That's just GREAT!! (lomac beta benchmarks)

[Inferno 0]

Great, it had to be me who first posted the simhq benchmark on the Ubi forums. :roll:

 

Now I have my name plastered alongside the debatable benchmarks thread.

 

I tells ya, its not easy being a fanboy these days!!!

[MadJeff 3]

hehe, I knew this one was coming. I'm not so sure I agree with posting benchmarks based on an early (and unoptimized) beta version of a game. It really doesn't reflect any true final product performance numbers, and only serves to create negative press on LOMAC. But it was still interesting to see the numbers.

[Inferno 0]

Yeah, it was probably a bad decision, but hindsight is always 20/20 you know. Some people are jumping on Bubba as if was out to give bad press to LOMAC.

[Seawolf 0]

Hey Jeff, as long as UbiSoft doesn't release a beta version as a finished version at WalMart then everything is ok. lol

 

Inferno, I understand wanting to stick up for bubba and I personally dont think it was a huge deal, but it was a misjudgement none the less and with LOMAC only a couple of months away (hopefully) I can see why Matt and Carl would be a little upset. If this "benchmark" had been done when Bubba originally got the beta copy I dont think it would have been an issue, but now its push time for LOMAC and the last thing you want is any bad press especially in the sim business. Its hard enough to sell copies with a good product and when bad press hits the streets (even misinterpereted) it does some damage.

You and I know very well that we will probably be fine running LOMAC because we know it was a early Beta and not "cleaned up" yet, but you see how many newcommers show up to the Ubi Forum asking questions and some have never played a flight sim before. Most are there because its a new UbiSoft game comming out and they know UbiSoft from other titles. When they see a Benchmark with a 3.2Ghz CPU only running LOMAC at 17fps its an eyecatcher and they dont know or care that its an early beta. We know it doesnt matter, but those types think it does matter. All they see is 17FPS with a 3.2GHZ in big bold print. See what I'm saying?

I think Bubba just made an honest mistake or maybe he didnt I Dont know, only Bubba knows that, but I also understand why Carl and Matt are a little upset about it. They put in a lot of time and energy into this and that benchmark Bubba put out was a unfair comparison. IMO

 

Personally I have never heard of doing a benchmark on a new CPU using all older sims which have had several patches and Code enhancements and then throwing in a very early beta version of a sim like LOMAC that is leaps ahead of the other sims. LOMAC isnt finished and it was thrown in there with other sims which were not only finished but had years of tweaks and code enhancements. Thats the only thing I have a problem with. Personally I think Bubba was just trying to be the first to release something on LOMAC other than Screenshots and movies. It backfired.

We have all seen videos of LOMAC running on systems just like most of us have right now and running quite well, so I am not going to worry about performance until I see a problem on my machine, but I doubt I will see any problems.

 

The benchmark was supposed to test the Pent 3.2Ghz and instead all the attention got turned toward LOMAC, but what if the Pent 3.2Ghz chip is a piece of junk? LOL Im a Athlon user so Im biased anyway, nevermind. lol

[TPN_Bard 0]

Personally I have never heard of doing a benchmark on a new CPU using all older sims which have had several patches and Code enhancements and then throwing in a very early beta version of a sim like LOMAC that is leaps ahead of the other sims. LOMAC isnt finished and it was thrown in there with other sims which were not only finished but had years of tweaks and code enhancements.

 

I don't think the intention was to compare the sims to each other, but the cpu to the sims, and to be honest the thought that some people may be doing that didn't even occur to me. Everyone knows that better graphics come with a price, and LOMAC looks light years ahead of most of the other sims out there.

 

The review was of the CPU's performance, not LOMAC's. SimHQ isn't about A sim, its about lots of sims, and for the players of other sims to know what the performance is like on a new processor on the sims they play is very useful information.

 

I think about the only error in judgement was the assumption that the readers were going to pay attention to the text of the article AND everyone would be adult enough to ignore those who didn't. We've already seen that this community has more than it's fair share of asshats.

