Super low settings for FS2004

[CCairns10]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-03 AT 07:32PM (EDT)[p]Considering the high hardware requirements of FS2004, if your hardware is a bit long in the tooth consider these settings (images taken from FS2002):

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3efa2c49608d0bfc.jpg

Note the low Cloud Density and Terrain Texture Size settings.....

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3efa2cd1615b2752.jpg

Relatively low Aircraft Texture Size and Virtual Cockpit Gauge Quality settings make little difference to me.....

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3efa2db062040d6b.jpg

The super low 640x480x16 resolution setting does increase framerates.

The results of these super low settings are this:

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3efa2e5e62ab679a.jpg

and this:

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3efa2ea462c37f37.jpg

My specs are:
AMD Athlon 1700+
512MB SDRAM
64MB Hercules Prophet Video Graphics
Windows XP

Personally, I am not crazy about top level graphics, adequate will do me, as long as the best elements of professional aviation are supplied by FS2004 that's OK by me.

I say again, if your system is a bit long in the tooth think of super low settings for FS2004

Chris

[mcarvela]

My system is probably classified as one of those "long in the tooth" systems. When FS2K2 was introduced, my Dell P4 1.3 was the cat's meow. Now it's a dinosaur. The changes I would make to your recommendations- don't waste resourses with anti-aliasing. Shut that one off, turn the framerate lock down to about 20 and increase the resolution to 1064X768X32. My eyes can't detect any difference in anything over 20 FPS. IMHO 640X480 is horrible and if 2K4 is anything like 2K2, 16 bit causes nothing but trouble. Oh also, increase the lights to 7. In 2K2 I fing it has very little effect on framerate.

Just my $.02

Mike

[CCairns10]

< don't waste resourses with anti-aliasing. Shut that one off >

Yes, that's good one.

< increase the resolution to 1064X768X32. My eyes can't detect any difference in anything over 20 FPS. IMHO 640X480 is horrible >

Many have said they don't see any lowering in framerates with higher resolutions, mainly by looking at the frame rate counter, but I do detect reductions, especially when the aircraft turns and when flying into clouds. The unattractiveness of 640x480 can be a matter of personal opinion and taste.

< 16 bit causes nothing but trouble >

I think it only causes trouble when you go from the in-flight screen to the pre-flight menu, which involves a change in resolution. The pre-flight menu cannot be displayed in 640x480x16 :-( , that's why I don't back back to the pre-flight menu and print out the Navigation Log and Destination Airport details.

< Oh also, increase the lights to 7. >

I don't know what that is but it might be worth trying.

Thanks for the info.

Chris

[sonic33]

Hat's off to you chris,
Some people forget the scaleability of FS form a performance point of view and MS did a great job in allowing it to be reduced so that it can be supported by lower end systems, you did a great job in reminding us.
Here's a few more tips to improve performance in FS:
http://www.fsgateway.com/tips.asp

Not sure about 6x4 though :-) That really sucks on my 21 inch monitor. :-)

Regards
Geoff
http://ffacc.com/images/geoffban.jpg
www.fsfreeforall.net
*********************************
http://www.btinternet.com/~g_seal <<<< My attempt at FS Scenery Design.
*********************************

[CCairns10]

Thanks Geoff

I'm sure most lower end system users can can get a lot out of FS2004 if they just turn down those sliders, and turn off some of the those hardware acceleration settings.

That 21 inch monitor of yours might be good for framerates as well, directly or indirectly.

Chris