I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?

Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to an
external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically don't
let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you develop wings
neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself which is more
"game" like?

So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest my
observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
substance.

Rob.


"John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
>such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want
>to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on the
>> add-on aircraft market:
>>
>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
>> Aircraft
>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
>> no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
>> aircraft
>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>> can't handle it any more
>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>
>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work reliably,
>> look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't turn my
>> Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair Extreme
>> RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps crash to
>> desktop nightmare!!
>>
>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
>> warned!!
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
>> EVERYTHING off or down".
>>
>>
>
>

Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb who
thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your comments
seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market size which
limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to matter what
computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate erosion. The
processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions get more complex.
I believe many users have poor computer setups, insufficient memory and the
wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find the default a/c operate a lot
better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.

Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may want
to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it he may
want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large community of
heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your system. 4-5
FPS should never happen with his machine

John.


"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>
> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
> an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
> distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
> don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
> develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
> which is more "game" like?
>
> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
> my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
> substance.
>
> Rob.
>
>
> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware aircraft
>>such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You don't want
>>to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>
>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS default
>>> Aircraft
>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate friendly --
>>> no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
>>> aircraft
>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>> can't handle it any more
>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>
>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly don't
>>> turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz Corsair
>>> Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into a 5 fps
>>> crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>
>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have been
>>> warned!!
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
>>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
>>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
>>> EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

John,
I guess some tweaking is in order, then. I'll take a look at AvSim. What I'd
really like to know is whether setting AA or AF is best done at the graphics
card driver level or within FS2004. There are simply too many settings and
variables for the common man to take in!
Andy

PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
reason.. ;-)

> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it
> he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your
> system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>
> John.
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>
>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
>> an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
>> distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
>> don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
>> develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
>> which is more "game" like?
>>
>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
>> my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
>> substance.
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>
>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>> default Aircraft
>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
>>>> aircraft
>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>
>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>> been warned!!
>>>>
>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
>>>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
>>>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
>>>> EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

> PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
> you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
> reason.. ;-)

If it's me that is "jfb" :-). I'm not going to try any flaming. Not a very
nice thing. So, John will be OK :-)).

jkb

PS: This isn't a flame.

P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at CL2.5-3-3-7,
ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K rpm SATA drives
(RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external Koolance water cooling
units.

My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software. However,
with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG 737 and
weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).

I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious problems
with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a 512MB of
video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few programs
that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it is perhaps
the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.

What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't work
with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal &
drinks.

Rob.


"John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find
> the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.
>
> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use it
> he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing your
> system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>
> John.
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>
>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going to
>> an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an aircraft
>> distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators typically
>> don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and unless you
>> develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask yourself
>> which is more "game" like?
>>
>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to suggest
>> my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments with no
>> substance.
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>
>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>> default Aircraft
>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every add-on
>>>> aircraft
>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>
>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>> been warned!!
>>>>
>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in your
>>>> reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems should be
>>>> more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you turn
>>>> EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
work
> with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal
&
> drinks.

What else would you give them? :-)

A used Wireless G router (linksys), a used HD Sat receiver (samsung), a used
Tivo Series 2, and Eclipse Car Stereo?? A CH products throttle -- (not
quadrant, the Fighter Jet style one).

To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely utilize
both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked BIOS.


"jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
news:esiCpdKiFHA.1460@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
> work
>> with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a meal
> &
>> drinks.
>
> What else would you give them? :-)
>
>

> To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
> all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
> suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely
utilize
> both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
> Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked BIOS.

I don't think I'll do that. After all a Sapphire Radeon 9250 AGP 8X isn't
exactly a SLI-capable card. Besides - I go with ATi. You could try
Crossfire. :-)

jkb

PS: Is the reward used parts that you don't use?

Yes, they are used components that have been replaced with bigger better
components with the latest go faster stripes.

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.



"jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
news:%23B4EK$KiFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> To qualify -- IN SLI mode, not SLI mode with one card disabled (which for
>> all purposes is not true SLI). I haven't seen anything from nVidia
>> suggesting they were able to solve the SLI mode in FS2004 and truely
> utilize
>> both cards (other than hard coding the driver to disable SLI for FS2004).
>> Using nVidia drivers, not some hacked third party drivers and hacked
>> BIOS.
>
> I don't think I'll do that. After all a Sapphire Radeon 9250 AGP 8X isn't
> exactly a SLI-capable card. Besides - I go with ATi. You could try
> Crossfire. :-)
>
> jkb
>
> PS: Is the reward used parts that you don't use?
>
>

> 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