Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Anyone NOT using a widescreen monitor?

  1. #21

    Default

    22 inch now a 21.5 inch monitor. 1920x1080.
    95% 2D. Occasionally VC usually when flying a circuit.

    Zoom levels always been at 0.50. I never liked 1.0 even on the correct size monitor for FS9. I remember using the Flightsoft Fly to Hawaii scenery add on with the DC-10 It came with way way back in the day. Or the other way ‘round.
    The notes provided said the correct zoom levels for FS9 is 0.50 rather then 1.0. Not saying it’s correct, but I always used that as it felt much much better, and seemed to me more realistic as to the outside view. Everything feels too close up even from altitude. 3000ft at 1.0 felt like I was actually at 1000ft.
    I even experimented with 0.40 as well.

    If using a VC, I’d just slide the seat forward either in the sim or via the cfg.
    Yeah some panels annoyingly stretched. My size monitor its not TOO bad though. But notíciale along with the view.

    I want that setup you have, Mark. So much room to put my bag of BBQ chips, beer bottles and glasses of rum and cokes.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSMR View Post
    I want that setup you have, Mark. So much room to put my bag of BBQ chips, beer bottles and glasses of rum and cokes.
    Ha! I still have the desk but it kinda looks a little different now. I'll post a pic at some point for a 2004 era vs 2020 era comparison.
    Mark Daniels

  3. Default

    My processor has 8 cores, and FS9 would always run on core 0 at 100%.

    Many years ago I started using psexec -a 3,4 which forces FS9 to run on cores 3 and 4 as an example.
    Wondering if it's actually using cores 3 and 4 at the same time or if it just flips back and forth between the two?

    Either way, when you open task manager, the two cores are now never at 100% and are both being used by FS9.

    RJ

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3Green View Post
    My processor has 8 cores, and FS9 would always run on core 0 at 100%.

    Many years ago I started using psexec -a 3,4 which forces FS9 to run on cores 3 and 4 as an example.
    Wondering if it's actually using cores 3 and 4 at the same time or if it just flips back and forth between the two?

    Either way, when you open task manager, the two cores are now never at 100% and are both being used by FS9.

    RJ
    I'm of the opinion if it's made for a single core, it will only use a single core.

    Test it. Run on what should be core 0 only and set up FS9 to struggle with fps as much as possible setting FS9 fps to unlimited. When you try it with what should be 2 cores and run the same situation, your fps should improve.
    Mark Daniels

  5. #25

    Default

    Here’s one for you all.
    FS9 - single coree game and more speed the merrier.

    I’ve found having several different processors over the years, from 2 cores, 4 and 6, the more cores, the better it runs.

    Can’t say why or how, just what I’ve experienced.

    As for GPU’s, I’ve had lbetter performance sometimes on cards with less VRAM and less clock speeds then on cards with higher and faster on both.


    That’s not the coronas talking either.

  6. Default

    As you went up cores you also likely went up with individual core speeds???

    I've found FS9 appears to run any CPU at 100% usage constantly regardless of CPU strength.
    The best way to determine if you get any performance increase is to do the simple test I outlined above.
    Mark Daniels

  7. #27

    Default

    That’s what I always thought.
    And an example, had a 2 core i3-4370 at 3.8 that was much less performance then an 4 core i5-2500 that turbo’d to 3.70. Not just a little difference either considering the almost same speeds.

    A gtx560 1 gb with better performance then a gtx650 ti with 2 gb.

    My current processor is an i5-9400. Turbos to 4.1 and is double the frame rates as the others. Would .3 MHz give that much improvement? Hmmm. Not so sure.
    6 cores thorough. No graphics card yet either. Maybe that makes a difference,,,

  8. Default

    I'd have too look all that hardware up to comment specifically.
    Don't worry about turbo frequency, just look at base frequency. You then also have to consider all the other hardware you had running with those processors. If you swapped out only the processor and found another CPU gave different performance yes, that will give you a fair gauge. If however you are running other different hardware components with the different CPU it gets much harder to evaluate.

    I believe a 2.8GHz CPU gives you good FS9 performance. Number of factors come into this but generally speaking.
    For the ultimate FS9 experience, you likely want something close to 4GHz. I purchased a 3.2GHz for my Win 7 machine as this is getting to the limit of Win 7 compatible CPU's unless you are prepared to pay through the roof to go a little higher.
    In tests, it's single core performance was excellent. I've been running this same processor on a Win XP machine and it totally does the job with all the XP games. It should be plenty enough for FS9. I may not be able to run Aerosoft Heathrow with HD textures applied but that should be the only limitation. If I go with the 19 inch monitor, I may get 20-30fps on approach I am hoping with Heathrow HD textures.

    And why anyone runs FSX I have no idea! Had this argument with people before. lol
    Mark Daniels

  9. Default

    And MSFS! Looks like at default you can buy a PC to get better performance from it than FSX but I have a feeling when a real high end airport comes out and you try and fly the PMDG into it...best of luck! That's if all the bugs don't ruin your flight first.

    FS9 is the place to be!
    Mark Daniels

  10. #30

    Default

    I definitely believe speed wins for a CPU, not doubt about that. And I dont believe FS9 takes advantage of more cores etc on a CPU, but I see from my experience I have been getter performance on the CPU's with more cores. An oxymoron or irony that is maybe?

    Yes my i5-9400 now is only 2.8 Ghz. But 1 core (0) is usually 100% as with all other CPU's I've had as its a single core written program. So mine now motors on up to 4.1Ghz and stays there as it should.

    I just kinda think that there is stuff happening behind the scenes with windows, all the other programs running, and wx, acars, ai smooth, etc etc that more cores seems to handle better. Legend will say it shouldn't, I've always found it does.
    The 6 cores is great. Just seems to fun better and smoother with higher FPS.

    I was NEVER a believer of more cores equals more performance for FS9, but I wasn't a believer in adding water to whiskey to make to taste better, now I cant get enough of both.
    Last edited by JSMR; 09-19-2020 at 08:59 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Using Widescreen Monitor with Triplehead2Go
    By mathur_pramod in forum FSX
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 08:12 AM
  2. 22in Widescreen Monitor work for FS9 / FSX
    By SKYGUY in forum FS2004
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-14-2007, 03:57 PM
  3. widescreen LCD TV/monitor for FS
    By kc10 in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-09-2005, 06:35 PM
  4. Widescreen monitor and multiple PCs
    By g0crf in forum FS2004
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2004, 09:48 PM
  5. FS2K4 on a widescreen monitor
    By scs411scs in forum FS2004
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 04:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •