Flight simulator - Falcon 4 Question Please

Author

Falcon 4 Question Please

2005-03-22, 6:12 pm

I know that this may be a simple answer for most, but bear with me. After
installing the SP4 version of F-4, I was playing it for a while until I got
a bit impatient. Problem being: It sometimes takes as long as 5 minutes to
download a mission in a campaign. Training missions are even taking 3-4
minutes. I recently purchased a P-4 with 512 DDR Sdram memory or whatever
it is called. My graphics card is (inadequate (??) in that it is an Intel
Graphics Accelerator with 128 mb shared memory and says it has a processor
speed of 3.0 ghz, 1mb L2 cache, 800 mhz front side bus. It is an HP A 730n
computer. I know that it is a basic computer, but I would like to know
which is more critical for me to have. Do I need more ram such as 1024 or a
different graphics accelertor. I am not willing to spend many hundreds of
dollars I just want an improvement in the system . I should have stated
that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me. I don;t have
much access to computer repairs or updates as I live in rural area 50 miles
from the nearest center, so thought I would ask this group. Your help has
been appreciated in the past when asking for asssitance in uploading
questions for SP4. Thank you. Dave

2005-03-23, 4:09 am

Thank you sir" I am sure you are correct in that I don't have an adequate
graphics card and it is a "stock" item with the purchase of computer.
There was a very length report and was concerned about posting all those
pages. Maybe this will help. Thanks

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 3/22/2005, 20:58:54
Machine name: YOUR-AE066C3A9B
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack
2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: HP Pavilion 061
System Model: PJ510AA-ABA a730n
BIOS: BIOS Date: 02/02/05 13:04:54 Ver: 08.00.10
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 504MB RAM
Page File: 308MB used, 920MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: Intel(R) 82915G/GV/910GL Express Chipset Family
Manufacturer: Intel Corporation
Chip type: Intel(R) 82915G/GV/910GL Express Chipset Controller
DAC type: Internal
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2582&SUBSYS_2A08103C&REV_04
Display Memory: 128.0 MB
Current Mode: 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: hp f1703 Flat Panel Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1280,1024
Driver Name: ialmrnt5.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.3943 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 11/2/2004 09:19:48, 37951 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
VDD: n/a
Mini VDD: ialmnt5.sys
Mini VDD Date: 11/2/2004 09:27:20, 773565 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B78E66-66C2-11CF-EB7C-020AA5C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x8086
Device ID: 0x2582
SubSys ID: 0x2A08103C
Revision ID: 0x0004
Revision ID: 0x0004
Video Accel:
Deinterlace Caps: n/a
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Not Available
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run

quote:

>
> Save the results into a text file and post them here. That way we will
> know exactly what we're dealing with in terms of your PC.
>
> I suspect that you are running an onboard graphics "accelerator" - which
> means that it's probably very sub-par for graphics-intensive games, like
> Falcon 4.0. If that is the case, you are going to want to purchase and
> install a separate, dedicated graphics card to plug into one of the PCI or
> AGP slots in your motherboard. You could proably also stand to buy
> another 512MB stick of RAM, but if Falcon 4.0 is your main concern, that
> may not be as critical as in other, newer games.

quote:

>

Adamski

2005-03-23, 7:11 am

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:35:08 GMT, DR wrote:

quote:

>I should have stated
>that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
>frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me.

Sounds like you've already had some fairly "techie" replies on this -
however, I'll add simply that it could just be a matter of hard drive
performance/speed.

I have a fairly low-end PC that runs F4 reasonably OK (for me!).
However - when I do online sessions, with friends that have much
better systems, they're past the loading screen and in the cockpit in
around 15secs, whilst it takes me anything up to 1-2 minutes to get
going.

Adamski.

