A Specific Tweaking Question

[Von Paulus 8]

 

Intel ICH8R/DO/DH/ SATA RAID Controller.

 

Yes it means that.

 

I know it's "only" a Pentium D 2.8 processor, but I'd say the biggest bottleneck is the graphic card.

If I were you, I'd try set in the workshop "Regional Air Activity" to light and "Ground Object Density" to low.

In cfsconfig would try to disable shadows.

[zoomzoom 2]

Already there. Perhaps if the processor is inadequate, a new machine is in order. Was thinking though that a RAID array may give the small extra boost needed(cause the slow down/hangs seem to be due to loading speed), as I have a feeling the speed of the drive is likely limited. But if the processor is enemic, what good will any of it do?

 

ZZ.

Edited April 22, 2010 by zoomzoom

[Tamper 9]

Thanks for getting back to us :)

 

Dells have a Service Tag number, usually a bar code on the back, some 6 alpha-numeric characters. Getting that (if you can) will help us more, because Dell keeps *exact* records on the configuration of every machine they sell. It will not only confirm the motherboard (see below) but will also tell us about the hard disk (since you indicate it hasn't been changed).

 

If you can't get that, you can go into Windows' Device Manager, click the "+" beside "Disk Drives" and you'll see all your drives. Any CDs/DVDs should be fairly obvious, and you'll also see the hard disk model number. Take that number and Google it, or post it here; we can use that to get specs on the drive itself.

 

Now for some "good news/bad news": I've looked at what Dell says is the motherboard in that machine. First, the drive controller on the board does appear to support SATA300 drives, so at least it's not *so* old (as to have AGP video and IDE/PATA hard disk).

 

And, as VP mentioned, the Intel ICH8R means the board does have RAID.

 

However, pending confirmation of the Service Tag Number, the board only appears to support RAID1, which is a 'mirrored' RAID array (RAID0 is striped). This means, unfortunately, you won't gain much by way of drive speed with building a RAID array.

 

There are still options, though: You can use an SSD. They're still quite pricey, compared size-per-unit of storage to a conventional drive. And they aren't without some limitations, as I touched on earlier - this may dissuade you altogether (and nothing at all wrong with that). But the big payoff with SSDs is, as above, the random seek speed and read speed in general, which seems to help (or completely eliminate, in my case) the "small texture load stutter".

 

You could also consider an add-in card RAID controller that will support RAID0 configurations. I have an add-in card that cost a sinful amount ($300) but is a 'real' (hardware-based) RAID controller. You needn't spend that at all to get RAID0 speed advantage, just letting you know there is a difference between the (*ahem*) "inexpensive" cards and those where performance has priority. (But I'm sure you already knew that this is the case, just like CPU's, video cards, and everything else *lol*).

 

So, if you want, I'll tell you more about RAID add-in cards.

 

Also, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, allow me to remind you: It would be worth your time to download both HDTach and the ATTO disk benchmarks. At the end of the day, I can yammer on about this and that, but what you want to find out about is performance.

 

I wanted to ask you a question: If I've followed, you indicated the 'micro-stutter' doesn't always occur, but is definite and noticable when it *does* occur - is this correct?

 

I ask, because it sort of ties in with something I noticed long ago about OFF (P2, at least) and others have asked about. Have you noticed it seems to happen more (or 'only') depending on the aircraft that are 'popping in'? Or, perhaps only over certain areas/certain time periods in the war?

 

Each of these has given me cause, either in my own observations or as reported by others, to suspect loading - and is why I ultimately decided to do something aggressive to minimize texture loading time. For me, I finally figured out that (at least) the Airco DH2 - again, back in P2 - would stutter reliably as the sun, not only when it first 'popped in' but also as the range grew progressively shorter. In my mind this made sense, because the closer you get (I assume) the more detailed the other aircraft's textures are displayed - hence, texture loading.

 

I even went so far as to look at all the planes, and sure enough, some of the files are much bigger than others. Mind you, this isn't to say that bigger *automatically* equalled stutter - but there was obviously a noticable difference. Some planes stuttered predictably, while others didn't at all. (This is much easier to figure out in QC sessions, since you can easily adjust the type/number of other planes).

