the problem with your system is related to texture memory.
-
I only changed the non-DXT3 textures to DXT3. Also I forgot to mention that I get a decrease at JFK as well but not as bad for some reason. In addition to everything else.... I'm running on a relatively fresh install of FS2004 too. I had KORD V2 on my old install and had maybe only slightly better FPS. Then again I was using AS6.5 compared to ASE now (and yes I've tested without ASE turned on to rule that program out).
Why do you mean by "try to reduce the 'Max textures size' parameter one notch to the left." All my FS2004 settings are on minimal now and I've not seen that option in the display settings.
???
-
I get a decrease at JFK as well but not as bad for some reason
KORD is *definitely* faster than JFK
I only changed the non-DXT3 textures to DXT3
That's exactly what I've said: since the only non-DXT3 textures are in DXT1, you have actually *increased* their size for nothing, and lowered the quality, because recompressing an already compressed image, will lower its quality.
Why do you mean by "try to reduce the 'Max textures size' parameter one notch to the left." All my FS2004 settings are on minimal now and I've not seen that option in the display settings.
It's on the "Hardware" tab. Sorry, but can't believe you are getting so low performances, with "all settings on minimal".
-
KORD is *definitely* faster than JFK
That may very well but the worst I saw at JFK was 26 locked at 29 and that was near the terminal at night after a 6 hour flight.
That's exactly what I've said: since the only non-DXT3 textures are in DXT1, you have actually *increased* their size for nothing, and lowered the quality, because recompressing an already compressed image, will lower its quality.
I know for a fact that there was some 16 bit textures in the folder. I wouldn't have changed anything if it was all DXT3 or DXT1
It's on the "Hardware" tab. Sorry, but can't believe you are getting so low performances, with "all settings on minimal".
Why would I make this up :o ::)
I'll post a picture of my settings later tonight or tomorrow to prove it.
-
That may very well but the worst I saw at JFK was 26 locked at 29 and that was near the terminal at night after a 6 hour flight.
Which clearly proves you (modified) KORD installation have problems that are relevant to your system only, because that KORD is faster than JFK is widely known.
I know for a fact that there was some 16 bit textures in the folder. I wouldn't have changed anything if it was all DXT3 or DXT1
You are now confusing bit depth with compression format. DXT1 IS 16 bit, because colors are encoded with 5:6:5, 5 bits for Red, 6 for Green, 5 for Blue and 1 bit of Alpha, which totals exactly 16 bit.
What you were trying to say, probably, is that you believe some textures came in 16 bit uncompressed format. But this is not the case, from the original installer as we distribute, there are NO NON-DXT textures in the KORD texture folder, not a single one. Some of them are in DXT1, some are in DXT3.
So, exactly as I've said (twice) by "reducing" everything to DXT3, you haven't reduced anything but, instead, have increased the size (for nothing) of all the former DXT1 textures into DXT3.
As I've said before, if a texture has an Alpha channel that is just black and white, so it can be expressed with 1 bit, it will be a waste of both space and speed using DXT3.
AND, if a texture doesn't even have an Alpha channel to begin with, using DXT3 will cause slowdowns and stuttering, you HAVE to use DXT1 for it, and since you "reduced" everything to DXT3, without taking into account how the source texture was, this might explain some performance problems.
I'll repeat it again: there are no 16-bit uncompressed textures in KORD as we distribute it. And this can be easily proven by clean installing the current installer, taking care to *remove* the texture folder before installing, otherwise your new modified textures will not be overwritten, and you might be misled thinking they are in 16 bit mode, when they were probably a result of some tweaks you tried, which you might have forgotten. OR, if you used some kind of batch utility to do this, they might have been temporary files created by that utility to convert back and forth, but they are NOT coming from our installer, this is for sure.
I'll post a picture of my settings later tonight or tomorrow to prove it.
It's not that I don't *believe* you have these settings, it's that you SHOULD'T get these performance with "all settings to minimal" as you said. But this is not even relevant to KORD: you said your system can run at 50-60 fps ? Well, if that figure is with "all settings to minimal", then something is VERY wrong with your system, or it's very old, because FS9 with "all settings to minimal", should run WAY faster than that.
-
I know it should with FS2004 and I was getting these FPS values before I started messing with everything..... hence why I started messing around in the first place.
What do you suggest? Do a complete scrub of KORD and re-install in? I'll do it again but I'm 99% positive the same result is going to occur. Will report back.
Thank you for at least being prompt with the responses. So many forums lack that 8)
-
What do you suggest? Do a complete scrub of KORD and re-install in? I'll do it again but I'm 99% positive the same result is going to occur. Will report back.
That should be the first thing to try, at least we would discuss about the same set of files.
Thank you for at least being prompt with the responses. So many forums lack that 8)
We have a reputation for fast support (see my message count), which goes well with our reputation to do fps-friendly sceneries, like KORD...:)
-
Downloaded a new version of FSDT KORD V2 like you asked. The FPS went downhill really fast compared to my previous install and even KORD V1.
Here is a boat load of screen shots. I will agree that somehow the EHSI on the LDS767 in the 2-D panel might be playing some role since I'm using a fresh install. My old version of FS2004 and LDS 757/767 never had this issue. Yet then it has to be FSDT KORD mostly since I've shown that I can get the FPS to improve using different textures and/or removing a .BGL.
Any ideas? I'm kinda getting desperate now ???
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/78261179.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 1(4)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/73719453.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 2(4)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/60352064.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 3(4)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/75319279.jpg/
FS2004 Settings 4(4)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/capture1zn.jpg
GeForce 210 Settings 1(2)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/capture2sz.jpg
GeForce 210 Settings 2(2)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/50984296.jpg
Task Manager with FS2004 running at KORD
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/capture4bn.jpg
2-D Panel sitting on 28
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/capture5qg.jpg
VFR View sitting on 28
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/capture6g.jpg
2-D Panel sitting near the AA Gates
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/capture7ww.jpg
VFR View sitting near the AA Gates
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/capture8r.jpg
Worst FPS area.... 2-D Panel at the Southport looking at B1/Hilton/Terminal 2
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/capture9a.jpg
Worst FPS area.... VFR View at the Southport looking at B1/Hilton/Terminal 2
-
Would a new Graphics Card help? More RAM?
I'm lost at this point.....
-
There's a switch in your settings which might potentially affect fps a lot, the "Transform & Lighting" is switched off, try to turn it on. And, turn the number of hardware lights to the maximum too.
I get much better fps (as you can clearly see in my screenshots) with *everything* maxed out to the right...so your system clearly has problems.
And, of course, when trying to understand the fps of a *SCENERY* ALWAYS use a default airplane.
-
I already tried transform lighting...... I guess I could try it again with the lights maxed out and see what happens.
Whether you want to believe me or not, my computer literally just came out of the shop and had a diagnostic check with a clean bill of health.
Who cares about default aircraft? I too can probably get 60+ FPS in the default 777. Doesn't do me any good since I only use the LDS757/767 and that should be the true benchmark :o
What is your opinion on my graphics card? Again, its a GeForce 210 (I'm 50% positive its not the best for gaming).
-
OK what now ???
I just installed a NVIDA 9800 GTX+ 1GB and am still getting only 23FPS (Locked at 28) in some places in the middle of the B/C concourse. And this is with Term2/3 not installed.
Some might say 23 in only "some" parts is playable but I don't want to give up that easily after spending $120 on a used 9800 GTX+
-
First, nobody suggested that your video card wasn't good enough or that your problem was caused by your video card.
Since the screenshots I've posted from my system (which is now has a lesser video card than your new one) shows an higher fps, it's fairly obvious the problem is not your video card, or the scenery, but something else in your system.
And, you are wrong stating that "I only use the LDS757/767 and that should be the true benchmark", because this way you have lost the ability to assess performances, because you can't possibly know if the problem is the airplane or the scenery.
As I've said, FIRST test with a default airplane and THEN (in exactly the same spot) test with the airplane you are using most, and check the DIFFERENCE, so you can at least understand WHY you are losing fps.
You might also try to UNLOCK the fps, and 28 it's a number that doesn't make any sense anyway, because fps should be locked to a number that is aligned to the screen refresh rate so, for a standard 60 hz refresh rate, it would be better locking at 30 fps (or 20 fps). And, some users prefer to leave the fps unlocked in Flight sim, and use an external utility to lock the fps.
-
Put a new CPU in...... works fine.
My next question though now is stuff in the distance sort of looks jittery when I make a turn. Its almost like my screen lags even though the computer is holding its FPS no problems. Like its "tearing" the image in half making it look like its lagging. Any ideas what could be causing this? In addition, my taxi lines look like crap. So I'm wondering if there is a setting(s) I could change within Nvidia Inspector that could fix both b/c I really feel the two are related.
I hope I'm explaining if well. But its like a wave that develops when I make sharp turns and makes the buildings in the distance looking like they are lagging behind and unclear. I even tried 30FPS since my monitor refresh rate is 60Hz and get this "slicing wave" issue.
Please help and thanks!
http://imageshack.us/a/img231/4030/capture1zm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img231/4030/capture1zm.jpg)
Terrible, blocky looking taxi lines
http://imageshack.us/a/img525/5607/capture4gp.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img525/5607/capture4gp.jpg)
Nvidia Settings
-
Like its "tearing" the image in half making it look like its lagging. Any ideas what could be causing this?
Tearing is the correct term, and it means you don't have VSync enabled. Sometimes is tricky to have it enabled, sometimes it works only in full screen mode, and it's dependent on driver settings, releases and tweaks applied.
In addition, my taxi lines look like crap. So I'm wondering if there is a setting(s) I could change within Nvidia Inspector that could fix both b/c I really feel the two are related.
No, they aren't. Jagged lines are due to a lack of antialiasing, try to set the video card to "Force" the Antialiasing, instead of "set by the application"
I even tried 30FPS since my monitor refresh rate is 60Hz and get this "slicing wave" issue.
