FLAMING CLIFFS 2 - very low fps

[Distiler]

miracle, range of 40-60 FPS, about 30-35 over the land (medium altitude), I did some dogfights, I tried also to use cannon against big slow movers aircaft and tried to get close shile flaming out.

 

But even if fps are above 30, sometimes it seems fps are actually minor, 15 instead of 30 as described.

 

This evening I'll try to do some carrier operation, and if ok I will try to do some hard dogfight to test.

 

Dudes, I never tried quickstart: suddendly appears Tornados and Hornets, too many! =)

 

So, what was that made the miracle? Vista?

[Mugenjin]

about the fps, I was talking about 24-25 can be acceptable, even if aren't the maximum. however in lomac even on 24 or 22 fps I can still control the plane, meanwhile in FC2 even with 25-28 fps the I can't control the plane, I think there's a problem beyond graphics

 

Where did you get those FPS readings from? There's only 2 ways to explain this, if I understood you correctly:

You either get different minimum FPS or you're just imagining things. What do you mean by "can't control the plane", because I doubt that it's got anything to do with something beyond graphics.

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Hy, I just bought FC2 2 days ago, but after hours of trying I can't fly anymore.

I tried with minimum quality settings either simulator and graphic card, but nothing.

 

My configuration:

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit

CPU Intel Core Duo T7700 2.4 GHz

4 GB RAM (full 4 GB available)

nVidia Ge Force 8400M GS, 1919 GB Ram (128 MB dedicated)

 

I tried also to disable windows aero, disable all antisotropic, antialias etc., and I tried to fly my Su-33: it's impossible to fly at 15 fps, often 5 and sometimes 2 or even 0!!!

 

Hi Scipione,

I sorry to tell you this but your laptop at the bottom of the spectrum for any current 3D app.

1: Intel Core Duo T7700 2.4 GHz is only just in the range needed.

2: GeForce 8400M GS is well.

GeForce 8300 and 8400 Series

In the summer of 2007, NVIDIA released the entry level GeForce 8300 and 8400 series of graphics cards. Both series are based on the G86 core and as of December 2007, both series only have a GS version. The GeForce 8300 is also only available in the OEM market, and thus cannot be found in retail outlets. These graphics cards are targeted mainly for those who just need a discrete graphics solution, as the video card performs poorly in intense 3D applications such as high-end video games. It was originally designed to replace the 7200 and 7300 models, but was incapable of doing so due to its poor performance in high-end video games. It is able to play modern games at playable framerates at low settings and low resolutions making it popular among casual gamers and HTPC (Media Center) builders without a PCI Express or AGP motherboard.

At the end of 2007, NVIDIA released a new GeForce 8400 GS based on the G98 (D8M) chip.[8] It is quite different from the G86 used for the "first" 8400 GS, as the G98 features VC-1 and MPEG2 video decoding completely in hardware, lower power consumption, lowered 3D-performance and a smaller fabrication process. The G98 also features dual-link DVI support and PCI Express 2.0. G86 and G98 cards are both sold as "8400 GS", the difference can only be told from technical specifications.

 

3: Its in a laptop, its onboard chip shares with main memory, no dedicated Vram (please correct if I'm behind the times).

 

Your just stuck with whatever tweaks you can manage. Low rez, reduced buildings, not to many trees.

LoMac, Ka-50 & now FC2 all eat CPU cycles (complex AI behavior as well as as close to accurate flight models), though their graphics engines are now dated we are still in a massive graphics environment.

 

You need a stand alone gaming box to get the Fps we all want.

 

Sorry Shad

[Frazer]

Do a walkthrough the DCS Black Shark Tweak Guide Alpha Version. This tweak guide was created for DCS Blackshark but many things work the same in FC2.

 

Hope this helps you a bit.

[Scipione]

thanks to every one.

 

the 'miracle'... I don't now. I didn't installed Vista, I continued testing with GPU overclock. The sim works when:

- I disable Windows Aero, and I set an 'hig contrast black and white desktop' (only 23 mb of gpu's ram);

- nvidia settings: "let the 3d application to decide";

- sims'resolution: 1024x768m low settings, and also medium!!

