PDA

View Full Version : Fps



mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 05:31
Hi Guys; I am just curious about fps and vista 64 bit. I think I have tried everthing to get more fps. With all kinds of stuff running, with lots of stuff disabled, I still get exactly the same fps.I had a GeFirce GTX 260 (896mb GDDR3) and a Rocketfish 550w power supply installed. Still exactly the same fps (sniff). I am getting avg 58-62 fps. On normal stock scenery It can drop to 45-50. I get a flash of 70+now and then for a second.(very rarely over a 100). With too many Usio ships, too much scenery in a small area when making missions, and of course fps really drop. I can live with fps at 9 or 10. Everthing seems pretty good, not too much "stuttering" and there is next to no delay when I fire weapons, and flying is just about normal. At 5-6 fps it is very hard to land, weapons have a delay of about a second, and it is a mild slide show.
The only thing that ever made a difference was Zooming in with the"\" key. Altough the fps counter (shift + z) showed higher fps, I believe they were worse.
Is this as good as it gets with vista 64 bit? I am sure this rig will run just about any of the newer games out there without any problems. I have the feeling that even a good gaming rig with the vista 64 bit, will not be able to deal with CFS2 and scenery rich areas.

Rami
August 22nd, 2009, 05:46
Here's another tip...delete the exhaust effects on your aircraft. It may not seem like a big deal, but in missions it can cause serious problems.

Usio's ships are known FPS killers, also, certain aircraft explosion effects can really do a number as well.

My Vista laptop has about your specifications, and I have similar issues.

Now...on XP...unless there are many aircraft or ships, I tend to run between 45-100 FPS. If I'm flying solo, I've seen it get as high as 335.

OBIO
August 22nd, 2009, 06:56
If you are running a LCD monitor on your system, run CFS2 in Windowed mode......you will see your FPS sky rocket. In Full Screen Mode, your FPS will be greatly dictated by the refresh rate of the LCD monitor. When I first got this rig, which is far more powerful than my old rig, my frame rates maxed out in the upper 60s. Then someone mentioned running in Windowed mode, and my FPS shot up.....way up....average FPS in VC view is 150 plus...sometimes as high as 300 depending on the aircraft.

OBIO

mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 07:10
Hi Rami; That was going to be my next move, XP. If I installed xp,would that be the answer to the fps? If a fella was to install xp, which would be the best, basic or all the bells and whistles? At least, the card and power supply I just bought, might prove useful. I've tried running in windows modes back to windows 95, but there was no better fps. If xp will give me the frame rates, I will gladly install it. Thanks

Hi Obio: I am pretty sure I tried that, but I will give it another shot. Jeez, 300! Now, I would love to see that!

miamieagle
August 22nd, 2009, 07:38
You can also change it to W

Rami
August 22nd, 2009, 07:39
Mariereid,

I have XP Professional on my desktop, running Service Pack 3. The desktop computer is a 3.0GHZ Pentium IV with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB GeForce MX 6000-series video card.

My laptop is a Gateway running Vista 64-bit home premium with Service Pack 2. It's an Intel Duo Core running at 2.0 GHz with 4 GB of RAM.

miamieagle
August 22nd, 2009, 07:41
You can also change your window format if you want by changing it to Window98. Also lower your sound requirement. Another thing you can do play around with the resolution settings through your CFS2 scenery option.:wavey:

mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 08:58
Hi Miamieagle; Yes, I have tried every windows all the wayback to 95. Tried res right down to lowest. Still 58-62. I have had the sliders to full both ways, tried all the sittings, always 58-62 fps max. Also it is always the same low fps with lots of scenery. I am very surprised at how well it runs around 9 -10 fps. I will try all the info you guys have given me. It's getting kinda boring playing around with things over and over. I had my fingers crossed and prayed a little, when I first tried out the new card and power supply. I had a feeling it was going to still show the same fps. I think I'll play around a bit more and then just maybe think about trading vista 64 bit for xp. Thanks guys, when I get home I'll fiddle around with the beast a bit more, before Huricaine Bill arrives.

Rami
August 22nd, 2009, 09:02
Did you try running in "windowed" mode by hitting ALT + ENTER?

mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 09:14
I'm not sure how I got there, but if I remember, there were 3 settings; max, windowed and another one. I am heading for home in a minute, and will give that and all other info a try. Thanks again, all

mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 12:47
Thaks guys: After all the talk about this widow and that window, I tried 1 thing I did not bother with before. In the cfs2 properties, you have the choice of normal, minimized, and MAXIMIZED. Thinking max would only make things worse I never bothered with it. It is RUN: normal window
min
max
I set it to max and bingo: avg 77- 165, low about 52. After a crash 325+. This is really, really, great! However in the scenery rich thing I am working on, it is still very low (the same as before). When not in the scenery area, the fps are great, like above. I cannot thank you enough for getting me to look at these options again. Now, my daughter called me with a financial disaster( arn't they all?). So I got to find a way to wire her some money before the storm. Lucky for her, I did not run out and buy any more parts. Thanks guys, this is great!

dvslats
August 22nd, 2009, 14:41
Hi mariereid, I was in the same boat you are about two years ago. The short and simple answer...go with a 32 bit Operating System. Vista or Xp. You will get several more FPS with XP.