That's vsync not enabled, and you shouldn't lock your fps. Enable vsync and keep the fps unlimited.
-
Will try
-
Alright I'm literally driving myself nuts...... I need to get the FPS up in these few areas with the LDS767 panel. That is the only way I can enjoy it. I had them up and locked for a while with my old fs9.cfg file but the changes I made are only suppose to improve performance, not downgrade it.
Any suggestions? Could FSDT release a "lighter" texture or a lighter .bgl version? I would be whiling to re-buy the product, if I knew it would preform like Hawaii does for me, at this point since I'm literally going bonkers :o
I don't believe my configuration is off since ORD is the only issue. Everything else is smooth as silk. Here is my FS9.CFG and Nvidia settings. I need to get the performance up all over the airport.... I'd even been cool with like 28 locked at 30 in these areas at this point if we can't get all 30 back (I don't see why we can't though with my rig and settings) Please help :'(
[PANELS]
IMAGE_QUALITY=1
UNITS_OF_MEASURE=0
QUICKTIPS=0
PANEL_MASKING=1
PANEL_STRETCHING=1
[Weather]
WindshieldPrecipitationEffects=1
MinGustTime=10
MaxGustTime=500
MinGustRampSpeed=1
MaxGustRampSpeed=200
MinVarTime=5
MaxVarTime=50
MinVarRampSpeed=10
MaxVarRampSpeed=75
TurbulenceScale=1.000000
DefaultVisibility=0
DynWx_MedianDewPointSpread=10.000000
DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMedianDewPoint=0.000500
DynWx_MaxDewPointSpread=50.000000
DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMaxDewPoint=0.000125
DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMinDewPoint=0.100000
DynWx_DryTempLapsePer1000Meters=9.000000
DynWx_ProbCloudFormForDryTempLapse=0.000500
DynWx_MoistTempLapsePer1000Meters=3.300000
DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMoistTempLapse=0.040000
DynWx_MaxProbCloudChangePerMinute=0.040000
DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelMild=0.500000
DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelNormal=1.000000
DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelHigh=3.000000
DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelExtreme=10.000000
DynWx_TempChangePercentageForOvercastClouds=0.750000
DynWx_TempChangePercentageForMinDewPoint=0.700000
DynWx_MaxTempChangePerMinute=0.060000
WeatherServerAddress=fs2k.zone.com
WeatherServerPort=80
WeatherGraphDataInDialog=0
DynamicWeather=2
LOADWEATHER=1
MAX_UNLIMITED_VIS=96560
CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=4
3D_CLOUD_PERCENT=90
DETAILED_CLOUDS=1
CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=6
CloudsImpostorRingRadius=57600.000000
[INTERNATIONAL]
ASLAT=2
ASLON=1
MEASURE=0
[MISC]
COM_RATE=7
LOG_TIME=0
FOREIGN_TRANSLATOR=0
LOG_FILE=
[STARTUP]
DEMO=0
LOADSIM=1
LOADWINDOW=1
SHOW_OPENING_SCREEN=1
STARTUP_DEMO=
[GRAPHICS]
FULL_SCREEN=0
PERFORMANCE_MODE=0
DEF_PERF_MODE=6
TEXT_SCROLL=0
AUTO_LOD=0
DETAIL_TEXTURE=2
WATER_EFFECTS=1
TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_MAP=1
TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_OBJECTS=1
EFFECTS_QUALITY=0
GROUND_SHADOWS=0
SMOOTH_VIEW=1
IMAGE_SMOOTHING=1
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=256
COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=0
AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=0
LANDING_LIGHTS=1
IMAGE_QUALITY=0
TEXTURE_BLDG=1
TEXTURE_GND=1
TEXTURE_WATER=1
AIRCRAFT_TEXTURE=1
SEE_SELF=1
TEXTURE_QUALITY=3
LOD_TARGET_FPS=21
NUM_LIGHTS=6
[REALISM]
INDASPD=0
PFactor=1.000000
Torque=1.000000
GyroEffect=1.000000
CrashTolerance=1.000000
General=1.000000
UnlimitedFuel=False
TrueAirspeed=False
AutoCoord=False
RealMixture=True
StressDamage=False
GEffect=True
ManualLights=True
GyroDrift=False
CrashWithDyn=False
CrashDetection=0
[CONTROLS]
KBDAIL=64
KBDELEV=64
KBDRUD=64
PAN_RATE=900
[USERINTERFACE]
MAP_ORIENTATION=2
PAUSE_ON_LOST_FOCUS=0
PROMPT_ON_EXIT=1
SelectFlightLevel=0
SelectFlightTitle=0
PageID=3
OpenATCOnCreate=0
SITUATION=
DisplayFuelAsWeight=1
[SOUND]
SOUND=1
SOUND_FADER1=0.500000
SOUND_FADER2=0.100000
SOUND_FADER3=0.300000
SOUND_FADER4=0.800000
SOUND_FADER5=0.500000
SOUND_FADER6=0.800000
SOUND_QUALITY=1
[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+.0]
Mode=1680x1050x32
TriLinear=1
[DISPLAY]
UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=55
TextureMaxLoad=10
runway_lights_surface_scalar=0.9
runway_lights_vasi_scalar=0.5
runway_lights_approach_scalar=0.5
runway_lights_strobe_scalar=0.9
[TERRAIN]
TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=50.000000
TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000
TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000
TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19
TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8
TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4
TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1
TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=3.500000
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.000000
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232
[SCENERY]
IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4
DYNAMIC_SCENERY=0
DYN_SCN_DENSITY=0
DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1
SUNGLARE=1
LENSFLARE=0
[AIRtoCONTAINER]
SIM1=Cessna Skylane 182R RG
SIM2=Learjet 45
SIM3=Schweizer 2-32 Sailplane
SIM4=Sopwith Camel
SIM5=Extra 300S
SIM6=Boeing 737-400
[APL]
CACHE_WAV_FILES=1
[TrafficManager]
TrafficDensity=0
IFROnly=0
EnableAirline=0
EnableGeneralAviation=0
[AContain]
ShowLabels=0
ShowUserLabel=0
ShowLabelManufacturer=0
ShowLabelModel=0
ShowLabelTailNumber=0
ShowLabelDistance=0
ShowLabelAltitude=0
ShowLabelAirline=0
ShowLabelAirlineAndFlightNumber=0
ShowLabelFlightPlan=0
ShowLabelContainerId=0
ShowLabelAirspeed=0
ShowLabelHeading=0
LabelDelay=1000
LabelColor=FFFFFFFF
[SLEW]
MaxLateralRate=40000.000000
MaxVerticalRate=1000.000000
MaxPitchRate=360.000000
MaxBankRate=360.000000
MaxHeadingRate=360.000000
[VirtualCopilot]
VirtualCopilotActive=0
[MAIN]
Location=-1604,22,-130,994
Maximized=1
HideMenuNormal=0
HideMenuFullscreen=1
[MULTIPLAYER]
ALWAYS_SHOW_INITIAL_DIALOG=1
SESSION_NAME=SquawkBox (valued-e37f3f8a)
PLAYER_NAME=ABX903
GUARANTEED_MESSAGES=0
MAX_PLAYERS=8
MAX_OBSERVERS=0
TICKS_PER_SYNC=90
PACKETS_PER_SEC=4
COLLISION_SECS=2
FOLLOWING_MULTIPLIER=5
ALLOW_PLANE_MODEL_SEND=0
ALLOW_PLANE_MODEL_RECEIVE=0
ALLOW_TEXTURE_SEND=0
ALLOW_TEXTURE_RECEIVE=0
MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE=100
MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_SEC=1
CONNECTION_TYPE=0
PROTOCOL_SELECTION=0
ALLOW_DESCRIPTIVE_SEND=1
ALLOW_DESCRIPTIVE_RECEIVE=1
AUTOPILOT_LOCK=0
DISTANCE_DISPLAY=0
ADF_TRACK=0
ALLOW_NAME_TAG_DISPLAY=1
