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

[dave1812]

compared to the same PC running XP. I used to get great frame rates in FS9, but since I've installed (CLEAN INSTALL) 7, no matter which nvidia driver I try, I can't get above 30 FPS. In 7, the FPS vary from under 10 to usually no more than 29) I have FPS locked at 59. I used to get over 50FPS in the same circumstances (locations, aircraft, settings, time of day, etc--ie IDENTICAL setttings). I've tried Rivatuner but it doesnt change the FR, nor does it (version 2.24) appear to be altering the nvidia settings (overclocking), because when I choose fan speeds in rivatuner, the video card fan doesn't change speeds like it used to, so I don't think rivatuner is compatible with the drivers I've tried or it's an issue with 7. The drivers I've tried with my 6800 card are: 190.62, 191.07, and 195.62 (all are "[driver number]_desktop_win7_winvista_32bit_english_whql.exe")

I even went so far as to drag out my old Samsung CRT to see it that would make a difference. Nada.

Has anyone else with an Nvidia card and FS9 had similar issues with lower frame rates when switching from XP to 7?

 

[torrentg]

Try unlocking the fps from 59 (~60).

The 29-30 is exactly half and that may have something to do with it. See if framerates jump higher than 30 ever with lock off.

 

[dave1812]

Try unlocking the fps from 59 (~60).

The 29-30 is exactly half and that may have something to do with it. See if framerates jump higher than 30 ever with lock off.

Tried that--no difference. I can get FR as high as 60 if there's no scenery on the screen (when flying at altitude or pointing the nose up to the sky so that there's no ground showing). But with XP, I had great FR at the airports when taking off and landing, and with lots of interesting scenery, including add-on scenery.

 

[torrentg]

Go to the compatibility tab for the game's shortcut and set it to disable desktop composition. That will disable Aero for when the game is running, offering benefit.

Type msinfo32 in the start menu, hit enter. Ctrl+s on the screen that opens. Zip or rar the saved file and attach to a post using the paperclip.

I might be able to see ways to improve the system.

 

[torrentg]

Type regedit into the start menu search box, hit enter.

Navigate to

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

and delete:

SunJavaUpdateSched
Quicktime Task
Adobe ARM
Adobe Speed Reader Launcher
Soundman

Then navigate to:

HKU\S-1-5-21-3639059305-2480706571-2414477769-1002\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

and delete:

Hobbyist Software On-Off Helper
$Volumouse$
ISUSPM

You have the Bonjour service which is terrible. Open an elevated command prompt. Copy and paste these lines, hitting enter after each:

“%PROGRAMFILES%\Bonjour\mDNSResponder.exe” -remove

regsvr32 /u “%PROGRAMFILES%\Bonjour\mdnsNSP.dll”

Type services.msc into the start menu search box, hit enter.

Reboot and then delete the Bonjour folder in program files. Load your game and check the frame rates out.

The 6800 video card is rather old so 30 fps fairly good. You'll probably get higher after doing these things if you follow though.

 

[dave1812]

Type regedit into the start menu search box, hit enter.

Navigate to

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

and delete:

SunJavaUpdateSched
Quicktime Task
Adobe ARM
Adobe Speed Reader Launcher
Soundman

Then navigate to:

HKU\S-1-5-21-3639059305-2480706571-2414477769-1002\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

and delete:

Hobbyist Software On-Off Helper
$Volumouse$
ISUSPM

You have the Bonjour service which is terrible. Open an elevated command prompt. Copy and paste these lines, hitting enter after each:

“%PROGRAMFILES%\Bonjour\mDNSResponder.exe” -remove

regsvr32 /u “%PROGRAMFILES%\Bonjour\mdnsNSP.dll”

Type services.msc into the start menu search box, hit enter.

Reboot and then delete the Bonjour folder in program files. Load your game and check the frame rates out.

The 6800 video card is rather old so 30 fps fairly good. You'll probably get higher after doing these things if you follow though.

will do, but be aware the hobbyist on/off item I JUST installed right before creating that file. I'll go ahead and follow your instructions and will report back in a few. and u are right, bonjour blows.

 

[dave1812]

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.

 

[M17x]

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???

 

[dave1812]

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.

 

[M17x]

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.

 

[Zathras]

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.

 

[Frostmourne]

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.

 

[dave1812]

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.

 

[Zathras]

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.

 

[M17x]

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.

 

[dave1812]

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.

 

[nikost]

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