Nvidia optimised?

[Flyby]

A question to the developers: Is Black Shark optimised for Nvidia cards? I ask because (I think) Oleg's Storm of War is optimised for Nvidia cards. Also, didn't I read that the developer's-notes videos were using Nvidia cards? I'll be shopping a new card in the near future and just want to be on the right side of "the law".;)

Flyby out

[Pilotasso]

LOMAC actualy works better on ATI cards due to shaders bug. Since DCS will be partialy DX9 dont expect too much specific card optimizations.

[Flyby]

hmmm

 

does that mean the shader bug is not fixed in the DCS version?

Flyby

[Avimimus]

Il-2 certainly was (colour saturation, specular lighting, water)

[Pilotasso]

does that mean the shader bug is not fixed in the DCS version?

Flyby

 

I said Dx9 not the current Dx8 wich has a problem for self shadows on planes for Nvidia cards, and background shader bug for all cards. I think some beta testers already told the transition was meant to fix these bugs. What I meant is that there wont be any specific chip optimization due to the engine in DCS is similar to LOMAC's.

[Flyby]

ooooooooooh...I see

 

I said Dx9 not the current Dx8 wich has a problem for self shadows on planes for Nvidia cards, and background shader bug for all cards. I think some beta testers already told the transition was meant to fix these bugs. What I meant is that there wont be any specific chip optimization due to the engine in DCS is similar to LOMAC's.

:doh: gotcha now. I committed a gross inflidibliation of quick-assumption speed reading!:smartass:So I wonder if there will be any advantage to buying a comparable card from either house? Will a GTX 260 be a better performer in Black Shark than a 4870?

[Legolasindar]

They said they had fixed the problem with the shaders, and they had completely upgraded the engine to DX9. No more problems with shaders and shadows.

[warthogmadman987]

I thinknthat for dcs it is all going to come down to personal preference for GPU's. If you want to do best though, a better cpu would be the route to go. Although I am not a DFA tester, I hear and bet the general rule of thumb is that it will be a lot like lockon, just beefed up!

[stealthtemplates]

Il-2 certainly was (colour saturation, specular lighting, water)

 

No, it wasnt optimised for Nvidia cards.

Il-2 Sturmovik ran equally on ATI and Nvidia cards

[sobek]

If you want to do best though, a better cpu would be the route to go.

 

I think so too, since it's an older engine that does not use any of the newer gpu features, at a certain point the cpu just becomes the bottleneck. My guess is, high end cards from both manufacturers are powerful enough so that the cpu is the major factor.

[33rd_bratpfanne.]

Other Question:

 

Will DCS-BS be able to profit from a Crossfire Setup? Especially with the HD 4870x2 ? I mean is ATI aware of the DCS-BS? Will they support it with a Crossfire-Profile?

 

S~

 

Brati

[stealthtemplates]

Other Question:

 

Will DCS-BS be able to profit from a Crossfire Setup? Especially with the HD 4870x2 ? I mean is ATI aware of the DCS-BS? Will they support it with a Crossfire-Profile?

 

S~

 

Brati

 

Nope,

DCS is not optimised for multi-GPU or multi-CPU, not that it needs that power anyway it should run fine on a single card.

I'm pretty sure in the next release however there will be support for multi-core CPU's

[33rd_bratpfanne.]

No pun intended, i m just curious: How can you tell?

 

I am following the Dev´s and Betatesters posts closely and as far as i can remember, they did not state anything concerning my question.

 

For me, it is interesting to know, because i am using high (1920x1200) resolutions and high AA/AF levels. I have a 8800 GT and i am not able to set Water on Very High in LO-FC due to unplayable FPS (12-22). C2D @ 3,2 Ghz. That is why i think i have a Limitation in the Graphics Card. I am thinking about a 4870x2 and a q9650 for Upgrade.

 

With the ability to use more Monitors (i will do:D) in DCS, Resolution will become even bigger.

 

Thats why i think it is important, that Crossfire is working properly.

 

It would be great, if a Dev or a Betatester could coment on this.

 

THX

 

S~

 

Brati

[stealthtemplates]

DCS is actually more CPU bound then GPU bound,

strange that your getting those FPS, im getting around 40fps with everything maxed on my hd4850 / amd 5600+ x2. clock your CPU higher and check the improvement

[sobek]

LOL, no offense but your graphics card is 2 generations newer and you find that strange? Newer graphic cards tend to be a lot more powerful at high res + high quality AA/AF

[DTWD]

For me, it is interesting to know, because i am using high (1920x1200) resolutions and high AA/AF levels. I have a 8800 GT and i am not able to set Water on Very High in LO-FC due to unplayable FPS (12-22). C2D @ 3,2 Ghz. That is why i think i have a Limitation in the Graphics Card. I am thinking about a 4870x2 and a q9650 for Upgrade.

 

Hello, this is my first post but I thought this a great place to start as I am in the same boat as you.

 

I have an 8800 GT OC2 Intel Quad Core running at an overclocked 3Ghz per core and 4GB of high speed RAM. My boss has a similar setup but with an NVIDIA 280. We get pretty much exactly the same frame rates on the game in the same situations and I can't believe the bottleneck is on anything hardware (unless it's incompatible with something).

