tflash Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 There is little to read about eventual performance enhancements in 1.1. Considering performance issues took most of the posts about the previous versions, I would expect 1.1 to offer some improvements of performance over 1.02. How about that? To put it straight: will a 2GHz system with 1Mb RAM and 128Mb video card (ATI/NVidia) be sufficient? I found the previous requirements on the box (Pentium III 800/ 256Mb RAM/32Mb video memory) surprisingly understating. :? In that sense, the demo did not convince me: on a 2.8 PIV with 1 GB RAM and ATI X300 it is unplayably slow. I had to edit the mission so as to drop a lot of the ground units to be able to fully appreciate the new AFM. And, as before, this is the only title giving these issues. I can name a lot of 2004 released games that work like a breeze on the same PC, offering the same depth of visual effects like volumetric clouds etc. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Skywall23 Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Hi, I have a far inferior system than yours, and the demo runs quiet rightly on my system, but I confess, I have a very powerfull ventilation system. :D AMD Athlon 2400+ 2GHz, 512 Mb DDR 400MHz and GeforceTi4200 128Mb DDR.
Kula66 Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 On my really low spec system (1.6PM, 768Mb, 4200Go laptop) ... the Frogfoot is boardering on too slow (estimate 10-15 FPS) - all those polygons are just too much for my old card ... A2A however plays fine. Also, remember the demo is low of graphic details ... missing lots of buildings, trees etc. James
Nasder Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Re: performance enhancements? In that sense, the demo did not convince me: on a 2.8 PIV with 1 GB RAM and ATI X300 it is unplayably slow. I had to edit the mission so as to drop a lot of the ground units to be able to fully appreciate the new AFM. I have slower cpu than you and I am not sure about the graphics card, but I have no problems with the demo what so ever. I get real good fps in the demo, except when I get close and personal with my gun, but the same happens in the earlier versions. So I am not sure why you can't play it on your computer. Mine is not overclocked, or modded or anything. I have the same settings in the demo as I do in lo-mac 1.02 /Nasder, "I came, I saw, I got shot down."
GGTharos Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Turn off the force feedback. That should grab you a whole bunch of FPS. Lomac/Config/Producer.cfg [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
schimmel Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Re: performance enhancements? In that sense, the demo did not convince me: on a 2.8 PIV with 1 GB RAM and ATI X300 it is unplayably slow. I had to edit the mission so as to drop a lot of the ground units to be able to fully appreciate the new AFM. Sorry to tell you, but the X300 is actually a backstep compared to previous low cost cards by ATi. I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/atifreeforall/UT04colossus.htm If you don't have enough money for a new card, just grab a 9500 pro or 9700 on ebay. You get those at really low prices and they are great graphic cards even for some time to come.
bflagg Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Re: performance enhancements? Sorry to tell you, but the X300 is actually a backstep compared to previous low cost cards by ATi. I wouldn't even consider it a gaming card. very true. I tried on a my work computer (p4 2.8 w2gig ATI x300) and it blows.. HARD. My home.. P4 2.8 w1gig and ATI AIW 9800 and it's quite acceptable. Even fantastic if I keep the res at 1024x768 and settings to medium. Thanks, Brett
tflash Posted March 7, 2005 Author Posted March 7, 2005 You're missing the point completely here, guys. First of all my question was not for a judgment on my PC with X300 card: I am not thrilled by the performance on my higher end systems either. The question was IF Lockon 1.1 had performance enhancements over previous versions. I guess the answer is no. BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable. As a customer, I would like a better performing Lockon. period. (The very strange thing is that I get the highest FPS on a Pentium M system (probably the 2 Mb cache does the trick). To bad for a very, very good game indeed: I truly admire the devs, and certainly the su-25 AFM is really nice. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Kula66 Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Re: performance enhancements? http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/atifreeforall/UT04colossus.htm Interesting figures ... I was looking to get a laptop with an ATI X600 ... I was wondering how the small number of pipelines in that card would impact it - doesn't do too well. Have to think again :( James
trashcanman Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable. How many of those games are modelling a complex electronic environment, missile performance etc all of which eats up processor capacity? Lock On is a very complex game and can't be compared to HL2, Doom3 etc all of which are mainly driving eye candy IMHO
tflash Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable. How many of those games are modelling a complex electronic environment, missile performance etc all of which eats up processor capacity? Lock On is a very complex game and can't be compared to HL2, Doom3 etc all of which are mainly driving eye candy IMHO What would be good measures to make a comparison? Average polygon counts are one thing: the higher the number of polygons, the heavier, no matter how the code is written. Are there other data that we could use to compare the relative burden a game puts on the system which are independent of optimisation? Or does anyone know a good way to benchmark? I just think performance is important. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
