URL: http://www.flightadventures.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID1
Thread Number: 745
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 06-22-03 at 16:38z
Hi Everyone,

Yesterday I went to the Van Nuys Air Expo. One of the highlights was seeing a full-sized replica of the Wright Flyer.

Saw a F117a flying, and some aerobatic planes as well. Seeing the F-15 flight demonstration was Awesome! The sheer power of that plane is amazing. When they did the high speed afterburner pass, the whole place shook and all 150,000 people were speechless for a moment.

Another highlight was the chance to fly FS2004. :-) At the Ford booth they had FS2004 running in Kiosk mode and I got the chance to fly a Ford Tri-Motor aircraft. The sim looks very good and the plane also looked great, very detailed, and was easy to fly.

No idea what computer it was running on because that was hidden, but the load time at the beginning of a flight situation was many times faster than it is in FS2002.

They also had a platform rigged up so people could try flying the Wright Flyer in FS2004. The person would lie down on a platform set up with controls just like the Wright Flyer. That one was more designed for children so I did not try it. I have a picture of the Wright Flyer Virtual Cockpit screen that I can upload if anyone is interested.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by sw45061 on 06-29-03 at 02:33z
got an "advance copy" of fs2004 yesterday. works great on my athlon 2100 with ati 9000 video card with 128 meg ram. also have 1.5 meg ddr ram. starting videos are really good with good instruction stuff. one question that i have. will yoube able to "import" planes and scenery witht eh new version? im pretty new to this stuff so im hoping it is possible. is it completely compatible?
"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 06-29-03 at 22:47z
sw45061 (A real name would be preferable),

I suggest you ask whoever provided you with the "advance copy". I'm sure they will be able to answer all your questions.

Perhaps you could post the replies so we all benefit from the info you received?

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 06-29-03 at 23:27z
Hi Ray,

>I suggest you ask whoever provided you with the "advance
>copy".

This brings to mind another question. When is the official release date for MS FS2004? And is the date the same for the U.S.A. and the U.K?

Now that I have had a brief chance to fly it, can't wait to get FS2004 on my machine. We are also planning to upgrade to a 2+ Ghz PC in the next month or so. I will pass my PIII 866 down to my wife. :-)

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 06-30-03 at 08:21z
Hi Melo,

I've heard the 29th July for the US - a couple of weeks later for the UK and presumably the rest of Europe.

I'm holding off any upgrades until I've had a chance to assess performance on my Athlon 2000XP/512Mb/Ti4600 system. I'm certain I'll need to upgrade to get a satisfactory performance since I like to have most of the sliders over to the right.

I think you'll appreciate that performance hike. I usually wait until I can double my processor power but you're getting a 2.5X increase :-)

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 06-30-03 at 16:41z
Hi Ray

How's tricks?

>>I usually wait until I can double my processor power<<

My poor old memory! I could have sworn your threshold was a 50% increase. I currently use 2.2 Ghz for flying and as the 3.2 is just out it's close to my marker - 3.3 so I shall be upgrading soon.

Regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 06-30-03 at 20:36z
Hi Frank,

Fine thanks! Having the usual palpitations watching Wimbledon and Henman. Sorry to see Agassi go out today - he's still playing tremendous tennis :-(

I think Pete is the one who upgrades when he hits the 50% mark. He's got a 3MHz P4 at present so no upgrading there for a while. You pay a lot for the fastest processor - a lot of dosh can be saved by buying the next one down. Then again, if you have the cash then why not? No point sitting in a bank vault when you could be putting it to better use!

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-01-03 at 04:59z
Hi Ray

Well Tim is through to the quarters and he beat a tough opponent yesterday......so maybe?

Ah! yes. It's Pete.(I hope all goes well for him too).

I have heard that the 3Ghz is all that you could ever need, but I seem to have heard that before. :-)

Regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 07-02-03 at 00:02z
Hi Ray,

>I've heard the 29th July for the US - a couple of weeks
>later for the UK and presumably the rest of Europe.

I stopped by an Electronics Boutique last night on the way home from the movies and it said July 31. Can't wait!

>I think you'll appreciate that performance hike. I usually
>wait until I can double my processor power but you're
>getting a 2.5X increase :-)

Yes it will be great to be in the 2+ Ghz range. Should work tremendously compared to my old reliable 866. :-)

I will finally be able to get the sliders more to the right in CFS3 as well as FS2004.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by WScofield on 07-14-03 at 16:36z
>I'm holding off any upgrades until I've had a chance to
>assess performance on my Athlon 2000XP/512Mb/Ti4600
>system. I'm certain I'll need to upgrade to get a
>satisfactory performance since I like to have most of the
>sliders over to the right.


Hi Ray -

In anticipation of FSCOF, I have been looking over the current offerings of top-end AMD machines. I came across a new d325 model from HP/Compaq, featuring the AMD 3000+ chip. Although it is not targeted for the gamer market, it seems to be fairly reasonably priced, and also one could add a higher performance graphics card and have a pretty nice rig. Any comments?

Here's a link to the spec's: http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11642_na/11642_na.HTML


Regards,

William

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 07-14-03 at 19:28z
Hi William,

I've always avoided business-oriented machines as their requirements are quite different from those for the gamer as we're best described.

A few potential areas for concern...

1. Only 3 PCI slots which could be a limiting factor. Most mobos have 5 or 6.

2. The 240 watt power supply would need boosting with a powerful graphics card. I'd suggest 350 or even 400 watt to be on the safe side.

3. Integrated audio will hit frame rates. You would need a separate soundcard.

The cost of a monitor is extra and you would need to add another graphics card as you quite rightly say. Minimum should be 128Mb Ti4800 or ATI equivalent.

Quite honestly you're paying for audio and in-built graphics that you wouldn't use. Better to buy or build a machine to your own requirements than to compromise to this extend. Short answer? Can't recommend it I'm afraid, sorry.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by WScofield on 07-15-03 at 04:07z
Hi Ray -

Thanks for your comments. I am aware of the graphics card issue, as I said. I have wondered about the extent to which the audio card makes a difference performancewise. The systems I have built or had built always had a decent sound card. The monitor I already own, so no need to buy again.

Certainly, the small number of PCI slots can be an issue, depending on what you need to add. But, if one slot goes to the sound card, and the video card goes to the AGP slot, and the machine has built in Ethernet, how far off can you be?

The thing I was impressed with in the predecessor Compaq model (EVO, Intel P4 2000 or some such) they installed in my office is how quiet the machine is. You can't tell if it is running from the sound - it is so silent. By comparison, my "custom built" AMD machine at home (Athlon 1900+) is fairly noisy, with all the fans. The difference is remarkable.

If I could find a comparable reasonably priced machine with an AMD 3000+ chip, I might go for it.

Don't yet know what the demands of COF will be, so this is all just preliminary prospecting. I look forward to any reliable intelligence about the "real" hardware demands of the new FS program.

Regards,

William

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 07-15-03 at 13:05z
Hi Bill,

<<Certainly, the small number of PCI slots can be an issue, depending on what you need to add. But, if one slot goes to the sound card, and the video card goes to the AGP slot, and the machine has built in Ethernet, how far off can you be?>>

If you know that you're not going to add any more PCI peripherals apart from a sound card then you might be okay. Watch the one closest to the AGP slot as some graphics cards are so large they prevent that slot being used.

It's hard to recommend products to people living outside the UK. I notice many Americans tend to buy corporate PCs such as those from Dell, Compaq etc. Over here not many do preferring independent companies that are more oriented to the home market.

Whatever you choose the important things remain the same. Fastest processor you can (or can't!) afford, good graphics card and a decent display. Those are expensive or difficult to replace afterwards.

I take your point about a noisy Athlon vs a quiet Intel. I'm getting used to the noise from mine now but at first it was quite a surprise. I'm not even going to guess as to what I'll need to run FS2004 until it's loaded early next month. Rumour has it that frame rates are pretty comparable to FS2002 until you ratch up the cloud settings at which point you need a lot more processing power to gain the reality.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by WScofield on 07-15-03 at 16:42z
Hi Ray -

>I take your point about a noisy Athlon vs a quiet Intel.
>I'm getting used to the noise from mine now but at first
>it was quite a surprise. I'm not even going to guess as to
>what I'll need to run FS2004 until it's loaded early next
>month. Rumour has it that frame rates are pretty
>comparable to FS2002 until you ratch up the cloud settings
>at which point you need a lot more processing power to
>gain the reality.


Thanks, as always, for your comments. One thing I regret about the NDA's for the beta testers is the lack of ability to get feedback now about the "real" hardware requirements for the product, until some substantial time after it is released in a few weeks. I'm sure there are people who have been checking this program out for several months who could shed some real light on these issues.