James Calivar

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

"DR" <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote in message
news:gc00e.529$q3.29950@news7.onvoy.net...

quote:

> I know that this may be a simple answer for most, but bear with me. After
> installing the SP4 version of F-4, I was playing it for a while until I

got

quote:

> a bit impatient. Problem being: It sometimes takes as long as 5 minutes

quote:

> download a mission in a campaign. Training missions are even taking 3-4
> minutes. I recently purchased a P-4 with 512 DDR Sdram memory or whatever
> it is called. My graphics card is (inadequate (??) in that it is an Intel
> Graphics Accelerator with 128 mb shared memory and says it has a processor
> speed of 3.0 ghz, 1mb L2 cache, 800 mhz front side bus. It is an HP A

730n

quote:

> computer. I know that it is a basic computer, but I would like to know
> which is more critical for me to have. Do I need more ram such as 1024 or

quote:

> different graphics accelertor. I am not willing to spend many hundreds of
> dollars I just want an improvement in the system . I should have stated
> that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
> frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me. I don;t

have

quote:

> much access to computer repairs or updates as I live in rural area 50

miles

quote:

> from the nearest center, so thought I would ask this group. Your help has
> been appreciated in the past when asking for asssitance in uploading
> questions for SP4. Thank you. Dave
>
>
>

You know, now that I've seen your specs, and re-read your post, I don't
think it's a system issue after all. Your CPU is a 3.0GHz Pentium (near top
of the line). You've got an (admittedly onboard) graphics accelerator w/
128MB of VRAM - that should be plenty.

Long load times suggest something else is going on. Did you do a full
install of Falcon 4.0? (As I recall there is an option for a more
hard-disk-friendly install wherein only part of the files get installed, and
you have to have the CD in the drive - that would probably cause loading
time issues). Are you running anti-virus software? If so, turn it off
before playing the game. In fact, kill *all* unnecessar taasks in the task
bar. Do you regularly run anti-spyware programs like Adaware and Spybot?
Spyware is often a culprit when you experience system slow-downs. Get them
at www.lavasoft.com and http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html.

Just some ideas.

James

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

DR wrote:

quote:

> I know that this may be a simple answer for most, but bear with me. After
> installing the SP4 version of F-4, I was playing it for a while until I
> got
> a bit impatient. Problem being: It sometimes takes as long as 5 minutes
> to
> download a mission in a campaign. Training missions are even taking 3-4
> minutes. I recently purchased a P-4 with 512 DDR Sdram memory or whatever
> it is called. My graphics card is (inadequate (??) in that it is an Intel
> Graphics Accelerator with 128 mb shared memory and says it has a processor
> speed of 3.0 ghz, 1mb L2 cache, 800 mhz front side bus. It is an HP A
> 730n
> computer. I know that it is a basic computer, but I would like to know
> which is more critical for me to have. Do I need more ram such as 1024 or
> a
> different graphics accelertor. I am not willing to spend many hundreds of
> dollars I just want an improvement in the system . I should have stated
> that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
> frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me. I don;t
> have much access to computer repairs or updates as I live in rural area 50
> miles
> from the nearest center, so thought I would ask this group. Your help has
> been appreciated in the past when asking for asssitance in uploading
> questions for SP4. Thank you. Dave

You might try disabling indexing on this drive. Right click on the drive in
"My Computer" and uncheck indexing.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

I do have Norton anti virus running as well as spybot. I should have
thought of that and will disable them and give that a try. I do have a full
install on the hard drive. Thanks James.
"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d1rqel$4b0$1@home.itg.ti.com...

quote:

> "DR" <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote in message
> news:gc00e.529$q3.29950@news7.onvoy.net...
> got
> to
> 730n
> a
> have
> miles
>
> You know, now that I've seen your specs, and re-read your post, I don't
> think it's a system issue after all. Your CPU is a 3.0GHz Pentium (near
> top
> of the line). You've got an (admittedly onboard) graphics accelerator w/
> 128MB of VRAM - that should be plenty.
>
> Long load times suggest something else is going on. Did you do a full
> install of Falcon 4.0? (As I recall there is an option for a more
> hard-disk-friendly install wherein only part of the files get installed,
> and
> you have to have the CD in the drive - that would probably cause loading
> time issues). Are you running anti-virus software? If so, turn it off
> before playing the game. In fact, kill *all* unnecessar taasks in the
> task
> bar. Do you regularly run anti-spyware programs like Adaware and Spybot?
> Spyware is often a culprit when you experience system slow-downs. Get
> them
> at www.lavasoft.com and http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html.
>
> Just some ideas.
>
> James
>
>

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

I don't see the indexing under my computer. What am I missing and can you
tell me what indexing is or does? Will it affect any other programs. Thank
you
"Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eeg0e.14676$C47.4547@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

quote:

> DR wrote:
>
>
> You might try disabling indexing on this drive. Right click on the drive
> in
> "My Computer" and uncheck indexing.
>
> Mitch
> --
> Remove "nospam." to reply.
> SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
> Crump's other Brother.