The reason , your motherboard is most likely optimized for a 32 bit OS. Bios/Cmos, Northbridge, Southbridge, processor cache, and FSB all need to be set up for 64 bit. I was fortunate to have the help from an IT gentleman that works on the computers at my job. His explanations to me for setting up a MB to run 64 bit was way more then I really wanted to get into on my homemade system. I just wanted to fly CFS2! :icon_lol: Heck, some MB's do not even have the correct chip sets to take care of 64 bit. There is soooo much involved with this, one would have to take a college course to really get a handle on it.

My issues were exactly the same as yours as far as the frame rates using Vista 64 bit in scenery and target rich environments. Now I'm running XP 32 bit and FR's are a solid 60 to 65, the refresh rate of my LCD (as OBIO pointed out). It will drop into the low 30's, full screen mode, but that is still above the minimum 25 fps needed to have solid playability.

I am definitely not an IT professional, but just wish to say with a high level of confidence that this will cure your woes. :ernae:
Dave

mariereid
August 22nd, 2009, 15:03
Hi Dvslats: I am pretty sure you are right on the money with the 64 bit. Right now these are the best fps I have ever had, and I am running full out with anti virus, areo, and every other program running. My sliders are at a level the pc sets by default. Res 1920 X1200, 6 on quality slider, 35 on frames, high on effects, most of the other sliders full or very close, all shadows and high detailed vc checked. For me 77 -165 is really good. I am going to see if turning a few things off and moving the sliders around will make any difference. It never did before, but now that I have it set to maximize, just maybe, it will improve the fps in the scenery rich areas. If I can get 25 with 5 or 6 of Usio's ships, I would be very happy. The 32 bit system I am sure would be much better than 64, and maybe xp better than both. Thanks Dude.

Shadow Wolf 07
August 24th, 2009, 13:00
Did you try running in "windowed" mode by hitting ALT + ENTER?

I have to give that a try, thanks Rami. I too seem to be stuck at the refresh rate of my monitor.

mariereid
August 26th, 2009, 04:40
Hi all, well I think I am in windowed mode ( 2 bars across top and 1 on the bottom) and fps are great in normal scenery. I have a question about monitor refresh rate. My monitor will give me 59 or 60 hertz. I have a smaller monitor on another pc that says you can set it to 75. Would the small monitor improve fps? Just want to know before I "borrow" wife's monitor.

bearcat241
August 26th, 2009, 08:04
Would the small monitor improve fps? Just want to know before I "borrow" wife's monitor.

Even if it does offer improvement, you won't be happy with a smaller monitor in the long run if you've spent a lot of time computing and gaming with the big screen. And to add to what's been said here already, underneath it all we're talking about the many hidden variables in hardware and software configurations, so no matter what you hear in this forum, there's no way to surely "know" the actual results from reading anything here until you just make the move and give it a try. The worse case is the smaller monitor doesn't improve anything and you stick with the current larger monitor - no harm done. Its all just a matter of experimenting and tweaking.

But the caveat here is that you shouldn't fall so hard for the allurement and obsession with high FPS numbers posted around here and the web. The high numbers look awesome and can be a great ego booster for a techhead, but most video industry gurus, TV techs and moviemakers seem to agree that the average video play in even the highest TV screen resolutions is only about 25-35 FPS. This means that you only watch your favorite aerial combat war movies and other programs on TV at around these numbers, without stuttering and slowdowns. So why would you need 8 to 10 times more FPS for your favorite combat flight sim? ;)

Hey, think about it again - 1920x1200 res, 6 on quality slider, 35 on frames, high on effects, most of the other sliders full or very close, all shadows and high detailed vc checked --- 77-165 fps is not just "really good", its as good as you need in a scenery-rich environment. And at 1920x1200 that's killer stuff. Even 77-165 at 1024x768 would be more than enough! Count the blessing and get back to missions...:ernae:

mariereid
August 27th, 2009, 04:48
Thanks Bearcat; I am more than happy what all you guys have done for me. I would be happy if 25 fps was my lowest number. Most of the time, I will have no problem. I may give the little monitor (22) a try, just for the heck of it. If I ever get another monitor, I will be a little wiser, and look into the specs. I am still pretty sure 64 bit is the biggest problem. I think that I have now pulled out all the fps this rig is going to give me, and I am happy with it...........for now. Thanks for all the info guys!