CLIENT_CONNECT_USE_CUSTOM_PORT=0
CLIENT_CONNECT_PORT=23456
CLIENT_HOST_USE_CUSTOM_PORT=0
CLIENT_HOST_PORT=23456
HOST_CONNECT_USE_CUSTOM_PORT=0
HOST_CONNECT_PORT=23456
[SIM]
SYSCLOCK=1
[ATC]
AutoOpenAirTrafficWindow=0
UsePilotVoice=0
ShowATCText=0
PilotVoice=1
[FACILITIES]
COUNTRY=
STATE=
CITY=
GTL_BUTTON=6225
[MAPVIEW_MAP]
SHOW_AIRPORTS=1
SHOW_VORS=1
SHOW_NDBS=1
SHOW_APPROACHES=1
SHOW_INTERSECTIONS=0
SHOW_VICTOR=0
SHOW_JET=0
SHOW_AIRSPACE=1
SHOW_FLIGHTPLAN=1
SHOW_WEATHERSTATIONS=0
SHOW_WEATHERSYSTEMS=0
SHOW_DATATAGS=1
SHOW_TERRAIN=1
show_flight_history=1
[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+.1]
Mode=800x600x16
[KEYBOARD_MAIN]
SELECT_1=49,8
SELECT_2=50,8
SELECT_3=51,8
SELECT_4=52,8
MINUS=189,8
PLUS=187,8
ZOOM_1X=8,8
SOUND_TOGGLE=81,8
ENGINE=69,8
SIM_RATE=82,8
XPNDR=84,8
SLEW_TOGGLE=89,8
EGT=85,8
SMOKE_TOGGLE=73,8
STROBES_TOGGLE=79,8
PAUSE_TOGGLE=80,8
PAUSE_TOGGLE#1=19,8
ATC=192,8
ATC#1=145,8
ADF=65,8
VIEW_MODE=83,8
HEADING_GYRO_SET=68,8
DME=70,8
GEAR_TOGGLE=71,8
ANTI_ICE_TOGGLE=72,8
JET_STARTER=74,8
JOYSTICK_CALIBRATE=75,10
ALL_LIGHTS_TOGGLE=76,8
SITUATION_SAVE=186,8
VIEW_WINDOW_TO_FRONT=222,8
AP_MASTER=90,8
FREQUENCY_SWAP=88,8
COM_RADIO=67,8
VOR_OBS=86,8
BAROMETRIC=66,8
NAV_RADIO=78,8
MAGNETO=77,8
BRAKES=190,8
SPOILERS_TOGGLE=191,8
SITUATION_RESET=186,10
FLAPS_UP=116,8
THROTTLE_FULL=115,8
THROTTLE_INCR_SMALL=114,8
THROTTLE_DECR=113,8
FLAPS_DOWN=119,8
THROTTLE_CUT=112,8
VIEW=111,8
ELEV_TRIM_DN=36,8
ELEV_DOWN=38,8
INCREASE_THROTTLE=33,8
AILERONS_LEFT=37,8
CENTER_AILER_RUDDER=12,8
AILERONS_RIGHT=39,8
ELEV_TRIM_UP=35,8
ELEV_UP=40,8
DECREASE_THROTTLE=34,8
VIEW_FORWARD=38,41
VIEW_FORWARD_RIGHT=33,41
VIEW_RIGHT=39,41
VIEW_REAR_RIGHT=34,41
VIEW_REAR=40,41
VIEW_REAR_LEFT=35,41
VIEW_LEFT=37,41
VIEW_FORWARD_LEFT=36,41
VIEW_DOWN=12,41
RUDDER_LEFT=45,8
RUDDER_RIGHT=135,8
BRAKES_LEFT=122,8
BRAKES_RIGHT=123,8
AP_ATT_HOLD=84,10
AP_LOC_HOLD=79,10
AP_APR_HOLD=65,10
AP_HDG_HOLD=72,10
AP_ALT_HOLD=90,10
AP_WING_LEVELER=86,10
AP_BC_HOLD=66,10
AP_NAV1_HOLD=78,10
EXIT=67,10
ABORT=3,10
READOUTS_FLIGHT=90,9
PANEL_TOGGLE=219,9
VIEW_MODE_REV=83,9
PANEL_LIGHTS_TOGGLE=76,9
LANDING_LIGHTS_TOGGLE=76,10
PARKING_BRAKES=190,10
MINUS_SHIFT=189,9
PLUS_SHIFT=187,9
FLAPS_INCR=118,8
FLAPS_DECR=117,8
PROP_PITCH_LO=115,10
PROP_PITCH_INCR_SMALL=114,10
PROP_PITCH_DECR=113,10
PROP_PITCH_HI=112,10
MIXTURE_RICH=115,11
MIXTURE_INCR_SMALL=114,11
MIXTURE_DECR=113,11
MIXTURE_LEAN=112,11
SCRIPT_EVENT_1=219,10
SCRIPT_EVENT_2=221,10
YAW_DAMPER_TOGGLE=68,10
CENTER_NT361_CHECK=57,11
CLOSE_VIEW=221,8
NEW_VIEW=219,8
NEW_MAP=221,9
NEXT_VIEW=9,10
PREV_VIEW=9,11
VIEW_TYPE=83,10
VIEW_TYPE_REV=83,11
RADIO_VOR1_IDENT_TOGGLE=49,10
RADIO_VOR2_IDENT_TOGGLE=50,10
RADIO_DME1_IDENT_TOGGLE=52,10
RADIO_ADF_IDENT_TOGGLE=53,10
GEAR_PUMP=71,10
SPOILERS_ARM_TOGGLE=191,9
PITOT_HEAT_TOGGLE=72,9
AP_AIRSPEED_HOLD=82,10
AUTO_THROTTLE_ARM=82,9
AUTO_THROTTLE_TO_GA=71,11
LANDING_LIGHT_UP=38,11
LANDING_LIGHT_DOWN=40,11
LANDING_LIGHT_LEFT=37,11
LANDING_LIGHT_RIGHT=39,11
LANDING_LIGHT_HOME=12,11
PAN_RESET=46,9
KNEEBOARD_VIEW=121,8
MP_PLAYER_CYCLE=84,11
MP_PLAYER_SNAP=70,11
MP_GO_OBSERVER=79,11
MP_CHAT=221,11
MP_ACTIVATE_CHAT=13,8
PANEL_1=49,9
PANEL_2=50,9
PANEL_3=51,9
PANEL_4=52,9
PANEL_5=53,9
PANEL_6=54,9
PANEL_7=55,9
PANEL_8=56,9
PANEL_9=57,9
AP_MACH_HOLD=77,10
VIEW_FORWARD_UP=38,42
VIEW_FORWARD_RIGHT_UP=33,42
VIEW_REAR_RIGHT_UP=34,42
VIEW_REAR_UP=40,42
VIEW_REAR_LEFT_UP=35,42
VIEW_FORWARD_LEFT_UP=36,42
VIEW_UP=12,42
INVOKE_HELP=191,10
INVOKE_HELP#1=191,11
TOGGLE_AIRCRAFT_LABELS=76,11
ENGINE_AUTO_START=69,10
INC_COWL_FLAPS=86,11
DEC_COWL_FLAPS=67,11
USER_INTERRUPT=27,8
AILERON_TRIM_LEFT=37,10
AILERON_TRIM_RIGHT=39,10
RUDDER_TRIM_LEFT=45,10
RUDDER_TRIM_RIGHT=135,10
TOGGLE_FLIGHT_DIRECTOR=70,10
TOGGLE_AFTERBURNER=115,9
TOGGLE_MASTER_BATTERY_ALTERNATOR=77,9
TOGGLE_AIRCRAFT_EXIT=69,9
PANEL_HUD_TOGGLE=87,8
SNAP_TO_PANEL=45,41
MARKER_SOUND_TOGGLE=51,10
TOGGLE_WATER_RUDDER=87,9
TOGGLE_PUSHBACK=80,9
KEY_CHASE_VIEW_NEXT=87,10
KEY_CHASE_VIEW_PREV=87,11
HEADING_BUG_SELECT=72,11
ALTITUDE_BUG_SELECT=90,11
CHASE_VIEW_TOGGLE=81,10
EYEPOINT_UP=13,9
EYEPOINT_DOWN=8,9
EYEPOINT_RIGHT=13,11
EYEPOINT_LEFT=8,11
EYEPOINT_FORWARD=8,10
EYEPOINT_BACK=13,10
EYEPOINT_RESET=32,8
AIRSPEED_BUG_SELECT=82,11
TOGGLE_TAILWHEEL_LOCK=71,9
ROTOR_BRAKE=66,9
ROTOR_CLUTCH_SWITCH_TOGGLE=190,9
ROTOR_GOV_SWITCH_TOGGLE=188,9
VIRTUAL_COPILOT_TOGGLE=88,11
VIRTUAL_COPILOT_ACTION=88,10
[KEYBOARD_SLEW]
SLEW_TOGGLE=89,8
SLEW_ALTIT_UP_FAST=115,8
SLEW_ALTIT_UP_SLOW=114,8
SLEW_ALTIT_FREEZE=113,8
SLEW_ALTIT_DN_FAST=112,8
SLEW_ALTIT_PLUS=81,8
SLEW_ALTIT_MINUS=65,8
SLEW_PITCH_DN_FAST=119,8
SLEW_PITCH_DN_SLOW=118,8
SLEW_PITCH_FREEZE=117,8
SLEW_PITCH_UP_FAST=116,8
SLEW_PITCH_PLUS=57,8
SLEW_PITCH_MINUS=48,8
READOUTS_SLEW=90,9
SLEW_BANK_MINUS=36,8
SLEW_AHEAD_PLUS=38,8
SLEW_BANK_PLUS=33,8
SLEW_LEFT=37,8
SLEW_FREEZE=12,8
SLEW_RIGHT=39,8
SLEW_HEADING_MINUS=35,8
SLEW_AHEAD_MINUS=40,8
SLEW_HEADING_PLUS=34,8
SLEW_RESET=32,8
TOGGLE_AIRCRAFT_LABELS=76,11
EYEPOINT_UP=13,9
EYEPOINT_DOWN=8,9
EYEPOINT_RIGHT=13,11
EYEPOINT_LEFT=8,11
EYEPOINT_FORWARD=8,10
EYEPOINT_BACK=13,10
http://img.techpowerup.org/121006/nvidia_20121006_232612.png (http://img.techpowerup.org/121006/nvidia_20121006_232612.png)
Settings 1(2)
http://img.techpowerup.org/121006/nvidia_20121006_232657.png (http://img.techpowerup.org/121006/nvidia_20121006_232657.png)
Settings 2(2)
-
Alright I'm literally driving myself nuts...... I need to get the FPS up in these few areas with the LDS767 panel.
I'm sorry but, you said yourself in your last message, the fps went up, the only problem was image tearing. If the fps is high with a default airplane, is not a problem of the scenery.
-
My computer should be able to handle this no issues; the FPS hold was really only 28 locked at 30 in the "Us" of terminal 2/3. I will not accept that answer, sir, about no issue with the scenery with default aircraft. Who cares about default aircraft :o
Is there any Nvidia settings I could try? I'm not that big into things looking nice so long as the sim is smooth. Please give me more insight then the default aircraft junk! There should be no reason that I can't get the same performance @ ORD like I do at HNL :-\
Not trying to be rude but lets work this out 8)
-
There should be no reason that I can't get the same performance @ ORD like I do at HNL :-\
KORD is surely not slower than PHNL. You said yourself the problem was fixed and the only remaining problem was image tearing. Image tearing is lack of vsync ( in the video card NOT in FS9!!! ), and it's nothing related to the scenery.
-
You're not reading what I'm writing. The problem is NOT fixed. The FPS drop is still there. Vsync helped with the tearing. So two SEPARATE issues.
KORD is surely not slower than PHNL.