Of course, perhaps the lesson here is to simply be patient. For some reason, that is usually difficult. I don't think I am alone in timing my computer upgrades to new FS releases. Not that it is intentional, but historically it seems to have worked out that way. A $50 investment in new software translates into $1000 invested in new hardware. The good news is that each time the cost of the hardware is a bit lower than it was 2-3 years earlier.

Thanks again.

Regards,

William

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 07-15-03 at 17:35z
Hi William,

Well, there are beta testers in this group so I'm surprised they've stayed quiet. No names of course but they know who they are :-) The NDA was lifted a couple of weeks ago.

My upgrades seem to happen half-way through the life cycle of an FS release. Good luck on yours and I hope you're able to get full satisfaction from the product :-)

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by Ben_Chiu on 07-15-03 at 19:10z
Greetings William:

Perhaps you should break this CoF hardware topic out into another thread.

Ben


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by Mike_Greenwood on 07-02-03 at 03:02z
Hi Ray,

>>I suggest you ask whoever provided you with the "advance copy". I'm sure
they will be able to answer all your questions.<<

Hehe, yeah..."advance copy." I heard that a beta copy was floating around the internet touting itself as "gold." Other than beta testers, the only "advance copy" went out to the media and "sw45061" with his writing style sure doesn't sound like someone from the media to me <g>.

--Greenie
**6 miles SSE KSJC**

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Mike Greenwood
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 07-02-03 at 08:34z
Hi Mike,

Agreed. I suspected our friend didn't acquire it through a valid source hence my reply. I'm seeing several similar messages on newsgroups so it seems there are a lot of unauthorised copies floating around.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 06-29-03 at 23:20z
Hi,

>one question that i have.
>will yoube able to "import" planes and scenery witht eh
>new version?

Just a guess, but I have heard in the past that planes will have to be in GMax format to work in FS2004. No idea about scenery.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 06-30-03 at 16:45z
Hi Melo

>>I have heard in the past that planes will have to be in GMax format to work in FS2004<<

I don't know if that is so but for my part GMax are the only "good-lookers" around now so I shall only be using those in future.

How's Glendale? I doubt I would recognise it now.

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 07-02-03 at 00:13z
Hi Frank,

>I don't know if that is so but for my part GMax are the
>only "good-lookers" around now so I shall only be using
>those in future.

I agree with you on the way they look. Boy, did that Ford Tri-Motor look great in FS2004!! :-)

I had also heard a while ago that GMax was going to be the only fully-compatible format going forward into FS2004 and beyond. Sure seemed that way for CFS3 as well.

BTW, is anyone out there a GMax expert? I am working on a GMax project and would like to know who to bounce questions off of occasionally. Thanks.

>How's Glendale? I doubt I would recognise it now.

Glendale is great! A bit on the quite Hot side right now. Had to run the A/C in the car on the way home so I did not melt. :-)

If you want, I could go up in the hills sometime and get a few digital photos of Glendale to send to you for old times sake.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-02-03 at 04:57z
Hi Melo

>>If you want, I could go up in the hills sometime and get a few digital photos of Glendale to send to you<<

That's very kind. I used to live on Moorside. Got a great view to the ocean from there - one day per year :-( How's the smog these days?

Hot - that's how I remember it. Come early September you used to be able to guarantee 100F.

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 07-04-03 at 17:55z
Hi Frank,

>That's very kind. I used to live on Moorside. Got a
>great view to the ocean from there - one day per year :-(

Where is Moorside? Is it on the west end of Glendale near Brand park? I will have to check the Thomas Bros.

>How's the smog these days?

Actually much better than it used to be. My wife mentioned that we have been here almost 18 years now. The smog is much better than it used to be in years past.

>Hot - that's how I remember it. Come early September you
>used to be able to guarantee 100F.

Pretty hot right now, high 80's to low 90's.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-05-03 at 03:56z
Hi Melo

Moorside is up on the foothills. I used to come off the Glendale Freeway at Mountain, cross Verdugo and go up Royal Boulevard. My back yard overlooked Dead Horse Canyon.

Where are you?

18 years - I think we discovered before that you arrived about the time we left in 1986.

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by PL965Melo on 07-05-03 at 20:41z
Hi Frank,

>Moorside is up on the foothills. I used to come off the
>Glendale Freeway at Mountain, cross Verdugo and go up
>Royal Boulevard. My back yard overlooked Dead Horse
>Canyon.

Ok, I know where you mean.

>Where are you?

I am on Dryden St. just to the East of Brand Blvd. A few blocks north of the 134 Freeway.

