Using MS Flight Simularot 2004.

Just switched LED monitors from a 17" 1024x2048 to a 20" 1050x1400. I'm
using an ASUS A8N-VM CSM with an Athlon 64 3800+ and 2gb PC3200 CAS2
memory. I'm using the on-board video chipset.

When using the "SPOT" view, the panning is now very jerky. I suspect
that the video chipset can't keep up with the panning.

Any suggestions?

"Merrill P. L. Worthington" > wrote in message
...
>
> Using MS Flight Simularot 2004.
>
> Just switched LED monitors from a 17" 1024x2048 to a 20" 1050x1400. I'm
> using an ASUS A8N-VM CSM with an Athlon 64 3800+ and 2gb PC3200 CAS2
> memory. I'm using the on-board video chipset.
>
> When using the "SPOT" view, the panning is now very jerky. I suspect that
> the video chipset can't keep up with the panning.
>
> Any suggestions?

Nope. Other than you need to go back and figure out what the actual specs
of your equipment are.

There's no such thing as an "LED" monitor (maybe you meant LCD?), and there
are no LCD monitors that have 1024x2048 resolution (a 2:1 aspect ratio). It
is also customary to list resolutions with width first, whereas you appear
to be listing the height first.

Using a video adapter on the motherboard, you're lucky you can run a flight
simulator in any sort of acceptable fashion at all. If I had to guess, I'd
say that one or the other or both resolutions you state are incorrect, and
that you *actually* went from a lower resolution to a higher one, and that's
resulted in decreased performance, including frame rate stutter.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Merrill P. L. Worthington" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Using MS Flight Simularot 2004.
>>
>>Just switched LED monitors from a 17" 1024x2048 to a 20" 1050x1400. I'm
>>using an ASUS A8N-VM CSM with an Athlon 64 3800+ and 2gb PC3200 CAS2
>>memory. I'm using the on-board video chipset.
>>
>>When using the "SPOT" view, the panning is now very jerky. I suspect that
>>the video chipset can't keep up with the panning.
>>
>>Any suggestions?
>
>
> Nope. Other than you need to go back and figure out what the actual specs
> of your equipment are.
>
> There's no such thing as an "LED" monitor (maybe you meant LCD?), and there
> are no LCD monitors that have 1024x2048 resolution (a 2:1 aspect ratio). It
> is also customary to list resolutions with width first, whereas you appear
> to be listing the height first.
>
> Using a video adapter on the motherboard, you're lucky you can run a flight
> simulator in any sort of acceptable fashion at all. If I had to guess, I'd
> say that one or the other or both resolutions you state are incorrect, and
> that you *actually* went from a lower resolution to a higher one, and that's
> resulted in decreased performance, including frame rate stutter.
>
> Pete

Fat fingered the first post.

The native resolution of the first LCD monitor was 1280x1024, the second
is 1400x1050. FS2004 ran OK at that resolution with the motherboard
video chipset (nVidia GeForce 6150) at 1280x1024.

Are you suggesting that the problem should be addressed by a separate
video card with a better chipset?

"Merrill P. L. Worthington" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> The native resolution of the first LCD monitor was 1280x1024, the second
> is 1400x1050. FS2004 ran OK at that resolution with the motherboard
> video chipset (nVidia GeForce 6150) at 1280x1024.
>
> Are you suggesting that the problem should be addressed by a separate
> video card with a better chipset?

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, it's possible (though not certain) that a graphic card upgrade will
help or eliminate the problem. You did increase the display resolution on
the video card to match the monitor, I assume, which reduces frame rate and
would cause momentary reductions in frame rate to be more noticeable.

The increase in resolution was slight though, while it sounds from your post
as though the change in performance was more dramatic, so I do wonder if at
the same time the pixel depth was changed as well (for example, from 16 to
32 bits per pixel). Or even some other graphical settings in MSFS (higher
quality, for example).

All that said, there are no guarantees. The rest of the system *seems* fast
enough, but if you have a bottleneck somewhere other than the video adapter
itself, putting a new one in might not help, or might not help enough to
eliminate the problem you're seeing.

IMHO, the first thing to do is go back to the previous resolution you were
doing and make absolutely certain that the problem is tied to the
resolution. But as long as you've determined that for sure, I'd say
upgrading the video would be worth a try (hopefully you have a motherboard
with a PCIx slot, so you can use one of the most recent cards). *Most* of
the time, if a problem is tied directly to the resolution being used, the
video card *is* the bottleneck, and upgrading *will* help.

One could write a whole book on all the various issues that actually exist,
but the above generalizations apply most of the time. This newsgroup is
really beyond the scope of anything more in-depth anyway.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Merrill P. L. Worthington" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>The native resolution of the first LCD monitor was 1280x1024, the second
>>is 1400x1050. FS2004 ran OK at that resolution with the motherboard
>>video chipset (nVidia GeForce 6150) at 1280x1024.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that the problem should be addressed by a separate
>>video card with a better chipset?
>
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
> Yes, it's possible (though not certain) that a graphic card upgrade will
> help or eliminate the problem. You did increase the display resolution on
> the video card to match the monitor, I assume, which reduces frame rate and
> would cause momentary reductions in frame rate to be more noticeable.
>
> The increase in resolution was slight though, while it sounds from your post
> as though the change in performance was more dramatic, so I do wonder if at
> the same time the pixel depth was changed as well (for example, from 16 to
> 32 bits per pixel). Or even some other graphical settings in MSFS (higher
> quality, for example).


