Shall we boycott the dude?

[stephan]

Hahahaha ...Thanks for the clarification of my status here,LOL. Any opinions of me are no doubt formed by my past actions. No one was to criticize for it but me. And,as far as the help you offered,...ANY help offered is greatly appreciated. Even if I have tried something someone has suggested,...if they refresh my memory about something I may have tried,it MAY jog something in my thinking,or maybe another way of approaching the problem . Thanks bunches bud.

( No doubt my sim shrink is lurking in the background here,watching me to see if I am behaving myself,...aint that right Paul? hahaha...

[Fozzer]

Hahahaha ...

( No doubt my sim shrink is lurking in the background here,watching me to see if I am behaving myself,...aint that right Paul? hahaha...

...aint that the troof, me ol' flower... ... ...!

Paul.... ... ... ...!

[Skywatcher]

On your question, I've found there is no set advice you should follow regarding scenery order.
When I started with FS just about everywhere I read told you to put mesh at the bottom of the scenery list. Then VOZ was developed and the developer insisted mesh should be at the top. WTF? It was questioned in many threads at the time as mesh at the top of the list was not the common perception of where mesh should be. So who was right, FS community or the VOZ group? Well, decided I'll clearly have to work it out for myself. With mesh, I found it depends. Some scenery works better with mesh on top of the scenery, some with mesh below the scenery. I now start with the mesh at top and only put scenery above it if there is a reason to do so.
Same system with anything else in the scenery order, I work it out for myself. I now add every new scenery just below the mesh. The newest scenery install goes on top of older scenery and finally the mesh is above that. The only time I move anything is if something doesn't work right. This system has worked very well for me and I believe it's the best way to appoach the scenery order. I have extremely few problems.

[sjklop]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to weak weak ask, Boeing 747 747 f how to start

[tbus]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to weak weak ask, Boeing 747 747 f how to start

Who is this really? Am I on Candid Camera?
..... and there sure aren't any ladies in here! .... well not too sure about one or two........
Where's my Legos?
As for the 747 ..... did you turn the key in the ignition? (sorry, I always wanted to say that)

I now turn it over to our regularly-scheduled broadcast .........

[Tug002]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to weak weak ask, Boeing 747 747 f how to start

Ctrl+E will auto start.

Keep smiling
Tug

[stephan]

Skywatcher.Thanks for the info bud.// On the subject of file priority,...almost every article I read on the net pretty much said the same thing...seems no one really has a definite answer. In asking my question,I figured it was a shot in the dark at best,and maybe someone would have a method that made sense to me and I'd try it. Seems like there are only a couple that seem to make some sense to me,yours being one of them.
The way I see it,...if one has good RAM,a pretty good processor,and video/graphics card,...and a hard drive and cdrom that is of good speed, the systems these days move data so fast that it really doesnt make much difference. NOW...I am not a computer guru. That is simply my thinking on the matter. None the less,I will try your method and a couple of the others I kinda like the sound of.
NOW...it is time for me to take a beating...
after asking my question on priority ... something that may also be hindering my frame rate is the fact that I have only about 9% of hard drive space left/empty.
I have uninstalled and deleted as much as I can. The rest is sim stuff. Just defragged my HD and hopefully,that will aid in a little speeding up of the sim as well.
Well,I'm starting to ramble,...so...before I get a simulated bill from my sim shrink for wasting any more time on this subject,I'll bug out for now. Thanks folks.

[stephan]

sjklop... Question...
What kind of 747 are you trying to fly?
Almost all sim aircraft are simple enough to start and fly...until you make your first attempt at aircraft like the PMDG 747 Queen of the Skies. She is a beauty,but one MUST read the manual or forget it. Luckily,a Facebook friend of mine made 5 YouTube videos at my request as to the way to start up and fly and land the PMDG 747. (I HATE manuals...cant make heads or tails out of them...so Lee made the videos).

[Skywatcher]

Gaining fps there are a million things you can try, many threads across the net on this. End of the day it really depends what you are prepared to lose to gain some fps. I personally like to simulate flight. Scenery is a second consideration. I want smooth flight, smooth instruments. I would happily turn down any graphic element to get good performance in the cockpit. If you want the scenery, then you may have to fly simpler aircraft to get things to work well. Really depends on what is important to you.

[Fozzer]

Dear old FS 2004 will run quite happily on a Sinclair Spectrum 48k /Timex USA computer..... ....!

...its FSX which requires the power of a Cray Super-Computer (like mine) with a snazzy i7 Central Processor, to run it smoothly.... ....!

My FS 2004 ran as smooth as silk on my old Intel Pentium 4 Dual-Core Processor and n-Vidia 9500 Graphics Card with most everything wound up to the max!

FS 2002 and FS 2004 are happy Bunnies on lowly computers!.... ....!

Paul.....Cooling my FSX Cray Super-Computer down, during Dinner-Time...... ...!

[ViperPilot]

Stephan,

If you wouldn't mind, could you post your Computer's Specs?

Also, what kind of FPS drop are you experiencing, and where (or when) does it occur?

Thanks!

