Chance To Improve Performance

[Chaingun 0]

Config.cfg edit

 

Gives a slight improvement on my system, you might want to give it a try.

 

Post your results.

[GI_Jew 0]

My performance was improved by a minimum of 10 fps. Im now getting an average of 35-40 fps.

 

My specs are:

 

Athlon XP 2000+

ASUS A7V333

Sapphire Radeon 256mb 9800XT

512mb PC2700

[Cretin 0]

Interesting! Did not affect my system either way.

 

Athlon 2200 XP+

Asus A7V333

1024 DDR

Radeon 9800, 128 mb

[Cretin 0]

I've kept up on the threads you linked to, Chaingun. Still a pretty lively discussion going on. Still mixed results.

 

One thing I noticed is that folks are not consistently stating which OS version they are using. Wonder if differences is OS version could account for the varied outcomes?

 

Some are saying that there is no sound basis to the idea, that it could not possibly have any effect. Others are swearing that they are getting dramatic increases in FPS.

 

The truth is, "Only the Shadow knows!" :ph34r:

[Chaingun 0]

:D Concur on the OS possibilities, computers are some strange creatures and nobody knows which way the Tron God is going favor at any given moment. I can definitely understand how difficult it must be to code anything over a simple 10 line basic program and have it work on the multitudes of different hardware combinations that are floating around in this world.

 

It seems two identically configured systems, hardware wise, could develop many different problems from simple setting configurations. (What works for one does not necessarily work for the others) what ever happened to the supposed standards that things are suppose to be able to adhere to............

Edited December 25, 2003 by Chaingun

[Cretin 0]

Truer words were never spoken, Kimosabe! Tweaking is much more of an art than a science. Standards? Ho, ho, ho! :D

 

Here's what I have observed with my system:

 

1) LOMAC runs better, smoother, faster at 32 bit than 16 bit.

 

2) Runs faster with graphics card settings cranked to max. 9800, 128 mb, 4 x FSAA, 16 x AF!!!

 

3) Runs smoother with "Effects" set to "High".

 

4) "Advanced Haze" is a big FPS killer.

 

Go figure! All of those things are surprising to me.

 

"Who am I to blow against the wind?" :ph34r:

[Tuff 0]

I got about a 6fps gain with that little tweak. Good stuff

 

Tuff

[Chaingun 0]

For me,

 

1)there is no difference between 32 and 16 bit maybe 1 fps or so.

2)Graphics set mostly to medium with heat blur off, lights to none, water to low and shadows set to active planar. With 2x AA it drops off about 5 or 6 fps or so, not bad but when you only get like 20 or so those 5 or 6 count for a lot more than usual. ;)

3)Haven't tried with effects set to high due to card won't take it (8500LE)

4)Advanced Haze same as #3

 

In the test that I like to run which is the Mig-29's taking off in a thunderstorm, average about 22 fps through the clouds then drops to 14 or so above the cloudtops. (this is with the med clouds fix installed)

 

It looks great, just wish I could pick it up a little bit more. Maybe the next version of the Catalyst drivers will make it a little bit better, or maybe they can squeeze a little bit more performance out of the code with the patch coming soon. With settings set to low, it's the same performance wise as with the settings on medium.

[Chaingun 0]

I got about a 6fps gain with that little tweak. Good stuff

 

Tuff

What are your system specs. Just curious

 

[Cretin 0]

He he! This is blowing me away! :D

 

P.S. Give the "fast-overcast_v3_low.zip" a try, Chaingun. Still looks great but even faster than medium.

[Chaingun 0]

My regular settings: Textures: High Scenes: Med Terr Prld: 50KM Civ Traffic:Yes Water:Low Haze:Basic Lights:None VisibleRange:Med Effects:Low HeatBlr:Off Shadows:ActivePlanar Color:32bit Resolution:1024x768

2003-12-08 19:09:23 - LockOn

Frames: 15476 - Time: 725328ms - Avg: 21.336 - Min: 4 - Max: 75

 

 

Stock Med settings with the v3 overcast low fix

2003-12-25 21:48:44 - LockOn

Frames: 1261 - Time: 83406ms - Avg: 15.118 - Min: 8 - Max: 57

 

Med settings with 32 bit color set

2003-12-25 21:51:25 - LockOn

Frames: 1411 - Time: 90672ms - Avg: 15.561 - Min: 8 - Max: 57

 

Low settings stock

2003-12-25 21:53:33 - LockOn

Frames: 1687 - Time: 93391ms - Avg: 18.063 - Min: 8 - Max: 65

 

Low settings with 32 bit color set

2003-12-25 21:58:00 - LockOn

Frames: 1509 - Time: 97000ms - Avg: 15.556 - Min: 8 - Max: 57

 

All above set at 1024x768 resolution set to balanced (default settings on the Catalyst 3.10)

Below 800x600 32 bit color unless noted.

 

Low settings w/16 bit color w/2xAA

2003-12-25 22:19:38 - LockOn

Frames: 2353 - Time: 98734ms - Avg: 23.831 - Min: 15 - Max: 62

 

Low w/ 32 bit and High Textures selected. w/ 2xAA

2003-12-25 22:22:05 - LockOn

Frames: 2076 - Time: 99360ms - Avg: 20.893 - Min: 11 - Max: 61

 

So you can see there is not that much of a difference between 800x600 and 1024x768 on my 8500 anyway. The top scores are with the Medium Overcast that I had installed and the bottom ones are from the v3 fast Overcast installed. By the way if you have any ideas on speeding this thing up please feel free. After all, I guess that's why we're all here anyway. :D

Edited December 26, 2003 by Chaingun

[Tuff 0]

I got about a 6fps gain with that little tweak. Good stuff

 

Tuff

What are your system specs. Just curious

 

AthlonXP 2800

Nvidia 5700 ultra 128meg(53.03)

SB live X-Gamer

1gig DDR

WinXP

 

Tuff

[Chaingun 0]

Nice Machine, maybe one of these days mine will finally grow up..... :D

 

But for now it don't do tooooo bad. I haven't figured out yet which would do me better, a new motherboard, cpu combo, or a new graphics card....

 

Got the money for it, just got to make up my mind.

Something in a Nforce 2 w/ 2500+

or an ATI Radeon 9600 XT

 

Tough Choice.

 

Thoughts anyone, which would provide the biggest bang for the buck.

 

Thanks.

[Tuff 0]

My first step would be RAM and ditch that video card. Go for the 9600pro and save some money, performance differences between the XT and the PRO are very little.

[Cretin 0]

Uh oh! Looks like the foreplay is over! :D

[Chaingun 0]

Sure, be a wise guy. I see how it is now......

[Cretin 0]

:D Ok, ok ok. :D

 

I bought a new machine a year ago. I'm quite pleased with the way things turned out. Here is how I went about it:

 

1) I went to the hardcore technogeek sites and reviewed only hard test data for components. No opinions.

 

2) When I encountered something that I did not know or did not understand I made it my business to learn it and understand it.

 

3) I looked at the test setups carefully to make certain that they were valid in terms of what I was trying to accomplish.

 

All of the above constitutes immunization from BS. :P

 

Since I have no experience building a PC from scratch, I checked out builders. Really put them through the wringer by phone and email. I settled on one and got a good deal on what I wanted. Since then I have upgraded my DDR and graphics card myself. This is what I learned from that:

 

1) It is a SYSTEM! A collection of top quality components does not necessarily a fast computer make. That is where a good, proven, experienced builder of performance systems can be of value. They can save you money as well!

 

2) Going from 512 to 1024 of DDR didn't seem to affect FPS in flight sims at all! Fancy that!

 

3) The 9800 did not give me faster FPS than the Ti-4600 BUT the QUALITY of the graphics is much better.

 

4) The test of a system is not max FPS, it's whether it can sustain smooth playability in the most demanding situations.

 

5) A bottleneck in your system will piss you right the heck off. Don't go there. Think system.

 

As regards flight sims:

 

1) Because a component or system yields good benchmarks doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to do well with flight sims. If it runs "Serious Sam" well all that means is that it runs "Serious Sam" well.

 

2) MOST flight sims are more CPU dependent than they are RAM dependent.

 

You'll notice that I have not made any specific suggestions. That is because:

 

1) I'm not up on all the latest.

 

2) I don't have any certainty regarding what will bring the most improvement for the least money with your particular and unique system. That is why I have focused on process.

 

It's a hell of a game we play with puter magic. You never know for sure until AFTER you've spent the money! :(

 

That is the best I have to offer on the subject. It was good for me. Was it good for you? B)

[Tuff 0]

Uh oh! Looks like the foreplay is over!  :D

Hehe

 

I also mugged Santa last night and got a new 19inch flat screen moniter

[Cretin 0]

Yo! Life is Tuff, huh? :D

 

I have a 17 inch CRT. Got a real good deal on it BUT it only goes to 1024 x 1280 and the refresh rate is like 60 up there. :(

 

Well, your sims should have a whole new look for 2004! Glad you scored. Have big fun! B)

[Tuff 0]

The difference is night and day! All this time I thought that gray was black, lol my old moniter is from my first pc back in 97.

 

Tuff

[Chaingun 0]

Cretin,

 

Your layout in that post is actually very well done. Would make a great checklist for what needs to be done to consider the options as I laid them out. Think I'm going to go with the 9600 Pro, as Tuff said the extra money doesn't constitute extra cost of the XT, and my trusty 1700 still runs FB pretty darn well. :D

 

If you don't mind my asking, how did you get your callsign. Mine, use to be just Chain until Red Baron 3d, Chain was used so I had to think of something else, it was a stretch but ah, it worked. Besides fits my personality, If it don't have guns, why fly it.

 

By the way, I've enjoyed chatting with ya tonight.

 

I salute ya, :D

[Cretin 0]

Holy moly, that IS an old monitor! You must feel like you just got an entirely new system. Hey, when all is said and done it comes down to what you SEE on the screen!

[Tuff 0]

Yup, I layed her to rest this morning out in the shed.

 

 

off to bed, nice talking with yall.

 

Tuff

[Cretin 0]

Right back at ya, Chain. Been a nice way to spend part of Xmas. :D

 

Well, here's the straight scoop on how I got my handle. When my wife and I get ticked off with each other we start calling each other names. That gets us laughing so hard that whatever the original issue was disappears. "Cretin" was the best one she came up with to dump on me. I took it up because it was unique and because I figured that it gave me active immunity. No matter what I get called it probably will never be as good a dump as "Cretin" already is. :D

 

Yeah, go for it! The card sounds like a good idea. Your CPU is no slouch. You can have a big adventure putting it in and seeing what happens. The suspense is already killing me! :D

 

Glad you came over to this forum. You fit right in. Nice folks here. Have a good new year, although I suspect we'll be seeing each other around before that.

 

Keep your canopy out of the dirt!

 

All the best,

"Cretin"

[Cretin 0]

See ya, Tuff. :D