Why do you keep beating around the bush? I've tested and tested and tested. I get 35+ FPS per second in the most complex of areas at PHNL yet struggle to 25 FPS in the complex areas of KORD. Stop saying stuff like this; it isn't helping and its basically calling a customer a liar in the process.
-
You're not reading what I'm writing
.
I obviously have, and the only meaningful thing you wrote, was the problem WAS fixed at SOME POINT. It doesn't really matter, at all, if you say it's not fixed NOW, but this clearly proves the scenery wasn't the problem to begin with.
The FPS drop is still there. Vsync helped with the tearing. So two SEPARATE issues.
That exactly what I've said, they are entirely different issues and, none of them caused by the scenery, because you HAD the "low fps" problem fixed at some point, and the tearing it's obviously a video card problem.
Stop saying stuff like this; it isn't helping and its basically calling a customer a liar in the process.
You are obviously wrong: nobody called you "a liar", I BELIEVE you have a lows fps problem but, you are wrong keep saying you pretend it has to be high using the Level-D airplane, because the only way to test if a low fps problem is *caused* by the scenery, it's obviously with a default airplane.
Once you have proof the scenery works well with a default airplane, it will then be your choice using it with a complex airplane, but you can't blame the scenery if half of your frame rate is already eaten by the airplane, you just can't expect the scenery would magically *increase* the frame rate of a complex airplane.
In any case, the real issue is that you are using FS9, which has the problem of not scaling well with better hardware and, at a certain point, you'll have diminishing returns on hardware increases, since FS9 doesn't support better CPU (no multicore) and better videocards (not much shaders usage).
FS9 users usually think they are better served putting fast PCs with FS9, but it doesn't work like that: FS9 is much better than FSX on a single or dual-core with an average video card but, when you start adding CPU cores and faster cards, FS9 will not use them (FS9 only gets better with more mhz, but cpu clocks haven't increased in the last years, only the number of cores has), while FSX can use multicore better and CAN use modern video cards that run shaders faster so, at a certain point, FSX becomes faster than FS9 AND it tolerates load much better.
And just to prove it, have a look at the following screenshots in FS9 and FSX
-
It was never fixed.... By fixed I meant maybe 28 locked at 30. Again, based on my Nvidia settings, do you see anything I can try differently. That is all I'm asking.
I'm sorry if I sound weird or anything but there has to be a fix out there.
-
It was never fixed.... By fixed I meant maybe 28 locked at 30. Again, based on my Nvidia settings, do you see anything I can try differently. That is all I'm asking.
This sentence is not clear: are you saying that you reached 28-30 fps at some stage ? That's a very usable frame rate. And, it would be best if you unlock the frame rate.
-
Yes I was able to get it up to 28 at one point but it wasn't smooth b/c of the refresh rate. I will not do unlimited FPS b/c I get stutters and its a waste of resources.
With my settings back to normal I'm getting 25FPS in those areas (Terminal 2/3 "U"). Any Nvidia ideas? I ask b/c I've done a ton of looking thru other posts and you seem to have a fix all setting (hence why I posted my inspector settings).
So I'm sorry for saying "Fixed"
-
Yes I was able to get it up to 28 at one point but it wasn't smooth b/c of the refresh rate
If, by "refresh rate", you mean the video refresh, that's not obviously a scenery problem, it would appear anywhere else.
I will not do unlimited FPS b/c I get stutters and its a waste of resources.
No, you should use unlimited fps, and eventually use an external frame rate limiter, this is the most universally accepted solution to get the smoothest flight. And besides, what waste of resources are you referring to, considering you posted a screenshot with your Task Manager showing only 38% of CPU utilization ? It's no use conserving resources when you have plenty of spare, and get bad fps, which is what you'll have by limiting the fps in FS9.
Any Nvidia ideas? I ask b/c I've done a ton of looking thru other posts and you seem to have a fix all setting (hence why I posted my inspector settings).
Other then resetting everything to default and not using tweaks before being sure of what they do, there's not much to try. Just for comparison, how is the fps with the Level-D 767 at DEFAULT O'Hare ?
-
Refresh rate of the monitor is what I'm referring to.
I tried an external limiter and had no joy in making it smooth or getting the "promised" FPS bump in these areas.
As far as the default KORD FPS, I would say its well north of 45+ FPS. I just flew into a default airport and was sitting at about 57-63 FPS in the 2D-panel.
-
I tried an external limiter and had no joy in making it smooth or getting the "promised" FPS bump in these areas.
If you use an external limiter, you won't have any fps bump, if your fps reaches at least 30 fps (but it won't go higher than that).
You should measure the fps in the Unlimited mode WITHOUT a limiter, to check how the sim is *really* performing THEN, eventually, use the external limiter to fix the image tearing and get a constant refresh rate.
As far as the default KORD FPS, I would say its well north of 45+ FPS
Since you said yourself you were able to reach 28 at one point (the "not smooth" wasn't of course the scenery, but the image tearing and that is NOT a scenery issue), that's about the performance impact you would expect using a complex 3rd party addon of one of the largest airports in the world.
If you want to go higher than that, you'll probably have to move to FSX, maybe with a faster PC, but that's has to be tried, I wouldn't be surprised if you had higher fps at KORD on FSX.
-
The tearing was only "part" of the not smooth. We've since fixed the tearing but it is still a little stutery in those areas (when it goes from 30 to 25).
The only way I can get 29/30 (locked) at 30 in those areas is by making the screen really small.
http://imageshack.us/a/img507/908/capture3v.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img507/908/capture3v.jpg)
Compared to normal.
http://imageshack.us/a/img35/4047/capture4oc.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img35/4047/capture4oc.jpg)
Is there anything in the .bgl that I could remove with an editor or anything like that? I'm sorry if I'm sounding weird at this point but since I've put so much work into this, I'm not going to give up :P
-
The tearing was only "part" of the not smooth. We've since fixed the tearing but it is still a little stutery in those areas (when it goes from 30 to 25).
The stuttering it's due because this scenery is very dense, and FS9 doesn't support loading of textures in the background on multi-core system so, loading textures will stop the sim for a very brief moment.
The only way I can get 29/30 (locked) at 30 in those areas is by making the screen really small.
That indicates you are *fill rate* limited, which means it's your video card that is struggling. So, either use less graphic quality (in the nvidia control panel, for example use a less antialiasing mode or none at all), or upgrade to a faster card. When the frame rate goes up by turning down the image size, the problem is always the video card.
Is there anything in the .bgl that I could remove with an editor or anything like that?
The problem is not the scenery. Of course, you might try lowering your Scenery Density slider, because many objects responds to it. If "turning off things" would improve this, it's much easier to use the proper slider, rather than edit the scenery.
-
I already have one the most powerful graphics card. Nvidia GeFore 9800 GTX+ @ 1GB.
These are my AA settings
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/9492/28710152.jpg)
What should I change?
I have the slider on dense but when I went to normal I didn't get a noticeable change in FPS. The next lower slider from normal removed all the terminals into vacant lots.
-
That was the scenery complexity slider you moved, you want that dense or higher. Autogen is the one you change, try that on normal. Also, check your resolutions... you want to run as high a resolution as your graphics card allows.
-
Tried Autogen on normal and none.... no changes.
-
I already have one the most powerful graphics card. Nvidia GeFore 9800 GTX+ @ 1GB.
You might think having the most powerful card in the world ( BTW, the 9800 GTX was one of the most powerful graphics back in 2008, when it was released so, it's a 4.5 years old tech ) but fact that your are getting better fps just by stretching the video size, clearly means the card IS struggling.
Your antialiasing setting clearly shows you haven't followed my advice to turn ALL your video card settings to default, because VCAA 8x 4v4 surely can't be a default setting. As I've said, try to lower your antialiasing settings.
-
Tried Autogen on normal and none.... no changes.
That's to be expected, if the problem are you video card fill rate, Autogen won't change anything, since in FS9 it's almost entirely made with the CPU.
-
I followed it before and turned off AA setting and it didn't really do anything. I posted all of my settings so you could see if there is anything else we could try.
Re: 9800GTX
It may be that it was top notch in 2008 but FSDT KORD was released in 2008 (I tested V1 as well yesterday) ;D
So since you think my card is struggling, what can you recommend? Nvidia Inspector has over clocking. I really want to figure this out and since I think we're now onto something.
-
Re-tested everything with default graphics card settings. No FPS change in the area and poor performance in general.
-
So since you think my card is struggling, what can you recommend? Nvidia Inspector has over clocking. I really want to figure this out and since I think we're now onto something.
As I've said, if you are getting an increase of fps by simply lowering the window size (I'm basing on YOUR reports), it's nothing related to the scenery, it's your video card that can't keep up with the fill rate.
Since it's not normal, because FS9 is never fill-rate limited, the only possible explanation is another setting which affects fill rate other than antialiasing, which is only the most obvious one, but not the only one.
And, of course, I assuming you are testing with a default airplane. Regardless of what you keep saying, if we are trying to see if FSDT KORD is a problem or not, you should test the SCENERY, not the airplane. So, again, only reports fps using a default airplane, otherwise you are testing your Level-D, which might be interesting, but not the place here.
-
It may be that it was top notch in 2008 but FSDT KORD was released in 2008 (I tested V1 as well yesterday)
And always had a good reputation for good fps *considering its size*, back THEN.
-
As you can tell.... I don't know much about computers. Based on my settings in inspector, what other settings could be causing it if its no AA.
-
As you can tell.... I don't know much about computers. Based on my settings in inspector, what other settings could be causing it if its no AA.
If you really reset everything to default (including tweaks, which means you have to use a driver cleaner to do this), it should run normally but, as I've said, you should check with a default airplane too. Does the fps goes up by reducing the window size even with a default airplane ?
-
Yes
-
Yes
Does the fps goes up by reducing the window size even with a default airplane on *another* complex airport (like JFK or PHNL ) ?
