• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

R U Ready for "Flight"?

I see everyone is running with ansio set at 4x. If you run your vidcard setting at 8x anti-a and 16x ansio shouldn't you
run the benchmark at the same settings? I also would like to know if anyone is also overclocking their GPU (vid card)
or is it running at clock speeds?

Joe

Firstly, not overclocking here (never have never will) :)

Secondly as an ATi user I was recommended to use in game settings on the gfx card control centre and the in game Ansiotropic settings have no number it's just on or off, so I have no idea if it's 2x 4x or 8x.
 
My understanding is that my GTX 295 OC does not take advantage of DX11 or Tessellation.

Does anyone know exactly which cards are required to run both?
 
My understanding is that my GTX 295 OC does not take advantage of DX11 or Tessellation.

Does anyone know exactly which cards are required to run both?

The nVidia 4xx and 5xx series should all be able to run Dx11. (I know my 560Ti is!)
 
Thanks for the HU, Ed.
That's exactly why SOH is my premier forum for all things FSX.

TL,DR: my rig seems to be ready for ..... Hawaii?

(I had to scale back my overclocking due to recent cooling problems :icon_lol:)

Powered by Unigine Engine

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic

FPS:40.0
Scores:1007
Min FPS:21.2
Max FPS:77.7

<tbody>
</tbody>


Hardware

Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU flags:3200MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series 8.821.0.0 2048Mb

<tbody>
</tbody>


Settings

Render:direct3d11
Mode:1280x1024 8xAA fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:8x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Tessellation:normal

<tbody>
</tbody>
 
Noticed I had a low min FPS (8.1) on the original run which looked odd compared to others so ran again. Now 17.1 min, Something must have happened during the benchmark, an update or something to slow it perhaps.

FPS:36.3
Scores:914
Min FPS:17.1
Max FPS:85.2

<tbody>
</tbody>
[h=2]Hardware[/h]
Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
CPU flags:3400MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT
GPU model:ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.892.0.0 1024Mb

<tbody>
</tbody>
[h=2]Settings[/h]
Render:direct3d11
Mode:1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:4x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Tessellation:normal

<tbody>
</tbody>
 
FPS:29.2
Scores:737
Min FPS:9.7
Max FPS:54.9

<tbody>
</tbody>

Hardware

Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz
CPU flags:3612MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 HTT
GPU model:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 8.17.12.7533 1024Mb

<tbody>
</tbody>

Settings

Render:direct3d11
Mode:1680x1050 4xAA fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:8x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Tessellation:disabled


<tbody>
</tbody>


FPS:32.2
Scores:810
Min FPS:13.4
Max FPS:60.6

<tbody>
</tbody>

Settings

Render:direct3d11
Mode:1680x1050 2xAA fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:8x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Tessellation:disabled


<tbody>
</tbody>


The first one is with 4x AA, what I normally use, and the second is with 2x AA. Looks like I'm going to have to upgrade to a DX11 card if I have any hope of running Flight.
 
8xAA 16x Anisotropy

Heaven8xAA16x.jpg

 
I honestly would not use this benchmark for how Flight will work on your PC. Its geared to FPS shooters and they are worlds away from sims in how they work. Shooters only need to simulate about 1 city block of area so they can concentrate details into a small area. Flight Sims typically cover VAST ammount of area, sometimes encompasing the entire globe!!!

Has it even been confirmed that Flight will support DX11?
 
. . . . . .Has it even been confirmed that Flight will support DX11?
Nope, according to the article, it was just what they assumed would be a likely progression, since any release wouldn't be forthcoming and late 2012 seemed like a logical target, DXT11 seemed a good guess I assume. Given that even DXT10 was a wash based on early "fantasy" expectations, maybe we shouldn't be too excited about anything they expect "11" will do, lol.:salute:
 
Butcherbird I overclocked my asus 460gtx from 675 900 1350 to 945 1890 2120 and my score went from 947 to 1128 and from a high of 94fps to a high of 112 fps.
 