>18 years - I think we discovered before that you arrived
>about the time we left in 1986.

Yes, we moved here from back East in the fall of 1985.

Regards,
Melo
PL965 Spitfire pilot,
Glendale, CA

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-06-03 at 06:17z
Hi Melo

I still have Map 3 of Murray's street maps - 1982-83 edition. I find it very useful for L A VFR flying.

I can see where you are. You must be very close to our dearest friends who live on Cabrillo Drive.

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by James on 06-30-03 at 21:40z
Hi sw (and as Ray pointed out a name does wonders <s>),

Someone must have been kind to you in sending you a copy of FSACOF..........

To answer the one on importing aircraft, yes some work some don't depends on who made them and when!

Scenery - those can be imported/installed BUT, be warned that if they contain *.r8's then forget it as FSACOF does not support r8 file extensions.

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-01-03 at 05:02z
Hi James

What's an *.r8 please?

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by vgbaron on 07-01-03 at 16:12z
> What's an *.r8 please?
>


It's the one between the .r7 and .r9 .

Sorry about that, I just couldn't help myself <g>. James will probably know better than I but I believe it's a texture file and I *think* it has to do with runway textures. In any case, just look in the third party scenery file and if there are any, it won't work.

Vic


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Vic Baron
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-01-03 at 22:28z
Thanks Vic.

I thought it was this new text talk for 'irate':-)

I'll do a file search for some *.r8s

Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by BillC on 07-02-03 at 20:00z
Hi Frank...

>> I'll do a file search for some *.r8s <<

R8 files are the 'old' FS texture files, which have been with us since fs3.0.
They are 256 colour (8 bit) 'indexed' (i.e they include a 256 colour index
table in the header) texture files, which unfortunately could not be
edited by standard paint programs, so a number of freeware and shareware editing
programs appeared for that purpose. These R8 files also required a palette
file to tell FS which palette to use when painting a texture. These R8
textures had a maximum resolution of 256 x 256 pixels, so you can imagine
why MS now wish to drop support for them - we would require thousands to
be loaded for each view direction !

FS2000 moved up to the '.bmp' format, which were not true bmp files, but
were compressed, being decompressed 'on the fly' by FS when they were loaded,
to save on memory and loading times. These BMP files were introduced to
provide 16 bit colour, and can be 'painted' much more efficiently by the
modern graphics cards, with far superior results. The files contain their
own colour data, and a palette table is not required.

MS are now going all out for the Gmax standard, where the textures are split
into Alpha channels (for file data) and the three primary colours. This allows
a far more versatile system for colours than the old 256 8-bit range,
providing 16-bit colour and above. Since FS2000, MS are slowly moving over
to BMP and MIP texture files, which contain far more data specifically for FS.
In fact the SDK informs us that the R8 format will not be supported after
FS7.0. These BMP files also permit MIP files to be included, which I suspect
are used for painting distant textures at a lower resolution, giving us
a better frame rate when painting distant ground textures.

Martin Wright, (martin@mnwright.freeserve.co.uk & http://fly.to/mwgfx/) who
wrote the paint edit util 'DXTBMP' is the expert on these texture files,
and could probably explain the file formats much better than I can <g>.
I'd recommend having a peek at his docs - it is worth a read if only to
explain why MS is moving the goalposts again <g>

The latest texture files are DXT format textures. These also cannot be
viewed in the normal way - unless you are using the MS ImageTool program from
the texture SDK.

Hope that helps !

Regards
Bill C

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by vgbaron on 07-03-03 at 00:36z
Yeah, Frank - what Bill said....


Vic


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Vic Baron
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-03-03 at 06:21z
Hi Bill ( & Vic)

Thanks for that explanation. I'm all for progress and having seen what Gmax can do I look forward to more of it.

The result of my search for R8 files in FS2002 may be of interest. I have 398 of them in various texture folders which include:

AMS Amsterdam
CDG Paris
DTM Dortmund
OLB Olbia
THF Berlin
ibiza 2002
mallorca 2002
menorca 2002
Lundy Island
portugal 02
VGAS 2002
Washington DC
Aberdeen
Sydney DN
West Indies 1 & 2
World Airports
Flight Ontario\Thunder Island

Regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by BillC on 07-04-03 at 06:39z
Hi Frank..

>> The result of my search for R8 files in FS2002 may be
> of interest...<<

Yep - all those sceneries that use R8s will be a little
dull - any 3d objects will start appearing in white.

