by beaky » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:10 am
Offhand, it sounds like your problem is the same as mine: need more RAM (but I could be wrong).
Based on what I've heard, to run FS9 at max settings requires at least 1G RAM. MS's specs for system requirements is for bare-minimum settings.
I also have 512 RAM and a 128 card, but my CPU is only a 1.2 GHz, and after messing around with it, I can run FS9 at a solid 24 fps (fast enough for me, although more would be nice) with it locked at 24. I've found that depending on the area I'm flying in, it varies. For example, cluttered scenery like NYC knocks it down to as low as 11 fps. Out in the boonies, or at night, when the system doesn't have so much to draw, it's always a solid 24. The complexity of the model affects it, too- some 3rd-party addons can hit fps rates pretty hard.
I've found antialiasing and trilinear mapping to not affect my framerates, but I'd recommend keeping mipmapping and hardware-rendered lights at 4, maximum. My other graphics settings
are at about 70% average, with cloud rendering and sight distance at more like 20%.
I arrived at my current settings by starting at 100% everything, then backing things off one at a time, in order of least importance, until I got the compromise between looks and performance that I was seeking. Each time I'd reduce a parameter, if I saw no significant improvement, I'd leave it maxed...
Last edited by
beaky on Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.