Brianhames From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 796 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9731 times:
Should run like (mike meyers on "coffee talk" accent) butta (/mike meyers on "coffee talk" accent)
My PC is a P4 2.0gHz, 512mb RAM, and I used to have a 64mb GeForce 3 I think it was, but now have the ATI RADEON 9700PRO. But the 64mb card ran in the high 20s and low 30s for fps. So you should be good.
Should be able to run FS Century of Flight pretty well too when that comes out this summer. Hooyah.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9717 times:
What's that fascination with framerates?
Just to disspell the magic, I don't get over 25 on average on a P4-2.4 with 1.5GB RAM and a GF4-Ti4200 card with 128MB on board.
And I don't have everything maxed out...
Only places I do get 50+ is over flat deserts at FL350 in a default 777.
Might be because I have worldwide 100m mesh (with 30m for the entire US and most of Europe), dense landclass for Europe and the US, highdensity replacement ground and cloud textures, realweather (ActiveSky) and aircraft like the PSS 747 and RFP 747 that are what I usually use...
I don't care, because it's fluent and looks great. In my experience anything over 10 is acceptable in dense areas, anything over 15 on average is good.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9718 times:
I find that low frame rates affect my ability to control the aircraft...my old FS platform was FS98 on a PIII 450 mhz...Voodoo video card...128 MB RAM I think...I would find that about 25-30 fps was satisfactory for control purposes...any lower and the simulator became jerky and difficult to control...
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru