Flight Simulator 9 (FS2004) low frame rates...

I can't really help, I'm getting good frame rates with FS9 in Win7 64-bit, but it's on a new PC with a pretty stout CPU & good video card.

Zathras said:

I can't really help, I'm getting good frame rates with FS9 in Win7 64-bit, but it's on a new PC with a pretty stout CPU & good video card.

Incidentally, if you built that pc, you should have gone for a full ATX with a proper heatsink and a Core i5 750 which can overclock easily to match and beat the 860. A GTS 250 also isn't enough for higher resolution gaming.

Otherwise I'd update all drivers and use driver sweeper on the sound and video and maybe other hardware. Use the guide in my sig.

M17x said:

dave1812 said:

M17x said:

Your FPS is naturally going to be higher when you are at altitude because technically there is less fine scenary that has to be refreshed. So comparing the FPS when at altitude as opposed the FPS at ground is comparing apples and oranges.

As for you posting that with XP your FPS at an airport (i.e. ground) was "great" doesn't mean anything. what was the actual numeric FPS value when when you were running near the ground (airport) when using XP? My guess is it wasn't anything near the 60 FPS when you were flying at altitude.

Another thought, is it possible that putting the max FPS lockup at 59 or 60 could actually be causing a greater load on the hardware trying to achieve that average FPS locked rate???


One last thing...Windows 7 isn't XP. XP takes up about 3/4 of a gig of RAM. Windows 7 takes up about 1.3 to 1.4 GB of RAM. That means there may be more paging that is occurring depending on the total amount of RAM left available for FSX to use.

So I am having great difficulty trying to understand your fixation on the "airport FPS" argument when there are a number of other things you must consider to comapre apples and oranges???

Actually,with XP I was getting over 45 FPS at airports and with add-on scenery like the popular Vegas addon on that improves the Strip's look. I would hardly be complaining here if the difference between my XP installation of FS9 and the installation on 7 had only minimal differences. The difference is very dramatic and aggravating as I don't enjoy flying with rates fluctuating between 7 and 14 much of the time at ground level. I would have expected that no one one need to lecture me about the difference between FPS at altitude, vs near/at the ground. I thought I'd made that all abundantly clear.


AND WHY IN THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FSX? I have FS2004 (FS9).

You didn't read my posts carefully and therefore assumed I was comparing apples to oranges.

Regardless of the version of the simulator the FPS at altitude are always going to be higher than at ground level because the scenary complexity of each are polar opposites.

Your thoughts as they are posted tend to at least leave the impression that you think the rates of scenary should be homogenous across all altitudes and that just isn't the case no matter how you want to kick and scream about it.

As for add-ons, they don't replace the entire graphics set of the flight simulator. Portions of the graphics sets that come with the flight sim are still employed during a flight despite the installed add-ons. And to be certain you can bet the add-ons are enabled for use during low altitude flight particularly so when the add-on was created to enhance the low altitude scenary by various means including invoking certain features of the graphics engines employed that the FS OEM has included OR by employing dynamic graphic engine substitutions supplied by the add-on manufacturer.

It is entire probable that once the FL or cruise altitudes are reached the FS graphic scenary will take over because there is nothing to be gained by a "low altitude" scenary (airports, cities and etc) add-on manufacturer designing high altitude scenary when everything at the high altitudes dithers across the board and detail becomes more of a wholistic blend. And if the add-on manufacturer is substituting engine graphics libraries it is entirely possible that once altitude is reached the same graphics computations are shared between the OEM and the add-on.

Lastly no one here including myself is trying to lecture you. I am trying to get you to understand that you give a firm impressiion that you have an over-simplified understanding of how graphics scenaries function when it comes to FPS rates. If you don't like what you are hearing that is not the fault of the person trying to explain something about a subject you clearly fall short in understanding the complexities of.

And my saying that is not to slight you....no one on this planet understands everything about anything. So quit letting the rationalizations of the ego get the best of your better self and let folks try to help you over the hump on this.

For all of your lengthy comments, it boils down to you not reading my posts carefully; otherwise you wouldn't keep going on about the "impression" I left about FPS at altitude vs ground (or near-ground) level. Drop it, please.

Frostmourne said:

Incidentally, if you built that pc, you should have gone for a full ATX with a proper heatsink and a Core i5 750 which can overclock easily to match and beat the 860. A GTS 250 also isn't enough for higher resolution gaming.

I didn't build it, it was a prebuilt package deal and I couldn't change the options. It cost the same or less than many i5/750 systems I looked at with comparable components. And the 860 can overclock too, if I ever need it. :)

The GTS 250 is a graphics bottleneck on this system, but it may be good enough for now. I only run 1280x1024. It's comparable to an ATI 4850 depending on the game/benchmark. I would have preferred a 4870 or 4890 but didn't have the option.

dave1812 said:

M17x said:

dave1812 said:

Actually,with XP I was getting over 45 FPS at airports and with add-on scenery like the popular Vegas addon on that improves the Strip's look. I would hardly be complaining here if the difference between my XP installation of FS9 and the installation on 7 had only minimal differences. The difference is very dramatic and aggravating as I don't enjoy flying with rates fluctuating between 7 and 14 much of the time at ground level. I would have expected that no one one need to lecture me about the difference between FPS at altitude, vs near/at the ground. I thought I'd made that all abundantly clear.


AND WHY IN THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FSX? I have FS2004 (FS9).

You didn't read my posts carefully and therefore assumed I was comparing apples to oranges.

Regardless of the version of the simulator the FPS at altitude are always going to be higher than at ground level because the scenary complexity of each are polar opposites.

Your thoughts as they are posted tend to at least leave the impression that you think the rates of scenary should be homogenous across all altitudes and that just isn't the case no matter how you want to kick and scream about it.

As for add-ons, they don't replace the entire graphics set of the flight simulator. Portions of the graphics sets that come with the flight sim are still employed during a flight despite the installed add-ons. And to be certain you can bet the add-ons are enabled for use during low altitude flight particularly so when the add-on was created to enhance the low altitude scenary by various means including invoking certain features of the graphics engines employed that the FS OEM has included OR by employing dynamic graphic engine substitutions supplied by the add-on manufacturer.

It is entire probable that once the FL or cruise altitudes are reached the FS graphic scenary will take over because there is nothing to be gained by a "low altitude" scenary (airports, cities and etc) add-on manufacturer designing high altitude scenary when everything at the high altitudes dithers across the board and detail becomes more of a wholistic blend. And if the add-on manufacturer is substituting engine graphics libraries it is entirely possible that once altitude is reached the same graphics computations are shared between the OEM and the add-on.

Lastly no one here including myself is trying to lecture you. I am trying to get you to understand that you give a firm impressiion that you have an over-simplified understanding of how graphics scenaries function when it comes to FPS rates. If you don't like what you are hearing that is not the fault of the person trying to explain something about a subject you clearly fall short in understanding the complexities of.

And my saying that is not to slight you....no one on this planet understands everything about anything. So quit letting the rationalizations of the ego get the best of your better self and let folks try to help you over the hump on this.

For all of your lengthy comments, it boils down to you not reading my posts carefully; otherwise you wouldn't keep going on about the "impression" I left about FPS at altitude vs ground (or near-ground) level. Drop it, please.

I would agree with you if your were correct but you just aren't. I will gladly end it Dave. Even though the screens of this forum separate you from whom you post to...everything coming out of the screen from your post is saturated with pure NEGATIVITY and a VERY EXTREME ATTITUDE.....good look with your technical and personal problems.

M17x said:

dave1812 said:

M17x said:

Regardless of the version of the simulator the FPS at altitude are always going to be higher than at ground level because the scenary complexity of each are polar opposites.

Your thoughts as they are posted tend to at least leave the impression that you think the rates of scenary should be homogenous across all altitudes and that just isn't the case no matter how you want to kick and scream about it.

As for add-ons, they don't replace the entire graphics set of the flight simulator. Portions of the graphics sets that come with the flight sim are still employed during a flight despite the installed add-ons. And to be certain you can bet the add-ons are enabled for use during low altitude flight particularly so when the add-on was created to enhance the low altitude scenary by various means including invoking certain features of the graphics engines employed that the FS OEM has included OR by employing dynamic graphic engine substitutions supplied by the add-on manufacturer.

It is entire probable that once the FL or cruise altitudes are reached the FS graphic scenary will take over because there is nothing to be gained by a "low altitude" scenary (airports, cities and etc) add-on manufacturer designing high altitude scenary when everything at the high altitudes dithers across the board and detail becomes more of a wholistic blend. And if the add-on manufacturer is substituting engine graphics libraries it is entirely possible that once altitude is reached the same graphics computations are shared between the OEM and the add-on.

Lastly no one here including myself is trying to lecture you. I am trying to get you to understand that you give a firm impressiion that you have an over-simplified understanding of how graphics scenaries function when it comes to FPS rates. If you don't like what you are hearing that is not the fault of the person trying to explain something about a subject you clearly fall short in understanding the complexities of.

And my saying that is not to slight you....no one on this planet understands everything about anything. So quit letting the rationalizations of the ego get the best of your better self and let folks try to help you over the hump on this.

For all of your lengthy comments, it boils down to you not reading my posts carefully; otherwise you wouldn't keep going on about the "impression" I left about FPS at altitude vs ground (or near-ground) level. Drop it, please.

I would agree with you if your were correct but you just aren't. I will gladly end it Dave. Even though the screens of this forum separate you from whom you post to...everything coming out of the screen from your post is saturated with pure NEGATIVITY and a VERY EXTREME ATTITUDE.....good look with your technical and personal problems.

LOL! Actually the problem is called "projection". check the mirror.

dave1812 said:

Darn it, I followed your instructions, and frame rates remain identical to the poor rates I had before. Not even the tiniest improvement. At altitude, without buildings in view, I get frame rates above 60. Near the ground or while taxiing, take off/landing, rates range between 7 and 30, like before. also, motion is jerky--something I had only sporadically with my XP installation of FS9.

I thought I was the only one! I have exactly the same problem! I have looked all over the internet, no answers. My system is an i7-940 with 6GB very fast ram, Nvidia GTX280 with 1GB RAM, 22' flat monitor and a projector (dual screen config), and 1tb fast and totally defraged hd. On a previous system that was 1/3 of spec 30fps were no problem, no matter what.

With this system, when I get into the flight, on the ground, all systems on, weather on (cloud / rain etc), VATSIM connection on, I average 120fps. As soon as plane starts moving, 20fps finaly reducing to 8-9fps.

NHancer installed with config as advised for FS9, latest nvidia drivers etc...

Yoke / throttle quadrant and rudder for sale soon if not fixed...

Nikos