Kuky's FPS challenge

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hi Kuky,

 

I misread your post in the other thread, but I can tell you that the mission I thought you were talking about (campaign mission 1) is a killer. FPS went down to 22...so that's my new minimum until I do more testing. :( But, since you were talking about the default, quick mission for the A-10, I'll get a bench mark on that using your settings and I'll get back to you. :D

[Kuky]

hehehe, this is funny now :megalol:

 

yeah please do... I'm very eager to see what you get :pilotfly:

[Guest IguanaKing]

OK Kuky...you win...here's my Fraps log using your settings, but with 1600X1200 6X AA and 16X AF.

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

29047, 664322, 22, 136, 43.724

 

I'm not sure where the 22 figure came in during that mission, because I never saw it drop below 30 when I was using the in-game FPS counter in my earlier tests on this same mission. So, I guess its not a minimum of 30, but whenever it happened it must have been so short in duration that I didn't see it.

[Guest Cali]

IK, you don't need AA and AF if your running at 16x12. Try it with out that and see how it looks and check your FPS?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Thanks Cali. What you say is definitely true for game-play, full AA and AF don't seem to make much difference in the graphical quality...until you use external views. But, I guess I'm not going to be making too many screen shots, and I'm trying to get used to not having externals so I can play on-line. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

W00t you guys talkin' 'bout heeaar.?

 

My lowest FPS seems to be 22 over Sevastopol...

 

 

either way, even at 22 it still feels smooth as silk...

 

 

Oh and I dunno how accurate that FPS meter in the game is.

 

I came to realize that a lot of ingame FPS meters are not accurate, thats why I like to use fraps or something along the lines of fraps. But Im yet to use fraps on lomac.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Just tried it with no AA and no AF. Here are the results.

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

33033, 703947, 20, 159, 46.925

 

I attribute the lower minimum to differences in the flight profile. As I stated in another thread...and this Fraps log proves it...is that AA and AF only seem to effect the maximum FPS. I'll just go turn everything back up because, I didn't realize this until after having flown several missions with 6X AA and 16X AF on, but with no AA and no AF, even at 1600X1200, everything looks like s**t. The ground textures shimmer, the coast-line looks nasty...yuck. Its nice to have a rig that can handle max AA and AF with no noticeable degradation of performance, because those things sure make a difference in graphical quality.

[Pilotasso]

In this race my PC is like the black beauty horse but with 3 legs only and a wooden pole through its hart , but you never know it, might win this challenge. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

IK, you don't need AA and AF if your running at 16x12. Try it with out that and see how it looks and check your FPS?

 

huh?

 

I run 1680x1050 and I wish I had more AA. 8x or 10X, running 6x now.

 

As for AF. Well its an image quality thing, regardles of resolution. But 16x already seems enough as you can see everything ahead of you very clearly at all resolutions when its 16x.

 

I hate jaggies, and no mater what rez you will still have them. And the more AA the less jaggies.

 

 

P.S On my 1900xtx AA or no AA seems to have an absolute minimal FPS hit. Im talking 2-3 fps with AA at 6x or no AA.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Alex, I understand what you are saying, but you also have to remember that many people here have been playing LockOn for years and have had such things disabled because their systems had trouble running them with full AA and AF. They, just like me, were unaware until today, that it made such a difference in 1600X1200 and above. Besides...look what the test Cali proposed revealed. We can all appreciate his input can't we? :smilewink: An old LOMAC dog like me found out that it DOES make a difference in in-cockpit quality (which I hadn't been conscious of until I tried the test he suggested)...and we all found out that on these new Conroe rigs with ATI cards, we can turn everything up on the card and not sacrifice more than 2 or 3 FPS average. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

Oh no I got nothing against Cali Im just surprised he said "you dont need AA or AF ay 16x12". You still see the jaggies at 16x12.

 

Even 3 years ago when I couldnt run lomac with a gun pointed to my head and an angry redneck on the trigger :P I still bumped the AA to see what it looks like, and from that moment it was my goal to run AA as much as I can.