-
I'm not sure..... I'm just so tired of testing this stuff. I'm driving myself nuts. As much as I don't want to do it, I think I'm just going to send FSDT KORD out to pasture for my peace of mind. That is unless we can figure something else out :o
-
I'm not sure..... I'm just so tired of testing this stuff. I'm driving myself nuts. As much as I don't want to do it, I think I'm just going to send FSDT KORD out to pasture for my peace of mind. That is unless we can figure something else out :o
It seems you don't want to make this test (that takes only a FEW MINUTES) on a different (complex) airport with a default airplane, because it might finally prove that KORD was never the problem in the first place ?
Knowing this, would result in exactly the opposite you are saying, it would SAVE you time and effort that would have been better spent chasing the problem elsewhere, instead of keep insisting KORD has a "problem", that nobody ever reported it before, in the 4 years it has been out.
-
I don't care about the default airplane..... I don't know how many times I have to say it. I don't care; that may be how you test FPS to get FPS claims but not me nor is it realistic. The only issue is FSDT KORD since I've tested without it active (using the default terminal and had no issues).
FSDT KORD is the FPS hog in this case, whether you want to believe it or not. I've tested tested tested and tested and after using AA_MODE_METHOD_MULTISAMPLE_2X_DIAGONAL and HIGH PERFORMANCE for texture quality as well as overclocking my graphics card, it would not push pass 26 (average was 24.5) in the area near gates K3/4.
My rig, even in an non-OC'd state, should run the LDS767/FSDT KORD combo without breaking a sweat but it doesn't.
So what if no one has "reported" anything in the 4 years since its release; I'm reporting it now. Why does a model year 2000 car get a recall notice in 2012 ::)
-
It is smooth for the most part (isn't that the key anyway with a FPS drop, keep it smooth)...... I guess I'm just going to have to live with it :-[
-
I don't care about the default airplane..... I don't know how many times I have to say it
Regardless how many times you say it, is still wrong, because tests should be made excluding all things except the things being tested, which is KORD
If you stil can't understand that, let's try something easier:
What happens with your Level-D at, for example, JFK or PHNL ?
1) How's the fps in normal use ?
AND
2) Does the fps still goes up when you resize the window and make it smaller ?
-
My rig, even in an non-OC'd state, should run the LDS767/FSDT KORD combo without breaking a sweat but it doesn't.
You should be able to run *FSX* with that system and, as I've proved to you in the previous screenshot, chances are KORD will run faster in FSX.
-
PHNL and all of Hawaii run super smooth. JFK also runs very smooth. One small area where it drops to like 29 but it is very small area.
-
PHNL and all of Hawaii run super smooth. JFK also runs very smooth. One small area where it drops to like 29 but it is very small area.
I haven't asked if they are smooth or not. I've asked to test JFK or PHNL with the Level-D and to report the following:
1) How's the fps in normal use ? Please, indicate a number for all in the same configuration: JFK, PHNL and KORD, all in similar views, looking towards the most complex terminals.
AND
2) Does the fps still goes up when you resize the window and make it smaller ?
-
Locked at 30 and I get 30 and sometimes 28-29 in that area at JFK. I don't change the values since my monitor refresh rate is very touchy.
-
Locked at 30 and I get 30 and sometimes 28-29 in that area at JFK. I don't change the values since my monitor refresh rate is very touchy.
I've asked the following:
Please, indicate a number for all in the same configuration: JFK, PHNL and KORD, all in similar views, looking towards the most complex terminals.
So, without changing anything else in the configuration, I would expect getting 3 different numbers. Of course, under the SAME configuration, which is Level-D + that airport, since you refuse to test with a default airplane, let's try to obtain a meaningful result by comparison.
AND, of course, with AI ENTIRELY OFF. Otherwise we are not testing airplane+scenery, we are testing your AIs...And, please, don't reply "I'm not interested testing without AI", just do what I've asked. This is A TEST.
And, you still haven't replied the 2n question:
2) Does the fps still goes up when you resize the window and make it smaller ?
-
I told you.... in the same configuration locked at 30 I get 30 all over HNL (All Hawaii Airports in fact) and get 30 at JFK except for one little area where it drops to 28/29.
I have no AI on; never have since I only fly online. And yes, I refuse to test in the default aircraft b/c I don't use them..... So they could get 100+ at K3/4 for all I care (I have tested it btw).
Should I roll back to an older Nvidia driver? That may help. If so, what is a good version for my card? I've seen 186.XX thrown around a lot.
-
I told you.... in the same configuration locked at 30 I get 30 all over HNL (All Hawaii Airports in fact) and get 30 at JFK except for one little area where it drops to 28/29.
I've asked for a very simple thing: fps at KORD, JFK and PHNL without changing anything. As I've said in my previous two messages, I've expected 3 numbers, which are still missing.
So, let's try it again:
1) How's the fps in normal use ? Please, indicate a number for all in the same configuration: JFK, PHNL and KORD, all in similar views, looking towards the most complex terminals.
After 3 requests, we are at 2 numbers for JFK and PHNL, we are only missing the 3rd. How is your fps at KORD now, without changing ANYTHING compared to the configuration at JFK and PHNK ?
And yes, I refuse to test in the default aircraft b/c I don't use them..... So they could get 100+ at K3/4 for all I care (I have tested it btw).
It's because your wrong attitude about this (IT'S A TEST, can't you undertand ?? I'm NOT SAYING YOU NEED TO USE IT THAT WAY!!! I need a RESULT!! ), that I've tried an alternate route, asking you to provide the 3 figues with your Level-D airplane at KORD, JFK and PHNL. Can you do that ?
Should I roll back to an older Nvidia driver? That may help. If so, what is a good version for my card? I've seen 186.XX thrown around a lot.
And for the 3rd time in a row, you still have failed to reply to my 2nd question:
2) Does the fps still goes up when you resize the window and make it smaller ?
And, of course, does the fps goes up/down when resizing the window at all 3 airports ? And does the fps goes up/down with BOTH the Level-D and a default airplane in a similar manner ? I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO USE A DEFAULT AIRPLANE at KORD. I'm asking you to TEST THIS.
-
I don't know what you want sir....
I've said it many times now....
I guess I'll spell it out.....
KORD (near gates K3/4)
- 25FPS locked at 30
KJFK (99% of the airport)
- 30FPS locked at 30
PHNL (as well as Hawaii Vol 1/2)
- 30FPS locked at 30
I don't know how else you want me to say it but I've said it about four times now.
Default C172 @ KORD
- 30FPS locked at 30
When I minimize at KORD, the FPS goes up to 28-29 locked at 30 in the LDS 767 b/c of the smaller screen resolution.
-
I'm done with it.....
My current rig ins't that bad and it runs FSDT KORD smooth and holds the FPS in like 95% of the airport.
Since we're not getting anywhere (60+ posts to this point) I'm just going to upgrade the mobo and CPU in a few weeks.
Thinking....
AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz (4.3GHz Turbo)
or
AMD AM3+ FX 4170 4 Core Black Edition Zambezi 4.2GHz
Going to stick to Win XP for now until I'm ready to change. Should this new CPU get me the FPS back up at KORD? I mean its a jump from a Duo Core X6800 @ 2.93GHz to 4.2/.3 GHz quad core. There should be no reason why it shouldn't get the last few FPS.
-
Have you tried setting frames to unlimited, instead of locked?
-
YES... doesn't matter since the it won't push past 25. In addition, I hate unlimited b/c FS starts to stutter like crazy. Tried an external FPS limiter too; no joy.
-
I'm getting better frames than that with FSX, so your graphics card is ether overloaded, or underpowered. One of the biggest frame killers is AI, try setting your slider to 25% and see if that makes any difference. I run mine at 15% and have plenty of company, both on the ground and in the skies.
-
You're a little behind.... let me give you the cliff notes
* All testing is being done in the LDS 767 2D panel
* Based on my fs9.cfg/Nvidia Settings/Monitor Refresh rate, 30 locked at 30 gives me the smoothest game play
* I fly online only; no AI
* Issue is a 5 FPS drop at gates K3/4 and a 3ish drop in that area in general
I like that idea though of it being underpowered; my rig should have no issue with running both at 30. How do I check if its underpowered? I have Nvidia Inspector. That would save a TON of work/money going forward and a "extinguishing of this fire" that I've been dealing with 8)
Specs
FS9
LDS767
Win XP
Duo Core X6800 @ 2.93GHz
Ge Force 9800 GTX+ @ 1GB
2 GB Ram
500W PSU
-
Your graphics card is fine, the system is what is underpowered. RAM is a cheap upgrade, put another 2 gig in it.
-
Wait what? Windows XP can't use more than 3 IIRC.
Is my graphics card underpowered? How do I tell?
If I were to put in my old card (Gefore 210 @ 512 MB) would that fix things since that adds another 512MB to the system. Is that the same general idea you're talking about?
-
Windows XP will use up to 4 Gigs. An extra 2 gigs of RAM is about $35.
-
I don't know what you want sir....
I said it many times already, but you always failed to reply.
I've said it many times now....
No, you haven't. The last mention of an fps figure for KORD was 28 fps, but after all your tweaks, it probably wasn't very meaningful anymore, which is why I've asked for 3 times in a row, to make a test under a single configuration without changing any settings in between.
I guess I'll spell it out.....
After 3 times you failed to do that, it was about time...
KORD (near gates K3/4)
- 25FPS locked at 30
KJFK (99% of the airport)
- 30FPS locked at 30
PHNL (as well as Hawaii Vol 1/2)
- 30FPS locked at 30
I don't know how else you want me to say it but I've said it about four times now.
That's the first time you are able to put all 3 number together, not "four times now", it's ME that had to ask 3 times without getting a straight answer. Finally...
Default C172 @ KORD
- 30FPS locked at 30
That test is not very useful because, if you lock at 30 and get a 30, we'll never know if the fps was actually higher than that. Repet this test UNLOCKED.
