Here are two shots 1 from my stock setup and the second with the new graphics card...


Note the squareness of the elevator against the fuselage, flaps, etc - this is before.



And these are the types of graphics Im getting now...


I know these are two totally different shots, but they were the best I had that showed the differences.

-Sean.

looks alot better try to get the same shot as the first one so we can really compare them

Which airport is this?

Thanks for the info... I don't have any screenshots of my before and after, but I went to the same airport and used the same plane as you and took a screenshot of what I'm running just to compare with yours... I've got a 900 mhz Duron w/ 512MB SDRAM, 40 gb h/d, Win XP, and a GeForce 4 MX440 w/128 mb sdram (not ddr, but sdram), and I had onboard 32mb sis video that would absolutely scream through CFS1 and FS95, until I upgraded to this GeForce.  That's a good card you've got!!  The water detail gives it that tropical vacation feel to it!!8) Yuh mon!! (By the way... this is slew mode).

Here is the same view with my card, the Asus GeForce4 128meg. The plane is a Boeing 777

Speedbird_1961

Here's a screenshot I got from CFS2, not even 2 minutes ago, and it clearly displays the water with more detail... I'm thinking I might not have enought comp for fs2002

yeah... CFS2 and FS2000 are pretty close when it comes to the graphics engines... FS2002 is a couple of notches above this, but below CFS3... (WAY BELOW!!)... but anyways.. I can manage... I don't want to get too close to the water unless I wanna go swimming.... hehe... after all, this comp is nothing but a 900mhz Duron trying to feed a hungry graphics card.  I can get some nice cloud shots though!!  This is over the same airport that this post was started on...

Here's some real photo shots of that approach....

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/027599/M/


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/211543/M/


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/199873/M/

Rgr that!!  Nice shots by the way....  I was in the air doing some aerial photography of the area to post in the airport below for the tourists, hehe... (thanks for putting a smile on my face!)
Hope my excessive chatter didn't interfere with your communication to the tower... LOL!

Looks like your and my card put out about the same as far as water detail goes.

FS2004 seems to be more graphic-card dependent compared to CFS2 and FS2002...

but if you want to go to St maarten in the new version, i really recommend it. The default scenery even has the famous warning sign in place

If I'm flying low to the ground, I'll average 15-20FPS with medium to high details.  I can't get my aircraft detail to the high postion as I think the card doesn't support it. But I can turn on the scenery detail all the way up and still average 15-20 FPS with anti-aliasing on, and tri-filtering turned on.  Up in the air tho, the clouds are turned up to 100% density?... Hold..   here we go... i got some screen shots of my settings  hehe..

just 800*600?? i couldn't see athing with this resolution..

Ok.. i disabled anti-aliasing in the fs settings and lowered frame rates to 20, and did see a stabilization in the frame rates, but as far as antialiasing in my graphics card driver, I turned it all the way up to 4XS (Direct #D only).  There are other settings on this tho... anyone know what they do?  Here are the other antialiasing settings... Antialiasing 4X, Antialiasing-Quincunx Antialiasing(tm), Antialiasing 2X, Antialiasing (off), and Antialiasing application (which is what I had it set on before).  Thanks for your help guys.

8)

Maccers, I've been thinking...maybe its time of day, and sun angle which are giving us a difference ......if you look in my  " Thanks Fireman " post, you can see a definate difference between the first and second shots, if you look at the water reflections.....these two shots were taken on the same approach, with just a height and sun angle difference......? ?....waddaya think ?

Hey Roger, I think that the water reflections are a personal thing.....I asked Stormy about the water textures and she prefers the ones that Maccers has shown, but for my liking, its too blotchy for what I would like to see.....I remember flying into Vancouver and never seeing that sort of effect.....its a personal thing I guess. On the ground textures though, I do agree that mine seem to look like they leave a little to be desired in the way of definition......but then I usually fly for the flying and not really taking too much notice of Terra Firma, other than to avoid running into it too rapidly...  

Sorry Pete, never realized, but consider the load reduced as of now.....will back out a couple