 

We can't have water set to very high either (it's actually fine over water, but for some reason that setting on very high AND then going over a built up area it stops. It seems that the water isn't a problem UNTIL you go over buildings). Everything else can be on max (apart from shadows due to the bug) and nothing makes a jot of difference to the FPS. No matter what res I run it at it always goes to within 1 frame difference (often the same FPS) as it does running at 1920x1200. The PC is barely breaking a sweat running LOMAC FC but yet it get's some really bad slow down and like I said nothing makes a difference. Even if I edit the config files (via LOCFG) and put the settings on the deck it only improves a dash, but looks awefull.

 

Cities/Towns/Small Hamlets are the biggest killer, and as well as airports. It's as if there is a memory hole or something around them. My biggest worry is that although the game will be at a "slower" pace in BS we will be doing most of our flying around these kind of places and not be dropping bombs from the heavens, thus greater FPS impact.

 

In LOMAC FC I have my FPS limited to 30FPS, if I unlimit it it goes into the hundreds until I hit the built up areas and then it's down in the dumps.

 

I am looking at getting a 280 to play this game, but with my current kit apparantly barely ticking over playing this game I don't know if I am trying to solve a problem that can't be solved with a new GPU.

 

Regards

Paul

[Flyby]

the floor recognizes the junior member.

 

DTWD,

your post makes me wonder if the GTX 280 might run into the same problems with LOMAC/FC as your oc'd 8800gt. But it's surprising...almost...that your quad core is still a bottleneck even at 3ghz. LOMAC was not coded to take advantage of multiple cores ( like Falcon4 was). So even if one core is being used by those pesky processes in the background, a dedicated 3ghz processor just won't do justice at the higher water settings (which only seems to effect rendering towns!)

But let me come to the point. DCS has no immediate plans to update the LOMAC rendering engine. I wonder if your problems could be solved if DCS were to allow someone to responsibly modernize the code? To that affect, I've gone here and posted a message: http://sim-mod.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6228#6228

Please feel free to chime in. I will also explore this idea elsewhere in this forum. If you don't ask...

Flyby out

[Pilotasso]

No pun intended, i m just curious: How can you tell?

 

I am following the Dev´s and Betatesters posts closely and as far as i can remember, they did not state anything concerning my question.

 

For me, it is interesting to know, because i am using high (1920x1200) resolutions and high AA/AF levels. I have a 8800 GT and i am not able to set Water on Very High in LO-FC due to unplayable FPS (12-22). C2D @ 3,2 Ghz. That is why i think i have a Limitation in the Graphics Card. I am thinking about a 4870x2 and a q9650 for Upgrade.

 

With the ability to use more Monitors (i will do:D) in DCS, Resolution will become even bigger.

 

Thats why i think it is important, that Crossfire is working properly.

 

It would be great, if a Dev or a Betatester could coment on this.

 

THX

 

S~

 

Brati

 

going from you OC'ed dual to the quad wont yeld much of an improvement. Your GFX card even less. When I play online in intensive missions I cant tell the difference between SLI or single chip mode. The more loaded the mission is the less difference the GFX makes.

[Highwayman-Ed]

I was running a 1GB GeForce 7950 GX2 and was under the assumption that I was CPU bottle necked to some extent when running FC with my Core 2 X6800 EE.

 

I just replaced my GPU with a 1GB Powercolor 4870 and more than doubled my frame rates in FC.

 

I'm now playing at 1920x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF getting a healthy 40fps+ with all of the mods and settings up high.

 

What's better is other than FSX which hardly see's any improvement, I'm getting even better results than I do with Lock on with everything else I run like COD4, World In Conflict and Crysis to name but a few.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Highwayman-Ed

[Flyby]

looking good

 

Nice to know that not all 1gb GPUs are created equally. That 1gb 4870 is brand new. I'd like to see how it compares to the 1gb GTX280. It has to be down to design features now, not just memory, although the ATi card is more power-hungry. It also has faster gddr5 memory (by Hynix, I think).

Flyby out

[DTWD]

Are you getting solid 40FPS over see and cities? AND with all the settings on max?

 

Is that 40FPS capped or uncapped?

 

Regards

Paul

[Highwayman-Ed]

Taking off and flying east over Sevastopol at these settings with 8xMSAA and 16xAF enabled.

 

 

I drop down to an average of 25 Frames per second with a whole lot of mods installed... I had a couple of dips below that to the absolute lowest of 18fps. My fps are not capped, and during a 10 minute flight in the mountains to the east of sevastopol where the A-10 quick start mission is located, 28 was the lowest and 40fps was my average.

 

By the way, I know that I need nothing like that amount of AA and AF, I'm just pushing the limits ;)

Edited September 26, 2008 by Highwayman-Ed

[DTWD]

Hmm your settings look pretty much the same as mine I think. I will check when I get home, although I think I have my water set to High, Very High is a killer. I will try medium later. Your also getting very similar FPS, what do you get around the airports?

 

I run 4AA 4AF I think.

 

I too have a few mods installed, mainly better textures, although I haven't noticed any difference in the FPS with or without them, this might be down to the 30FPS cap though.

 

You might want to think about putting the cap on your FPS as it stops drastic changes in the FPS so it feels less juttery at times. I know the higher the better but 30FPS feels quite smooth to me.

 

Also if your running medium water you might like this (not tried it I just found it and I am going to give it a go later): http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=703

 

Regards

Paul

[DTWD]

Oh and sorry to the OP for the semi hijack.

 

Regards

Paul

[DTWD]

Well those settings made no difference what so ever. The graphics mod didn't either.

 

Anything below (and including) high on the sea get's me 18-25 FPS over a city with the occasional dip to 16 fps. Very high looses me about 2-3 fps over cities. Again no issue over sea...it's really really odd!

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

Regards

Paul