FPS....considering each setting.

[Coffee999]

Is there a chart out there that indicates what each setting would eat up in FPS for each setting?

For instance: Let's say we have a base line of Low settings by default, anything that deviates from that, would give you a +/- FPS. Whether it is resolution, or any other setting.

I think it would help greatly, if the game can determine your hardware, and have a counter of want frames you might expect with the current settings. It would be hard to take the action of the flight into consideration, because no one would know that but while you are flying. But something to this affect could save a lot of time if we had a counter that could set a base line and go from there.

Later.

[NEODARK]

This really isnt possible, as each system is really unique. Even if you had the exact same hardware you would have differences, because there are many factors.

 

That said, there are generic benchmarks that should give you an idea of what resolution does, etc.

 

Oh and lockon is CPU bottlenecked, not GPU. Keep that i mind.

[britgliderpilot]

Hmmn.

 

Someone somewhere has a list of the graphics settings and how they affect FPS . . . . Konkussion, perhaps?

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

If you have a registered copy of FRAPS

 

Try this

 

http://www.lockonfiles.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=search&query=benchmark

[Coffee999]

OK, understood all so far.

But I would think that regardless of your hardware, each setting change would change the FPS only so much. I would think this would be somewhat consistent.

For instance: Regardless of your hardware, you start out with the benchmark of the in game setting of X. If you change that setting to X+2, that will change your frames =/-Xframes.

I understand that card setting would have to be a constant too. But the bench mark would state what the GF setting would be.

However, What I was going for was a meter within the LO UI that would give you an indication of what to expect FPS wise within the game only. You can go from there depending on what you choose to set the graphics card configuration. And if this meter is intuitive, it would detect what hardware you have, and factor that in.

Everyone can start out with the same setting, increase or decrease setting as you do it, as see what frame hit you may or may not take.

I would think that considering your hardware, each setting change would take X amount of frames away on average.

Every one of us has messed with the setting to get everything to run good. If you have a clue what your frames might be with an in game meter, you will get up faster and with less frustration.

[Prophet_169th]

Well you could use a program like FRAPs and test your own system.

 

Me personally, I am still trying to figure out what kills the FPS. I think it is the lighting and shadows, then texture size depending on GPU memory, and visual range.

 

The visual range by far seems to be the biggest player with the newer cards. On the older cards then vis really kills you and the pixel shader stuff.

[TucksonSonny]

This really isnt possible, as each system is really unique. Even if you had the exact same hardware you would have differences, because there are many factors.

 

That said, there are generic benchmarks that should give you an idea of what resolution does, etc.

 

Oh and lockon is CPU bottlenecked, not GPU. Keep that i mind.

 

 

Anyway with my setup I can get crazy FPS hits in 16x12 if I turn off AA/AF (0xAA/0xAF).

From runway 55+ FPS to 90/115 FPS in 16x12 in cockpit with Su.

With 2xAA/4xAF this is only from runway 25+ FPS to 70/89 FPS in 16x12 in cockpit.

Conclusion with 8xAA and 16xAF you place the bottle neck on your video adapter (Anyway in my case)

.

With 0xAA and 0xAF I have the impression that my CPU is even overpowered for FC.

[britgliderpilot]

Anyway with my setup I can get crazy FPS hits in 16x12 if I turn off AA/AF (0xAA/0xAF).

From runway 55+ FPS to 90/115 FPS in 16x12 in cockpit with Su.

With 2xAA/4xAF this is only from runway 25+ FPS to 70/89 FPS in 16x12 in cockpit.

Conclusion with 8xAA and 16xAF you place the bottle neck on your video adapter (Anyway in my case)

.

With 0xAA and 0xAF I have the impression that my CPU is even overpowered for FC.

 

At high res, you don't really need much AA - and IIRC, the need for AF is reduced as well.

 

Nvidias have historically tended to suffer more than ATI at high AA and AF settings, too.

[TucksonSonny]

At high res, you don't really need much AA - and IIRC, the need for AF is reduced as well.

 

Nvidias have historically tended to suffer more than ATI at high AA and AF settings, too.

 

Exactly, in 16x12 resolution having 2xAA, 4xAF is heaven.