Anyone has had the experience of both cards playing with F/A-18 ? I really want to see some screenshots.

Voodoo 5 5500 maybe more stable than GeForce2 GTS in terms of FSSAA, but what about the raw performance ?

Some frame rate counter like FRAPS stamped on the screenshots would be very nice.

Hope so.

Cockpits: GF2. UFC, or whatever that center thing is called, is blocky looking, the lines get thick, otherwise cockpit not changed much. V5, all of cockpit cleaned up. At default F1 view, there are some flashing artifacts. If you move the view off center any at all, even a tiny fraction, it goes away.

Why is GF2's color is better or is it just biased ? I don't quite know it. That's why if some screenshots are possible.

I have not used the Voodoo 5000 card, but the GTS card I just got has <i>really<i> improved Janes F-18 performance for me. I didnt think I would see much of a difference after reading some of the posts here, but after <b>finally<b> getting my P3800E to run stable at 900 MHz F-18 is much faster than on the P3600 I replaced. The image quality is slightly better than my TNT2 Ultra was and with the 3.68 drivers, performance is excellent. I think there are some serious issues with the 5.xx drivers, mainly that they are very slow in some 'older' games (games a few months old). It is really a new sim for me as now I can play it without getting massive headaches. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I have a tremendously high metabolic rate and consequently percieve smaller 'chunks' (timotons??) of time--time seems to pass more slowly for me. So, higher FPS are something I not only want, but need Thankfully, the time deal only goes in one direction. I can still only just remember the past--but it does seem closer....

Kobra, out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZebraDay:
RubenJames,

I have not used the Voodoo 5000 card, but the GTS card I just got has <i>really<i> improved Janes F-18 performance for me. I didnt think I would see much of a difference after reading some of the posts here, but after <b>finally<b> getting my P3800E to run stable at 900 MHz F-18 is much faster than on the P3600 I replaced.
ZebraDay,

Good to hear the news. But you haven't told me what sort of FPS number you are getting in Jane's F/A-18. I need the figure. Appreciate your help.

RJ

The image quality is slightly better than my TNT2 Ultra was and with the 3.68 drivers, performance is excellent. I think there are some serious issues with the 5.xx drivers, mainly that they are very slow in some 'older' games (games a few months old).
You are right. When I played Falcon 4.0 using 5.22 driver, it ate up nearly 18 frames per second. 3.68 is okay for me despite I lose the FSAA feature. But given the poor performance of FSAA, I do not intend to use it at this stage.

Voodoo 5 came out this week here. So I would like to collect people's experience so I can make a comparison.

I heard it that the FSAA in Voodoo 5 is very stable and does not kill the frame rate even at high resolution. GeForce2 GTS however, does have at least 10% impact on the frame rate.

BTW, which GeForce2 you have got ? I do not have 50 FPS in Flanker 2.0.

RJ
[/B]

---

My personal benchmark for F-18 is the Carrier Qual mission with FULL graphics options enabled. With a P3600 and TNT2 Ultra, the FPS on the deck of the carrier was 8-9. With the P3 800@896 and the Elsa Gladiac GTS running 3.68 drivers, the same benchmark is giving me 18-21 FPS. This FPS number is taken while on the deck. Once in the air, the FPS stayed pretty solid around 30-34. The cockpit is an ENORMOUS FPS black hole--turning it off FPS jumped to 50-90 range. It's a lot more fun to play now, but a CPU twice as fast (~2 GHz) is really what is needed. The sim is going to scale nicely, I think, with the newer processors.

Kobra, out.

PS: I used FRAPS for the testing, as Janes FPS counter is impossible to see at the highest resolution because of the 'Auto Flaps' display in the HUD(...wonder why..?). I saw some noticeable 'stuttering' due to the use of the FRAPS being on at the time. Stock graphics (ugh!) used for testing, really cool graphics used for playing

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZebraDay:
RubenJames,

...With the P3 800@896 and the Elsa Gladiac GTS running 3.68 drivers, the same benchmark is giving me 18-21 FPS. .... Once in the air, the FPS stayed pretty solid around 30-34. ....

Kobra, out.

---

Zebra,

Thanks. This is what I need to know. So your PIII running at overclocked speed of 900 is giving you over 29fps performance. This is very good.

Now I'm beginning to suspect if overclocked CPU really gives out the literal performance. You see, when I o/c my PIII 600E --> 900EB, it doesn't give me fps figure close enough yours. It stays at 16-17 only!! Perhaps, my Creative GeForce2 GTS also accounts for the poor performance.