-
Windows XP will use up to 4 Gigs. An extra 2 gigs of RAM is about $35.
Yes but, with his 1GB video card, adding 2 more GB will be wasted, because with XP the 1GB used by the card will use at least 1GB of the user memory. People should realize that, using XP or any other 32 OS with a 1GB video card is a no-no.
Upgrading to Windows 7 64 bit and adding the ram wouldn't be very expensive and will surely result in an improvement.
Here's another case of an user that was sure one of our sceneries had a frame rate problem (it was KLAX in his case) and guess what, he was using XP with a 1GB video card. Read his message on Avsim, after he upgraded to Windows 7 64:
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/353381-cloud9-klax/#entry2160184
-
I guess I thought I was providing this info.
So ill ask this again. If I went back to my 512 mb card would that help?
-
If you do that, you'll have less memory than you do now, so your frames would be even less.
-
Ok so what should I do then? I'm getting two different theories.
You say more RAM and he says 32 bit XP & 1GB cards don't mix.
Should I just make the move to the new CPU? Windows 7 is not an option right now.
-
What he is saying is the 1 gig on the memory card consumes one of the four gigs that XP will use, so you're already at 3. What is on your motherboard in the way of chips? Do you have four chips of 512 megabytes each, or two 1 gig chips and 2 empty slots? If you have an empty slot, another 1 gig chip is about $18. Changing the CPU will most likely require a new motherboard as well, and you wouldn't want to use XP with a new processor.
-
Two ram sticks.....
New CPU/Mobo would have to run XP for the time being (it should run it no problem).
I think were saying the same thing here. With the 1GB card, I only have 1GB for FS2004 to run on when in the game. So if I add two more sticks, I would have 1GB for the card and 3 for FS. Is that way you're saying?
-
New CPU/Mobo would have to run XP for the time being (it should run it no problem).
SAVE your money, don't change the CPU, just install Windows 7 x64.
So if I add two more sticks, I would have 1GB for the card and 3 for FS. Is that way you're saying?
No, it's much worse than that. If you add 2 GB, with a 32 bit OS and a 1GB video card, as soon as Windows starts, you will have *roughly* 2.6 GB in TOTAL for Windows, because the video card and all other resources on the mainboard will all map into the lower 4GB, which is the only memory a 32 OS can address. In this situation, the card is "stealing" your user RAM.
Which means, FS9 couldn't even use 3GB and, it will have to *share* those 2.6 GB with all the rest of the OS.
With Windows 7 64 bit, you will have the whole 4GB for Windows, with FS9 using up to 3 for itself.
-
So what should I do in regards to RAM? Another stick? What? 1 stick?
Windows 7 is not going to happen at the moment b/c I've read a ton of stories about how FS9 and Win 7 don't like each other. If I could find a "how-to-make-FS9-work-in-WIN7" then maybe would think about it.
If FS9 and Win 7 do run with each other reliably with each other and the stutters and low FPS at KORD go away, then I would do Win 7 in a heartbeat but I want to be sure first.
As you can tell I'm an idiot with this stuff.....
So would Win7 allow me to run FS9 reliably and would I get the 5ish FPS outta KORD with it?
-
I'm going to try Vsnyc 1/2 rate to since I have it locked at 30 and I run in Windows mode. Plus my refresh is 60Hz. I think it might only work in full screen though. Worth a shot at this point.
Not expecting it to boost FPS much but should help the stutter(s) and make it look more smooth when I hit the FPS drop area.
Still the question remains.....
To salvage Win XP 32bit, what do I need to do?
If I go to Win 7 64bit, does the FPS go up?
Thanks to all for the help. Sorry I'm such an idiot with this stuff. I just want to make sure of the answer before I make any moves.
-
Windows 7 is not going to happen at the moment
Your inflexibility with your wrong conceptions is not going to help you much.
b/c I've read a ton of stories about how FS9 and Win 7 don't like each other.
So, you read a story about someone that probably didn't had any clue about computers saying there are problems and blindly believe it, but if others including the developers of the product you are having issues with, tell you to switch to Windows 7, you don't listen, because "you heard stories" ??
If I could find a "how-to-make-FS9-work-in-WIN7" then maybe would think about it.
There's nothing really difficult: same as with FSX, simply don't accept the default installation folder under C:\Program Files, and install into a custom folder, like C:\FS9 for example. This will solve all issues with Windows 7 UAC model, which are usually created by old addons that try to write in the protected C:\Program Files.
So would Win7 allow me to run FS9 reliably and would I get the 5ish FPS outta KORD with it?
You still haven't provided what I've asked in my last message: what is the fps at KORD with the default C172 WITHOUT ANY VSYNC LOCK ? Because that would tell about how much of your fps is lost because of the scenery and how much is because of the Level-D
Now, I cannot guaranteed you will gain 5 fps, but surely it will run better and, if you are planning to upgrade RAM, it will save you from WASTING your money, because the 64 bit OS will use it entirely.
-
Not inflexible...... just unsure and making sure I understand before I make any moves that drastic.
You said that I would have about 2.6 GB for FS9 to pick out of if I put two more sticks of ram in. I know you also said it would have to "share" with other things but if FS2004 and System Idle are the only two things taking up CPU threads, then I should still have a great amount of RAM available for FS9 to use correct?
Compared to my current set-up (2-gig of RAM) it would be a marked increase correct? It is worth a shot since the 4GB of ram will just go towards Win7.
Vysnc-off and unlimited goes up to about 35-40FPS last time I checked.
-
Check this thread (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/340076-migrating-fs9-from-xp-32bit-to-windows-7-64bit/), it gives you all the information you need to migrate to Windows 7. Pay particular attention to the link in post # 2, you'll need to patch fs9.exe to make it large address aware.
-
Compared to my current set-up (2-gig of RAM) it would be a marked increase correct? It is worth a shot since the 4GB of ram will just go towards Win7.
First, decide yes or no if you're going to go to Windows 7. If you decide yes, Windows 7 Home Premium will read up to 16 gigabytes of RAM, and memory is one of the cheapest upgrades you can do for a computer. In your case, I would buy 4 chips of 2 gigs each, for a total of 8 gigabytes. More than enough for FS9.
-
If I was to stay with XP..... would 2 more gigs help is what I'm wondering.
-
As Umberto already explained, Windows XP only sees around 3.5 gigs of memory total, regardless of how much you have!! Since the 1 gigabyte on your graphics card counts towards that, you're already at 3 gigabytes. Buying RAM chips and sticking with XP is wasting your money.
-
Forget the money aspect at this moment.
In my current setup (2GBRAM)
My GPU takes up 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 1GB left for FS and the OS correct?
If I were to add more (4GBRAM)
My GPU would take up about 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 2.6GB of RAM for FS and the OS correct?
2.6 GB > 1GB
Which would lead me to believe everything will preform better if I add two more sticks to my current setup. Is this correct (all I'm trying to get out of this)?
-
In my current setup (2GBRAM)
My GPU takes up 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 1GB left for FS and the OS correct?
No. The GPU ram will be allocated in the space after your current 2GB, because that's available now, so you have 2GB for FS9+OS
I were to add more (4GBRAM)
My GPU would take up about 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 2.6GB of RAM for FS and the OS correct?
Yes. In this case, the only 4GB that a 32 bit OS can allocate in total are all taken by your regular RAM so, for the GPU to work, it must "steal" some of it, because nothing outside 4GB can be seen by a 32 bit OS.
2.6 GB > 1GB
No, it's 2.6 GB > 2.0GB, which is a bit better but, adding 2GB JUST to gain an additional .6 doesn't make any sense, when upgrading the OS to 64 bit would give you the whole 2GB you bought...and FS9 itself could go up to 3GB (by patching the FS9.EXE), when you have the entire 4GB available for FS+OS
-
OK....
Would 3GB (add 1) be better? That would allow all three to go towards OS and FS9 while the other 1GB open slot is for the GPU?
What is "patching the fs9.exe" mean? I've read that avsim topic before and still have no idea.
Thanks for putting up with my crap guys! Great support forums!
-
You're still not grasping something, you're already at 3 gigabytes (2 gigs in chips + 1 gig in graphics card). Adding a 1 gig chip will net you just over half a gig, you'd never even notice it was there. Install Windows 7, reinstall FS9 with sceneries, and patch the exe file... or upgrade to FSX or Prepar3D.
-
What does "patch the .exe" mean? That is the thing I'm stumbling on now.
So my setup is optimum for XP and FS. Good to know. My mobo (P5L-MX) is older. Can it handle windows 7?
-
Would 3GB (add 1) be better? That would allow all three to go towards OS and FS9 while the other 1GB open slot is for the GPU?
That would be even worse because, in order to enjoy the double channel speed the RAM chips are designed for (DDR2), you have to install chips in pairs. If you install an odd number, the system will run slower so, chances are that 3GB will run slower than 2GB. And, if you use DDR3, it's best to install them in triplets, like 6GB or 12GB being better than 4GB or 8GB.
What is "patching the fs9.exe" mean? I've read that avsim topic before and still have no idea.
FS9 wasn't made to see memory over 2GB, this requires the .EXE being flagged in a specific way. In order to let it see 3GB, you need to patch the FS9.EXE to add that flag. AND, under XP, you need to change the OS BOOT.INI file to allow 3GB. On Windows 7 64 bit, you don't have to modify anything in the OS, but you will still need to patch the FS9.EXE. If using FSX, no need to patch anything.
-
OK I'm just going to wait for Win7...... is there like a "how to" somewhere to patch the .exe?
