Using Terrain Mesh on a Mini PC

Hello,

For the past two years I have been running FS9 on a mini PC, basically a small box full of laptop parts. It's about 7" square and 2.5" tall (see the MP65 at myaopen.com). It has an i5-2520M CPU which runs at 2.5 ghz, and runs Win7-32 with 4g of RAM so it has about 2.75g available after booting up. So it's not a muscle machine by today's standards. Being a mini PC with no ability to add a separate graphics card, it uses the Intel HD Graphics that is built into the CPU. FS9 has been running fine on this, with frame rates cycling between the low 70s to upper 80s, occasionally low 90s.

Edit: Scenery settings are all maxed except for Terrain Detail which is "Land Only"

I've been reading about the benefits of using terrain mesh but with all the talk about how it hurts frame rates and people using powerful graphics cards I assumed that my PC would be inadequate. I finally decided that the only way to know would be to try it, so I purchased the FSGenesis 19m mesh for the state of North Carolina. I figured all the mountains in that state would be a good example of what sort of visual difference it would make, and whether my PC could handle it.

I'm happy to report that it runs fine, with frame rates now from the low 60s to upper 70s, and what a huge difference it makes in the visuals. I was so impressed that I got the same for California and then flew to Yosemite Nat'l Park and Wow! Half-Dome actually looks like the real Half-Dome! I spent some time touring around low and slow, landing at numerous small airports (my favorite plane for this is the Cessna Grand Caravan), and the results are terrific. Terrain mesh is one of the best FS investments I've made and I plan to get more.

So the bottom line is that these powerful modern CPUs with built in graphics are fine for this sort of flying with FS9, even with mesh. Because I keep my FS9 on a dedicated separate USB hard drive I will be able to use it on my laptop when I go on business trips (it has an i5-2450M with Win7-64 and 8g of RAM). I'm delighted to discover this and hope it will be helpful to others.

Best Regards,

Clayton

Well, all I can say is well done and good luck. You are getting more from FS9 than I do with my faster i5 CPU and NVidia graphics card :mad:

Dijvid

Never could figure out how to get those 50-60-70 fps either with i3 and faster CPU. I've done it, but out somewhere in the middle of "nowhere". Nice scenery, but no nearby large airport nor beaucoup traffic in the picture.

In reality though .... you really don't NEED it to enjoy the sim as I don't pretend to be a poser (virtual) pilot of sorts.

Well, all I can say is well done and good luck. You are getting more from FS9 than I do with my faster i5 CPU and NVidia graphics card :mad:

Dijvid

Is it possible you have some more complex planes and/or scenery? I'm not much of a FS techie, just grasping at straws.

Clayton

Never could figure out how to get those 50-60-70 fps either with i3 and faster CPU. I've done it, but out somewhere in the middle of "nowhere". Nice scenery, but no nearby large airport nor beaucoup traffic in the picture.

In reality though .... you really don't NEED it to enjoy the sim as I don't pretend to be a poser (virtual) pilot of sorts.

I can't explain it, it's just always run that way since I got the PC. I got the mini because it's so small and quiet and I was tired of the big noisy towers I'd used for years (I began using PCs in 1990 when a 386 was hot stuff; the new i3/i5/i7 CPUs are incredibly powerful). Anyway, I love the minis (I have two) and am thoroughly hooked on them.

I don't have any of the really complex big planes (biggest things I fly are twin turbos like the Embraer 120), nor any really complex addon scenery (I understand that these can slow things down, but have never experienced it). I'm a pretty casual FS user, not a pilot wannabe, just like low & slow for fun with lots of landings at local airports as I tour a state or country. Being mostly low & slow I especially enjoy nice scenery which is why I tried the mesh.

I'm not even sure what a "low" frame rate is. How low does it have to get before it degrades the experience? I just did an experiment. I put the Caravan at Atlanta Hartsfield, a very complex scenery, and took off. In "busy" scenes the fps went down into the 30s and 40s, but there were no stutters or pauses. Up higher with fewer objects the fps was up in the 50s to 70s. When I'm flying over rural areas away from airports is when I get the 70s and 80s. I'm just real happy that I can run the mesh scenery. Makes a big difference.

Thanks,

Clayton

Is it possible you have some more complex planes and/or scenery? I'm not much of a FS techie, just grasping at straws.

 

Clayton

Far from it!!

I fly the Dreamfleet A36 Bonanza [without RXP gauges to complicate things] and the only other addon in use when I fly is Aerosoft's Flight Deck Commander [my co-pilot].

Other software I use, which is not loaded when I fly the sim, are Flight Environment [clouds, sky and water effects] and Flight Sim Commander [flight planning]. I have also replaced the default textures with those of FScene.

None of the above will adversely effect frame rates. However, I can achieve frames in the high 70s and low 80s if I set the frame rate to unlimited but I have them permanently set to 60 fps to sync with the 32" TV screen that I use.

Dijvid

Today I installed the FSGenesis 9m mesh for Switzerland to help in my search for the Matterhorn. In the "Searching For The Matterhorn" thread there are two screen shots of the plane in view of the Matterhorn, one with mesh and one without. In the one with the mesh the frame rate is 84.6 Without the mesh it is 90.7

The mesh is busy in this scene but it isn't putting much strain on the system. Clearly airports with their many different objects and AI planes, etc, exact a much greater toll.

Regards,

Clayton

In the one with the mesh the frame rate is 84.6 Without the mesh it is 90.7

Let's not get obsessed with frame rates - again! The difference between 84.6 and 90.7 isn't worth a rat's whatnot!

Dijvid

Let's not get obsessed with frame rates - again! The difference between 84.6 and 90.7 isn't worth a rat's whatnot!

Dijvid

I know, I just wanted to post this to shed some light on the previous comments. I was initially under the impression that adding mesh would add a significant fps burden to the system, but clearly that's not the case. I'm delighted to have the improved scenery without slowing things down.

Thanks,

Clayton