SurClaro Flight Simulator Resources

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject: A recent GPU comparison

A recent GPU comparison

Click on image for full size

Tas

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:51 pm Post subject: GeForce 6600 GT

GeForce 6600 GT

Click on image for full size

Tas

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:10 pm Post subject:

what on earth is that? is that the box? thats crazy...

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject:

Looks like a scan, man...from a computer magazine..Thanks for the effort Tas, the GPU comparison is handy, although my wallet seems to dictate just how nice a video card I need! Laughing

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:53 am Post subject:

I just get a big kick out of how FPS specs push past human capabilities. Kind of like buying a sound system with frequency ranges from 30 to 26,000Hz...lol.

For the frame rate diff between 1 GTX to an SLI setup, cost only, sure is a lot of $$ for 20+ FPS that you'll never see the difference of. Good link though for information purposes. Doom 3 benchmark...hmm.

Exx

Bit pressed for time at the moment
so took a couple of quick shots with
the camera.

Extreme N6600GT Silencer/HTD
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=2&l2=6&l3=139&model=591&modelmenu=1

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:14 am Post subject:

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:21 am Post subject: FPS

Always amazes me why people carry on about high FPS in FS9

Many many years ago 18 fps was considered O.K.

I think 24 FPS is fine these days but in Australia you
can see Flourescent lights flickering (50hz) out of
the corner of your eye.

The new digital standard is 24 FPS
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9121

and even IMAX uses 24 FPS

I think there is a lot of confusion over an electronic 24FPS and
a films 24FPS.
http://nuttybar.drama.uga.edu/pipermail/dirgames-l/2002-November/020516.html

Tas

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:37 am Post subject: Another comparison chart.

Another comparison chart.

I have removed the SLI's as they dont seem to apply
to FS9

Tas

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:22 am Post subject:

Actually, NTSC (30FPS) and PAL (25FPS) has been around for decades. 8MM and then 35MM following suit. It's not a new technology by any means, but you are right about the conversion. NTSC has to be converted up and also has to deal with interlacing. Quite a costly process regardless of SVD or HD conversion. 3.5 minutes of 35MM footage costs more to convert than it does to film sometimes. Better to stay digital all the way to shave costs. Attack of the Clones, the Star Wars film released in 2002, was one of the first "films" done on 24-progressive video and then converted to film.

Exx