Can't get good frame rate even in FS9

[cgripp256]

OK.  So, I know I have an old stinker of a PC for FSX and I've been willing to live with the desert like landscape.  I literally run with all sliders minimized and everything turned off and unchecked. 

But I thought, what the heck, I'll try FS9 on this machine and see what I get because SURELY I'll be able to run it decently since it was release around the same time as my current PC and I've upgraded some things since getting it originally.

Here is what I CURRENTLY have:

Dell Dimension P4 2.66 Ghz single processor
1.5 GB RAM
NVIDIA 9400GT 512MB
40GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM
60GB IBM DESKSTAR ATA100,7200 RPM
*These are on seperate IDE controllers and FSX and FS9 are the only thing on the 60GB drive, the rest of the system runs off the 40GB.

I've already followed Nicks tweaks (OS, FS9.cfg, and Nhancer) exactly.  I'm a long time PC/Network engineer and most of them I had already been doing on my PC but there were a few that I did still have to do.  I did the defrags with the OO tool even though my drives were at < 2% defrag already.

If I have the display settings set to High and load up the default KSEA flight (daytime) I get < 10fps (5-8 typically) sitting on the runway waiting to take off.

If I select Minimum on all tabs I can squeeze out 13 fps.

I feel like something can't be right.  I've run performance tests on my video card using Passmarks Performance Test and I can get 150 and 75 for the simple and medium 3D tests but it drops to 1 fps for the complex 3D test.  I can even overclock my GPU and get 210fps on the simple test but the other two tests stay the same.

[beaky]

Maybe you need more RAM?
My system is just a bit less worthy than yours, with one exception: 2 gigs of RAM (a matched pair of 1 GB sticks). I usually run FS9 at max settings, with the gpu overclocked slightly, and get a very reliable 38.8 fps with frames locked at 39 fps, even at KSEA at rush hour, except for very rare sluggish moments (probably due to Active Sky updating).

That's all I can think of, as I'd assume you have your FSB, voltages, etc. set up to make the most of the graphics card... and you don't mention any frame-bashing add-ons to the sim.

[cgripp256]

Well, my system RAM stays well below the 1.5 GB available (almost half to be exact).  I have no addons, these are pretty generic installs.

My motherboard is a PCI bus and not PCIe or AGP, which is yours?

My FPS is so similar in FS9 and FSX I'm thinking there is a hardware limitation somewhere I am not seeing.  I have spent all week trying to figure this out, my wife is about to call in a missing persons report I've been spending so much time in my office. 

[cgripp256]

OK.  So after several different driver downgrades and multiple GPU performance tests I've come up with the likely causes. 1.  The motherboard - my MB is several years older than the other P4 systems I am comparing it to in performance tester.  They are probably running a better chipset and based on the bios version difference in my GPU vs. theirs I'm guessing they are PCIe 2.0 cards.  2.  The RAM - with the new drivers my GPU reports 1024 MB even though it is a 512MB on the old driver it reports 512MB correctly but I notice that the comparison cards are still 1024 indicating they have the 1024 cards.  This is the only thing that makes sense.  Interestingly enough my basic and medium 3D performance got better after downgrading to a 2008 driver (178.24) but the complex test stayed similar or a little worse.

Now I need to find a cheap MB for a P4 2.66 that I can just transfer all of my gear into, return the 9400 GT 512 MB PCI and get a 9400 GT 1024 PCI-express card.

Any suggestions?!?

[Fozzer]

PCI Graphics cards are completely obsolete now.
The very minimum you need is a AGP Graphics Card (mine is a n-vidia 7800 GS 256 AGP Card).

....or better still, the latest PCIe Graphics card.

So that means a new Motherboard, New Processor, and New Memory...in other words....a New Computer..... :o...!

My ancient system which runs FS 2004 flat out, smoothly, with all the sliders Maxed, at a LOCKED 20 FPS...>>>

Fozzer's bits:
Desktop case.
Motherboard: Gigabyte. GA7-400 S-L. (AGP and Socket A).
Processor: Socket A. AMD Athlon Thoroughbred 2600 MMX (2.1 GHz).
Graphics: AGP. n-Vidia Winfast 7800GS 256 MB.
Memory: 2 GB.
Power: 700 Watt. Storm PSU.
Sound: Creative Labs. Soundblaster 1024 Live!
Monitor: Philips 15" 170C.

Copes with FS 2004 wonderfully.... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

If I wanted to upgrade anything in the above system now, it would involve a COMPLETE rebuild!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Navigator... 8-)...!

