Does your system like some squadrons better than others?

[Guest Barnstorm]

Good evening to all:

 

I am curious if anyone else here has noticed that their system performs better while flying from any particular squadron or jasta in a particularly theater? I have found that mine in deed does. Since I was looking at BH&H from a "purist" standpoint, I thought it "cheating" to jump in to a late model a/c without having "cut my teeth" on the early birds of war. My approach to experiencing BH&H was too start at the beginning of the Great War and work my chronologically forward. Needless to say, I have many hours flying the E.III and Alb.II., and enlisting many pilots.

 

Like some of you, I had been experiencing the "Jaggies" or white artifact when I changed my POV too quickly. I decided to scroll through the list of available jasta's and found Seafrosta I & II near the coast. I activated my pilot in Seafrosta I in Oct. 1917, flying the Alb. DV. Lo and behold, no "Jaggies"...I can not make them appear. The scenery in this part of OFF is clearer than any I have seen so far, and the a/c flight models work much smoother than any I have encounter as well. Since different people model each a/c and not every theater in OFF is modeled by the same person, in stands to reason there are going to be some differences in appearance and performance.

[Burning Beard 14]

Yep, on some fields I can barely crack 15 fps when looking back once I am in the air. Other fields I get a good solid 30 fps. It must have something to do with the ground objects but I am really not sure. It seems like some of the fields with a lot of ground objects have high frame rates while others with fewer objects seem to have low rates. I also think that certain plane types use a lot more graphics than others. This also doesn't seem to follow logic. I usually get high rates with Spads while a Nuep will suck up frames.

 

Beard

[Tamper 9]

*bump* Very curious to see where this goes. Neither of you are wrong, according to my own observations (I note, with particular interest, Beard's observations about certain plane types). Just interested to see what the response(s) will be.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Yes, I've experienced similar behaviour. But I haven't paid much attention to it really, I always thought it's the fault of my PC not having enough processing power (but it does have it enough to play the game smoothly in decent settings!). And some areas have many more objects on the ground, so it's natural the FPS vary accordingly. But interesting to think it may have something to do with certain aircraft or squadrons...

[catch 81]

I'm pretty sure everyone experiences all that has been described unless they have a PC that really kicks bottom ! The low FPS around airfields was thought to be caused by static aircraft models. But I'd say it's far more complicated than that. It'd be great if the devs could check it out in detail but .... my gosh the time ... where does one find the time !

 

At least you know it's not your PC. I just accept it now. But there was a time when I was a young man with a glint in his eye and a ready smile for a comely maiden when I thought ..... "what the #$%& is going on here !" Not anymore.

[+Winder 32]

Guys we have a living theatre - and your FPS performance will differ depending on the location of your squad due to that fact that air and ground unit activity is correctly (historically) scaled for the region you are in.

Moreover both the air and ground unit activity varies as the war progresses which is why 1915 is a quieter year than 1917 and 1918.

Hence FPS will be better in 1915.

Hence FPS will be better in a quieter region

 

Generally Alsace is probably the quietest followed by Marne, Verdun and then the busiest region by far is Flanders but the coastal areas (seefrosta region) is also fairly quiet.

 

You can scale the regional activity factor via workshops (Regional air activity) but the relative scaling/balancing factors as described above will always remain you just have proportionally less activity across the board.

So 1915 will still be the quietest time and Flanders will still be the busiest but overall easier on your Rig - hope that makes sense.

 

 

HTH

 

 

WM

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Makes sense to me, and I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning. Thanks for the info Winder, I have noticed and wondered about this same thing when flying.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Tamper 9]

Winder,

 

The discussion about regional activity makes perfect sense, of course. Given that OFF goes to lengths for historical accuracy, it's no surpirse at all that certain areas would be busier than others.

 

Can you offer any comment on the observations about different plane types?

 

TIA for your time and effort!

Edited April 30, 2009 by Tamper

[+Winder 32]

Winder,

 

The discussion about regional activity makes perfect sense, of course. Given that OFF goes to lengths for historical accuracy, it's no surpirse at all that certain areas would be busier than others.

 

Can you offer any comment on the observations about different plane types?

 

TIA for your time and effort!

 

Sure - some craft have very high polycounts and hit FPS higher than others you will notice this more on middle to low range GPUs than high end GPUs.

 

Yes the regional activity is dictated 'historically' by an OOB (Order of Battles) database and it dictates the activity for every day of the entire war but scaled 'globally' to work with the CPUs we have and the settings in the workshops.

 

In time this can be scaled up as CPUs improve - IOW I left it very open ended...

 

Best

 

WM.

[Olham 164]

Interesting info, thanks Winder.

So, until I can update my rig, I could try a Seefrosta campaign; and my Marne region is also okay.

 

If I understand right, I could leave my waypoints path in 1917 or 1918, and would sooner or later

meet other enemy squadrons, as they are all historically underway?

I realised before, that in the after flight report, you can see other incidents near your fight happened.

This is incredible!

[Guest Barnstorm]

WM, et al.,

I appreciate your input. What puzzles me is that my system runs better flying a Alb. DAV in 1917 than a E.III or Alb.II in 1915 or '16. I really don't' mind, the scenery at the coast is fantastic. Too bad it's October....no bathing beauties out on the beach .

But, air-combat over the channel can be ricky...easy to loose SA due to the sky and water being the same color.

BTW, by default, the "Disable Water Animation" function is checked in CFSconfig.exe. Is the water animation functional in BH&H, should we want to activate it and is it great drain on resources?

[Cameljockey 3]

You have the game, try it and see.

 

CJ

[Guest Barnstorm]

Thanks, CJ. You're right...Never thought of that. Ask a stupid question......

[Guest Barnstorm]

Since I asked....Yes the water animations are functional and they look good. No, there is no appreciable drop in FPS with them activated.