prime7 Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Read until understood. How many of those games are modelling a complex electronic environment, missile performance etc all of which eats up processor capacity? Lock On is a very complex game and can't be compared to HL2, Doom3 etc all of which are mainly driving eye candy BTW, I bought several high-end games released in 2004: all of them work flawlessly on the system I described. Lockon is the only game I have to play at a outdated 1024*768 to be really playable. How many of those games are modelling a complex electronic environment, missile performance etc all of which eats up processor capacity? Lock On is a very complex game and can't be compared to HL2, Doom3 etc all of which are mainly driving eye candy IMHO What would be good measures to make a comparison? Average polygon counts are one thing: the higher the number of polygons, the heavier, no matter how the code is written. Are there other data that we could use to compare the relative burden a game puts on the system which are independent of optimisation? Or does anyone know a good way to benchmark? I just think performance is important. ------------------------------------------------------- Space reserved for signature. -*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-***-*-*-*-*-
aceflier Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 In comparison I ran the mig29 intercept demo w everything on high but view distance on medium and reflections on at 1600x1200 2xAA 8xAF ended with 30fps. Then ran IL2 pacific fighters (kamikazee02 track) w/water=3 1280x1024 default driver settings and got 29.5fps avg. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
leafer Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Shepski mentioned in one of his posts that objects in this game are tracked in real time. That means stuff that you don't see blowing up, smoke kicked up from ground vehicles, radar, ai flight models and etc...I think. There is no bubble thingy like F4. ED have been taking my money since 1995. :P
schimmel Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 As a customer, I would like a better performing Lockon. period. (The very strange thing is that I get the highest FPS on a Pentium M system (probably the 2 Mb cache does the trick). To bad for a very, very good game indeed: I truly admire the devs, and certainly the su-25 AFM is really nice. Ok I got your point now... nonetheless I bet it's not the 2mb cache but the graphic card which makes the difference ;). I agree that Lock On has a few performance issues. It's not too well optimized (f.ex. the heat blur). I would get angry if Lock On had the same budget as Doom 3 or HL 2, but it hasn't. It's a game for a minority. Either put up with it or don't buy it. IMO you can't blame the devs on this.
tflash Posted March 9, 2005 Author Posted March 9, 2005 As a customer, I would like a better performing Lockon. period. (The very strange thing is that I get the highest FPS on a Pentium M system (probably the 2 Mb cache does the trick). To bad for a very, very good game indeed: I truly admire the devs, and certainly the su-25 AFM is really nice. Ok I got your point now... nonetheless I bet it's not the 2mb cache but the graphic card which makes the difference ;). I agree that Lock On has a few performance issues. It's not too well optimized (f.ex. the heat blur). I would get angry if Lock On had the same budget as Doom 3 or HL 2, but it hasn't. It's a game for a minority. Either put up with it or don't buy it. IMO you can't blame the devs on this. I guess you're right: it's more of a suggestion. I'm totally supportive of ED; they've made some magic in this game and I truly enjoy it. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Airjarhead Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 There is little to read about eventual performance enhancements in 1.1. Considering performance issues took most of the posts about the previous versions, I would expect 1.1 to offer some improvements of performance over 1.02. I think this is THE most important question on these forums. Yet, in 15 or so posts no one has anwered it. What are the REAL minimum and recommended system requirements for the game? Because I'm still trying to figure out what they were for 1.02. Why are you bashing this guy for asking a VALID question? This is the ONLY reason I would be interested in buying 1.1. If they haven't optimized it, then why would I buy it? I've spent MANY, MANY hours trying to get LOMAC to run on my PC, and I don't want to do the same with another game ever again. So please, instead of saying "your PC sucks, you should spend a fortune to buy the best one avialable" kind of answers, can someone please just answer these 2 simple questions? 1. Has the game been optimized with respect to graphics/performance? 2. What are the minimum/recommended system requirements? AirJarhead i7 5820k@4.5GHz with NZXT Kraken X60 Cooler MSI X99S SLI Plus Motherboard 16GB (4x4GB) Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4 2400 EVGA GTX 980SC Creative X-Fi Titanium HD Plextor 256GB M.2 SSD 2x Samsung 750GB Evo 840 SSD Raid 0 Windows 7 64bit Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS TrackIR 5
Shepski Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 1. Has the game been optimized with respect to graphics/performance? 2. What are the minimum/recommended system requirements? 1. Yes... to what extend in in what particular ways... I don't know. 2. This is a very subjective question because what might be fine for me might not be for you. I'm fine with 20 FPS but others demand 40 or 60 FPS. I'm fine without heat blur, aircraft self shadowing, and water reflections but others aren't. IMO, to run it well with great looking graphics(not maxed out) and decent framerates(according to me)... you need a P4 3.0(or equivalent), 1 GB RAM, and a 128MB video card. I have a P4 3.0, 1 Gig RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro... definitely not a fast computer by todays standards as I put it together about 2.5 years ago.