No changes except for resolution.


>
> All that said, there are no guarantees. The rest of the system *seems* fast
> enough, but if you have a bottleneck somewhere other than the video adapter
> itself, putting a new one in might not help, or might not help enough to
> eliminate the problem you're seeing.
>
> IMHO, the first thing to do is go back to the previous resolution you were
> doing and make absolutely certain that the problem is tied to the
> resolution. But as long as you've determined that for sure, I'd say
> upgrading the video would be worth a try (hopefully you have a motherboard
> with a PCIx slot, so you can use one of the most recent cards). *Most* of
> the time, if a problem is tied directly to the resolution being used, the
> video card *is* the bottleneck, and upgrading *will* help.

Subsequent to the earlier post, I change to a lower resolution and the
jerkiness stopped. When I changed back to the higher resolution, I
noticed the worst problems when clouds were present in the display.
That leads me to believe that there may also be issues with CPU
performance though with a A64-3800+, I'd be a little surprised if I were
CPU bound.


>
> One could write a whole book on all the various issues that actually exist,
> but the above generalizations apply most of the time. This newsgroup is
> really beyond the scope of anything more in-depth anyway.

Capiche.

Are you running the monitor at it's native resolution? If not that normally
affects the look but maybe it's an issue here.

Merrill P. L. Worthington wrote:

>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "Merrill P. L. Worthington" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>The native resolution of the first LCD monitor was 1280x1024, the second
>>>is 1400x1050. FS2004 ran OK at that resolution with the motherboard
>>>video chipset (nVidia GeForce 6150) at 1280x1024.
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that the problem should be addressed by a separate
>>>video card with a better chipset?
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification.
>>
>> Yes, it's possible (though not certain) that a graphic card upgrade will
>> help or eliminate the problem. You did increase the display resolution
>> on the video card to match the monitor, I assume, which reduces frame
>> rate and would cause momentary reductions in frame rate to be more
>> noticeable.
>>
>> The increase in resolution was slight though, while it sounds from your
>> post as though the change in performance was more dramatic, so I do
>> wonder if at the same time the pixel depth was changed as well (for
>> example, from 16 to
>> 32 bits per pixel). Or even some other graphical settings in MSFS
>> (higher quality, for example).
>
>
> No changes except for resolution.
>
>
>>
>> All that said, there are no guarantees. The rest of the system *seems*
>> fast enough, but if you have a bottleneck somewhere other than the video
>> adapter itself, putting a new one in might not help, or might not help
>> enough to eliminate the problem you're seeing.
>>
>> IMHO, the first thing to do is go back to the previous resolution you
>> were doing and make absolutely certain that the problem is tied to the
>> resolution. But as long as you've determined that for sure, I'd say
>> upgrading the video would be worth a try (hopefully you have a
>> motherboard
>> with a PCIx slot, so you can use one of the most recent cards). *Most*
>> of the time, if a problem is tied directly to the resolution being used,
>> the video card *is* the bottleneck, and upgrading *will* help.
>
> Subsequent to the earlier post, I change to a lower resolution and the
> jerkiness stopped. When I changed back to the higher resolution, I
> noticed the worst problems when clouds were present in the display.
> That leads me to believe that there may also be issues with CPU
> performance though with a A64-3800+, I'd be a little surprised if I were
> CPU bound.
>
>
>>
>> One could write a whole book on all the various issues that actually
>> exist,
>> but the above generalizations apply most of the time. This newsgroup is
>> really beyond the scope of anything more in-depth anyway.
>
> Capiche.

--
Brett I. Holcomb

Remove R777 to email

Yes, running at native resolution.



Brett I. Holcomb wrote:

> Are you running the monitor at it's native resolution? If not that normally
> affects the look but maybe it's an issue here.
>

Merrill P. L. Worthington wrote:
>
> Yes, running at native resolution.

Get yourself a 7900GT. You can get EVGA 7900GT KO 256mb for a good price.

Merrill P. L. Worthington wrote:
>
> Using MS Flight Simularot 2004.
>
> Just switched LED monitors from a 17" 1024x2048 to a 20" 1050x1400. I'm
> using an ASUS A8N-VM CSM with an Athlon 64 3800+ and 2gb PC3200 CAS2
> memory. I'm using the on-board video chipset.
>
> When using the "SPOT" view, the panning is now very jerky. I suspect
> that the video chipset can't keep up with the panning.
>
> Any suggestions?

Added a BFG nVidia 7600GT OC. Made all the difference. FS works a lot
better. In addition, overall computer performance as been improved
significantly.

Merrill P. L. Worthington wrote:
>
> Using MS Flight Simularot 2004.

Hmmm - "Simularot", eh? Yeah, that one's problematic.