Anyone NOT using a widescreen monitor?

I'm debating going to a non widescreen monitor for FS9. Anyone using FS9 this way?

 

Going to have to wait weeks for a CPU to arrive for my Win 7 machine before I start a new fresh install of FS9. In the meantime, I'm trying to finalize how I will have my FS9 set up permanently.

 

I posted a pic of my flight sim set up for FS9 as it was back in 2004 in the MSFS forum. I'll post it here again.

Looking at this pic, I'm almost thinking I would like to go back to this monitor set up.

 

I think I know why you'd want a to do this....

RJ

 

lol

 

I can totally understand you looking at the question and thinking wtf????

However, I play many old games on a 19inch 1280x1024 monitor. Why? Because you get to play the game without visual problems and as was originally intended. There are widescreen patches for most games but the vast majority of patches result in some kind of sacrifice and won’t display the game 100% correctly.

 

FS9 isn’t greatly affected by the widescreen downsides but it sure would be nice to have 2D panels display without being stretched. The size of the monitor you quickly get used too and I don’t miss a bigger screen at all when playing games on the 19 inch. I totally enjoy playing games on this monitor.

 

The other point with FS9 is I have Aerosoft Heathrow. With the 19 inch monitor resolution it may be possible to get acceptable FPS running their HD textures and I know on widescreen it won’t.

 

It’s just a thought and was curious if there is anyone out there still using one.

 

Hope you see some logic here 3Green? lol

I want to demonstrate something else which I think people are absolutely NOT aware of.

 

Going to widescreen you generally have a bigger physical image in front of you. When we changed to widescreen monitors, we also went up in the size of our screens. We have a larger physical image.

 

This is really where all benefits stop. When viewing in widescreen, we might be doing it on a bigger screen but we do it with distortion and we also see LESS of the game area! If this isn't enough, by stretching things on widescreen we also lose sharpness so you will find you have a crisper image (game graphics) on a non widescreen monitor.

 

Here are examples below. You will notice if you look at the panel, the amount of panel you see is the same in both widescreen and non widescreen. However, if you look at the exterior elements, you will notice you don't gain anything in width on a widescreen monitor. You don't get to see more of the game image but you actually see less!

While the game image visible left and right on both types of monitors are the same, the top and bottom of the exterior views get cropped off on a widescreen monitor. You see less of the game graphics with a widescreen monitor. You also see the game graphics with less sharpness. (You can't judge the sharpness difference from the screenshots btw due to resizing I have done.)

 

There is good argument for going back to the old days and using non widescreen. Apart from a physically bigger screen in front of you, all other benefits favor the traditional monitor. This is why I am considering changing back to where it all began.

 

Traditional Monitor

 

 

Widescreen Monitor

 

 

Traditional Monitor

 

 

Widescreen Monitor

 

Ah yes, the old 4:3 aspect ratio issue.

 

Bad memories are now returning regarding running FS9 with Win7x64 and in full screen.

I recall some add-on aircraft had flashing gauges in full screen which I couldn't get fixed, but I digress.

 

Back to your issue which I hated too, the stretched 2D panel and those oval gauges.

What type of video card you are you planning to use? Nvidia?

 

RJ

 

Just made a second post above to clarify more reasons why I am considering a change.

The Win 7 machine for FS9 will have a 3.2GHz CPU, 8gig RAM, GTX970 card.

One other final point I failed to mention, I remember the feeling of claustrophobia when I first switched to a widescreen monitor. You can see it in the comparison with the 2D panel above. In non widescreen, you get to see more height (more outside image) above the panel in non widescreen than you do in widescreen. Things don't feel as closed in on a traditional monitor.

 

Edit: One other critical factor/advantage of the additional area you can see top and bottom on a traditional monitor, on approach, runways that may fall below the panel and out of view on a widescreen monitor may be totally visible on a traditional monitor!