[ozzy72]

Cgripp, silly question but what programs are running in the background whilst you're running FS?

[ShaneG_old]

MSFS performance is mostly dependant on CPU speed and RAM.

A good GPU does help , but it's probably the least important of the three.

Your GPU is fine here, if you can get a 756Mb 8800 series card, you'll be even happier.

[Fozzer]

...actually...

I purchased my Gigabyte, Socket A, AGP Motherboard in 2004, and fitted it with a AMD Socket A 2600+ MMX 2.1 GB Processor, a truly ancient system by today's standards, but over the intervening years the greatest improvements in quality and smoothness have been in upgrading the Graphics Card containing more on-board Graphics Memory, with the original AMD Socket A, 2.1 GB processor remaining the same!

The change from an AGP

[ShaneG_old]

The graphics of FS are pretty spartan by most gaming standards, thus why GPU's aren't the most important part.
CPU speed & RAM are needed to perform the mind boggling calculations needed, and if you're flying anything fast and high, with lots of AI traffic and cloudy skies, this will become apparent.

Those who only fly low & slow, with little or no traffic, and clear skies with limited visibility, can get by on much slower systems, and be perfectly satisfied.

When FS-(9 or X) is running, your CPU is having to:

-manage your position on the Earth
-manage wind & weather conditions, and how they affect your plane
-manage AI traffic within a 40nm radius of your plane
-handle ATC for you and the AI
-determine which textures, mesh, and landclass files need to be displayed

All the GPU has to do is render some textures.

That's a ton of things for the CPU to handle, and more RAM takes a bit of the load off. 
The faster and higher you get, the harder and faster your CPU must run to keep up.

[Fozzer]

cgripp's Computer specification looks reasonably adequate to me, with perhaps another 512 MB of memory fitted to make 2GB Min, to run FS 2004 maxed under most flying conditions, with occasional slow-downs in busy areas.
A spot of reducing selected sliders in certain graphics areas should make the experience enjoyable enough.
Careful custom Weather selection (cloud density, visible distance, draw distance, etc), reduced the amount of AI aircraft running, and accepting the inevitable slow-down around busy Airfields, should cure most annoyances... ...!

And don't expect miracles!...I don't!....... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004 (FSX)...FS Nav....A happy Bunny with money stored safely in my pocket... ...!

[ShaneG_old]

cgripp's Computer specification looks reasonably adequate to me, with perhaps another 512 MB of memory fitted to make 2GB Min, to run FS 2004 maxed under most flying conditions, with occasional slow-downs in busy areas.
A spot of reducing selected sliders in certain graphics areas should make the experience enjoyable enough.
Careful custom Weather selection (cloud density, visible distance, draw distance, etc), reduced the amount of IA aircraft running, and accepting the inevitable slow-down around busy Airfields, should cure most annoyances... ...!

And don't expect miracles!

Agreed. With the extra RAM, realistic expectations for your system,and a bit of trial & error with the sliders, you can find a happy balance .

[Romflyer]

Well I have basically the same computor

[Fozzer]

I have both FS 2004 (and FS '98/2000/2002) and FSX, and the thing I really, REALLY love about FS 2004, is the ability to have enormous fun with the most basic of computers!
A little twiddle here and there with the sliders, etc. works wonders!.

For anyone who is struggling and getting frustrated and disappointed with their efforts in getting FSX to run "nicely"on their computer, and unable/worried about have to spend lots of money on an upgrade, do give FS 2004 a try....it can be found at a bargain price now, and is well worth a try-out...and at least it will get you up in the air with no difficulty!.... ...!

Keep both FSX and FS 2004 ready for your Hard Drive... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

Paul...G-BPLF....FS 2004/FSX.... ...!

...and....within seconds, and a couple of Mouse clicks, you can join all the other Multiplayer Flight Simmers on the Net.... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]...!

[JoBee]

I also have experience with a PCI equipped PC.

That is the bottleneck in the system.

Doesn't matter what other upgrades you make, nothing will help.

The CPU does all the work in FS9, then feeds it to the GPU.

With PCI, you are trying to shove an elephant through a pin hole.

Start saving your money for a new PC.

cheers,
Joe

[757200ba]

Well i have to agree with JoBee.We know sometimes PCI EX. fights to stay ok with FS.Now PCI its almost a miracle.Tweaking migh improve abit, but honestly you need to update your system.Or you could try fs2002, not that it will be a great diference in terms of performance boost , but some you will.