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

DR wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't see the indexing under my computer. What am I missing and can you
> tell me what indexing is or does? Will it affect any other programs.
> Thank you
> "Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eeg0e.14676$C47.4547@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Ooops. Open "My Computer" then right click on the drive that holds your F4
install then left click Properties. Under the General tab at the bottom of
the window is a check box for indexing. Uncheck it if you havent already.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Thanks, will give it a try also
"Mitch_A" <naman@pacbell.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:y_g0e.781$FN4.604@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

quote:

> DR wrote:
>
>
>
> Ooops. Open "My Computer" then right click on the drive that holds your
> F4
> install then left click Properties. Under the General tab at the bottom
> of
> the window is a check box for indexing. Uncheck it if you havent already.
>
> Mitch
> --
> Remove "nospam." to reply.
> SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
> Crump's other Brother.

Connected

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:20:20 -0500, "James Calivar"
<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

quote:

>You know, now that I've seen your specs, and re-read your post, I don't
>think it's a system issue after all. Your CPU is a 3.0GHz Pentium (near top
>of the line). You've got an (admittedly onboard) graphics accelerator w/
>128MB of VRAM - that should be plenty.

Don't onboard graphics accelerators share system ram, or is that 128mb
of dedicated ram? Any onboard graphcs accelerator I've seen gets its
Vram from the system ram. He only has 512mb of system ram to start
with. I would get a dedicated video card like a 9800pro (they can be
bought for a good price now and are still good performers) and put in
another 512mb of ram.

James Calivar

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

"Connected" <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:mr9341dajh74uq1guni11n047a0drvuoqm@4ax.com...

quote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:20:20 -0500, "James Calivar"
> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
top[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Don't onboard graphics accelerators share system ram, or is that 128mb
> of dedicated ram? Any onboard graphcs accelerator I've seen gets its
> Vram from the system ram. He only has 512mb of system ram to start
> with. I would get a dedicated video card like a 9800pro (they can be
> bought for a good price now and are still good performers) and put in
> another 512mb of ram.

I agree with you here, but he said he didn't want to spend hundreds of
dollars. A new card and 512MB RAM would probably tip the $300.00 mark.

Connected

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:55:39 -0500, "James Calivar"
<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

quote:

>I agree with you here, but he said he didn't want to spend hundreds of
>dollars. A new card and 512MB RAM would probably tip the $300.00 mark.
>

Well, those Intel graphics controllers are crap so he should at least
get a dedicated graphics card.

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Connected wrote:

quote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:55:39 -0500, "James Calivar"
> <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, those Intel graphics controllers are crap so he should at least
> get a dedicated graphics card.

Though a whiz bang new video card is always nice this wont reduce his load
times at the PIE. A 3gig CPU should have nuff ponies to make up for even
this intel3d card while running F4.

More mem wouldnt hurt though, and can be had for fairly cheap.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

Markku Ojala

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

In article <COg0e.542$q3.30291@news7.onvoy.net>, DR <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote:

quote:

> What am I missing and can you tell me what indexing is or does?

Indexing in this context means the index your Windows makes of the
filesystem, to speed up searching. As far as i know, it only affects
the search-utility meant for users you know the one behind your F3 key,
in Explorer's menus and from the Start Menu, plus possibly the browsing
of the directory structure, and none of the actual file-access the
operating system does to move data around. Unless you generally have
no clue where you've put your files, just disable it.

Regarding this problem of yours, i don't think it's because "your
computer sucks", since it doesn't. If my computer takes ~15 seconds to
start a mission, 5 minutes for you would be /way/ out of proportion.
Especially i wouldn't blame your "llame" graphics adapter, since it
shouldn't have that much of a difference. You could try lowering the
graphics details and resolution radically, and if that makes a
significant difference, then the graphics subsystem would be a
reasonable suspect. Of course you should be running some reasonably
fresh drivers for your graphics adapter, and basically make sure your
system is healthy. Are your harddrives being tortured during the load?
You might also wish to benchmark your harddrive and graphics subsystem
with something like HdTach[0] and 3DMark03[1].

I take it that by "downloading a mission" you mean the piechart during a
mission start. I know it doesn't look much like a pie anymore in modded
version of Falcon 4.0, like it did in the original, but the one with 5
stages, the one you get between punching the "Fly" button and appearing
in the cockpit in 3D world. Or do you have some multiplayer scheme? I
would expect not, because you didn't explicitly mention one.
"Downloading" just usually refers to network-things.