 

And I think after all these comparisons I have just convinced myself FS9 is for a traditional monitor and that's what I will use! lol

Edited September 19, 2020 by Skywatcher12

Hi,

 

Back in the day there was a long conversation about this. The reason you are getting incorrect views with your widescreen monitor is that you haven't changed the ZOOM. When the screen gets wider, the zoom must get lower - that way the same amount of scenery top to bottom is viewable, and you get the benefit of more scenery viewable on the sides. What's more, that's the only way to keep the proper view proportions out the window.

 

FSX took care of this with a widescreen switch in the fsx.cfg file, but when using FS2004 you must do this with the zoom control manually.

 

But how much do you need to reduce the zoom?

 

FS2004 was designed to use 4:3 monitors, and to use a zoom value of 1 for the "correct" view. I know many people use a lower zoom value to see more, but that will distort your view. A large widescreen monitor will help with this and let you use a normal zoom value instead.

 

As the screen proportion widens from 4:3 you will need to lower your zoom value to compensate. Before I get into the math, the typical values are:

 

16:9 proportion: zoom = 0.75

16:10 proportion: zoom = 0.83 (I use 0.85)

 

Here's how to calculate how much:

 

1. Divide your display height by the width. For example, if you use a 1600 x 1000 display ratio, then 1000 / 1600 is 0.625.

 

2. Now divide this number by 0.75, the display ratio of a standard "square" screen (4:3). In our example, 0.625 / 0.75 = 0.83.

 

3. Adjust this number to the nearest 0.5 value. This is your new desired Zoom value. In our example, 0.83 becomes 0.85.

 

4. For the 2D panel, edit the Views section of the panel.cfg file found in the plane's panel folder to change the zoom values to your new zoom value (0.850 in our example).

 

5. After loading the plane, in VC View change the zoom to your new value and save a Flight.

 

Hope this helps,

Thanks Tom but I'll have to test that. If you change the zoom values you should affect the distance perspective...I think...

It still only covers the outside area issue but doesn't help with distortion or loss of sharpness problems which have no possible fix.

Mark, as you know many old games including FS9 need a 4:3 aspect ratio.

 

Your 19 inch monitor (1280x1024) is not running a "true" 4:3 ratio (4/3 = 1.333333).

1280/1024 = 1.25 It's close, but...

 

Not many 4:3 monitors available these days, and if you find one, they're rather small.

 

This might help you not only with FS9, but all your older games.

 

Using nVidia's Control panel I created a custom resolution.

(Click on "Change resolution", "Customize". "Create Custom Resolution").

 

Back in the day, I bought the biggest widescreen LED (27 inch) with a native resolution of 1920x1080.

1920/1080 = 1.77777 (not 4:3)

 

I'm currently using a custom resolution of 1440/1080 = 1.333333 on my 27" LED monitor (full screen mode) with no issues. It creates two blank bands on either side as you can see in the photos below.

 

 

RJ

 

Yes, I am aware of scaling but then there are other issues. Imagine the actual physical size running a 1280x1024 game on a 4k monitor? Not only do you have to deal with black bars but you would have to deal with an incredibly small display image. 1280x1024 is incredibly common for old games and they best display on a 19 inch monitor running this resolution. It also looks much more natural and feels more comfortable when you don't have to look at black bars.

BTW, if your plane's panel.cfg file does not include a Views section you can always add one. The default views are:

 

[VIEWS]

VIEW_FORWARD_ZOOM=1.0

VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=1.000, 0.000, 0.000

 

These values apply if there is no Views section present, as well.

 

The first line sets the zoom used when the 2D panel is in view. The second line sets the view angle (up/down), to allow one to get a view of the horizon at eye level (when the plane is level), which is almost always the correct angle.

 

Many panels (including the horrid default panels) use a partial outside view - i.e. the view outside does not stretch from the top all the way to the bottom of the screen. But this is the only way to get a proper view proportion out the window.