 

I can't understand now, suddendly, it works (before, also with this tweaks didn't work). I did a mistake, leaving sim's settings to HIGH, and it worked too, even with some leak sometimes.

 

 

My 8400M GS's core is G86 =(

 

Yes, I know, my computer is bad for simulation. As soon as I sell the HGU-33, I'll sell my pc so I can buy another pc, this time BEFORE buying, I'll ask to you all what will be the best configuration to have minimum 60 fps in the baddest condition (low level flight with thousands of foghters, vehicles, missiles, bullets and smoke haha), at maximum quality of image, in 3 monitors... :smilewink:

 

Mugenjin:

I was talking about this: I did a comparison between differents sims, and expecially LOMAC and FC2.

In LOMAC, when trying to pull down the FPS, at 24 or so I can feel the plane and what happens, and I can react using the stick, and I can feel the plane's reaction to my stick's movement.

In FC2 I experienced that even if 24 fps or so was displayed, the things aren't so fluid, and I can't control the plane. Now it seems to work, at first crashed 3 or 4 times, but now seems to be ok, fluid and controllable, only few times there's some lags.

 

I will do a test against good AI fighter, to see how it works with complex manuverings, smokes and flares, but now I'm in Rome, my HOTAS Cougar remained in my home at Brindisi... I have to wait 1 may...

 

Frazer I will check FC2 and DCS tweak threads togheter the next week.

 

Distiler I think that your gentiless maked the miracle possible

[71st_Mastiff]

Everyone by now should know not to have windows aero on by now? Its a ram hog and cpu hog runs in background eating up everything in its path.

[isoul]

Everyone by now should know not to have windows aero on by now? Its a ram hog and cpu hog runs in background eating up everything in its path.

 

You are right about the Aero being a RAM/CPU hog but... even if I disable it I see no big difference in DCS! One thing I 've learned is that DCS isn't the best optimized game.

 

The proof is that over towns the FPS drops 50%. This is quite much and for a FlightSim, where every frame counts, its too much!

 

By the way my rig is :

 

Core2Quad Q9400 2,66

4 GB RAM 800MHz

nVidia GTS250 1GB

Windows 7 x64

[71st_Mastiff]

Well I get almost on avrg 195 FPS not to toot my horn but the GTX 285 1gb was a good investment. that gts 250 is your bottle neck. This is what your card actually is.

 

The chip found in the GTS 250 has been around for almost two years with cards like the 8800GT/9800GTX/9800GX2 and now the GTS 250 around with modifications to the clock speed, the SPs, the memory bandwidth and clock speed differentiating the cards from one another. The EVGA GeForce GTS 250 1GB card that is based upon that same chip

 

So I would just sell that and get your-self a GTX285 so this is GTS 250 1GB = to this 8800GT/9800GTX/9800GX2. Only overclocked.

Don;t ever by something with a extention of an S or FX, its crap usually the same chipset.

You are right about the Aero being a RAM/CPU hog but... even if I disable it I see no big difference in DCS! One thing I 've learned is that DCS isn't the best optimized game.

 

The proof is that over towns the FPS drops 50%. This is quite much and for a FlightSim, where every frame counts, its too much!

 

By the way my rig is :

 

Core2Quad Q9400 2,66

4 GB RAM 800MHz

nVidia GTS250 1GB

Windows 7 x64

Edited April 14, 2010 by Mastiff

[ShadowVonChadwick]

thanks to every one.

 

the 'miracle'... I don't now. I didn't installed Vista, I continued testing with GPU overclock. The sim works when:

- I disable Windows Aero, and I set an 'hig contrast black and white desktop' (only 23 mb of gpu's ram);

- nvidia settings: "let the 3d application to decide";

- sims'resolution: 1024x768m low settings, and also medium!!

 

I can't understand now, suddendly, it works (before, also with this tweaks didn't work). I did a mistake, leaving sim's settings to HIGH, and it worked too, even with some leak sometimes.

