SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 07-20-07, 06:16 PM

Just watched it. Thanks for the job. It's the first time that somebody has made a movie just for me.

What are your system specs?

I must admit, that framerate in that movie is scaring me, although I am by far no frame-rate-maniac. I accept frames below let's say 15 when doing flights at higher altitudes (where you do not realize it that much as long as you do not panning around in VC), or while taxiing on the ground, but during approach and landing, and manipulating the panels via VC and TrackIR I want 20 for a minimum. With frames like in that video of yours I would even run the risk of slamming into a building while oversteering during taxiing.

I have a P4-3 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 7900GS AGP (256), Audigy 2, and I use Fighterstick and ProThrottle, Simped Vario Pro, and TrackIR 4. I use 1280x1024 resolution. But with the incredibly crammed and detailed Cheyenne (with moving wipers, too!

) I get frames in VC of 12-15 when taxiing at a detailed addon-airports, and 15-22 inflight, with 50% cloud coverage and AI traffic at 20%. Your video looks like very much below these frame rate values!? The 767 and the 747 also are frame rate-demanding, but do not drop below 15 during taxing, and remain 18-22 during flight, in VC.

I do not want to bash your system when asking for your specs, but if your system comopares to mine, I know that I will not run it any better, and if your system is much older, I know that there is some reserves for me to gain. If your system is even better than mine, then - well...

Again, thanks for the time and effort you invested! But I must think twice about this package. The german review I linked to is very fair and baöanced, but they also mentioned the frame rate problem. Ignoring the frames, it looks like a decent airplane. not many reviews around, btw. Avsim also seems to have none.

P.S. Just noted you were running it in FSX. So we cannot compare anything anyhow anyway, I fear. I had FSX for some days when it came out, then sold it via ebay, and jumped onto FS9, getting all the addons for low prices since former oweners abandoned FS9. FSX at 1024x768 and default settings was pretty much the frame rate like in that video, and sometimes even much worse. But i loved the cockpit of the Goose. That's the only thing I really miss from it. The Goose I have is by far not so cozy a pilot's pit.

07-20-07, 06:16 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,560 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Just watched it. Thanks for the job. It's the first time that somebody has made a movie just for me. What are your system specs? I must admit, that framerate in that movie is scaring me, although I am by far no frame-rate-maniac. I accept frames below let's say 15 when doing flights at higher altitudes (where you do not realize it that much as long as you do not panning around in VC), or while taxiing on the ground, but during approach and landing, and manipulating the panels via VC and TrackIR I want 20 for a minimum. With frames like in that video of yours I would even run the risk of slamming into a building while oversteering during taxiing. I have a P4-3 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 7900GS AGP (256), Audigy 2, and I use Fighterstick and ProThrottle, Simped Vario Pro, and TrackIR 4. I use 1280x1024 resolution. But with the incredibly crammed and detailed Cheyenne (with moving wipers, too! ) I get frames in VC of 12-15 when taxiing at a detailed addon-airports, and 15-22 inflight, with 50% cloud coverage and AI traffic at 20%. Your video looks like very much below these frame rate values!? The 767 and the 747 also are frame rate-demanding, but do not drop below 15 during taxing, and remain 18-22 during flight, in VC. I do not want to bash your system when asking for your specs, but if your system comopares to mine, I know that I will not run it any better, and if your system is much older, I know that there is some reserves for me to gain. If your system is even better than mine, then - well... Again, thanks for the time and effort you invested! But I must think twice about this package. The german review I linked to is very fair and baöanced, but they also mentioned the frame rate problem. Ignoring the frames, it looks like a decent airplane. not many reviews around, btw. Avsim also seems to have none. P.S. Just noted you were running it in FSX. So we cannot compare anything anyhow anyway, I fear. I had FSX for some days when it came out, then sold it via ebay, and jumped onto FS9, getting all the addons for low prices since former oweners abandoned FS9. FSX at 1024x768 and default settings was pretty much the frame rate like in that video, and sometimes even much worse. But i loved the cockpit of the Goose. That's the only thing I really miss from it. The Goose I have is by far not so cozy a pilot's pit. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.