Jump to content

LOMAC performance


Recommended Posts

That sounds -oddly enough- like the last chick I dated...

 

You're hi-jacking the thread ... poo 2 you, anyway what sort of comment is that? :doh:

 

Back on thread, this is good information about the card. Has definitely piqued my interest.

"A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft."

Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps

Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG lol... :rolleyes:

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're hi-jacking the thread ... poo 2 you, anyway what sort of comment is that? :doh:

 

Back on thread, this is good information about the card. Has definitely piqued my interest.

 

Don't get into the game late. At this stage I would be waiting until next year/end of this year and either get yourself a brand new gen (or rejigged gen) or pick yourself one of the current monsters slightly cheaper when there replacements are released.

 

It's a tough call at the moment to pick the best card, hopefully we should see something a bit more definative from both camps to help us make a decision. Sadly both camps have good cards, but for different reasons.

 

Regards

Paul

Regards

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi ho again ,

id love to see some screenshots of the 4870 in action .

to compare with my stock 8800gt .

might be a merry xmas with a new gpu . who knows .

terrian shots , would be great .

anything ,really .

cheers .

 

What do you think is going to look different to you running it at full settings?

 

Regards

Paul

Regards

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think is going to look different to you running it at full settings?

 

Regards

Paul

 

hi ho ,

i really dont know if anything will look different mate.

compareing the screenies , i may ,,, see ,, something .

ive read lots of threads , post , etc , that stated ati was better for lockon .

but from my pov this 8800gt runs smooth as silk .

so , maybe the graphics looks sharper or something?

not sure . screenies might tell .

cheers mate .

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, I understand now.

 

I would imagine any slight differences will be lost when it's get's compressed to a sensible size for the web anyway.

 

But yes it might be interesting to see some shots and an indication of frame rate for that particular shot as well.

 

Regards

Paul

Regards

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're hi-jacking the thread ... poo 2 you, anyway what sort of comment is that? :doh:

 

Back on thread, this is good information about the card. Has definitely piqued my interest.

You and me, we dont see eye-to-eye. Ill be seeing you later. You got something to say to me, you keep it in PM, considering what you posted on my profile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres my Graphics config. For those who assked me in PVT or are interested in testing their configs against mine :)

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pilotasso.

Is there any recorded mission to test my average fps and compare to others?


Edited by cmeliak

Steel Hotas Warthog + Hoffmans F16 rudders, Oculus Rift S, EVGA RTX3090, Core i7 4790K

Hangar: Ka50, A10C, A10A, A10CII, SU27, SU33, SU25, Av8BNA, Bf109K4, F16C, F86, FA18C, FW190D9, i-16, L39C, Mi8, MiG15, MiG19P, MiG21, P51D, Spitfire, SuperCarrier, Yak52, P47, F14, Mi24P, Me262?

Flying over CAU, NEV, NORM, SYR, CHNL, PER, ATL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilotaso, your aspect is wrong... showing 1.7 but should be 1.6

 

I know that. :) It looks better for me because I also increased the pit view angle in view.LUA.

 

1.6 looks streched to me.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think ED has ever officially said as much, but I strongly suspect they were trying to make the sim "future-proof". Bad idea. That NEVER works. We should be glad that it isn't worse. ;)

 

There's a particular MMO game out there that was released in 2004 that did specifically attempt to be future-proof. The result is that it runs like absolute crap on any modern system, even an ultra-high end one. It wasn't designed with the concept of multi-core processors, it was optimimized for a very fast single core processor. In short, it was made to run on super fast rig using 2004-style processors and components.

 

If anyone can think of any game/sim that was future-proofed that did not suffer from it, I'd like to know.