 

 

Im glade your getting at least some improvment Scipione.

 

I also know every time I build a new PC thinking ill get better frame rates I then go and use even higher settings ,, back to the 20-60 fps arena.

 

Cheers ....Shad

[Scipione]

I always asked myself, why there aren't flight simulators on PC that, even with huge hardware, can reach the graphic level of Ace Combat Zero (also with hundred of fighters, choppers, vehicles, flaks, bullets, missiles at the same time, and in low level flight).

The graphic perfection of this title, also in particular light conditions such as dawn and night, is spettacular. But all on hardware like PS2, wich have a GPU less powerful than any GPU of 4 years ago.

I never understood.

[Xerxes84]

So take a look at "Wings of Prey" - you can get the Demo from Steam! It looks amazing and has really nice performance.

 

Or "Tom Clancys HAWX" - try the demo! Nice graphics @ nice fps!

 

But this games are NO simulations!

 

In Flaming Cliffs you have over 300.000km² to fly, you have realistic ballistic and physics, AI - you need CPU Power for all these things. Take a look at other flight simulations, Flaming Cliffs is the sim with the best graphical level!

 

In Arcade games, which have very simplistic flight model you have more resources you can use for eye candy. Generally in this games you fly only on a little map, no way to fly more than 10 minutes in one direction (you will reach end of the map, try this in Flaming Cliffs or Black Shark!).

 

The persons wich play simulations like Black Shark/Lock On/Flaming Cliffs want realistic flight model, ballistics, 3D Cockpits, complex AI - graphic perfection is a nice bonus, but not the thing they are looking for!

[isoul]

Well I get almost on avrg 195 FPS not to toot my horn but the GTX 285 1gb was a good investment. that gts 250 is your bottle neck. This is what your card actually is.

 

The chip found in the GTS 250 has been around for almost two years with cards like the 8800GT/9800GTX/9800GX2 and now the GTS 250 around with modifications to the clock speed, the SPs, the memory bandwidth and clock speed differentiating the cards from one another. The EVGA GeForce GTS 250 1GB card that is based upon that same chip

 

So I would just sell that and get your-self a GTX285 so this is GTS 250 1GB = to this 8800GT/9800GTX/9800GX2. Only overclocked.

Don;t ever by something with a extention of an S or FX, its crap usually the same chipset.

 

This maybe but I haven't seen my poor GTS250 "struggling" under the DCS engine. More important... in FC2.0 while flying Su-25T I have 60fps...then when I want to track a target and activate Shkval the frames go at 15fps(when set at high), if I zoom in the frames go to normal again!

 

This is simply because ED made Shkval display trees&buildings at great detail for several kilometers away. On the other hand I thought ED's recommendation for FC2.0 was nVidia 8800 or better ... if this means at-least-GTX285 I think its not my bad.

 

Btw some people said that even with GTX295 they got low FPS with SU-25T and while using Shkval.

Edited April 21, 2010 by isoul

[Arthonon1606687905]

I'm running an ATI 5870 and an i7 930, and get a solid 60fps flying the Su-25T (vsynced) until I turn on the Shkval, and then also drop to 15fps, depending on what's in the Shkval's field of view.

[Sarge55]

Same here. Running a i7 920 and a GTX285 and when I turn on the Shkval it drops to 15-20. I quickly zoom to the next power and that helps right away but I lose the FOV and it makes targeting a bit more challaging.

[isoul]

THX Arthonon and Sarge55!

 

I knew that my GFX card wasn't the issue! DCS:BS has better performance simply because(in Ka-50) there is two zoom options instead of three(in Su-25T).

 

The first zoom level displays way too many objects that brings even high end machines to its knees!

 

So... in case you have low FPS when flying Su-25T and activating Shkval(usually near towns) the problem IS NOT your GFX card or your computer! It has to do with how ED made things to be displayed in it and they should fix it!

 

Btw... is the same problem present in FC1? Is it so annoying?

