ORIGINAL: johndou
I was just browsing the KnifeEdge site and saw a post where some of the guys are comparing screen rates. Some of these guys have dual cores and all have 3D video cards with plenty of memory no one is getting decent Frames per Second "FPS" - screen rates. Everyone sets the screen and graphic settings to the highest possible and loads the same plane - (in this case a heli) and the same flying field as well as the same position on the flying field ... for comparison. So far the sampling is : 8 FPS, 11.5 FPS, 12.1 FPS, 5.5 FPS, 21.6 FPS, 12.1 FPS and 5.3 FPS. I'm guessing that you'd have to reduce the graphics considerably to get screen rates capable of flying with. Kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading ... <?>
I would guess that the "no one is getting decent Frames per Second " had not tried both kinds of flying fields. I get lower, lots lower, FPS on one type of flying field than the other. But on the other hand, I'm getting extremely good rates with one type. My bad rates come in about twice what those numbers are you listed. And the good come in way above good rates.
I just upgraded today. Bought the G4 from K/C Hobby (Archdale, NC) at the WSRC Swap Meet for an appreciably better price than Tower's price (and Tower won't have them until middle December). And sold my G3. (good swap meet)
And from what I've seen so far, the upgrade was a very good move. I like to fly my Ultimate in the Alpine Valley. And this Ultimate flies pretty much like my RW one.
Time to go see how other things have changed. And look at painting up an Ultimate to match my WM 46 size.