[Kuky]

I feel that 2xAA is alright for the most part, 4xAA is actually pretty good and at 6xAA i can't tell that mich difference from 4xAA so I tend to stick to 4xAA.

 

But when it comes to AF I feel that looking down on the runway when preparing to take off I need either 8xAF or 16xAF, but I think 16xAF is a bit too much for flying over overcast, so I tend to leave this one to 8xAF.

 

And IguanaKing, thanks for trying this one out... I was very sure you can't get 30FPS no matter what just because that minimum frame rate is all on CPU :)

 

If, maybe one lovely day, we get Lock-On to run on multi cores... that'll be something... if we could get 4 core CPU and say have it at 3GHz, 2 of them would be sufficient to run Lock-On well above 30FPS ;)

 

er... well I'm allowed to dream a little aren't i?! :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

No worries, mate. All in the interest of science. :D From what I have been reading, Black Shark will have dual core support, so it'll be interesting to see the performance. I must say though, this new Conroe rig runs LockOn at MUCH higher settings than my old rig did, and the old one was 200 MHz faster in clock speed over my current OC. :)

[Ukr_Alex]

If black shark utilizes both cores then I think its safe to say it will run at least at 50fps as I know IguanaKing and me have the hardware to take care of the rendering end.

 

A combined speed of 6ghz on a x1900 series with 2 gigs of ram....damn.

 

 

Besides I think BS is more optimized so we simply will run much faster then now.

[Ukr_Alex]

and the old one was 200 MHz faster in clock speed over my current OC. :)

 

Yea, the new architecture changes the effect of clocks. Intel is more along the lines of AMD as far as pure clocks go now.

 

My 3ghz Conroe is double the speed of my 3.4 P4 800fsb just for comparisons sake ;)

 

On single core perfomance roughly.

[Kuky]

hm... i don't think we'll see double the performance just because the game code will utilize 2 CPU's instead of one because there will be more calculations to also. Remeber, for the Ka-50 even each rotor blade has it's own physics calculations ;)

 

But most definitely if Black Shark is able to utilize more than 1 CPU 4 core CPU will be my next upgrade :) and the video card will be just fine for at least another 2 years :D

[Maximus_G]

According to ED:

* They are moving towards multi-core support in the NEW 3D-engine. LO:BS is using the current engine.

* Ground units are eating lots of CPU resource in LO, and that issue is already optimised in BS.

[Kuky]

According to ED:

* Ground units are eating lots of CPU resource in LO, and that issue is already optimised in BS.

 

It's a good start :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

According to ED:

* They are moving towards multi-core support in the NEW 3D-engine. LO:BS is using the current engine.

* Ground units are eating lots of CPU resource in LO, and that issue is already optimised in BS.

 

WHere did you see this?

[Maximus_G]

Well, as usual - on the russian-speaking side of the Forum.

Here Dmut is speaking about the ground units, and there - about a new engine for the next project.

[Mustang]

1.2 BS will not utilise dual core, certain of it. I'd say to get 1.2 to run at it's best, a super fast single core or a nice Conroe and a 512mb video card will do it ;)

[Ukr_Alex]

weeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Well I have that, so Im happy :)

[Kuky]

"Black Shark" better run better then "Flaming Cliffs" because it's one thing to fly a fighter high above the ground when it is not required to have so many structures as fighters do not hide between them ;)

 

... but, if you fly a helicopter and your targets are in the city, you sure as hell will need to see those buildings because if you don't, and your tank is behind one, but you don't see it... you'll be shooting at it and not being able to kill it (happened to me few times when I fire a Maverick only to see it explode in air??? Of course, it's because the building didn't show at that distance...

 

To make a short point, I think "Black Shark" has to have optimised rendering, or what ever is making "Flaming Clifs" run so slow with many structures.

 

I hope this gets improved we still won't be able to have cities show as some realistic distance, not just a kilometer or two :D