Hey everyone,

I was wondering a few things about graphics in FS...

1. How can I make graphics like these...





into higher quality ones like these...




Is it just an issue of getting a graphic card??
Right now I'm running on a Pentium 4 w/512 RAM and Intel "Integrated Graphics" (came with the computer)...

2. If I do need a graphic card, which ones are the best and which ones are the cheapest?  What should I look for in a graphic card???

Thanks in advance-
bm

How DO they get that anti-gravity river to run along the face of the cliff like that in pix #5?  Amazing 

Seriously..... check past threads here and you'll find ALL the info you need about this subject. 

Otherwise we risk the dreaded ATI/Nvidea wars. 


best,

..............john

Ok just forget the part about the clouds, the water slider and bill lyons water pack (unless that is available for FS2k2). 

The fill rate is the amount of data it can get through its memory in 1 second, the larger the better. 

AA= Anti aliasing, this removes all jagged edges, hence why the lower pictures look jaggedless.

AF= Anisotropic filtering, this improves image quality, by rendering the image better.

FPS= Frames per second, the higher the better

128-bit memory, is the bandwidth of the memory, the bigger the better.

The Nvidia range in order of performance:
5200
5200U
5700
5700U
5900
5900U
5950U
6800
6800U

The ATi range in order of performance:
9200
9200pro
9600
9600pro
9600xt
9800
9800pro
9800xt
X800
X800pro
X800xt

You will find the FX5200 will be a good option for FS2k2.  Just watch out for 64-bit versions, they are slow compared to 128-bit version because they have half the memory bandwidth.  Another card to look at is the 9200, this is the equilivalent card to the FX5200, however it lacks DX9.0 acceleration, which for FS2k2 you won't miss anything but for newer 3D programs you will. 

It really depends on your budget on what you choose from those listed above.  Maximising the card you get for your budget is the best way to get the optimal performance at the best price for you.

Quote:

I am pretty sure movies run at 24fps with motion blur.  For real time gaming 25fps is what you should aim for.

It totally depends on your budget and how much enjoyment you get out of FS. What is certain is FS becomes alot more enjoyable when you can look at it without hurting your eyes!!! I would say that the FX5200 would be a waste of money but then again it would be quite an improvment. Try to get the highest card up the list you can:

Hi bm_727,

Put Simply.....

You can get graphics like that right now. It's done with settings.

Even if you get a fancy new graphics card, you have to set it up, so you may as well learn now.

1. your onboard graphics chip driver settings.....

you will find them if you right click your desktop, click properties, then settings, then advanced. You should then see a tab at the top of that screen that states the name of your onboard graphics chip. (it might say "Intel Xtreme Gaphics" or something like that)

go through and experiment with different settings there.

That's where you enable full screen antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.... (ie. AA and AF)

You don't need full AA settings, 2x is quite an improvement as long as you set your screen resolution in the game to at least 1024x768 (x32 if you want good color).

Anisotropic filtering (if you have that option), is going to do things like show the distant scenery clearer, but it's a FPS killer, so you might want it off until you get a new card.

2. Set the graphics options in your simulator higher (make sure you do the above first)

Leave antialiasing off in the Sim's settings, the driver settings will over ride it and do a better job.


NOW,

you are going to find that things will slow down a lot, that's Frames Per Second, or, the result of your computers power and the software and settings you have.

You will have to buy a quality third party graphics card to get FPS speed with high graphic quality. The onboard stuff just isn't up to it.

Oh, and finally, Some planes just don't look that good.   From memory that Grob has fairly plain Textures. But it looks better than what you have lol, crank it up!

good luck.

Thanks to everyone who responded-
sorry I haven't posted in a few days ...

Thanks for the explanations Orenda and Hi-D

Quote:

I'm not that much of a newb-- I know what FPS are
Also, I'm not worried about them- currently I'm getting around 50-60 with mild addon scenery...

Also, I don't just want a card for FS2002, so I guess I want one with DX9 support.  Also, (WITHOUT starting a war!!) what are the strengths and weaknesses between Nvidia & Ati cards?

Another thing to consider is that for screenshots, things like fps don't matter, because it's a still image.

If you're looking to boost the overall quality of play, then definitely upgrade.  But if you're happy with what you've got as far as the quality, and just want to make pretty still shots, just boost your sliders up and take the pictures, ignoring the stuttering video.

Usually true, Orenda, but not always.  For example, I didn't have to disable my onboard graphics to run my 5200...it surprised me.  lol

Ok, so basically my price range is just over $110-120

My system specs in case u are wondering...
-Pentium 4 @2.6GHz
-512 DDR-RAM
-Win^xp

I want a card that will have nice video and relatively nice screenshots too.

Is there a chart or something that compares ATI cards for price, VRAM, and other graphic card-related stats??

Thanks for being so patient!

bm,

Ummmm, we already answered those questions!  

Read my post above as regards to screenshots, and see the chart that was posted for performance stats.

See if you mainboard has an AGP slot for a graphics card.

Take your time and get a good card,  better to wait and save a little more than be disappointed and waste money on something not quite good enough.

vram is another subject only abstractly related to this thread.

If you mean the amount and type of ram onboard a video card, it's only important that you buy a high performance video card, the RAM on that card will be one of the reasons it IS a high performance card.

Often, it's the TYPE of ram on the video card that makes it fast, and not the AMOUNT of ram, Modern video cards use expensive and very fast DDR RAM on them. The speed of the RAM also depends on it's LATENCY, measured in nanoseconds. The LOWER the latency number of the RAM, the faster the RAM is!