-
Try this:
Make an archival backup copy of FS9.EXE
`1.) Open My Computer (aka: "Windows Explorer" ...not to be confused with Internet Explorer)
`2.) On the menu bar of that Windows Explorer session started via My Computer, click "View" > "Details" to enable a 2-pane view
`3.) Navigate/browse to the [FS2004 install path] folder (default is C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator 9)
`4.) In the right window pane, locate FS9.EXE, and "select" it with a single left mouse click (filename turns blue if selected)
`5.) Right-click the selected FS9.EXE filename and choose "Copy"
`6.) In the left window pane, "select" the above [FS2004 install path] folder name (folder name turns blue if selected)
`7.) Right-click the selected [FS2004 install path] folder name and choose "Paste"; press {F5} to refresh Explorer's view
`8.) In the right window pane, locate "Copy of FS9.EXE", and "select" it with a single left mouse click
`9.) Right-click the selected "Copy of FS9.EXE" filename and choose "Rename" (name is now "selected' inside a text frame)
10.) Type over the existing file name and use instead a name such as "FS9_EXE_Before_3GB.bak"
11.) Click in any white space outside the text frame to verify the rename was successful
12.) Close the My Computer > Windows Explorer session and return to the Windows Desktop.
Download "Explorer Suite" NTCore Editing Utility
`1.) Download "Explorer Suite" http://www.ntcore.com/exsuite.php home page)
`2.) Run the downloaded "ExplorerSuite.exe" to install it, accepting all defaults
`3.) Click Programs > Explorer Suite > "CFF Explorer" to run that utility program ("CFF Explorer VII" window loads)
`4.) In CFF Explorer, click File > Open and browse to the [FS2004 install path] folder
NOTE: Default [FS2004 install path] is C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator 9
`4.) In the right window pane, locate FS9.EXE, and "select" it with a single left mouse click (file name turns blue if selected)
`5.) At the bottom of the CFF Explorer File > Open > "Select File" browse dialog box, click "Open"
`6.) Now back in CFF Explorer, one sees a 2-pane view with a virtual folder tree on the left, a table on the right
`7.) In the left window pane, locate NT Header > File Header and click "File Header" (table on right changes)
`8.) In the right window pane, locate the bottom table row "Characteristics"
`9.) In the far right cell labeled "Click Here", single left click that cell ("Characteristics" checkbox list dialog pops up)
10.) Add a "Check mark" to the check box "App can handle > 2GB address space"; leave all other check boxes unchanged
11.) Click OK, then Exit CFF Explorer.
-
Phew...... I'll give it a try when I do upgrade.
So to sum up this 90+ post topic..... I'm prolly not going to be able to get 30 locked at 30 with Windows XP and my current rig?
What is a good FS2004 path in Win7 since you side the default one isn't good?
Thanks.
-
I'm not picky.... if I get the new CPU (AMD FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz which is said to be able to be overclocked to 4.8 without even breaking a sweat) I should get the FPS up to my standard in those areas with Win XP correct? If so I might just do that for now since it would be a "cheap" fix. A stop gap until I can get the money together for a new rig (a few real world flying jobs have fallen thru over the past few months).
So I understand that Win 7 is a must going forward but I think for the "now" would the new CPU get me those last few frames to hold me over. I'm not looking for 40-50FPS, just 4 or 5 (to get up to 30 in those areas).
Thanks again! I will say I learned a lot about software/hardware over these past few months. I'd just been living in blissful ignorance before :P
-
I'm not picky.... if I get the new CPU (AMD FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz which is said to be able to be overclocked to 4.8 without even breaking a sweat) I should get the FPS up to my standard in those areas with Win XP correct? If so I might just do that for now since it would be a "cheap" fix.
A new CPU will surely run better but, if you continue insting using XP, there's the risk the inefficient memory usage with a 32 bit OS and a 1GB video card, might eat up any advantage of the upgrading the CPU.
I don't know why you keep trying dodging the facts, when I presented you plenty of evidence: the one and only "cheap" upgrade is to upgrade the OS. AFTER doing that, you might *consider* upgrading the CPU too.
We don't test anymore anything under Windows XP. We all use Windows 7 x64, and most of our users do that too. And, nobody is really updating drivers and other stuff for XP, modern video cards are all tested and optimized for Windows 7 and bugs are fixed there, also because nobody better than video card makers know how wrong is to use a modern video card with plenty of VRAM with a 32 bit OS. This wasn't an issue when 256MB were the norm and 512MB were "luxury", but it is now, where 1GB is the bare minimum. And that doesn't cut anymore with XP 32 bit.
So, if you want to waste your money on a new CPU without upgrading the OS, do it, but don't say you haven't been warned when you go back here and discover you can't reach your 30 fps goal just the same. And, in any case, I've already proved to you with my comparison screenshots of KORD FS9 vs KORD FSX, that those missing 5 fps could be gained by simply using FSX, which it's a MUCH better fit for your (good) video card.
-
I'm not "dodging" anything. I'm simply not ready to just trash XP at this moment. A new CPU could go a long way. Plus being logical here.... my card was built during the XP days and so was FSDT KORD. One would assume that they should mesh very well. Its not like FSDT KORD was released last week.
I'm going to try to new CPU while I prep myself for a seamless transition to Win7. Rushing into it serves no purpose. I talked to my computer guys yesterday about Win7 BTW.
What is a good route when installing FS2004 in Win7 since the C:\Program Files is bad. I was also told to run FS in compatibility mode to, does this sound like the correct method?
Once I get all these questions answered, I'll start the process I think.
Thanks
-
Buying a new CPU will get you absolutely nowhere as long as you insist on running an obsolete OS like Windows XP, Microsoft doesn't even support it with updates any more. As long as your current hardware will run in 64 bit, which it should if its less than four years old, just installing Windows 7 will make an improvement. Are your "computer guys" the ones who said run FS in compatibility mode? If they are, you need some smarter computer guys...
-
No they're not. I got that from the LDS767 site.
BTW, I just had an XP update last week. They keep putting off the cut off date. It was suppose to be 2008 then 2009 then 2010 and so on. I guess it just goes to show how good XP actually is.
If a new CPU won't work, why was I able to go from 21 FPS at gates K3/4 with a 1.83GHz to 25-26FPS (sometimes 28 with minimal settings) in the same area with a 2.93GHz CPU? I'm seriously wondering.
-
You gained a whole four frames, woo hoo! I had a Pentium 4 running Windows 95 that was faster than 1.83 GHz. ;D
-
I'd actually gained about 9 before I ran some .cfg tweaks for smoother transitions for the entire game. Lost about 3 frames near K3/4 at that point.
So if I double the GHz again logic would tell me I'd gain another 4 frames. 4 frames would equal my goal of 30 FPS in that area.
I'm not picky :P
-
No they're not. I got that from the LDS767 site.
That's because their product is not respecting the official guidelines that no software should ever try to write into its own installation folder under C:\Program Files but, instead, it should write only into a user folder like %APPDATA% (all our products are of course fully compliant with this) and, since it's too complex explaining to user how to create custom user permission in order to circumvent this, they say "just run FS9 as Administrator", which is of course not very secure (a rogue Flight sim addon might take control of your entire machine), but it's an easy way out instead of doing the right thing, and fix the product to write into the correct folders, so it will run even with non-Admin users.
BTW, I just had an XP update last week. They keep putting off the cut off date. It was suppose to be 2008 then 2009 then 2010 and so on. I guess it just goes to show how good XP actually is.
No, that only shows that Microsoft still haven't figured it out what OS should be sold to the enterprises. They are still running XP NOT because it's "good", but simply because nobody in large companies save a very small percentage in the creative design business (which mostly use Macs anyway...) has such massive hardware requirements like a Flight sim game with huge amount of RAM and 1GB video cards (you surely don't need that to run MS Office and read emails)
And besides, XP end of life happened in April 2009 for regular customers, and will end April 2014 for enterprise customers that bought extended service contracts. The MS product page for end of life cycles for XP Professional says: "Upgrade to Windows 7 Now"
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?ln=en-gb&c2=1173
You are getting security updates ONLY because MS has to publish them because of the extended paid support for enterprise customers, but that will end too and of course, that you are still getting security updates, doesn't tell anything about the level of support of other things that MATTERS to Flight sim, like better/faster/optimized video card drivers, gaming software that is tested on XP (as I've said, we don't test anymore with XP, and we surely won't do anything in case we'll ever discover something doesn't run on it anymore).
XP WAS good, in 2001, when it was out. But nobody in 2001 would every dreamed of installing more than 4GB on a PC, let alone having mainstream video cards with 1GB, and a 32 bit architecture wasn't seen as being so much limiting as it is today.
-
So if I double the GHz again logic would tell me I'd gain another 4 frames. 4 frames would equal my goal of 30 FPS in that area.
If you double the GHz along with the other advice you've been given but refuse to do, like changing to Windows 7 and patching the executable, you might gain 14 frames instead.
-
Bruce....
I'm NOT refusing. I'm just NOT ready yet. The new CPU is cheap, would gain me my desired performance, and can simply be used once I DO change to Win7.
Virtuali,
How would I install the LDS767 correctly then (I know this is your forum)? I'm really going to change to Win7 but I want to try to get all the info first that will help with a smooth transition.
My two questions are:
1) What is the best Win7 C:\ path?
2) If I install FS9 correctly, would the LDS767 take care of itself? I might try to just transfer over the FS9 folder like what was in the avsim post.
I'm going to try the new CPU only b/c I know it "should" get me the last few FPS I'm looking for. Then once more money rolls in I can upgrade to Win7 and 16GB RAM.
-
Without reinstalling, this might fix most of the non-compliant addons under Windows 7:
Go to the FS9 root folder, which should be C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Microsoft Games
- Right click on the "Flight Simulator 9" folder, select "Properties" -> "Security" tab -> Edit -> Add...
- Type your Windows username -> OK -> select Allow checkbox for Full control -> OK or Apply.
-
OK... thanks for the help. Win7 will be a WIP but for now I've got my "new" temp hardware selections made that will get KORD to be locked at 30 all over. This new hardware will put me in the position to be able to upgrade to Win7 and run it efficiently as well. Keep in mind that this isn't "top of the line" stuff but it will do what I want with no issue. It will also be a stop gap to get myself in a position to put Win7 on this new system down the road and get it running to my liking before I put it on the new gaming PC I'll build in about 8-9 months.