I find that most of those sceneries that still use R8
textures are usually too old for FS2002 anyway - they
may be missing the correct ground altitude, for example,
so are pretty useless for FS2002.

Many authors have moved over to bmps, since I do not
think Gmax caters for R8's <g>

Regards
BillC


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-05-03 at 04:10z
Hi Bill

Too old? I don't do old (software) :-) The body and the senior-moment afflicted brain (hardware) are the only "olds" that I do :-(

The West Indies addons aren't that old, for example.

Regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by James on 07-04-03 at 21:29z
Hi Frank,

Sorry for the delay <s> but work call's :-(

Bill and Vic have put you right on the R8 file extensions so I wouln't bother banging on (Thanks Bill <lol>)

You guy's are gonna LOVE FSACOF (aka FS2004)...............

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-05-03 at 04:02z
Hi James

>>work calls<<
Still having a "cracking" time?

>>You guy's are gonna LOVE FSACOF<<
Can't wait!

All the best
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by BillC on 07-06-03 at 10:46z
Hi James / Frank / Vic

>> You guy's are gonna LOVE FSACOF (aka > FS2004) <<

I bet. Reading between the lines on all the 'criticisms'
on Avsim, I'm really looking forward to it.

Got my order in to RC Simulations a few weeks ago.

I'm really encouraged by the reports that it appears
to run more efficiently (with 'average' slider settings)
than FS2002 on my 'lowly' AMD 2100XP with 512Mb /
GeForce Ti4600 with 128Mb ...

I'm really looking forward to those 3d clouds...

I suppose you have spent some hours already on the R22,
James ?

Regards
BillC
Hi James / Frank / Vic


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by James on 07-06-03 at 22:22z
Hi Bill,

Avsim etc aren't really places that interest me as I think (as I tend to understand it) that the majority of the posts there just want to slag folk off?!?

Most of my tests have been on an AMD Athlon 1.4 with a Matrox Perhelia 128 Card. A few abnormalities depending on slider settings but I can live with them all max'd out <S> Other times I've tested it out on a P3 550 and an Athlon 1.2 and 1'4 with various graphic cards. One thing to remember is that as with FS2002 the latest graphic card drivers aren't always the best to use?!

Not as much as I'd have liked as there are a few additions I've been playing with <g> The R22 can be a bit tricky (in comparison to the Bell) in take off and landings along with the hover, but I'm looking forward to the challenge cracking it <s>

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-07-03 at 04:58z
Hi James

>>One thing to remember is that as with FS2002 the latest graphic card drivers aren't always the best to use?!<<

Yes. Pete used to keep us posted on which set to stick with. I am never quick to change and currently use 30.82 on my GeForce4 Ti 4600 128MB. Is there a concensus view on this at present?

A FS friend, who visits from time to time, was surprised at the results I am getting with all stops to the right. He is a computer consultant and discovered that the difference between my setup amd his is that my RAM is Rambus. I don't really know the technical difference between that and others, and can't remember seeing this mentioned in previous forum discussions. What do you (and other members) know?

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by James on 07-08-03 at 22:34z
Hi Frank,

>> Is there a concensus view on this at present? <<

Sort of <s> But, as I always pointed out in FS2002, If you think or are experiencing problems (i.e. Graphics don't look as they should etc) and you are using the latest drivers then go back to what you were using in FS2002 and try an earlier version. If you are running XP and it states these aren't signed then ignore that and try the driver set!! I find that the water 3D effect in 2004 is outstanding BUT, it depends on the time of day and weather you have set. Experiment <G>.

>> A FS friend, who visits from time to time, was surprised at the results I am getting with all stops to the right. He is a computer consultant and discovered that the difference between my setup amd his is that my RAM is Rambus. I don't really know the technical difference between that and others, and can't remember seeing this mentioned in previous forum discussions. What do you (and other members) know? <<

Sorry I don't know either <s> Is your RAM the ONLY difference?? I've not seen any posts on this so can't really comment?! The only real thing that I've seen/read about on system differences is processor size, memory size and video cards.

I don't know how many folk here use multi monitors and cards come to that but, the best I've heard of and seen are the Matrox Perhelia 128 ((I know now you can get them larger now (512??)). If you have a fast pc then it's just as well to go get a good video card.............

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-13-03 at 18:55z
Hi James

Thanks for the reply. I'm just back from a short holiday hence my late response.

I shall have to ask my technical friend what RAMBUS does.

Regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by BillC on 07-06-03 at 10:47z
Hi Frank / Vic

>> It's the one between the .r7 and .r9 .<<

Thats true...haven't seen many of those, though <g>

>> Too old? I don't do old (software) :-) The body and
the senior-moment afflicted brain (hardware) are the
only "olds" that I > do :-( <<

I know the feeling well..

>> The West Indies addons aren't that old, for example.<<

I'm constantly seeing scenery being released which
still calls .R8 textures. I converted my .R8s to BMPs
a long time ago.

I'm not surprised MS have decided to withdraw support
for those files - the 256 colour limit has long been
left behind by hardware.

Regards
Bill

Hi Frank / Vic


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-07-03 at 05:03z
Hi Bill

>>I'm constantly seeing scenery being released which
still calls .R8 textures.<<

'calls'- Did you mean to say 'uses'? How do you convert R8s to BMP and what is the result?

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by BillC on 07-07-03 at 20:15z
Hi Frank..

>> 'calls'- Did you mean to say 'uses'? <<

Sorry, Frank. Yes. When you create a bgl file, the
code in the bgl creates 3d objects, or ground tiles,
or whatever.

For these objects to display in FS, they need a
texture file which is 'painted' on the object 'on
the fly' by FS.

For example, to plot a hangar at your local airfield,
you cause your code to 'write' a suitable shaped box
at the correct location, plotting one side at a time,
including the roof. As you plot each plane (i.e. wall
or roof, not aircraft) you arrange for your code to
'call' the correct texture to place over that wall
that you have just created (otherwise the wall will
not be visible, or may be seen as a plain coloured
shape). The texture is merely a picture, drawn to the
correct scale, which is placed on your wall.

So your hangar would be plotted so:

Draw North wall.
Call North Wall texture
Draw South wall.
Call South wall texture....and so on.

You eventually end up with a box 'painted' with
pictures all over it, which now looks like a
hangar. This is plotted by FS in real time, and may
take just a few microseconds.

That is a very simplified description, of course.
You hafta take into account the order in which your
hangar is plotted by FS, i.e. is it in front of that
aircraft which may be near the hangar, or behind it ?
Which side (or roof section) should be plotted first
...or last ? That is controlled in FS using the 'Z'
buffer in your Video card, which 'places' or plots
objects in their correct order...distant objects first,
then nearer items, until the frame is completed, then
on to the next frame, but that is another story..

>>How do you convert R8s to BMP...<<

The FS2000 SDK (Scenery Development Kit) was released
by MS in about May, 2000 I think. One of the tools
included was 'Imagetool', which will read R8 files
and convert them to bmps. However the R8 file must
be renamed as a BMP file first <g> (So Imagetool
can create a 'header' for FS to use). Sounds awfully
complicated, but is really very simple when taken
one step at a time. There is one snag, however. If
you wish to change the textures to 'BMP' files, the
bgl file must be rewritten to 'call' the BMPs, instead
of the R8s...

>>..and what is the result ? <<

Well, the BMP format (I think it is short for Windows
Bitmap) allows for far more versatile effects, e.g.
lighting, shading, animation, special effects etc
in FS. The R8 format was rather limited, and the
later BMP format is much more efficiently used by
your video card in FS. It is the change to BMP's that
allows all those special effects we now take for
granted, like afterburners, sunsets, smoke and fog
effects etc.

I would suggest, Frank, if you really wish to look
into the workings of bgls and texture files, it would
be well worth downloading the SDK, just to read the
docs. The Scenery SDK is the section which digs into
the nitty gritty of textures and bgls.

It is well worth a peek. I've long forgotten, and
mislaid the URL for the SDK, but a search of the
MS FS Site should find it.

(MS have not released a FS2002 SDK, yet <g>).

Sorry, but I'm certainly no expert. I know just
enough to create my own local airfield, and I'm
currently struggling to update everything to fit
in with the VFR UK scenery by Just Flight <g>.

As for those Senior Moments, well, it IS taking
longer and longer...

Regards
BillC
Sorry, Frank. Yes. When you create a bgl file, the


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by jonahbird on 07-13-03 at 18:52z
Hi Bill

Thanks for that full reply. Sorry I challenged use of the word 'calls'.

Not only do I now know better but I now know enough to keep me away from that technical stuff :-).

Best regards
Frank

"RE: Flew FS2004 Yesterday!"
Posted by James on 06-30-03 at 21:40z
sw,

Also forgot to ask. What driver version are you using on the ATI and what water effects do you see with this card? A screen shot would be appreciated and helpful.

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.80-