John, I have NOT seen many users run FS2004 at 1600 x 1200 and without you
listing ALL (not just a few) the exact details of graphics card driver
settings AND your FS 2004 graphics options, making fps comparisons has ZERO
usefulness to you, me, or anyone reading. I see it all the time, people
saying they get great fps and list a couple of details about their settings
and when pushed for a complete list of details they disappear into the
ether.
I have a spreadsheet with fps comparisons on my system, I have over 60
columns to hold the specific options available to the graphics card and FS
2004 graphics options. Each option can have serious fps impact and
sometimes not and sometimes it is a combination of options that pushes the
graphics card over the top. But for the details I enjoy, I can assure you
that video memory is the KEY in my situation (level of detail) as I can see
the textures being swapped out and pulled into memory. But I'm not
surprise, 1600 x 1200 requires A LOT bandwidth and video memory.
I've deleted the FS9.CFG many times. I've also gone thru many of the
optimzation settings I've discovered at AVSIM.
I can make the PMDG 737 work well, but it requires some serious detuning of
my graphics settings & FS 2004 settings. So much so, that it is
unacceptable (especially when compared to the FS2004 default AC).
"John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O8aoohNiFHA.1480@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on
> the video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
> either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
> quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
> Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
> card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.
>
> I run Ultimate Traffic set high, real weather using 3D cloulds set at 80
> miles and other stuff operating in the background. My PMDG operates
> nicely this way.
>
> The first two places I would check are my AGP Aperature (actually smaller
> is better than larger 64K works for most users), check to see that the
> latency of the Video Card is set low also for best performance. Lastly, I
> would make certain I had the latest Motherboard drivers and BIO's as
> sometimes the originals have a bug or two.
>
> Since you get good 3D mark scores, I would guess the difficulty may be in
> the FS settings. Try deleting your FS9 config file and let it rebuild.
> You won't lose anything and may gain a lot.
>
> John
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:OdCTX$MiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it
>> be released at all?
>>
>> I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out
>> on my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.
>>
>> "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
>> news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the
>>>> only
>>>> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
>>>> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600
>>>> x
>>>> 1200.
>>>
>>> I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
>>> single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
>>> 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
>>> intending
>>> to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious
>>> reasons)
>>> but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
>>> 512MB
>>> X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...223104659.html
>>>
>>> Glad it's ATi
>>>
>>> jkb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>