AMD AM3+ FX 4170 4 Core Black Edition Zambezi 4.2GHz
Socket AM3+ 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
FD4170FRGUBOX
BIOSTAR A960A3+ AM3+ AMD RX881 ATX AMD Motherboard
G.SKILL Value 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666)
Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9S-4GBNT
-
http://imageshack.us/a/img28/2285/fs9compatibility.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img28/2285/fs9compatibility.jpg)
This is what I was told to do by them BTW.
-
This is what I was told to do by them BTW.
Not needed, if you set permissions as I've said. OR, if you reinstall FS9 from scratch, if you install it outside C:\Program files, for example into C:\FS9
-
O ok so if I do its own install all I'd need to do then is patch the exe and it will run good/stable. Good to know.
-
I still say you're better off going to W7 now, since you're building a gaming system later. I noticed a big improvement when I switched.
-
Bruce,
Thanks again for the info but as I said before I'm not ready nor would my current hardware run Win7 properly.
Plus if I get my desired performance out of my new setup I may just skip on the gaming PC. I'm not picky.
-
Umberto and I have both explained to you that you won't get the performance you're looking for, as long as you remain with 32 bit Win XP. You keep saying you're not picky, but you sure are stubborn.
-
Dude,
I'm not ready to make the change over. Its not stubborn...... I CAN'T do it at this moment. How else can I write that to help you understand?
-
According to Intel, your current hardware is 64 bit compliant, so yes... you are being stubborn.
-
I'm not going to do this....
Even if my hardware CAN run win7, I don't have the proper resources to make it run good. I'm not being stubborn..... I'm going to make the move but not until I get better hardware first. Plus I'm working on the back ground info to make the transfer smooth.
-
OK..... can I ask for your guys help in what do I have to exactly do to get FS2004 and Win 7 running stable? I've given up on my current computer since I have had a win32k.sys BSOD and memory issue the past couple days and FS is now running like crap. I think a RAM stick failed or something but am just tired of dealing with the old system.
This next week I'm going to run some tests with Win 7 and FS2004 at my computer store as I wait for my new hardware to arrive and would love to have a "quick-reference" guide to make the transition smooth. I've done a ton of reading throughout the various forums and it seems that both of you gave the best knowledge.
Thanks in advance!
-
This next week I'm going to run some tests with Win 7 and FS2004 at my computer store as I wait for my new hardware to arrive and would love to have a "quick-reference" guide to make the transition smooth. I've done a ton of reading throughout the various forums and it seems that both of you gave the best knowledge.
With a new computer (assuming you bought something decent like a fast multi-core with a fast video card), running FS9 make even less sense than on the old one. The faster PC you have, the better FSX works, while FS9 is still more or less the same, because it doesn't SCALE performance well, since it doesn't support multi-core systems, which means after a certain hardware power, FSX is faster than FS9.
There's nothing strange to have FS9 running on Windows 7, just install it in a custom folder ( like C:\FS9 ) NOT under C:\Program Files as it defaults to, and you'll solve 99% of the issues with Windows 7.
-
Baby steps baby steps 8)
Just look back not one month ago on some of my posts :P
I had FS2004 finally tweaked out very nicely and got to enjoy it for about two flights until the non-FPS related stutter popped up which was the precursor to some type of hardware failure (that I still haven't found yet) and all these other issues :o
FSX will be next but I'm going to get back up and running with FS9 first which will allow me to resume my beta testing role of a new product very close to release and then get FSX running stable in time for the 777.
Just out of curiosity, is there any discount for FS2004 customers buying FSX products like other companies out there?
Thanks for all the help and putting up with my "dumbness" regarding computers.
BTW, yes I've got a pretty good rig (based on the numbers) in the works. Decided to skip the build I was going to do a few posts ago and go right into this one.
-
Just out of curiosity, is there any discount for FS2004 customers buying FSX products like other companies out there?
Discount ? We don't try to make money out of FS9 users migrating to FSX: there's nothing to repurchase, your previous Serial Number will work in the FSX version of our products, just download the Trial and activate it.
-
Good to know...... I like this idea; promotes good business!
I have another question that now has me wondering about something and hope you can help. The issue that popped up causing non FPS related stutters in FS is the reason why I'm making the move to a new rig. However my last flight on this rig was a day after the win32k.sys bsod. After the bsod I gave the computer a good cleaning. The next day I flew a flight into JFK (FSDT of course). The game play was pretty bad and on descent the stutter was occurring about every two minutes but the FPS was hanging in there on final. Yet the game play was very poor at that point (just wasn't smooth). After shut down I went into the menu for a second and fs gave me the "computer has run out of memory error" which is an error I've NEVER gotten before.
Now as I wait for the new hardware and OS to arrive I've been trying to figure out the "why" and was wondering if you could help since I really don't know computers and it was a FSDT airport. All the research I've done points to either a failing harddrive (which would also explain the non-FPS stutter that started to occur every 6ish minutes, for a split second, and the bsod on Friday) or the simple fact that the fs9.exe wasn't patched. Again though I've never had this error, ever, out of all the years I've flown fs9 on XP 32bit with add-ons, so I don't think the exe not being patched was the issue but I'm not sure.
Thoughts as to what could have caused the memory error since my research has covered the full spectrum?
Thanks for all the help!
-
Thoughts as to what could have caused the memory error since my research has covered the full spectrum?
From your description of the problem, everything seems to be very consistent:
- Your combination of scenery settings and addons installed required a lot of memory.
- Under a 32 bit OS, regardless of how much total RAM you have, everything (OS, all apps running including FS9 and it's addons) will have to *share* 4GB of RAM maximum. On top of that, the VRAM on your video card will *subtract* from that available memory so, with a 1GB video card, you have roughly 2.6 GB available for all your apps, as soon Windows starts. It's not the full 3GB, because other resources (like mainboard cards, bios, firmwares, etc.) will map into that memory too. And of course, Windows itself has already loaded drivers and basic services when it starts, so by the time it has finished loading, you have about 2.5-2.6GB free for your apps.
- If you haven't patched FS9.EXE to use 3GB, you don't even have those 2.6GB, you have 2GB for FS9. But even if you had, that patch can't create memory out of thin air: on a 32 bit OS you would never be able to use more than those 2.6GB anyway.
- When the system is low on memory (total allocation went more than 4GB) it will SWAP to the hard drive, using it as a memory buffer. THIS will cause heavy stutters, since hard drive access is about 100 times slower than from RAM. Even SSDs are slower than real RAM (although are of course much better than mechanical hdd)
- If your hard drive was either low on available space or, even worse, defective (and you are shortening its life by making it swapping a lot), having kernel errors and blue screens is very likely.
-
So please forgive my continued ignorance but I just want to confirm....
1) Win7-64bit
2) 16 GB Ram
3) 500MB HDD / 64 GB Cache
4) FS9.exe patched to largeaddressaware
All four of these will work together and should prevent OOM errors when running the sim at reasonable settings correct? Just trying to make sure since I never had a OOM error before and want to make sure to not have one again.
Thanks!
-
All four of these will work together and should prevent OOM errors when running the sim at reasonable settings correct?
Yes, that's the best you can do with FS9.
Of course, if your combination of installed addons will exceed 4GB of RAM, you will have an OOM in any case, but I'm not aware of FS9 addons being so memory hungry.
-
So actually wouldn't it be the 4gb of ram plus whatever the virtual memory is correct? Also its 4gb of ram and the vmem all at once correct?
Sorry for all these questions, I'm just trying to learn this stuff so I don't have to keep having my hand held.
-
So actually wouldn't it be the 4gb of ram plus whatever the virtual memory is correct? Also its 4gb of ram and the vmem all at once correct?
Yes, a 32 bit app under a 64 bit OS can't allocate more than 4GB or RAM, regardless of how much physical or virtual memory you have. Only a true 64 bit app (which neither FS9 or FSX are) can use all the RAM you got.
However, is still worth using a 64 bit OS because, under a 32 bit OS, a total of 4GB would have been shared between everything, Windows, all other running apps, drivers, everything.
-
Ok so its 4gb of memory total, not 4gb of ram and like 2gb of vmem. So in normal everyday fs use I should never use 4gb all at once unless the scenery has a memory leak correct? I know this isn't part of the forum anymore but is there an easy way to tell if there is a memory leak? I'd assume getting a OOM error would be one but then that would make me wonder why I got one going into JFK.
There must be a hardware issue or something that caused fs to not recycle the memory like it normally does.
Thanks for the help..... Seems this new hardware and OS will plow right thru any possible OOM issues!
-
So in normal everyday fs use I should never use 4gb all at once unless the scenery has a memory leak correct?
Unless SOMETHING has a memory leak and, the less likely candidates it's the scenery, since 3d objects might be corrupted/wrong and in this case should cause an immediate crash, but a memory leak is something that needs time, and it's usually related to actual code, like those founds in airplane gauges.
I know this isn't part of the forum anymore but is there an easy way to tell if there is a memory leak?
Yes, run Process Explorer ( a free utility from Microsoft ), and check if your memory usage keeps going up over time, without doing anything, like just sitting on the runway doing nothing.
I'd assume getting a OOM error would be one but then that would make me wonder why I got one going into JFK.
We discussed this many times already: if you are still running a 32 bit OS, with a 1GB card, you have 4GB that must be shared between *everything*, so OOM in an area like JFK, which is very complex, might be possible with many addons running, without this being CAUSED by the scenery.
There must be a hardware issue or something that caused fs to not recycle the memory like it normally does.
A memory leak is never an hardware problem, an hardware problem like a defective ram chip will likely cause hard blue-screen crashes.
-
Understood.... Like I said though, I got a win32k.sys bsod before the flight which is making me suspect hardware played a part in some way.
I totally understand about JFK; just a coincidence I gather since it never happened before. Old, outdated hardware and old OS as my friend says.
Thanks for all the help; very fast and thorough support.