I'm not getting into the existential discussion about what possibly
is a computer network, and what is not.

[0] http://www.simplisoftware.com/Publi...?request=HdTach
[1] http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

quote:

> [DR]

..mace --- dfkna0

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

DR wrote:

quote:

> Thanks, will give it a try also

In your system BIOS you may be able to reduce the amount of shared memory.
You might find a compromise at 64MB. That I know F4 doesnt have that much
texture anyway ;) and it will make available 64MB for the system memory
which may give you a bit of load time reduction.

You might also try playing around with your system swap file. Sometimes
smaller is better but dont remove it altogether.

Ive been running a 1gig swap on a dedicated partition for quite a few years
now.

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

Lange

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Your onboard videocard is THE issue.
It's a 128MB but with "shared" RAM, this means that if you have 512MB
onbroad, you are left with 384 MB of ram if it's memory is used to the full
(and F4 SP4 will). Even more, this 384 MB is not even fully available to you
if you run F4. You need to subtract all the Windows usage and dependatly on
what you run in the background (including the stuff you don't see running at
all), this can take away a hugh chunck of your available memory.

By asking a question like yours, i can also see that you're not a "tweaker"
who tries to squeeze everything out of their system. This also drags your
performance down quite a bit. (no offence, you're not alone...).

Even then, if you should tweak your system and add extra RAM, you won't find
much gain, maybe a bit on the loading time but then that's about it.

But the biggest issue is this: Your onboard videocards performance sucks big
time if you compare these to even the low-end add-on cards you can buy. You
will not let your system "rock" if you don't consider a card like this. If
you decide to go for a add-on card, please save a bit until you can get
yourself something decent, don't rush out for the cheapest thing or next
month you'll be looking at another dropdown in performance simply due to the
fact that new games need more and more and more.

The best overall system performance you get out of a system that is
compliant (hmm, dunno if this is the right word) and where your
CPU/RAM/Videocard match each other. That's definatly not the case with your
system... sorry.

BTW, you don't need an add-on card if you should not play games. Add-on
videocards have only one purpose and that is to accelerate your 3D graphics,
all the rest you probably use is plain 2D. And for that your current card is
more then enough (except for the shared memory that is...).

I just hope i didn't smash your dream but that's what it is.

Greetz,

--
Lange,
666th Black Brigade,
http://www.666th.com
ICQ: 15439346

Lange

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Not true Mitch,

The videocard is THE bottleneck in his system, even if he should get a 10G
CPU, it will still crawl forward like a snail (when it comes down to playing
games that is).

The best performance you get out of a system where the seperate parts match
up to each other speed. This differs a bit from game to game but it's an
overall rule!!!

--
Lange,
666th Black Brigade,
http://www.666th.com
ICQ: 15439346

Lange

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Benchmarking his system whould just reveal what i have written above. That
his videocard is THE bottleneck when it comes down to playing games. When he
does some comparison, he will find that the comparison will go between his
system and some systems (same CPU specs) and a good "matching" add-on
videocard. The result will be shocking!!

--
Lange,
666th Black Brigade,
http://www.666th.com
ICQ: 15439346

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

<-- reverse this wrote:

quote:

> Not true Mitch,
>
> The videocard is THE bottleneck in his system, even if he should get a 10G
> CPU, it will still crawl forward like a snail (when it comes down to
> playing games that is).
>
> The best performance you get out of a system where the seperate parts
> match up to each other speed. This differs a bit from game to game but
> it's an overall rule!!!
>
>

Im not disagreeing his vidiocard is a bottleneck. He said his in-game
performance was acceptable. Its the wait at the PIE that is his issue that
I saw anyhoo ;)

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

Mitch_A

2005-03-23, 6:13 pm

Mitch_A wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> <-- reverse this wrote:
>

Actually I will disagree about a 10Gig CPU not being able to run F4 with
even the worst 3d accelerator. CPU is king. As long as the video card
meets (what DX6or7?) spec all you get with a current GPU running F4 is more
transistors/memory and whatever options the driver/hardware supports which
would be mainly aesthetics as the FR could rely on theat much CPU entirely.

This assuming the number of transistors continues to increase at the same
trend as Hertz ;) Dual core may change all that though.