[MadJeff 3]

Just checked the forum thread over at SimHQ. I see things kind of blew up over there, and I'm not all that surprised. But, while I'm still surprised they posted the article, i think it was just a bad judgement call, nothing more. In the grand scheme of things it's not going to hurt sales any, so it's all good. :D

[BirdDogg 0]

Didn't Matt release some "pre-benchmark" specs awhile back? at least on the system they were developing on or using at the E-3 show? if I recall correctly.

 

I thought those specs were lower than Bubba's.

 

BirdDogg.

[Inferno 0]

LOL Im a Athlon user so Im biased anyway, nevermind. lol

Heh same here. AMD4LIFE!

 

But, I definitely see why about Carl and Matt would be upset about this. Also, in case people missed it, Carl mentioned that the LOMAC copy that Bubba benched on, was NOT a beta, but an alpha from May! Considering that we already know that performance changes with each weekly build of LOMAC, it is not only likely but almost guaranteed that the benchmark is not at all indicative of the final product.

[Inferno 0]

Didn't Matt release some "pre-benchmark" specs awhile back? at least on the system they were developing on or using at the E-3 show? if I recall correctly.

 

I thought those specs were lower than Bubba's.

 

BirdDogg.

Ian Boys, who is also beta testing LOMAC said on the Ubi forums that the early alphas had good fps, but the middle alphas were not really playable, but the current beta builds have much better fps and are playable. Well, it's better if you read his original post.

 

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_vie...mac_gd&id=zxpoz

I think I've said elsewhere that on my rig (P4/2.53, 1 Gig RAM, Radeon 9700 Pro) the missions I describe/will describe are all easily playable on the current build. Having said that, as Shepski has said on this forum, framerates vary wildly with different builds of the game. The benchmark was done with an old build and unnecessarily high settings that add nothing to the game. Current builds (the last two) have good and fluid framerates at the kind of graphic settings you see in the war stories.

 

Framerates can further be dramatically increased by panning around your aircraft when you spawn before you hit the start key, or even just by looking around with your mouse. That's what I do and I have no FR problems at all as this loads all the textures etc. It was the same in Flnker 2.5.

 

As Skinns said, the beta NDA prevents me from discussing exact settings/framerates, but in view of the unnecessary concern caused by this benchmark I think it's fair to set the record straight, as Shepski, Matt, Carl and others have also been doing on different boards. The facts are these - early alphas had very fast framerates (as in Birmingham last autumn), middle alphas were much slower (and caused concern) and the latest builds are far better. In fact I told Matt I didn't feel I could do any war stories until the game was properly playable and it most certainly now is. Shepski has said: buy the final game and run it before you worry about upgrades and I echo those comments. Some will have to upgrade, many others won't.  

 

_____________

Ian Boys

=38=Tatarenko

Kapitan - 38. OIAE

[TPN_Bard 0]

LOL Im a Athlon user so Im biased anyway, nevermind. lol

Heh same here. AMD4LIFE!

 

 

I had quite a few problems with my Via chipset board on my last athlon, trackir would hiccup, random pauses etc etc.

 

Got a bit tired of taking the "risk" of using an alternative chip and chipset.

 

During research before the purchase the chipset was supposedly great but took well over 12 months before the problems with it were positively identified, leaving me out of warranty and unable to replace. Left a sour taste in my mouth.

[Inferno 0]

Well Via's not known for their stability, but the nforce2 OTOH has been VERY stable for me. Only had one problem with some borked drivers.

[TPN_Bard 0]

Well Via's not known for their stability, but the nforce2 OTOH has been VERY stable for me. Only had one problem with some borked drivers.

 

I've heard the nforce2 was pretty good.

[Seawolf 0]

Well, what was it two weeks ago LOMAC was having Radeon issues and now its all fixed and ready for the radeon cards? A lot can happen to a sim in development in two weeks, two months, etc. This is why the only version that matters is the version in the box on release day. I have faith in ED that they will put out a good sim.

[TPN_Bard 0]

Well, what was it two weeks ago LOMAC was having Radeon issues and now its all fixed and ready for the radeon cards? A lot can happen to a sim in development in two weeks, two months, etc. This is why the only version that matters is the version in the box on release day. I have faith in ED that they will put out a good sim.

 

exactly :D