A cheaper and worse performing video card within the same GPU specification, (model range) as an expensive, good performing one, will have the slower ram onboard, so avoid them.

P.S.

I JUST TWIGGED! You say your not worried about FPS, that you already get 50 or 60 FPS.........

Well, That's your problem!      

You need to crank up the graphics on what you have now, bog those onboard graphics down to about 6 or 7 FPS with high settings as outlined in MY FIRST REPLY above, and I'll guarantee you'll get some nice screenshots!  

You won't be able to fly though...........  

Here is my DARK SECRET.....

When I fly, I use slightly degraded video settings to keep FPS above 20.

When I do a screenshot, I'm quite quick at changing all my settings to maximum, both in my driver settings and Sim settings. I take the shot and downgrade until I'm ready for the next shot.

I'm a perfectionist when it comes to screenshots, it takes me a long time to shoot a series of shots this way, but I'm proud of the results I get.

There is no way I could get shots like I do and fly at those settings, my FPS drops under 10 and is 4 to 6 at times at the screenshot setting!!!

Weather is what makes great graphics in FS2004. It's also what causes the greatest FPS loss.

I typically have 3 or 4 cloud layers and many other complex parameters. If In a rush, I click the preset "building storms".

Lighting is another FS2004 strongpoint, I use it extensively, rarely shooting when the sun is high. I max out my light settings (and everything else!).

I won't take a shot until I've sussed out the lighting for several minutes at least, from every angle; and if it isn't right, I work until it is, sometimes this takes over an hour per shot to get what I want.

I would love to have a card where I could just max it out and leave it, but I can't justify the $600 the card's cost here.  

My video card is a GF4 TI4200, My rig was tested with a Radeon 9600XT as well, and the 9600XT didn't bog down as much with lot's of clouds antialiasing and the anisotropic filtering turned way up. Other than that, they are very close in performance.

The 9600XT is simply better when the load comes on. The older nVidia cards can't match it. Niether can the lower grade FX cards from nVidia. The 5600 pro and up should be close or better.

At any rate, there may be more to nice screenies than originally meets the eye; in my case, at least, a lot of effort and time goes into it.

I hope this wasn't too techy, but you'll have to learn if you want great graphics.

Cheers

Umm, I just realized that I don't have an AGP port
what do I do??

Quote:

Dimension 2400

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Are there any PCI cards to accomodate AGP?  I'm guessing not, but...

Also, are there any okay PCI graphics cards?

Sell the Dell. 

PCI graphics cards are an option, but probably won't perform much, if any better than what you have now.

Go for the settings tweak above, also, go into your BIOS and allocate as much shared RAM to your onboard video as you can. (this will most likely be 64mb, but it may allow 128mb).

My freind has a GF4 MX440 PCI card he will sell you cheap if you really are going to buy one. It's new.

But, I would suggest spending the money on a new mainboard instead, so a graphics upgrade is possible in the future. (or get a new mainboard and a AGP card as well, keeping in mind that you may need a new case/PSU.).

Sadly, another Dell Dilemma.............

Quite a nice oc aswell.  715 Core and 1278(effective) memory.  

The only down side to oc'ing the 6800 will be the increase in power consumption, which is already very high.  Also the increase in temperature.  The new ATi card runs very cool, due to the low-k technology and the 0.13micron.  The 6800 uses 0.13micron but lacks any kind of rival to low-k so they had to put big heatsinks on it to keep it cool.
I am really not sure what the new Nvidia card has over the ATi card right now, it may become more apparent as time passes, but right now i can't see anything.  We need to wait until we see more opengl performance results before we decide which performs better in that area.

FS2004 is Direct3D. In fact the whole FS range is in Direct3D.  No programs utilise both.  Most use Direct3D but quite a significant amount use OpenGL.

BM, I've got the GeForce FX5200 128mb card on my DELL, and I've got no problems with it.  I regularly tweak things all the way up and get moderately decent framerates.

My card is a PCI card, since I (like you) don't have an AGP slot.  While some here may think this is a problem, like I said, I've been nothing but pleased with its performance.

It does support DX9, and it's WELL within your price range.  In fact, you'd have enough left over to upgrade some other areas if you so choose.

But before you do anything, play with your settings.  If you're getting 60 FPS, then your settings are WAY too low.  You could end up saving your entire budget on the card if you slide the details up.

EDIT:  Also keep in mind that there's going to be a visual difference in aircraft models.  It would be impossible to get an accurate depiction of your performance by looking at the screenshots you provided.  Take two almost identical shots and then you'll see much more clearly as to whether you need to do anything.

Yay! Someone else is in the same situation! lol

I just looked at the card and your right, it looks pretty good.

About the settings; I'm not concerned with the detail of the ground and I have the water settings on their highest...  Also, my chipset doesn't support anti-aliasing or other advanced options in FS, so those aren't eating my frames either...

The real thing I'm worried about is just getting rid of those nasty jagged edges and improving the overall quality of the graphics.  So, if a PCI card can do that for me, then I'll be happy

I think that I might just go with the 5200 if it will make a difference...

I don't know if Intel's Integrated Graphics are all the same, but I have Intel's 845GV chipset which uses them.  This system supports anti-aliasing, but on OpenGL only...

The links:

Intel Integrated graphics
845GV


P.S.- Hyperion, if someone posts a shot of Mike Stone's 727 on here, I will duplicate it to show the difference...