Poor FPS

[DamonSchumi 2]

Hello Thirdwire Fan's

 

Im happy, im have strike Fighters 2. And the Wings over Israel. My problem is, poor Fps 25 and lower in unlimited settings. Its that real ? Im will gaming in 1920/1200

 

My Pc

 

Core 2 duo 8600 3.3

Vista Ultimate 64 Bit

4 Gb Ram

Ai Readon 4870 x2 With Catalyst 8.12

Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme Music

 

Thanks for Help

 

Greets Mike

Edited January 4, 2009 by DamonSchumi

[razgriz31m 0]

The thing that you are using Vista is enough as a reason.

Edited January 4, 2009 by razgriz31m

[Stick 773]

Yeah i hate Microsoft too...but thats not the reason!

I live with it...more time for decisions .

 

In the unmodded game I get very good FPS.The moment the mods start making inroads on the game,my fps takes a beating-things will get particularly slow with hi-rez terrain,or in furballs.

Bad days Ive had 4-6 FPS.Miraculously it picked up to 12-18 FPS the last few days...Ive been shutting down background programmes but even then Im a little skeptical of how much good that actually did.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Stick

[+Brain32 265]

You have ATI we could have ATI HD85200063589436115 GTX TWIN TURBO, we would still have 25 or lower, why? Ask TK I have no clue... Set horizon to medium or even near and if that does not help then drop the mirrors and canopy reflections...

Yeah if you own an ATI card, no matter how super-powerfull it is, you really have to like this game to run it lol

Edited January 4, 2009 by Brain32

[Murphy'S 15]

strange, i have a e8400@3.240 ghz with 3 gig ram and a x4870 512mb and sfp2/woe runs smoothly (under xp pro) at 1280*1024 with mirrors and so on.

 

even with a big air battles and explosions on the ground

[Stick 773]

Know what fellas I just went into my control panel and changed my preference settings from quality to performance and then I t...r...i...e...d the game.

I had the wind in my hair!average FPS was 30.

[Fubar512 1,350]

First off, this is a flight sim, not a first person shooter. A frame rate in the mid-20's to mid-30's with all the eye candy turned on is quite playable and completely acceptable.

 

Back in 1997, a popular flight sim was Hornet Korea, by Graphsim . It was locked at 20 FPS by the developer, and unless you ran a frame counter, you'd never know the difference.

[Stick 773]

True I was playing at 4-6 FPS!

[Klargplutte 1]

I have very simular setup as DamonSchumi and turn off Mirrors , cockpit reflections and shadows to low it makes huge difference can run it smoothly at 1920*1200 16*AA 16*AF

[+Brain32 265]

well I have mirrors off, canopy reflections off, horizon near-medium, shadows medium everything else maxed out on 1024 4xaa/16xAF and get 25-80fps, I guess around 40 average - I'm quite happy with that for now :)

[zmatt 2]

Sounds like outdated engine coding to me. I can play Crysis warhead on medium setting with my 4850 at my resolution and get a higher average fps than in WoV. And Crysis is a far more complex game. I hope SF2 is better about this.

[Syrinx 13]

Depending on which install and what mods I have, I get a regular 20 - 60 fps.

 

Vanilla SF2 I get 30+ just about all maxed out, mirrors on etc except horizon near (I keep horizon near on all my installs).

 

As long as your fps doesn't drop below the 20 mark things should look smooth anyway, in WOV over the Big H in campaign sometimes it'll drop to around 15 with all the SAM's, flak etc but still doesn't seem too bad.

 

It's horses for courses, some people will be happy enough at 15 fps others will moan at less than 30 (though I did read somewhere that you cannot really tell the difference between 25 and anything higher all things being equal - no stutter etc - but don't take me to task on that, maybe some people can).

 

I don't like to sacrifice eye candy if I can help it. Each to their own.

[column5 63]

And Crysis is a far more complex game.

 

Really? I didn't know Crysis calculated accurate, real-time physics for all objects moving in the game world.

[Fubar512 1,350]

And Crysis is a far more complex game. I hope SF2 is better about this.

 

Are you serious? Far more complex?

 

A game like Crisis is GPU-dependant, any decent flight sim is CPU dependant. That's also the reason why you don't see any serious flight sims on gaming consoles.

[+Brain32 265]

OK but how come then regardless of AI units and objects in the air, I get FPS improvement by lowering graphics options?

Simple example on of the F-15 quick missions in WoI, all maxed out I get like 9-20fps, I lower horizon, mirrors, reflections, shadows which are all graphics options and that same mission with same amount of objects as before runs at like 30-40fps on average lol

[Fubar512 1,350]

OK but how come then regardless of AI units and objects in the air, I get FPS improvement by lowering graphics options?

Simple example on of the F-15 quick missions in WoI, all maxed out I get like 9-20fps, I lower horizon, mirrors, reflections, shadows which are all graphics options and that same mission with same amount of objects as before runs at like 30-40fps on average lol

 

Horizon Distance = Calculated by CPU. Mirrors = Reflections calculated by CPU. Shadows = Position calculated by CPU.