I use the same "overall" rule, with a few others added for good measure ;)

Mitch
--
Remove "nospam." to reply.
SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
Crump's other Brother.

James Calivar

2005-03-24, 4:09 am

"Lange" <lange@arodnap(<-- reverse this).be> wrote in message
news:V5j0e.44228$8T6.3901563@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

quote:

> Benchmarking his system whould just reveal what i have written above. That
> his videocard is THE bottleneck when it comes down to playing games. When
> he does some comparison, he will find that the comparison will go between
> his system and some systems (same CPU specs) and a good "matching" add-on
> videocard. The result will be shocking!!
>
>
> --
> Lange,
> 666th Black Brigade,
> http://www.666th.com
> ICQ: 15439346
>

Lange, nobody is arguing that his video accelerator is sub-par, but the
issue is not in-game performance, it's how long it takes to *load* the game
in the first place. As in, hit Fly! and then wait 5 minutes.

Adamski

2005-03-24, 6:11 pm

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:25:43 GMT, DR wrote:

quote:

>I do have Norton anti virus running as well as spybot. I should have
>thought of that and will disable them and give that a try. I do have a full
>install on the hard drive.

James - red herrings, I'm sorry to say. I'm running a P4 at a miserly
1.7GHz - NAV and Spybot are active *all the time* - whatever I play.
As I've said earlier, load times are slow - but F4 runs well once it's
up. I have a GF4 Ti4400.

The only thing I can think of, at least on the NAV tack, is to never
run the Norton (Utils) diagnostic panel thing. You know - the one with
all the dials etc. It hogs the very resources it's trying to monitor.
It's been so long since I've seen that thing that I've forgotten it's
name!

I still think checking your hard drive (is DMA on?) is worth a go -
though I agree that losing memory to your video card isn't good.

One of those "pies" in the loading screen is the loading of textures
etc. There was a tweak in F4 (or a command line startup option) that
skipped the initial loading of textures. You'd whizz through the
loading screen then wait for hours in the cockpit <gg>.

Some people recommend a good old defrag of your HD. I used to be a
real slave to this, but I've done the F4 dance so often lately that
I've skipped that part and haven't really missed it. No harm in doing
it though.

Adamski.

Lange

2005-03-24, 6:11 pm

I know but we are talking about shared memory here. And if there is one
thing that HIT's whatever performance then it's shared memory.

2005-03-24, 10:11 pm

Hey everyone, I appreciate all your help. I have tried everything and still
no success. My load times are still in campagin mode at 5-7 minutes. (This
is for the SP4 version of Falcon 4.0) There was no change even when I
lowered the graphics considerably. The frame rate is acceptible, but I have
decided to go with a new add on video graphics card. I believe that will
help as has been suggested and hopefully it will decrease the load times.
When speaking of that whether you are playing FF3 or SP4 are your load times
considerably less?

"Lange" <lange@arodnap(<-- reverse this).be> wrote in message
news:9SD0e.45020$xi7.3965982@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

quote:

>I know but we are talking about shared memory here. And if there is one
>thing that HIT's whatever performance then it's shared memory.
>

MikeC

2005-03-25, 7:09 am

I have to agree with this. I have a p3 1.2 with 384 megs of ram and a
dedicated video card and just couldn't get IL2 which asks for 512 megs of
ram to load in under 5 minutes. It was so slow in loading it was unplayable.
And I'm running win98. XP is even more of a ram hog. You simply need to
bite the bullet and get a video card and more ram. When Falcon first came
out people dumped thousands on new computers to play a broken game. I did,
I don't regret it. even broken it was and is that good!

Good luck. MikeC

Lange <lange@arodnap(<-- reverse this).be> wrote in message
news:hXi0e.44204$1B6.3887212@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

quote:

> Your onboard videocard is THE issue.
> It's a 128MB but with "shared" RAM, this means that if you have 512MB
> onbroad, you are left with 384 MB of ram if it's memory is used to the

full

quote:

> (and F4 SP4 will). Even more, this 384 MB is not even fully available to

you

quote:

> if you run F4. You need to subtract all the Windows usage and dependatly

quote:

> what you run in the background (including the stuff you don't see running

quote:

> all), this can take away a hugh chunck of your available memory.
>
> By asking a question like yours, i can also see that you're not a

"tweaker"

quote:

> who tries to squeeze everything out of their system. This also drags your
> performance down quite a bit. (no offence, you're not alone...).
>
> Even then, if you should tweak your system and add extra RAM, you won't

find

quote:

> much gain, maybe a bit on the loading time but then that's about it.
>
> But the biggest issue is this: Your onboard videocards performance sucks

big

quote:

> time if you compare these to even the low-end add-on cards you can buy.