webwing Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 Yes this game is very demanding so are Flight Sim 2004 and IL2. For me the most annoying thing, and I havent seen it mentioned here, is that even with low graphics settings when you are running towards a target and you press the trigger to fire rockets the screen freezes for a few seconds and you only take control again when you are alread on top of the target!!! This used to happen to me a long time ago while playing Janes F/A18. I used to thing it was my system but years later with a much improved system and in spite of the fantastic frame rates, I still had the same problem!!! cheers
Pilgrim Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 I'm going for a long shot here. I have been thinking about what could be done to improve the code. When I read the info about realtime tracking of units that are not seen I come to think of PVS trees. (Potentially Visible Sets) or even better dPVS (Dynamical Potentially Visible sets) For you that don't know what that is they are data structures that handle what is seen from the viewers position. For example it doesn't render objects that are not visible for the viewer because they are hidden behind something else. A bad algorithm here or a bad Binary Space Partitioning algorithm reduces performance mucho. One other thing that came to mind is the use of dynamic polygon models. There is no use of rendering polygons at a distance where they are only represented by one pixel on the screen. Does lo-mac use subdivision surfaces? I know the code comes from flanker and I thought there might be some new aspects of 3d rendering and object tracking that could be implemented. Could anyone with some insight fill me in? ASUS P4T533-C|P4 3.06@3.45|1024Mb Kingston 1066 rambus|ATI 9.... *EDITED* - Listen to Mods!!!
Allochtoon Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 How about that? To put it straight: will a 2GHz system with 1Mb RAM and 128Mb video card (ATI/NVidia) be sufficient? 640K ought to be enough for anybody. -Bill Gates
Silent Warrior Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 In-mission performance aside (I manage with 20-40 no problem, and I'm proficient in making LO run slower), it takes me 1-3 minutes to shut down Lock-On. Um, I don't always have the time for that... I think it took a full 5 minutes once (scratch that - clocked a full 8 minutes and then some). That's... a LOT of time to unload some software. Any sign of that being looked over? (No, I wasn't running a thorough virus-scan at Highest priority in the background.)
Airjarhead Posted April 3, 2005 Posted April 3, 2005 1. Yes... to what extend in in what particular ways... I don't know. 2. This is a very subjective question because what might be fine for me might not be for you. I'm fine with 20 FPS but others demand 40 or 60 FPS. I'm fine without heat blur, aircraft self shadowing, and water reflections but others aren't. IMO, to run it well with great looking graphics(not maxed out) and decent framerates(according to me)... you need a P4 3.0(or equivalent), 1 GB RAM, and a 128MB video card. I have a P4 3.0, 1 Gig RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro... definitely not a fast computer by todays standards as I put it together about 2.5 years ago. Thank you very much for answering! I would be happy with 24 FPS, as long as it never went below 20. I usually avg 28-40 FPS with surges into the 60s on the A-10 Campaigns. However it's the very noticable stutter effect that happens every so often, that just BUGS THE CRAP OUT OF ME! This is the most frustrating thing in LOMAC. I have tried every different resolution, FPS tweak, you name it and I've tried it. Some will increase FPS, but nothing takes away that stutter every now and again. I am quite sure it's a combination of too many things going on at once (smoke, sounds, terrain, lights, etc), that causes it, but it's still frustrating. I also know my system isn't top of the line (it's actually probably on par with yours Shepski), but it's better than the suggested config that UBI published! If 1.1 can fix this, I will get it and never stop playing it! *Fingers Crossed* AirJarhead i7 5820k@4.5GHz with NZXT Kraken X60 Cooler MSI X99S SLI Plus Motherboard 16GB (4x4GB) Crucial Ballistix Sport DDR4 2400 EVGA GTX 980SC Creative X-Fi Titanium HD Plextor 256GB M.2 SSD 2x Samsung 750GB Evo 840 SSD Raid 0 Windows 7 64bit Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS TrackIR 5
Prophet_169th Posted April 3, 2005 Posted April 3, 2005 In-mission performance aside (I manage with 20-40 no problem, and I'm proficient in making LO run slower), it takes me 1-3 minutes to shut down Lock-On. Um, I don't always have the time for that... I think it took a full 5 minutes once (scratch that - clocked a full 8 minutes and then some). That's... a LOT of time to unload some software. Any sign of that being looked over? (No, I wasn't running a thorough virus-scan at Highest priority in the background.) I believe this is just from the mission log. I have never had the game take a while to unload. Except when I exit the mission. The longer in the mission the longer to exit.
Silent Warrior Posted April 5, 2005 Posted April 5, 2005 Just to make sure, I DID mean the time elapsed from Are you sure you want to exit to Windows? >Yes< to the return to desktop. Quit mission to debrief is quite speedy. Well, in comparison to ending the game, that is. Almost quicker than Falcon 4, even. Anyway, putting the Scenery-setting to low has given me a miraculous FPS-boost, so now I'm just wishing for lighter AI-processing.
Recommended Posts