 

Transform & Lighting (clouds, fire, smoke trails) = GPU. Shaders = GPU. Complex bitmaps (object skins, terrain tiles) = GPU.

 

Any more questions?

[+Brain32 265]

Nope that explains everything.

[zmatt 2]

Really? I didn't know Crysis calculated accurate, real-time physics for all objects moving in the game world.

 

Actually it does for most things. And physics can be off loaded to the video card. The SF engine is several years old so it doesn't take advantage of many things that have come along since then. And even then when SF is cpu heavy most of us are running Core2duo's. They are several magnitudes more powerful then what was around when SF was first released.

[column5 63]

Actually it does for most things.

 

LOL, OK, sounds like we sould be moving to Crysis for accurate flight dynamics.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Actually it does for most things. And physics can be off loaded to the video card. The SF engine is several years old so it doesn't take advantage of many things that have come along since then. And even then when SF is cpu heavy most of us are running Core2duo's. They are several magnitudes more powerful then what was around when SF was first released.

 

IIRC, The only flight sims that are scripted for multithreading are F4 and FSX.

[column5 63]

IIRC, The only flight sims that are scripted for multithreading are F4 and FSX.

 

Doesn't matter. CRY$YS Si TEH l337!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[zmatt 2]

I think your missing my point. But your acting like i worship Crysis. I use it as an example because it is the High water mark in Pc gaming as far as graphical complexity goes. Crysis itself is a terribly optimized game but that is beside the point. A dense jungle where each of the leafs on the plants are 3d is a lot more complex to render than empty sky. The polygon count in Crysis or any other modern fps for that matter is much higher than it is in SF. Further more multithreading is not the only optimization that has come around since 2002. In fact multithreading has been around for quite some time, just not on consumer grade Hardware.

 

In 2002 the Pentium 4 was just coming out. The "Willamette" core Pentium 4 had a 256kb L2 cache. And it operated at 1.3ghz at the lowest. The Front side bus os these systems was still 133mhz. And we used SDRAM. In 2002 we were using ATI Radeon 8500's or Nvidia Geforce 4mx cards at the best. The First Pentium 4 supported MMX and SSE. Now we have SSE2 SSE3 SSE4 and SSE4.1. Not to mention L2 cache sizes at least 4 times as big on budget systems. And overall processor performance several magnitudes faster. The Difference between a Radeon 4870 and a Radeon 8500 are incredible. DDR2 SDRAM has its bandwidth somewhere in the GB/s while SDRAM was a few hundred megs. Modern PCs are about 10 times as fast than what they were in 2002. So the only logical explanation why a game from 2002 runs slow on systems that are 10x as fast as the ones it was designed for is that the game is poorly optimized. I doubt the SF engine takes advantage of many of the improvements we have seen over the past several years.

 

I hope SF2 has. It seems as though it does. I haven't heard any fps complaints on the forums and it is far ahead of SF.

[column5 63]

The point is that you don't need much more than 24 fps to enjoy a flight simulator. TK is a expert programmer and I think that you underestimate the degree to which his code is optimized--you can run the SF series on a very wide range of hardware (far wider than you can a game such as Crysis) with performance that is more than adequate to enjoy the game. The flight model calculations are far more advanced than anything a shooter is doing with physics, and you can see this if you turn on some of the debug displays.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Actually, the P4 was intro'd in late 2000. And, it supported SSE2. And, it was designed for RAMBUS, not SDRAM, which was the entry level, "el cheapo" solution to placate those who found RAMBUS memory a bit dear. And, by 2002, the P4 platforms had already made the move to DDR. And, there is no way that the sort of computations necessary to simulate a complex, large-scale virtual world (one spanning several thousand square kilometers), can simply be offloaded to the GPU, with today's technology.

 

While I agree that it would be nice to have a multi-threading in the series, it's something that's unlikely to happen soon, as ThirdWire is essentially an "Army of One".

[zmatt 2]

I'm not saying 24fps isn't playable. Ever since DX10 came out I have had to learn to deal with it. Even modern cards still have trouble with most DX10 big titles. I think you are also not giving enough credit to the physics in ragdoll and destructible environments. Particle physics, which Crysis and other games uses is a pretty complex thing. The only difference is they put the physics on the video card, Not the cpu.

 

 

The P4 used Rambus for a short time. They switched to SDRAM after nobody bought it. I have serviced both types. The willamette didn't used DDR, if it didn I have neevr seen one. That didn't come around until the Northwood core. Which brought a new socket, 478.

 

 

And, there is no way that the sort of computations necessary to simulate a complex, large-scale virtual world (one spanning several thousand square kilometers), can be simply be offloaded to the GPU, with today's technology.

 

The world isn't "complex" It's mostly empty with tiles painted on low poly mountains. SF isn't the only flight simulator and others don't have a problem with rendering such a large swath of land. You make your engines to suit your needs. There are engines optimized for enclosed environments and there are ones meant for large expanses of terrain. There have been large environment tailored engines for years. I think you underestimate the power of modern machines.

Edited January 5, 2009 by zmatt