Alan

[stephan]

ViperPilot...
I have an older computer...
2 gig RAM,Pentium 4 @ 2.79GHz with Windows XP sp3,My video card is a Radeon 9250 with 2 video output ports and 256 meg memory in it.Beyond that info,I would have to know what else would be of importance before I could find it out for you.I use the 2 video ports and also use the video port on my systems motherboard,giving me 3 monitors to use for the sim.If losing one of the monitors just to get better frame rates is needed,then I will deal with the frame rate problem,since I use all 3 monitors in every aircraft and every flight.I think on my last message here in the forum,I stated my frame rate was something like 20fps,when in fact,I saw the frame rate this morning and it was something like 7-8 fps as an average,dropping down to near 3 fps when approaching a real busy airport with quite a bit of detail.
SkyWatcher...
Sadly enough,I am a hard to please person.I like the use of many gauges and LOVE to see the scenery and ac that are waiting for me to land so they can take off.In other words,the whole sim experience is a total package to me.Losing satisfaction in one area would impact my appreciation for the whole sim.
Paul ( my sim shrink extraordinaire ) ...
one could only wish to have a super computer that you appear to have.Being between jobs,and at my age,AND now..with a heart condition...income is at a complete standstill,and the hopes of having a newer computer enter my life has crashed like a wingless C5a. So,I have to tweek and tweek until I am blue in the face to get any satisfaction out of my system.To be straight honest,were an offer come to me for a complete custom flight sim cockpit in the box new valued at $250,000.oo and I could have it for $20.00,I couldnt scrape the cash together. I'm about as po' as po' can be right now.Thats why I sim so much. Too broke to go any where and do anything.Some may think thats too much personal info,but the fact is,I'm not lazy.The economy here in the Lake Erie steel belt is so bad,you cant imagine. Lorain,the next town over,used to be the ship yards and steel mills all along the lake.NOW,Lorain is nothing more than a ghost town.Downtown Lorain might have 30% of it's buildings open for various businesses...the rest,boarded up and closed down,falling apart.And my town is nothing but bars,a mall that is falling apart and a major drug dealers hub for northern Ohio.Work is almost impossible to find for a young,fit person let alone an old codger falling apart.
ANYWAY...I'll be waiting for a resonse (hopefully) to my frame rate problem. Heck...I'd be satisfied just to get a frame rate average of 13-15 FPS. I see some folks get 30 and over.

[Fozzer]

Steph... ...!

With my old Tower Computer; Windows XP Pro, 32-bit, Pentium 4 Dual Core Processor, 2.8 GHz, 16 GB System RAM, n-Vidia 9500GT, 1 GB Video RAM Graphics card; FS 2004 ran a treat, averaging a smooth18-20 FPS Frame Rate, LOCKED at 20FPS!

So...I suspect that you are over-stretching your Computer unnecessarily, Steph!

What I did with mine was to limit some of my various graphics settings to give me SMOOTH scenery, which was my main aim!
Any thing that was not really necessary, I put a limit on in the settings.

Bit by bit, try by try, I achieved settings which gave me what I was looking for...SMOOTH Scenery.... ...!

Very busy Airfields were always going to give me very low frame Rates (5-8 FPS) so I made a point of not spending too much time there....and their Coffee was awful anyway!

Open countryside was just fine, amongst the Cows and Sheep!

It all came down to carefully fine tuning my settings until I was happy...and I like being happy!... ...!

The same computer obviously gave me slight Frame Rate problems using FSX, and it was not until my old Pentium 4 Computer finally blew up, forcing me to get a fast £600 tower computer to run my FSX flat out.
But I did find that with careful adjustments, my old Pentium 4 computer was quite happy running my FS 2004.
..in fact I was so happy with my FS 2004 that it took me ages to change over to FSX!
Now, I have FS 2002, FS 2004, FSX, and CFS 2 all on my HDD ready to run at a moments notice!

The only thing I need now, is a 1942 Harley Knuckle-head, to complete my ultimate satisfaction.... ...!

Steady-on Steph... ...!

Paul....MD.... ...!

[ViperPilot]

stephan,

Aaah, the good old P4! Like you and Paul, I also had a P4 3.0GHz, 2Gb RAM, but I was using a 1Gb Graphics Card (Radeon 4650), which gave me the extra 'oomph' to run FS9 pretty smoothly. Using mostly Freeware Airports, I was consistently getting 30fps unless I was in a high traffic area, where it would drop to 15-18 fps. I was using a single 24" HD Monitor, however. But, that rig bit the dust this past February so I had to switch to my Laptop.

Looking at your Specs, I would venture to say that the bottleneck is occurring due to the 256 Mb Graphics Card you have. On older Computers though, the options for a Graphics Card weren't as numerous as they are today; the maximum RAM stopped at 1Gb. Also, the Card slots run at slower speeds than today's do.

If you can find out what type (and Speed) the Card Slots on your Motherboard are, that would be very helpful to know... it would make it easier to recommend what's going to be your best option.

Alan

[stephan]

Thanks folks for the follow ups. My Pent 4 isnt dual core unfortunately. Wont be long before I'll start seeing fossils falling out of my tower.
I'll see if I can figure out the slot speeds.Didnt know there was such a thing.Figured the microprocessor andled all that on board speed stuff minus the CD ROM and HD.
And Paul...you hit the nail dead on ...My favorite Harley is the Knucklehead,followed close by with the old flat-head 80.
Bikes that could be repaired with a 7/17 , 9/16 and 5/8" wrenches,a hammer,screwdriver,channel locks and a good boot kick to the crankcase just to persuade proper performance LOL. NOW...to work on these new Harley EVO engines,one needs a flipping motorcycle shop with state of the art diagnostics equipment.