I tried ground shadows in the early days of FS9. Since I didn't persist with its use it must have hammered performance. I always use aircraft cast shadows.
Gerry Winskill Bones wrote:
Microsoft mentioned this a long time ago - back in FS98 days I think. It's logical because they said designing software for currently available systems isn't practical because in the two years span of each version (true for FS) the hardware will outstrip the potential of the product. The problem with FS is that it is unlike most other MS products it has a wide user base of designers creating additional "modules" for the basic program - all which affect the system load. If we all stuck to the basic FS product then I dare say that after a system upgrade we probably _could_ run it at full throttle. As to the machinery it gets tested on we just don't know. If software designers were obliged to publish the specs for running their software with all options maxed then maybe we would have an idea but all they ever publish is the minimum specifications - which are mostly laughable. Having said that I would find it an interesting exercise if someone with a current top end system could load just the basic FS2004 program and turn every option on, set all resolutions to maximum and max all the sliders. I still think the frame rates wouldn't be all that blistering. Another casual question. Has anyone ever run FS with the Ground Scenery casts Shadows option ticked? bones-----Original Message----- *From:* jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *FrankTurley@xxxxxxx *Sent:* 18 November 2006 09:30 *To:* jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [jhb_airlines] Re: Defrag needs Bones,Interesting to read your views about FS always being launchedahead of the hardware available to run it adequately, I wonder what machinery it gets tested on.........I have 2 reasons why I have already purchased FSX - Scenery - OK I know there are problems with the Horizon offeringat the moment, but I have seen enough to realise the potential. When I compare what we have now with those little pyramids of the early FS versions we have come a long way. I think this is a landmark version as it now passes the "pub test". By this I mean I could take an aerial screen shot of our village, take it down to the pub, and everybody could look at it and recognise the village. Not possible before, but the higher resolution offered by FSX does the trick.The SDK - I have very much enjoyed the challenge of buildinggauges, which has given me a few headaches, but taught me a lot about FS and aviation, ignorant bean counter that I am. The SDK is far from perfect, but its better than what I had before.Next year when Vista and DX10 appear I will invest what looks like£2K in some new hardware, which I hope will allow smoother flights in FSX. I doubt if I will be able to afford such expense when I retire, but while I'm working, I can endure the pain.Frank T.