 

LOMAC is all about absolutely vulgar displays of horsepower. Many of the things that make a game like CoD4 uses to make it look good but run smooth are absent from LOMAC. Couple this with the tendency for any sim to be processor-intensive when compared to something like CoD4 and you have a whole 'nuther animal. ;)

 

I think the problem is how big sims like Lock On FC etc are compared to fps shooters like COD 4 where you have limited space to move in (read: maps). When we fly Lock On, the whole theatre has to be loaded, therefor the big need for RAM. In 2003, it was not common to have 4GB RAM. So I think the devs looked to to future. I think people with todays hardware are seeing what Lock On FC really shows, 5 years later. BUT! It is still Direct X 8, and I bet if the game was written today it would be coded a lot more effective due to newer direct X10 and newer software/hardware. Problem is that devs do not know what will be standards 5 years from now. I actually think that to make such a good looking sim like Lock On FC by 2003 standards is just remarkable with the resources they had at that time. Of course, problem with devs behind Lock On is the small number of employees compared to devs of bigger fps games. More resources, more people, better code, better optimizing of the code. Combat sims is a small market and we can´t actually choose between that many titles. I just hope Eagle Dynamics have learned the errors done in Lock On like making the CPU do a lot of the work. At the time the game was made there was single cores and not that strong GPU´s so they must have thought the game would run better with less resources on the GPU. Games like COD 4 is very GPU dependent and less CPU dependent than Lock On. It´s odd thinking about another game, Operation Flashpoint ran better on my old P3 1GHZ than my P4 3.0 GHZ because the game that time (2001) was made to 2001 standards. I bet my older GPU card handled that type of graphics better than my new one which supports more shaders etc than old open GL/Direct X7 etc.

 

Also take a look at Falcon 4.0 AF. Graphics in that game is by 1998 standards. Regardless of that, a lot of people are still playing it! I even got 20 fps while using the radar at ground targets and there is a lot of activity. It will always be like this. People like us playing combat sims needs to have the latest equipment to fully enjoy our sims and that will never change!

EDIT: I got my F4 AF to run better now by disabling T&L and I sat it to Direct 3D HAL only! Got 10 fps better!


Edited by Kaptein_Damli
  • Like 2

My moviemaking channel at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RobertDamli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is how big sims like Lock On FC etc are compared to fps shooters like COD 4 where you have limited space to move in (read: maps). When we fly Lock On, the whole theatre has to be loaded, therefor the big need for RAM. In 2003, it was not common to have 4GB RAM. So I think the devs looked to to future. I think people with todays hardware are seeing what Lock On FC really shows, 5 years later. BUT! It is still Direct X 8, and I bet if the game was written today it would be coded a lot more effective due to newer direct X10 and newer software/hardware. Problem is that devs do not know what will be standards 5 years from now. I actually think that to make such a good looking sim like Lock On FC by 2003 standards is just remarkable with the resources they had at that time. Of course, problem with devs behind Lock On is the small number of employees compared to devs of bigger fps games. More resources, more people, better code, better optimizing of the code. Combat sims is a small market and we can´t actually choose between that many titles. I just hope Eagle Dynamics have learned the errors done in Lock On like making the CPU do a lot of the work. At the time the game was made there was single cores and not that strong GPU´s so they must have thought the game would run better with less resources on the GPU. Games like COD 4 is very GPU dependent and less CPU dependent than Lock On. It´s odd thinking about another game, Operation Flashpoint ran better on my old P3 1GHZ than my P4 3.0 GHZ because the game that time (2001) was made to 2001 standards. I bet my older GPU card handled that type of graphics better than my new one which supports more shaders etc than old open GL/Direct X7 etc.

 

Also take a look at Falcon 4.0 AF. Graphics in that game is by 1998 standards. Regardless of that, a lot of people are still playing it! I even got 20 fps while using the radar at ground targets and there is a lot of activity. It will always be like this. People like us playing combat sims needs to have the latest equipment to fully enjoy our sims and that will never change!

EDIT: I got my F4 AF to run better now by disabling T&L and I sat it to Direct 3D HAL only! Got 10 fps better!

 

I agree...seeing as how you said almost exactly what I said. :noexpression:

 

Yes, the take-away here is that trying to future proof is dumb. Really dumb. The further you go in the future OR the further you look back in the past, the dumber it gets. Imagine if Jane's F-15E or F/A-18 had been future-proofed. We'd have a game that needs a 3.0 ghz single core, Win 98, and glide support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...