FPS Question, need lots of answers please!

[Virtual_Pilot]

Hey,
I have seen a couple of posts around Simv that talk about Frames Per Second, like the ones discussing if a product affects FPS at all. They say something like this...

Ok, so if I have this on and that off, I get 58-64 FPS
If I have this on and that on, I get 54-58 FPS
If I have this off and that off, I get 67-75 FPS

Does an average Flight Simmer get THAT MUCH Frames Per Second?

My FPS will range from 8-17 FPS, which means that my all-time low is 8 and my all-time high is 17.

Once I turned ALL of the setting to the LOWEST they can go, even turned off filtering, and got 80-120 FPS, it was amazing, except for the graphics lol.

Here is some info on my system:

Windows Vista 32-Bit Home Premium

Nvidia GeForce 7300 LE (A little confused about the size of it, in dxdiag it says it is about 617 mb, but when I bought it, it said 256mb... )

2G RAM

Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz EACH

Direct X 10



It's a Dell Dimension E520



I couldn't even imagine having my usual settings on and getting THIRTY Frames Per Second!

Does everyone get that much FPS, or am I misunderstood?

Thanks,
Virtual_Pilot

[bowler_man]

No, not everyone has that kind of FPS. They just have "super-charged" systems. To be honest, when I am at a large airport, I average around 2-4 FPS  :-[ And I have a Dell XPS 400, which is a very nice system, but FSX is a memory sucker...So no, not everyone gets insane FPS like some few people that get that much.

[Virtual_Pilot]

I have some money to spend on my computer, what should I buy, RAM or new video card?

[howdydude123]

You need at least 2 ghz for fsx to run properly.

[Brett_Henderson]

We need a FPS benchmark. It not only depends on your settings... it depends on the complexity of the model you're flying, and the complexity of the scenery.  All things being equal; you'll get a HUGE variation in FPS when you're taxiing at O'hare, and in that same plane, at 35,000 feet. And even those two scenarios will vary greatly depending on  the clouds.... and THAT can vary depending on the view in which you're looking .. i.e. is your spot view looking down toward land scenery, or up toward clouds...  



I still say anything over 15fps gives you flyable smoothness... and anything over 20 is better than you can perceive. 12 is where it gets tough to control the plane.

[Virtual_Pilot]

I said I had 1.86 GHz for EACH processor, this is a duo

[Brett_Henderson]

I have some money to spend on my computer, what should I buy, RAM or new video card?

That depends. List your current specs.


edit.. oops.. sorry I mixed you up with another poster...

A video card would be your best investment..

[Virtual_Pilot]

I usually fly the FSX Default Learjet 45 will sparse autogen, Low coverage 3d clouds, 100% traffic (except for cars, have that at 39%) aniso filtering, NO BLOOM, advanced animations, lowest terrain mesh, texture, and whatever, low level of detail radius

[reider]

Brett is right, the video card is an LE version (Nvidia GeForce 7300 LE).  LE is a light version.  Their are some excellent cards out with a 50 in the number but try and avoid them where possible and say go for a 7600 rather than a 7550.  Usually but not always the 50 denotes a reference that certain parts were changed to fit a budget.  The 7550 sometimes can be slower than a 7400.  These are example numbers only.  Try and read up on GT, GS, GTX and so on in a range of cards, try and see what other people think of them before purchase.  Ensure it will work in your Dell before purchase.  Dell machines do not always readily take to hardware changes.  I feel like adding avoid Dell, but will refrain from doing so  ;)

Reider

[Mr.Mike]

I get between 8 and 20 fps but on avarage its around 10 -14.  I run high setting aircraft and low on ever thing else, my computer stats are in my sig.  I have done a little tweaking here and there but it hasnt made a TON of difference.

[PhilTaylor]

[quote]We need a FPS benchmark. It not only depends on your settings... it depends on the complexity of the model you're flying, and the complexity of the scenery.

[Brett_Henderson]

Not benchmarks for comparing hardware.. we know how to do that. I mean like a standard for reporting FPS..

Example: The SimV FPS benchmark could be...

Default 737;  Takeoff and climb from KORD; Fair weather...  and so-on...


Saying you get XX FPS in a Lear at 30,000, is no comparison to a payware 747 landing at O'hare..

[howdydude123]

speaking of o hare. is o hare the biggest US airport? Cause i go there a lot and its bigger than most airports i go too.

[ATI_7500]

As far as I know, KORD is the busiest airport in the world.


Benchmarks for FSX are pretty senseless. This is a simulator and not Quake, so why should you care about FPS at all as long as it's fluid?
Furthermore, it's pretty hard to find an unified standard for benchmarking, since most FSX setups are quite different from each other.

[Brett_Henderson]

Agreed..

But.. What I was thinking.. was like if your talking a new build with someone, considering getting something similar to theirs...