You

quote:

> will not let your system "rock" if you don't consider a card like this. If
> you decide to go for a add-on card, please save a bit until you can get
> yourself something decent, don't rush out for the cheapest thing or next
> month you'll be looking at another dropdown in performance simply due to

the

quote:

> fact that new games need more and more and more.
>
> The best overall system performance you get out of a system that is
> compliant (hmm, dunno if this is the right word) and where your
> CPU/RAM/Videocard match each other. That's definatly not the case with

your

quote:

> system... sorry.
>
> BTW, you don't need an add-on card if you should not play games. Add-on
> videocards have only one purpose and that is to accelerate your 3D

graphics,

quote:

> all the rest you probably use is plain 2D. And for that your current card

quote:

> more then enough (except for the shared memory that is...).
>
> I just hope i didn't smash your dream but that's what it is.
>
>
> Greetz,
>
>
> --
> Lange,
> 666th Black Brigade,
> http://www.666th.com
> ICQ: 15439346
>
>

Adamski

2005-03-25, 6:09 pm

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:21:55 GMT, DR wrote:

quote:

>... The frame rate is acceptible, but I have
>decided to go with a new add on video graphics card. I believe that will
>help as has been suggested and hopefully it will decrease the load times.

Yay! After all this -let us know the outcome!

Adamski.

Lange

2005-03-25, 10:11 pm

Mitch_A

2005-03-26, 6:11 pm

<-- reverse this wrote:

quote:

> Not true Mitch,
>
> The videocard is THE bottleneck in his system, even if he should get a 10G
> CPU, it will still crawl forward like a snail (when it comes down to
> playing games that is).
>
> The best performance you get out of a system where the seperate parts
> match up to each other speed. This differs a bit from game to game but
> it's an overall rule!!!
>
>

G. Patricks

2005-03-27, 6:10 pm

DR -

Upgrade to 1 MB of memory or more before investing in a video card and
I bet your performance increases. What it sounds like is happening is
that Falcon is using your HD cache as memory, loading the mission
parameters there. That would account for the long load times. Memory
is a LOT cheaper than a new video card (though you really DO need that
also).

Good luck!
Icer

quote:

>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:21:55 GMT, "DR" <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote:
>Hey everyone, I appreciate all your help. I have tried everything and still
>no success. My load times are still in campagin mode at 5-7 minutes. (This
>is for the SP4 version of Falcon 4.0) There was no change even when I
>lowered the graphics considerably. The frame rate is acceptible, but I have
>decided to go with a new add on video graphics card. I believe that will
>help as has been suggested and hopefully it will decrease the load times.
>When speaking of that whether you are playing FF3 or SP4 are your load times
>considerably less?
>
>
>"Lange" <lange@arodnap(<-- reverse this).be> wrote in message
>news:9SD0e.45020$xi7.3965982@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>

Adamski

2005-03-28, 6:32 pm

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:35:08 GMT, DR wrote:

quote:

>I should have stated
>that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
>frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me.

James Calivar

2005-03-28, 6:32 pm

"DR" <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote in message
news:gc00e.529$q3.29950@news7.onvoy.net...

quote:

> I know that this may be a simple answer for most, but bear with me. After
> installing the SP4 version of F-4, I was playing it for a while until I

got

quote:

> a bit impatient. Problem being: It sometimes takes as long as 5 minutes

quote:

> download a mission in a campaign. Training missions are even taking 3-4
> minutes. I recently purchased a P-4 with 512 DDR Sdram memory or whatever
> it is called. My graphics card is (inadequate (??) in that it is an Intel
> Graphics Accelerator with 128 mb shared memory and says it has a processor
> speed of 3.0 ghz, 1mb L2 cache, 800 mhz front side bus. It is an HP A

730n

quote:

> computer. I know that it is a basic computer, but I would like to know
> which is more critical for me to have. Do I need more ram such as 1024 or

quote:

> different graphics accelertor. I am not willing to spend many hundreds of
> dollars I just want an improvement in the system . I should have stated
> that once airborn, the game seemed to run fairly smooth. There was some
> frozen frame speed but it was very rare and tolerable for me. I don;t

have

quote:

> much access to computer repairs or updates as I live in rural area 50

miles

quote:

> from the nearest center, so thought I would ask this group. Your help has
> been appreciated in the past when asking for asssitance in uploading
> questions for SP4. Thank you. Dave
>
>
>

2005-03-29, 7:03 pm

I added a Radeon X700 Pro with 256MB and it made a tremendous difference in
IL-2 FB (looks like a new sim) as well as now allowing me to play LOMAC, It
only decreased the load times for SP Falcon 4 a little bit, though it runs
smoother. In a few months will add more ram. Thanks to all, flying in
IL-2 really does give a sense of moving. Love it
"Adamski" <anon@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tma8415ii2svndejmm7tbbktof1nni6gi5@4ax.com...

quote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:21:55 GMT, DR wrote:
>
>
> Yay! After all this -let us know the outcome!
>
> Adamski.

Lange

2005-03-30, 7:48 am

I know but we are talking about shared memory here. And if there is one
thing that HIT's whatever performance then it's shared memory.

2005-03-30, 7:48 am

quote:

>I know but we are talking about shared memory here. And if there is one
>thing that HIT's whatever performance then it's shared memory.
>

2005-03-30, 7:48 am

quote:

> DR wrote:
>
>
> You might try disabling indexing on this drive. Right click on the drive
> in
> "My Computer" and uncheck indexing.
>
> Mitch
> --
> Remove "nospam." to reply.
> SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a
> Crump's other Brother.

MikeC

2005-03-30, 7:48 am

quote:

> Your onboard videocard is THE issue.
> It's a 128MB but with "shared" RAM, this means that if you have 512MB
> onbroad, you are left with 384 MB of ram if it's memory is used to the

full

quote:

> (and F4 SP4 will). Even more, this 384 MB is not even fully available to

you

quote:

> if you run F4. You need to subtract all the Windows usage and dependatly

quote:

> what you run in the background (including the stuff you don't see running

quote:

> all), this can take away a hugh chunck of your available memory.
>
> By asking a question like yours, i can also see that you're not a

"tweaker"

quote:

> who tries to squeeze everything out of their system. This also drags your
> performance down quite a bit. (no offence, you're not alone...).
>
> Even then, if you should tweak your system and add extra RAM, you won't

find

quote:

> much gain, maybe a bit on the loading time but then that's about it.
>
> But the biggest issue is this: Your onboard videocards performance sucks

big

quote:

> time if you compare these to even the low-end add-on cards you can buy.

You

quote:

> will not let your system "rock" if you don't consider a card like this. If
> you decide to go for a add-on card, please save a bit until you can get
> yourself something decent, don't rush out for the cheapest thing or next
> month you'll be looking at another dropdown in performance simply due to

the

quote:

> fact that new games need more and more and more.
>
> The best overall system performance you get out of a system that is
> compliant (hmm, dunno if this is the right word) and where your
> CPU/RAM/Videocard match each other. That's definatly not the case with

your

quote:

> system... sorry.
>
> BTW, you don't need an add-on card if you should not play games. Add-on
> videocards have only one purpose and that is to accelerate your 3D

graphics,

quote:

> all the rest you probably use is plain 2D. And for that your current card

quote:

> more then enough (except for the shared memory that is...).
>
> I just hope i didn't smash your dream but that's what it is.
>
>
> Greetz,
>
>
> --
> Lange,
> 666th Black Brigade,
> http://www.666th.com
> ICQ: 15439346
>
>

G. Patricks

2005-03-30, 7:49 am

quote:

>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:21:55 GMT, "DR" <duklvr@tekstar.com> wrote:
>Hey everyone, I appreciate all your help. I have tried everything and still
>no success. My load times are still in campagin mode at 5-7 minutes. (This
>is for the SP4 version of Falcon 4.0) There was no change even when I
>lowered the graphics considerably. The frame rate is acceptible, but I have
>decided to go with a new add on video graphics card. I believe that will
>help as has been suggested and hopefully it will decrease the load times.
>When speaking of that whether you are playing FF3 or SP4 are your load times
>considerably less?
>
>
>"Lange" <lange@arodnap(<-- reverse this).be> wrote in message
>news:9SD0e.45020$xi7.3965982@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>