min spec's

[EtherealN]

here a track...fps on the deck 14

 

I just watched it, but sadly it doesn't show me your FPS. (God that would have been awesome if that function was in there. :) )

 

Which mission is that though? I didn't see any activity in the after-action report, though there seemed to be a few labels up for some units. If it is indeed empty or next-to empty, then you definitely have something wrong in your system if that CPU only performs 14 FPS...

[rabbit102]

well my question still remains....why have specs if there are not right for the product?

and tell me why i can 99.8% of games or sims and have no trouble with fps

flight sim x prob....60 frames with everything on.....please explain that

no lag or shutter

rfactor-maxed out

live for speed-maxed out

arca simracing 08 - maxed out

 

no lag-fps 250 at times

some have real life phx

 

pls tell why these titles work great to the spec they release for min and recommend

Edited May 7, 2009 by rabbit102

[EtherealN]

Sigh.

 

Because they ARE right, it's just that you aren't understanding the point of them.

 

Minimum System requirements are the developer's approximation of what is required to play the game at all. Recommended system is their recommendation for what you should have for the game to function properly. Not "blazing through without the smallest worry in the universe". To function properly.

 

EDIT: And before you say "everyone else has recommended settings that say X" - no they don't. When I worked as a game reviewer we listed Minimum System Requirements, Recommended System Requirements, Our Recommended System and our test system. We added the second two to the review template for a reason - and the fact that people seemed to think that the publisher recommendation was "to play in constant 100fps have this" was high up among them. /EDIT

 

Also:

 

Which mission is that though? I didn't see any activity in the after-action report' date=' though there seemed to be a few labels up for some units. If it is indeed empty or next-to empty, then you definitely have something wrong in your system if that CPU only performs 14 FPS...[/quote']

 

Please elaborate on that if you want me to have any chance whatsoever of figuring out what's happening in your system.

 

The thing I have been trying to get across to you is that you started off by catastrophically misinterpreting the issues you were having, and then decided to lash out at the Recommendation. Well, as has been mentioned in the thread, the recommendation hasn't been complained about by other people that have run the game with similar or (in the case of my laptop) weaker hardware than yours.

 

So IF that mission is completely empty and you only get 14 FPS, something is wrong in your system - there is some setting somewhere or something in the OS or something in the hardware that is causing it to underperform.

 

Hell, my laptop with a 2GHz processor, chronic heat issues, disgustingly slow RAM and a GPU that is below recommendation (256mb 8600m) plays empty maps way better than that. So, I repeat, if an empty map truly limits you to 14 FPS there should be a problem in your system that you have to find - or help us help you identify.

 

But so far we even have to drag answers and elaborations out of you, and that is not making it easy.

Edited May 7, 2009 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

I hadn't noticed this earlier post:

 

and tell me why i can 99.8% of games or sims and have no trouble with fps

flight sim x prob....60 frames with everything on.....please explain that

 

Flight Sim X has a flight engine that makes the IL-2 engine look hardcore.

 

rfactor-maxed out

live for speed-maxed out

arca simracing 08 - maxed out

 

Haven't played those, but when I looked at information about them it's pretty clear - that's not simulation in the same sense as DCS, just like Flight Sim X isn't. As far as I could see they all model the results of the physics to get a result that mimics the real world.

 

DCS models actual physics.

 

That's no small difference. (And it's part of what allows the technology behind DCS to be successful as military training software.)

 

some have real life phx

 

As far as I could see - no they don't. They have table-models that approximate what happens in the real world. That's not the same thing.

 

pls tell why these titles work great to the spec they release for min and recommend

 

As has been said: DCS:BS "works great" for the specifications it was released on. You've had people in this thread testify to that. So if you really have an FPS of 14 on an empty or almost-empty map in DCS:BS, something is wrong in your computer. That really is the only thing, because I have weaker hardware that I played the campaigns on with no issues, as have others.

[rabbit102]

well if you think that some of those title are not hard core ...try them then....as far as real phx arca sim racing has them ...you can ask the maker robert coulter...he works with rcr richard cilerarders racing and joe gibbs racing..

if you want you can have his cell or home # i have both....

like i said beta tester also for that sim

and what more info do you need ...you got system spec's...you got my prob....

is there a way i can talk to directly? phone...yahoo voice chat?

i dont want to request refunds or nothing like i want to play this the way it should be

[GGTharos]

Would you happen to know which drivers you have installed for your video card? Not that I think it matters, but eh.

 

Oddly enough I know someone who used to have the single core 5000+ and he got a GTX260, but his FPS didn't improve in LOMAC. It stayed somewhere above 25-30.

 

If you're experiencing this much trouble, something's wrong. I have a laptop with an even crappier video card than EB, and dual core 1.9Ghz proc, and DCS runs fine in it. I'll get stutters and whatnot when the mission is heavy, but otherwise it is pretty smooth. And that's with Vista.

[rabbit102]

in lomac i get 100 fps just tried it maxed out graphic

are there going to update anythang like this r try to small fix maybe?

[Distiler]

I get fine fps with a lower spec computer than yours in that mini track (like 35-40fps). For me they key is to run it with max graphics except water and mirrors (those are real fps killers), also don't forget using full screen or your fps will also be cut in half.

 

PD: e5200@3Ghz, 4GB ddr2, nvidia 9600gt, windows vista 32.

[CAT_101st]

rabbit102 you have to keep in mind that in racing games they are only calking for a small area compaired to the world that we ar in with BS. BS has way more going on than the games that you have stated. Also keep in mind that this is a sim based on a 8+year old game engin. When the new game engin come out expect the min requirments to go up a bit more. As I had stated befor, I had a 6400+ with 2mbL2 running at 3.3Gh I was happy with the 15-20 FPS I was gitting set on medum. I did some testing with the settings turining them up and down in game and only foud a small FPS hit betwean med and low. Only the water and world draw distance realy affected the FPS.

 

EtherealN was correct in the system specs. It takes a PC the is much better than recomended to run Black Shark in all its glory. I saved for 3 months to buy my CPU. and it was well worth it to do so. I would sugest you do the same. Even if you can only get a x3 it will be a big improvment. And the price of CPUs for your mother board are comming down every day.

 

I wish you luck and happy siming.

[rabbit102]

i'll try those setting. and is there a way to get some of my activions back or no

[CAT_101st]

Post in this forum for the activations http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=38

[EtherealN]

I had a 6400+ with 2mbL2 running at 3.3Gh I was happy with the 15-20 FPS I was gitting set on medum.

 

What worries me is the fact that if I have understood the situation correctly it's 14FPS in a near-empty map where nothing happens. That has me worried that it's actually a real problem in the machine rather than just the regular stuff coming from a lower-end CPU.

 

But it's difficult to get things like that confirmed so I don't know... :P

 

i'll try those setting. and is there a way to get some of my activions back or no

 

If you are nice to them they'll usually be nice back. But they will be wondering why you burned through so many activations so fast, so make sure to include a full explanation of your problem and what happened in your first contact to them. I was looking for the relevant e-mail adress but CAT (Mind if I call you cat? :D ) had posted a link that's probably better.

Edited May 7, 2009 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

..> So then is this an AMD CPU issue?

[rabbit102]

ok just tried those setting and got them to 50fps vis range turn to low and water to low and everthing else high and at max resalution....thx for the help if there are any tweaks i can do let me know...just want it smooth as possible

[Distiler]

Just let vis range at high settings. With mirrors off, water to low and full screen mode is enough.

[CAT_101st]

..> So then is this an AMD CPU issue?

I think it is just limited to XP and the Athlon 64 x2 CPUs. The Phenoms and Phenom II seam to be handling every thing prety good.

 

(Mind if I call you cat? :D )

No I don't :thumbup: and the 14-20 FPS was during smaller missions.

 

ok just tried those setting and got them to 50fps vis range turn to low and water to low and everthing else high and at max resalution....thx for the help if there are any tweaks i can do let me know...just want it smooth as possible

 

Good to here things are working out better for you. If you upgrade your CPU you will probly see FPS in the 80 range.

[EtherealN]

God damn I hate it when my DHCP-lease timeouts... Had such a nice post all typed up... :P

 

Cat, since you know the AMD chips better than I do (I haven't used one since the first T-birds): how's the situation with the socket for that chip he has? If the Phenom's can be expected to operate nicely on the same motherboard that might actually be a pretty cheap upgrade. (Or overclocking, even cheaper, but then one doesn't get away from the fact that it has so little L2 cache and not even shared between the cores at that!)

[Krippz]

God damn I hate it when my DHCP-lease timeouts... Had such a nice post all typed up... :P

 

Cat, since you know the AMD chips better than I do (I haven't used one since the first T-birds): how's the situation with the socket for that chip he has? If the Phenom's can be expected to operate nicely on the same motherboard that might actually be a pretty cheap upgrade. (Or overclocking, even cheaper, but then one doesn't get away from the fact that it has so little L2 cache and not even shared between the cores at that!)