 

One last thing (for now - sorry to go on) - based on the 'texture loading' association, I also figured something else out a long time ago. Every configuration reference I've ever seen for the "overrides" section of the graphics properties mentioned you should check (select) "Terrain Detail Texture".

 

But I found that, especially on slower machines, de-selecting this makes a big difference in performance. As you might expect, it steeply cuts into the realism of the terrain, but it's a great way to squeeze performance out of even some of the most hopelessly outclassed hardware, in my experience. It's the difference between playable and not, literally, on some machines. (I have 9 computers at home, ranging from a very slow Pentium 3 @ 1Ghz with a FX5200 card on AGP 4x graphics...to an Core2Duo e8400 with a GTX260/216, so I have lots of variance in 'test beds').

 

Sorry, again, to go on. Look forward to hearing back.

[zoomzoom 2]

Thanks Tamper! I'll try to download those performance testers ASAP, as well as get you the code and data you mentioned. That way we'll know exactly what were dealing with. Its to the point where I have to make a decision of whether any upgrade will rally help that much, or if I simply need to get a better system. The I'll start a new thread on what system is the best for OFF!! In the meantime, like you said, If I can de-bug and refine this one effectively and cheaply enough, it may be viable.

 

Some items of note.

 

I can usually play with the Terrain slider on 2 in most missions, but if there his heavy action, and near the front, it bogs down to 6 to 10 fps, basically unplayable even set to 1, and this is with all other sliders on 1 or 2.

 

As I mentioned, I have an ATI graphics card. If I employ the Overdrive function, (after having the ATI system auto configure my clock speeds) the game will lock up after the first 25 to 30 seconds of play, and flash to a wierd vertical barred screen, or black, and I must restart the machine.

 

So I think there's the possibility that adjusting settings in a few areas (and debugging) might show some improvement.

 

 

ZZ.

 

I'll get back with the DELL #. By the way, heard a guy talk about creating a RAID of RAPTORS. No its not a new video game!! Sounded cool, but of course, ridiculously expensive, I might as well buy a new machine.

 

At this point it would be a RAVED...Random Array of Very Expensive Drives.

Edited April 26, 2010 by zoomzoom

[Morris 2]

RAID of RAPTORS will not help you (stutters).

 

but

 

new RAID of High performance SSD will HELP..

 

m

Edited April 26, 2010 by Morris

[zoomzoom 2]

Alright, more data.

 

Here is what info I could derive about the drive. It is a WDCWD 1600JS-75NCB3.

 

I also did the atto and bench mark tests and have the files from that saved, so I can send them to you if you can interpret them. I couldn't .

 

 

ZZ.

 

PS.

 

Another thing I discovered is that if you increase the size of the "Paging File" the game smooths out considerably. I'm playing with that setting as well....I've got it around 7000 MB right now, and it seems to help. Again, a faster Hard Drive may assist this as well.

 

I did find this:

 

 

Specs

Western Digital a.k.a. Western Digital WD1600JS75NCB3 and other part numbers OverviewController TypeSATACapacityCache Size8 MBDisk Storage160 GBDetailsDetails (continued)Drive TypeInternalRPM7200 RPMDimensionsDrive Width3.5"

Edited April 27, 2010 by zoomzoom

[Von Paulus 8]

I bet that OFF won't use more than 2GB virtual memory. And XP won't use more than 2GB also unless you use a switch in your boot.ini file.

Besides that you may have to patch your cfs3.exe and offmanager.exe. For that you must use this tool.

Before this you must backup you exe files; technically there will be no problem, but who knows...

That might give you a boost.

Besides these tips you can always create a fix pagefile of 3071-3071.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Von Paulus

[zoomzoom 2]

Interesting. Can you explain to me exactly what this does VP? I'm a bit unfamiliar.

 

Thanks,

 

ZZ.

 

PS, that may help. I actually have 4 gig of Ram in the machine, but apparently XP only uses and or recognizes 3 gig of this 4. Will enabling using the entire three gig mess the machine up as this is all it seems to recognize?

Edited April 27, 2010 by zoomzoom

[Von Paulus 8]

ZZ, look at this.

[zoomzoom 2]

I may give it a go. How exactly do you back up your exe. file? Location etc....I assume you just make a copy and save it.

 

ZZ.

[Von Paulus 8]

Exactly ZZ. Just copy to another place. And if there's any trouble just replace the patched ones with these.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Von Paulus