 

An example of a default panel's section at the bottom of the panel.cfg file - this is from the Cessna 172 panel:

 

[Default View]

X=0

Y=0

SIZE_X=8192

SIZE_Y=2500

 

This says that the X scale is full screen (8192), while the Y scale is only part of it (2500). The ONLY advantage of this system (that I know of) is that you do not need to set a VIEW_FORWARD_DIR value other than the default 1.0. But this leads to a distorted view out the window, IMO.

 

To test that press the W key twice, which removes the panel and gives you a full screen outside view. See how things change between the two? Press the W key again to get the panel back.

 

To improve that, let's set SIZE_Y=6144, which gives us a full screen height for the outside view. Save the file and reload the plane.

 

What? Where's the ground? It's behind the 2D panel. How to fix this? We change the VIEW_FORWARD_DIR value until the horizon is at our eye line. Since this panel does not contain a Views section, I will add one. At the same time, I'll set the zoom to 0.750 for my 16:9 widescreen monitor:

 

[VIEWS]

VIEW_FORWARD_ZOOM=0.750

VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=11.000, 0.000, 0.000

 

traditionally, this section goes between the Window Titles and Window00 sections.

 

Now save it and reload the plane. Ah, we're back in business. Press W twice. No change of view results.

 

Hope this helps,

3Green, Just thinking back, I might've worked out the display size with different monitor sizes and scaling. This is a little guesswork as I don't remember the exact numbers.

 

I think to run a 1280x1024 game with a 19 inch image area, you need to use a 22 inch monitor at 1680x1050. After this you likely need a 32 inch monitor if it has a screen resolution of 1920x1080 to get the same 19 inch size. When you get to 4k, you need to go up again in monitor size and of course each time the black bars become larger.

 

Old monitors for old games imo. Nothing beats them.

 

Looks like you need 19 inch.

 

RJ

 

Posted about same time. Not running 4k but one day I will have no choice so for my old stuff, yes, a stockpile of 19 inch monitors is great!

Actually, we showed that NOT changing the zoom messed up the distance perspective. The only way we found to keep the same perspective as we had when using a 4:3 monitor was to change the zoom value.

Actually, we showed that NOT changing the zoom messed up the distance perspective. The only way we found to keep the same perspective as we had when using a 4:3 monitor was to change the zoom value.

 

Ok, thanks Tom, I will have a little play with this as well. It also means you have to edit every panel.cfg and still leaves the other issues.

 

haha well, don't know about that statement...

 

I can think of greater things... Like when can I take this mask off???

 

RJ

 

Haha, as long as you are wearing one and not thinking it's all a big hoax or that there is some New World Order.

 

lol. Hey where did you get my baby picture from?

 

Off topic, and as you know I use batch programs for everything, including to start FS9.

Question: Have you every played with psexec to start FS9 and if so, do you notice much difference?

 

PUSHD %FS2004Path%

psexec -a 3,4 cmd /C Start "" "%FS2004Path%\fs9.exe" /CFG:TINMOUSE-fs9

POPD

 

RJ

 

No. What differences have you noticed? Only difference for anything regarding start up of FS9 I've found is if you have Games Explorer running on Win 7.

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. :p :D

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. :p :D

 

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.

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.

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. 🍺

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.

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,,,

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

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!

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. :p

Edited September 20, 2020 by JSMR

 

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

 

Once again, Mark, I agree with you.

Anyway, I have a i5 8250U 4core 8GB RAM, 3392 Mhz clock speed.

 

Works well for me & my FS9's, getting 60-90fps, on occasion, dependent on scenery & aircraft.

Once again, Mark, I agree with you.

Anyway, I have a i5 8250U 4core 8GB RAM, 3392 Mhz clock speed.

 

Works well for me & my FS9's, getting 60-90fps, on occasion, dependent on scenery & aircraft.

 

I think in a couple of years we’ll be saying the same about MSFS as FSX when they see bugs are still plenty, add-ons need super PC’s and costs are bank breakers.