 

Socket AM2+ Phenom II's can only work on AM2+ and AM3 motherboards; however AM3 Phenom II's can only work with AM3 motherboards.

[CAT_101st]

God damn I hate it when my DHCP-lease timeouts... Had such a nice post all typed up... :P

 

Cat, since you know the AMD chips better than I do (I haven't used one since the first T-birds): how's the situation with the socket for that chip he has? If the Phenom's can be expected to operate nicely on the same motherboard that might actually be a pretty cheap upgrade. (Or overclocking, even cheaper, but then one doesn't get away from the fact that it has so little L2 cache and not even shared between the cores at that!)

 

I don't know what MB he has. But going off the GPU I would say he has a AM2 board not a AM2+. If this is true he is stuck with what he has. But If he has a MB with a AM2+ socket the best chip to get is the PII 940 6mb L3 and 512x4 L2 starting at 3Gh. My curing OC is stable at 3.8 with a Zailmen 9700 42* 48 under load. The AM3 is the 945 3Gh and 955 3.2Gh. The AM3 can use DDR3 ram wile the AM2+ is stuck with DDR2 1066.

 

Socket AM2+ Phenom II's can only work on AM2+ and AM3 motherboards; however AM3 Phenom II's can only work with AM3 motherboards.

 

This is correct.

[EtherealN]

My curing OC is stable at 3.8 with a Zailmen 9700 42* 48 under load.

 

Ah, that CPU fan is probably one of the best purchases I've ever made - and the cheapest extra Gigahertz ever. (And boy that extra gigahertz was really noticeable too. :) )

[beugnen]

Thirdly, "other sims" is no guarantee - many other simulators only run very simplified simulation engines, whereas DCS:BS is very hardcore in simulating momentums and airflows and so on. Simulators like IL-2, Microsoft Flight Simulator and so on don't even come close to the complexity that the CPU has to work with here.

 

indeed, but i wonder how much flight mechanics is in BS? is the poor performance due to a high amount of mechanics or poorly optimized code? [1]

 

the reason i say this, is the 'worlds most comprehensive flight-sim' - X-Plane has a proven flight mechanics and not just that runs extremely well on low-powered computers PC and Mac alike.

 

[1] sadly, we as external observers may have a hard time proving either. :)

[EtherealN]

Well, but X-Plane doesn't run AI routines for some 80-500 units, it doesn't run ballistics engines to calculate penetration, trajectories, deflections and so on. I am also -fairly- sure that it does not simulate line-of-sight communications (though I haven't run the latest X-Plane) and the list goes on.

 

That aside, I am very impressed by X-Plane, but to be honest I am so impressed by it that I think one of the reasons it runs so smoothly is that Mr Meyer is just a pure bloody genious. :P

[beugnen]

hehe agreed my friend

[beugnen]

i say stick in there rabbit. there appears to be much calculation going on in BS, calculations that can easily be optimized through-out the life of the product. e.g. better use of multi-core or even just optimizing code. even though something as complex as a flight sim may use extensive use of a cpu, gpu and ppu does not mean they are being used optimally. maybe bs is, maybe it is not.

 

though there was not much in the way of physics in say x2 the threat, there was much in the way of calculations in the game given the hundreds if not thousands of ships in the game. x2 sadly initially appeared quite cpu bound but was fixed to an extent in later releases.

 

the same can be said for games that make use of a gpu. just because a game utilises one does not mean fantastic frame rates. just take a look at dungeon siege 2 and supreme commander, both titles that use little or no physics but plenty of gpu and yet lousy frame rates. sometimes a 3d engine that was suitable for earlier titles is inefficient for later derived ones.

 

being a humble programmer myself, i can not say for certainty what is happening in bs but what i can say is that many games go through teething problems in early incarnations only to be rectified in later releases. such fixes sometimes are the result of observations made by internal QA as well as enthusiast game owners. you never know, the high cpu usage may be the result of a forgotten thread.sleep()...just kidding.

 

safe flying my friend

 

EDIT: damn new-post-email-notification. i've realised ive replied to an older post, oh well

Edited May 9, 2009 by beugnen

[Duke49th]

All I can say is, what I've done like described in the post in the following link:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=683616&postcount=70

 

 

My sys specs. are in my signature...

 

It boost my fps from almost unplayable(<- 25fps with activated shkval) fps to almost above 25+ fps(with shkval activated). -- In missions with medium to high "action".

 

Don't tested explicit if my GFX-Card is the bottle neck here, but with my AMD 5200+ it runs fine now.(In Windows 7 x64 much better then in XP ;))

Edited May 9, 2009 by Duke49th