This may interest everyone

**franky** · 03-31-2002, 02:40 AM

Hi! I think this may interest everyone. Let us give our frame rate per second in FS2002, considering that we have selected the maximum in scenery, dynamics, weather... and give the power of our processor, our video card and operating system.

In this way everyone will have a better idea what kind of computer configuration he needs to have a smooth running FS2002.

It is not necessary to give any other comment, unless you think otherwise of course.

I know that the fps figure jumps up and down, but let us take the average. So if the fps goes from about 19 to 21, then we write 20 (which is my case).

Let us select the "Default Flight - Meigs Field" and the cockpit view of the Learjet.

So I start with myself:

FPS: 20 - AMD Athlon 1000 - Geforce 2 - Millennium.

**Ihor** · 03-31-2002, 02:56 AM

FPS: 17 - AMD Athlon 1400 - GeForce 3 Low 14.8 High 18.1

ndkeh01 · 03-31-2002, 06:05 AM

Hi,

I have found that weather makes a huge difference to framerates
so I think it would be better to set max visibility but
clear skies.We are going to need to be a lot more scientific
in our approach to make sure that all situation and computer
settings are the same for any results to mean anything.

For example, do you have 4 x Anti aliasing on?

I like the idea because I run a 2gig Athlon system and feel
that I should be getting better framerates and would much like
a comparison to judge by.

Why not start again but show a screenshot fo all settings?

regards

Keith

**Vike** · 03-31-2002, 06:07 AM

The problem with a poll like this is that there are too many variables. Even maxed out, the FPS is going to be different on the same machine depending on cloud density, altitude, type of view, aircraft loaded, whether ATC is currently busy or not and probably a whole lot more besides.

To get a reasonable comparison, everyone should be using the same flight (ie. one person sets up a flight including weather, saves it and distributes it), then when you load it, wait one minute to let everything settle before taking a spot view.

Sorry to ramble :)

Adam

Simon Evans · 03-31-2002, 06:56 AM

So sorry, not in the slightest bit interested in frame rates.

More interested in smoothness and flying. Just turning ON the framerate counter acts to lower frame rates and affect display properties so this is very much a meaningless exercise, a complete waste of everybody's time for the reasons outlined above and, frankly, an insult to our intelligence if you think this Flight Sim depends on high frame rates for its qualities.

Simon Evans

**Mark_McG** · 03-31-2002, 09:06 AM

Hi,

I have found that a panel and the sim can run smoothly at approx 10-15 fps. I have also found that stutters can sometimes occur when I try to push for higher fps.

I have a 1Ghz AMD Athlon
512 MB PC133 Ram
Nvidia Geforce 2 MX200 64MB ram Graphics Card.

I have FPS locked at 25, and with most a/c, panle combos get 20+ fps.
When I push for higher framerates I invariably end up cranking the settings another notch up the way. This usually leads to stuttering.

What does this tell us:

Machine is tweaked to run at optimum performance for the CPU,Ram,Vid Card and settings I have.

Trying to gain extra FPS degrades optimum performance at the 1st available system bottleneck, in my case I think the CPU.

Also, another factor is hard disk space.
If you have a large disk drive, with a low seek time, then everything should be a notch higher. I have a near maxed out 12GB HDD.
I am constantly deleting files etc to improve the overall performance of my system (Not Just to improve FS).

Mark

wilfort · 03-31-2002, 10:09 AM

well i must agree with Simon it is a pointless exercise as there are so many factors i must admit sometimes i look at framerates
purely for testing crap aircraft and panels if i did not do that i would not know that for example b29 panel put that ##### yoke
on and fps on my pc goes down to 6fps from 35fps but thats as far as fps interests me but i will this once put down what you asked for as a laugh.
Athlon 1.4gig
512ram
Win98se
gforce2 pro
learjet at miegs.
fps 45/71
1600x1200x16
All terrain max
texture quility max
effects High
Autogen Normal
Target framerate Unlimited
Multi texturing ON
Transform Lighting ON
Mip Mapping ON
Tri-Linear ON
Hardware Lighting effects 8
thats about it and this pc is only used for flightsim well maintained as slarty might say is what its all about.

**Jacek** · 03-31-2002, 10:30 AM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-02 AT 10:30AM (EDT)[/font][p]AMD Athlon 1800+
GF3 Ti200
512 DDR

Framerates locked at 40 I'm getting anywhere between 30-38 with default FS display settings and around 25-32 with custom settings.

Ever since I've upgraded the pc I have nothing really to whine about.

**krakee** · 03-31-2002, 12:05 PM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-02 AT 12:14PM (EDT)[/font][p]FPS:86 - Commodore 64 - Windows 3.1

**kpa594** · 03-31-2002, 02:01 PM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-02 AT 02:02PM (EDT)[/font][p]I wonder if someone would explain to me this total obsession with fps. Everyone has different needs from the sim and everyones computer varies in some degree so this sort of exercise is utterly pointless and a waste of resources on the forum. I recall some months ago a similar effort on MSTS which proved nothing but at least the originator had the good sense to set a bench mark for the comparison.
Just my two pennyworth.
Ken