Cheers anyway!

Peter

Your numbers are only a couple below mine, what does it 'feel' like to you? Before I upgraded, I literally could not play the game due to massive headaches caused by the low FPS numbers. In my opinion, even with the upgrade, the numbers are too low, but the sim is playable now to me. I would love to see the same FPS I get in Falcon, but I dont know if that is possible with F-18 before a couple of more processor upgrades. I wish so much that a 2D cockpit was available. The 3D coolness has worn off and I just want to fly smooth missions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZebraDay:
RubenJames,
....
I wish so much that a 2D cockpit was available. The 3D coolness has worn off and I just want to fly smooth missions.
....
Kobra, out.

---

Zebra,

You have brought up a very very good point. The 3D cockpit is necessary maybe, but a 2D cockpit not only gives us more options, but also suffices the need for most of the flying! In fact, when I look down, most of the view is lost. I would say nearly 50%. And talking about losing view while looking down or checking right/left, a wide-cockpit like Skypat's Falcon 4.0's version is even more constructive and useful!

In fact, one should ask himself how frequent one uses the 3D cockpit. I quite often use it in 2D mode and if I need to check on other objects (friendlies or boggies), just using the padlock function quite suffice my needs.

But I believe, if one loves to go for a free ride over the Artic Sea, the 3D cockpit could be quite fun.

Best regards
RubenJames

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZebraDay:
RubenJames,
.......
Your numbers are only a couple below mine, what does it 'feel' like to you?
.......
Kobra, out.

---

Zebra,

Not really. Your in-air FPS range is 30-34. It is not so in my case. Despite I pump up my CPU to 900MHz, and using 3.68 Creative's original drivers, it only gives me 24-26 and is pretty narrow. I can achieve your figures only after I remove the 3D cockpit.

RubenJames
P.S. Despite they say all GeForce2 GTS card are made out of the same circuitry, but different vendors do provide their own drivers which are blended.

Are you using Creative's 3.68 or NVIDIA's 3.68? I am using NVIDIA drivers and selecting GeForce DDR for the driver. If you are using FRAPS, it might be taking a few frames away. Or I could have just gotten lucky with my test. It was done on a totally fresh install of Win98, maybe that had something to do with it. Anyway, to play, I do disable quite a bit of the options-Volumetric clouds, volumetric explosions, canopy reflections, LOD, Low alt textures, as I wont get benchmark FPS numbers while playing the campaign missions. I keep the cockpit detail to high, because it looks best to me that way. I would like to use low, but some of the jettison controls arent drawn...kind of a bummer as the low setting really speeds things up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HrntFixr:
Ruben where can i get those drivers? (3.68) and are they for a TNT2 card? I've read to much about 5.xx drivers to not try them.

---

If you are using Creative's TNT card, go check out here:
http://www.creative.com/support/files/download.asp

But also check if 3.68 is the best for TNT / TNT2 cards. I heard there is a 3.02 or something available for non-GeForce card.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZebraDay:
RubenJames,

Are you using Creative's 3.68 or NVIDIA's 3.68? I am using NVIDIA drivers and selecting GeForce DDR for the driver.....
Kobra, out.

---

Zebra,

I am using 3.68 of Creative's I believe though they map it to a different version number. Never tried the nVidia's, where can I find it ?

Everytime I re-install the video drivers, I changed it to generic VGA, then rebooted and then updated it with the new drivers.

I believe the DirectX version also accounts for the performance so sometimes I do re-install Win98.

Okay, let me try again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HrntFixr:
It's not a creative card, it's a generic TNT2 using the nvidia chipset. I looked at the box and paperwork that came with it no support there. Called where i bought it and he told me to use nvidia drivers. Guess i need to update to 5.22. Can anyone help me with this?

---

Positive. You can use 5.22 from nVidia. Check out here:

"================================================================================
NVIDIA Display Driver for Windows 9x version 4.12.01.0522, 05/18/2000
================================================================================

Operating systems supported
---------------------------
Microsoft Windows 95
Microsoft Windows 98

Adapters supported
------------------
NVIDIA RIVA TNT
NVIDIA RIVA TNT2
NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Pro
NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra
NVIDIA Vanta
NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Model 64
NVIDIA Aladdin TNT2
NVIDIA GeForce 256
NVIDIA GeForce DDR
NVIDIA Quadro
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS
...."

this is an extract from the Readme.txt file of the 5.22 .zip file. Go to this URL:
http://www.nvidia.com/Products/Drivers.nsf

Click on the .zip file and let it download itself.

Good hunting.