[Arthonon1606687905]

The standard Mavericks in FC2 have a similar issue as the Shkval, but I never saw an impact on frame rate in FC1 using Mavericks, so that seems to be an FC2 issue some how. I never really flew the Su-25T in FC1, so I can't compare those.

[isoul]

I have tried various tweaks in graphics.cfg and I have seen that reducing far_clip and various ranges helped BUT made buildings transparent even in close range. This was quite ugly and annoying.

 

While trying setting Fogparameter1=2.5 and Forparameter2=2.5 helped decreasing that transparency effect to medium and long distances while still making the thousands of objects in the far distance to disappear... thus making less objects to be displayed in Shkval and the impact in FPS lesser.

 

As it is now my FPS will go no less than 25fps (it was 15 previously) and the Su-25T is somewhat flyable even while using Shkval.

 

Medium

{

near_clip = 0.2;

middle_clip = 3;

far_clip = 80000;

 

structures = {80, 5000};

trees = {1000, 7000};

dynamic = {300, 20000};

objects = {3000, 20000};

mirage = {1000, 5000};

surface = {5000, 15000};

lights = {100, 30000};

 

lodMult = 1;

lodAdd = 0;

 

..................

 

LandLodDistances

{

LandDay

{

L01 = 12000;

L12 = 32000;

}

LandNight

{

L01 = 10000;

L12 = 30000;

}

................

MFD

{

L01 = 10000;

L12 = 15000;

}

...............

ScreenshotQuality = 90;

ScreenshotName = "ScreenShots/ScreenShot_%03d.jpg";

ScreenshotExt = "jpg";

EffectOptions = 0;

Exhaust = 0;

ShadowDensity = 0.6;

PilotName = "No";

FogParam1 = 2.5;

FogParam2 = 2.5;

CivilianRoutes = "";

AviFolder = "Movies/";

PilotNames = 0;

MaxFPS = 60;

AdvancedEffect = 0;

TreesQuality = 3;

TreeDistance = 870;

RenderEffect = 0;

ObjectTextureQuality = 1;

LandScapeTextureQuality = 1;

CloudAspectThreshold = 0.03;

 

 

I 'll try further tweaks... please, any suggestion and improvement would be much appreciated. Still this is NO SOLUTION but it seemed make the flight of Su-25T possible... until ED releases a patch or something to solve the issue!

Edited April 21, 2010 by isoul

[Sarge55]

The Shkval in the Su-25T wasn't an issue in FC 1.12 I didn't notice any FPS drop while playing. If there was it must have been pretty small.

[jeanlee411]

What driver are you using for your video card?

 

And have you installed the latest DirectX 9 drivers too?

I run the sim at 1024x800.

The CP usage during flight was below 40%.

 

What do you say? 8400M GS is extremly slow? I Purchased this notebook expecially for flight simulation... :joystick:

 

I tried also this: either graphic card and simulator's option at maximum quality; the quality of the Su-33 on the flight deck is similar to the Falcon 4 Open Falcon graphics... I think that there's something not working :doh:

[matarabun]

Maybe this will help someone like me with spec amd x2 3.4gz , onboard graphic ati 4200 (clocked to 850mhz)

 

i just change this in graphic.cfg

 

CloudAspectThreshold = 0.03;

 

to:

 

CloudAspectThreshold = 60; (1 is enough actually, but you can see the cloud move every 1 second , so better make it higher so u don't notice it))

 

 

yeah the cloud so heavy for my card, now i can play smooth without lagging, like FC 1.2.

[FoxBMS]

FC2 low fps

 

Hi guys,

I have same problem with low fps, this is probably game bug, because any other game works with full details perfectly without any lag! It's pity because this game otherwise could be good.

 

AMD quad core FX-6300

Corsair XMS PC 12800 (800Mhz) 4GB RAM

GeForce GTX 650 1GB DDR 5

2x SSD hardrive 250 GB

 

This REALLY CAN'T BE weak system setup for this game...

Recommended hardware requirements of FC2 even can't reach this setup to ankles...

So in this case buying this game is dropped money into trash. What a pity!!

Dear developers let's think where comrades from DDR did mistake...