How indicative of fps is Demo

wad53 · Post by **wad53** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:37 am

I have recently purchased Dubai ITL and was so impressed that I am considering further Fly Tampa sceneries. However, after trying the demo's I am not sure if my ageing system can cope adequately. Dubai gives excellent fps (20) in most situations. Unfortunately, Tampa (demo) is a slideshow (single figures) in almost all situations, which really surprised me based on all the great comments I have read. The biggest surprise was that fps didn't improve when taxiing on the outer areas and setting my view away from the main terminal (is it the number of trees?). I have tried all the recommendations from the manual, incl deselecting 3d lights, removing the recommended bgl's, lowering FS display settings, no AI, but at best I gain only 1 to 2 fps. Most unusual in my experience.
My system specs are P4 1.8, 1gig DDR Ram, 5600FX video with 256 Meg. I realise this is a low end system but I can run other sceneries eg SimFlyers acceptably, so I am most surprised.
Given that Dubai runs so well, is it possible that Tampa has been improved/updated re fps since the demo, or is it just beyond my poor old PC? I also tried out Miami (demo) and can just get by at about 12 to 15 fps in the heavy areas, but it runs better than Tampa on my system.
I must add that all of the Fly Tampa sceneries look sensational.

Warren

Post by **martin[flytampa]** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:28 am

The release order is a good indicator. Tampa is our oldest release and we already labeled it "legacy" a while ago.

It was followed by:
MIA
SAN
OMDB
KSFO
KSEA
KMDW

The later products will give you the better performance.

wad53 · Post by **wad53** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:13 pm

Thanks Martin,
I guess KTPA (and maybe KMIA) will have to wait for my next system upgrade.

Pity there are no demo's of the later sceneries, but if they are as fps friendly as OMDB, then I should be ok.

Warren

Post by **martin[flytampa]** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:41 pm

If location isn't the most important issue for you get KSFO, that is very fps friendly. Second is either MDW or SEA followed by SAN. All of these are far faster then MIA and TPA.

wad53 · Post by **wad53** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:59 pm

Speaking as a true Aussie, "I guess any US airport is as good as the next"

I will take your advice and pick up one of the newer ones to test on my system.
Thanks for your help and guidance.

Warren

wad53 · Post by **wad53** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:42 am

Well Martin, I have now purchased KSFO and the verdict is

I am getting better fps than many of the default FS2004 airports, and of course the quality of the Fly Tampa KSFO is way better than all of the default ones. I dont know how you get so much detail for the performance but congratulations on an excellent product. I'll look forward to future Fly Tampa developments.
Thanks again

Warren