Nope, according to the article, it was just what they assumed would be a likely progression, since any release wouldn't be forthcoming and late 2012 seemed like a logical target, DXT11 seemed a good guess I assume. Given that even DXT10 was a wash based on early "fantasy" expectations, maybe we shouldn't be too excited about anything they expect "11" will do, lol.:salute:

So in otherwords, then entire thread is more about hardware envy then anything hay? ;) :salute::icon_lol:

If I recall from reading what was officially released, performance is one of there main goals for Flight. Making it hardware intensive just shrinks there possible market. On the otherhand, having lots of nice eye candy also sells. Its a tight balancing act, but we will see what way things tip once Flight is out hay?

I personally would LOVE to see ground tessilation, but I doubt we will see tessilation on the aircraft. Models need to be build VERY VERY spacifically in order to use tessilation and it can be a big pain. Thats why you dont see it very often in games. To even think about doing it on something as complex as an aircraft gives me nightmares!

There are also lots of things you can do with water using tessilation, like real waves and water deformation from boats and float planes! The way aircraft react and interact with water in FSX leaves MUCH to be desired. I would love to see the Seabee carving up waves in Hawaii!!! Maybe even step taxi it onto the beach Ala James Bond in "The Man with the Golden Gun"!!!

Sorry. Drooling a bit too much here. Carry on!
 
For 'realism' I play Assassin's Creed games and won't hold my breath for Flight yet. :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: The entire discussion is kinda 'mute' since nothing is known about Flight yet, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon either.

Right, back to my FSX now, with my new GTX580 card..... now THAT's reality :jump:
 
So in other words, the entire thread is more about hardware envy then anything hay? ;) :salute::icon_lol:. . . . . . .
Exactly, lol. It's long been understood that framerates above the low to mid-20's are indiscernible by the human eye, so while many are showing some impressive base FPS it's of little use in Flight Sim as my 18fps is probably just as smooth (to me) as someone else who is getting 40+. Gamers regularly see high fps because of the relatively small "active area" they find themselves in. With Flight Sim, the engine is displaying 40 or 50 miles of mesh, ground textures, autogen, clouds and other environmental "drags" on the system. A big difference.:salute:
 
For 'realism' I play Assassin's Creed games and won't hold my breath for Flight yet. :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: The entire discussion is kinda 'mute' since nothing is known about Flight yet, and I don't expect it to be anytime soon either.

Right, back to my FSX now, with my new GTX580 card..... now THAT's reality :jump:

Francois, how are you liking that 580? I've been thinking about upgrading from my 295. What kind of performance are you seeing? Is it worth the money?
 
competition has arisen with regard to frame rates

[h=2]Frame rates in video games................For me further confusion!...do wearing glasses,age ,pose a factor?..or is it what you see is what you get![/h]



<tbody>
</tbody>
Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, “choppy” animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.
The first 3D first-person shooter game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 FPS, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 60 FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console shooters such as Halo 3, are locked at 30 FPS maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games.) When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is alloted between frames, the frame rate decreases.

A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rateswith players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 FPS, making extremely high frame rates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game “timedemos” at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.

Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.
Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency. Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag.
Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid to the human eye, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame.
A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU. This effect is known as micro stuttering.
[h=2][/h]
 
Francois, how are you liking that 580? I've been thinking about upgrading from my 295. What kind of performance are you seeing? Is it worth the money?

Hi Mal, I like it much. No stutters, no lag as far as I can see. But, having said that, I was pretty content with my previous 280 GTX. I changed because my PC sorta 'gave up' and I was forced to buy a new one (this and photography/design being my profession). Since I was spending ,oney anyway I figured I might as well 'upgrade'. The 280 will go in an older PC, as soon as I get a new motherboard for it.

From what I've read the 580 is a very good card without being the most expensive. So far that seems to be correct.
 
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011

Maybe this is a dumb question. What does the 32bit in "Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011" mean? Is there a "64bit"?
Don't bust my ass,
SEAN

Heaven Benchmark v2.5 Basic

FPS:33.3
Scores:838
Min FPS:18.7
Max FPS:72.7

<tbody>
</tbody>

Hardware

Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 1 2011
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
CPU flags:2400MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT
GPU model:NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 8.17.12.8562 1024Mb

<tbody>
</tbody>

Settings

Render:direct3d11
Mode:1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:4x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Tessellation:normal

<tbody>
</tbody>
 
Back
Top