Ram or better vid card.

[Gary R.]

I recently upgraded from a radeon 7000 64DDR to a radeon 9200 128 SE.  Now, I didn't notice a significant performance increase.  However, I am currently running 768 meg. of 3200 DDR.  Now, what would be wise to be next?  Trade my 9200 up to a 9600, 9800, or 5000 series nVidia or first add another 256 of ram and get me over a gig??  I read often where 1 gig or better is prefered for COF and certain add-ons.  Could more ram get me results in 1024x768 resolution that I currently get in 800x600 resolution?  I can maintain a steady 30fps plus in 800x600 and have things turned up rather high but if I go to 1024x768 I struggle at the same settings to maintain 24fps and need to turn down my mesh and autogen settings to keep that 24 fps in busy areas.  Should I try more ram or just stay with 768 and get the vid card I should have in the first place??  Whata ya'all think????

[Gixer]

I would say go for the new G/card.  FS2004 will run ok on 512 but for best results yes 1gig.  I do not think you will get the extra FPS you are looking for by adding  256 of ram!

Here is a chart with VGA cards on benched in FS2004 to give you a rough guide of what each card does.



I would go 9800pro or XT on this chart though do take into consideration the new gen cards like the 6000 series Nvidia or x600, 700, 800series ATI's

My bro has an ATI9800pro and gets good results from that though.  I personally would avoid Nvidia's 5000 range from last year, the ATI equivilants always seemed to out perform them!

[Georf]

What about the radeon 9200 pro 128mb

[Gixer]

Would be near the bottom of that chart I am afraid.  Dont forget that chart shows the cards FPS with Anti-Alias turned on which hits FPS a fair bit but makes the sim look so much better!

[Delta_]

Go for the GFX card, get nothing less than a 9600, and avoid the se models they have reduced bandwidth so are not worth the money at all.

[Gary R.]

Well, actually I'm not an eye candy junky and will probably never get into scenery like your hong kong benchmark, save maybe for mesh but only for the sake of the elevation points and how they relate to ifr flying. I am mostly an ifr type doing a lot of flying at night and bad weather. But, the daytime bad weather is a system drain though.  Also, I'm a poor boy.  I can't spend 100's onn the state of the art cards.  I would be content for whatever can give me a 24-28 fps average with default scenery textures and be able to stay under $100 on trade up of my 9200 se.  How much are the radeon 9700's going for these days?  I was offered a good trade up value for a gforce 5800.  Is that reading the 128 meg 5800 or the 256?  The deal I was offered was for the 256 meg 5800. $65 USD with my current 9200 se.  Good deal?

[Gary R.]

Well, I don't think any range of 9200 makes a difference because its all the same board. The only difference is in extras.  My PC shop typically gets better deals because they get just the card, not the retail packages which includes a lot of game demos and stuff and runs the consumer cost up also.  Also, that chart doesn't mention other system specs as well.  Were all the display sliders, clouds, and AI traffic maxed for those benchmarks? I don't need long distance cloud draw.  What good does 3D clouds 10 miles away do anyway.  I can't tell personally unless I'm flying in the cloud.  Right now I can turn everything up and have 30 fps peak in 800x600 which looks just fine  actually to me.  The problem is all these designers that think they need to do panels in 1024x768 resolution in order to look good.  I get tired of not being able to read some gauges and labels without relying on tool tips.  If I can get 25-30 peak in 1024x768 I'll be happy.

[congo]

Look again at the chart, make the 9600XT your lower cutoff point, the video card is the secret to performance, I say blow all your dough on one of the top cards, because, after you frustrate yourself for years, you'll end up with one anyway, so enjoy it now.

You won't believe the difference.

[Gary R.]

Okay, I'll go to ATI's website and run thier comparison utility, make my selections and then call my PC shop and give them to him and see what trade up numbers he can throw me. maybe I still can get away with less than $100 USD for a trade up and still get a good card.

[Gary R.]

Oh, one more thing.  AI traffic. What resource does that depend on most? Ram or vid card. I would think ram since unless you are actually seeing something being drawn the dependence would be more on ram due to the processing required for the AI flight plans, pilots, and controllers.  Am I on the track there?

[congo]

Your ram and cpu are fine...... you have no idea how badly your current video card is holding you back.

As 4_Series_Scania said in another thread, try to get a 6800LE for your overstretched dollar.

If you are just being a penny pincher though, the video card is not the place to skimp, get the best you can afford, your simming is going to be so much more enjoyable.

[Gary R.]

Well, my simming is enjoyable now but only under certain conditions. The main one being as long as I can read a panel and all the gauges in 800x600 res.  In 800x600 I can set everything up and still average 24-26 fps. Ahhh incidently, 24 fps is standard motion picture speed.  When people brag or rejoice about getting 30 and over believe me, unless they  have a cats or dogs eyesight, the human visual cortex can not percieve more than 24 fps.  Actually, I can very barely see the difference between 20 and 24 fps although I know its good to be capable of extra for busy airports, extreme terrain and cities, and weather.

[Gixer]

How many FPS the eye can see has never actually been found out I dont think.  And yes motion films are at 24fps but they are blurred between each frame to achieve smoothness.

What a higher FPS does is smoothness.  For example at 25FPS if I pan quickly around the plane in spot view you can see the scenery goin past but not silky smooth.  Now go somewhere where it holds 40 and do it! if you cant see the difference then your eyes are in pretty poor condition hehehe.  Also being sat close to the monitor doesnt help! sitting further away you wouldn't notice the unsmoothness as much.

I will say your setup will have a sweet spot that FS will run best at.  FS-GS explained all this to me though I cant tell you hows it worked out I am afraid.

The main aim is to not achieve the highest FPS you can but get your lowest FPS up a bit! and also to make the sim run smoothly.

[congo]

800 X 600 RES isn't high enough resolution for most panels anyway.

You really should see what FS2004 looks like on a decent rig with a decent graphics card, then you would understand what we are trying to tell you.

[Gixer]

1600x1200 me up!! hehehe  8)