Simviation Forums

Hey guys, how you all doing?


I

One thing you can do to help is make certain you have all unneeded programs and services shut off.

FSAutoStart is great for this.
A good cleaning of junk files and a defrag will help.
And although it is a pain especially if you have a lot of add-ons is a clean fresh install of FS9

Before spending money on upgrades try some simple maintainece first and see if that helps.

It sounds like your FS9 may be improved by display settings. Have you set your driver display settings manually and to suit the sim? ie. high quality, 2qx aa and 4x af.

Autogen can't be turned way up, but you pobably know that.

Try 1024 x 768 x 32 resolution in game and then go up from there until FPS is affected badly then go back a notch.

It sounds like your FS9 may be improved by display settings. Have you set your driver display settings manually and to suit the sim? ie. high quality, 2qx aa and 4x af.

Autogen can't be turned way up, but you pobably know that.

Try 1024 x 768 x 32 resolution in game and then go up from there until FPS is affected badly then go back a notch.

thanks for the feedback everyone...

congo, I went into Nvidia settings, and the settings for AA and AF were set to 'Application Controlled' - Ive always left it like this... but I followed your advice and manually set the values... WOW, the image quality improved even futher...

I always left this option on "application controlled" because I presumed FS2004 would use it to the best setting, obviously it didnt...

the FPS is much smoother, but nearer airports still get a odd FPS dropping... changing the AA and AF has improved the FPS soo much, I just need to find out what else now could be causing the lag...

I have a clue... sometimes the sound stutters during low FPS (<10fps), and I should note that I am using on-board sound... maybe I should buy a propper PCI soundcard... could this be interrupting my FPS by utilsing the processor, or would the workload be too small and insignificant to effect FS?

thanks in advance

I think it's pretty easy to test the effect of onboard sound, mute the sound in the sim and see if the FPS is affected dramatically. Typically, onboard sound will reduce FPS by 8-10%, but 3ghz cpu's should be able to cope.

If you have a few other background apps running, it all adds to extra cpu load.

Leaving the sim's aa settings application controlled is a known perfomance issue.

I can max FS out (apart from water effects and cloud density) and have 4xAA and 2xAF on with very good FPS (Ie above 20 almost all the time) on a slower system than yours so something is definatly sapping your perforamnce or not configured corectly!

As people said before kill anything uneeded and defragment your had disk.

Also update to the latest graphics driver:
www.nvidia.com

and update all other drivers if there are known issues in regards to perforamance.

Remove andy unesacery periphirals (modems, webcams etc) as these often have crap drivers that slow systems down.

I had trouble with a 533 fsb machine.  Wonder if that is the main bottleneck?

And is the latency of the graphics card hogging the buss?


Your thoughts congo?


best,

.................john

I had trouble with a 533 fsb machine.  Wonder if that is the main bottleneck?

And is the latency of the graphics card hogging the buss?


Your thoughts congo?


best,

.................john

yeah thats what I am thinking, the 533FSB isnt enough for FS2004 to run as smooth as I want it too.

The 533fsb is fine.

If you have your cpu at the correct speed, enough ram, mainboard drivers for AGP etc all working, then it's not a hardware bottleneck, unless your 6600GT is not performing. ( How do AGP 6600GT's compare with PCIe ones? I wouldn't think a lot of difference.)

Background processes like virus checkers, hardware monitors, automatic updates, scheduled tasks and virtually anything running in the background will slow the performance in FS9.

Testing the hardware for comparitive analysis requires a universal benchmark tool such as 3Dmark 2005 so you can compare your rig with like systems to make sure it is performing at it's best. Your score in the benchmark will tell you if your PC is sick or not.

www.wheresjames.com

Ps. I have heard that AMD are better at the moment for gaming, but I also need to use this machine for other applications too, therefore I would like to stick to Intel.

Give me a good gaming machine and I'll show you an excellent productivity machine. Do some research on this and don't be swayed by unsubtantiated rhetoric.

AMD is not so much anymore. Intels new conroe is almos an exact (and cleaned up) copy of AMDs FX-60 without the 1K+ price tag. Also we must consider this, my friends 3700+ should be better for gameing as its AMD correct? Well my 550 beat it out in all games and benchmarks, then mopped the floor with it at media encodeing. So really for the normal range processers (Intel 5XX / 6XX and AMD 3X00 / 4X00) they are really matched in gameing, but intel pulls way ahead in other computing tasks. Its only when you get into the "gameing" processers (Intel EE, and AMD FX) that we see the AMD take the crown, however you are going to pay $800+ for that.

Cheers
Cameron

What do you mean by mopping the floor and way ahead Cameron?

Are you talking about a 3-10% percent advantage or what on a comparable cpu? How does this "mop up" affect total system price and is there a price/performance advantage with the Intel systems?

Media encodeing, hmm, now there is a dubious claim to fame lol, Intel are a little faster at copying DVD's. So, Instead of AMD taking half an hour to copy a DVD it takes Intel 25 minutes? What is the advantage can anyone tell me? Particularly when you usually walk away from such lengthy operations?

There are other considerations than quoting the performance specs of the top expensive cpu models.

You can hardly compare a super overclocked cpu like yours Cameron to what people are going to get in their systems. Unless you want to preach to the 1% who buy the latest and greatest CPU, comparing the latest or "almost" released hardware is of little benefit in advising the average reader here. There are of course those few who do demand the very highest spec and will pay for it, and they are always going to benefit directly from the latest hardware release, whether it be through actually using the machine or merely boasting rights.

Intel needed to strike back at AMD because of the recent shift to AMD systems. Quite frankly, they couldn't sit on their laurels any longer and watch their market share being steadily eroded as AMD's performance and popularity rose. It's good to see Intel back in the game again.

Intel once boasted quiet and cool operation on their CPU lineup while AMD had some heat issues, but the reversal of this situation caused a good deal of people to switch over to AMD after that argument no longer held true.

And isnt it funny that once the market switched from Intel to AMD for the heat reasons, Intel comes out with the "preshot" which is by far one of the hottest cores on the market.

Ahh yes, I love this market. Unlike things like say airsoft where if you want a top end AEG, you get a Tokyo Marui, and theres really no contest. In the world of computers, you will have old tech no matter what, and there are two major players in the two largest fields competing for your dollar.

Cheers
Cameron

The latest and greatest hardware is almost always the best but there have been exceptions.

What impresses me is when a technology advance occurs with little or no increase in costs to the end user. That is real success.