MA maps and frame rate

[mora]

Why is it that some maps in MA are so terrible frame rate hogs? Currently the OZ Kansas is on and it halves my FR compared to most other maps. Maybe some of the maps are lacking some optimization? I wonder why HTC even bothers putting them up as it likely drives customers away.

There's plenty of extremely nice maps in the CT with plenty of eye candy, but they don't really affect FR that much. I admit that my rig is old, but even with a better rig there's a noticeable FR hit on OZ Kansas which lowers playability.

[214thCavalier]

I went into the CT about 2 weeks ago and the frame rate in there was so bad i had to reduce graphics settings from my usual MA options.

Not bothered trying CT since.

I do not expect to have to dumb down my graphics card settings playing from 1 arena to another.

[Engine]

Framerate is my biggest gripe about AH.  I love the game, but if I can play HL2 and Doom3 with better fps, it seems like something's screwy here.

[TrueKill]

Originally posted by 214thCavalier
I went into the CT about 2 weeks ago and the frame rate in there was so bad i had to reduce graphics settings from my usual MA options.

Not bothered trying CT since.

I do not expect to have to dumb down my graphics card settings playing from 1 arena to another.

cuz that huge BoB map was on that map is a FR hog go there when theres another map on.

[detch01]

Originally posted by TrueKill
cuz that huge BoB map was on that map is a FR hog go there when theres another map on.

Weird... I'm running a 1.4GHz processor, 256mg of RAM with a 64MB nVidia card and getting about 10% better frame rates on the BoB terrain than I do with the large terrains in the MA.  No idea what's causing  that difference.



asw

[mora]

Originally posted by Engine
Framerate is my biggest gripe about AH.  I love the game, but if I can play HL2 and Doom3 with better fps, it seems like something's screwy here.

Of course you can't compare those games to AH because there's practically no physics modelling etc.  But yes, FR is my biggest gripe too. The AH2 isn't inherently bad in this regard, for example on maps like lake uterus(what the heck is it's real name?) I get great frame rates like 60 or so in tower.

[Skuzzy]

In HL and Doom, I can count the number of polys visible on my fingers and toes.

Its not the size of the maps, it is the number of objects visible.  If you could see 15+ miles in a 360 degree sphere, Doom and HL would choke your system as well.
Flight simulators will always be harsher on your system than any first person shooter ever thought of being.

Do you realize how high your frame rate would be if we restricted your view distance to say, 100 yards?  WOW!  Of course, you couldn't shoot anything down, but your frame rate would be killer!

EDIT:  mora is quite right.  For all the eye candy in HL and Doom, they are 2D stick cartoon games compared to the amount of math a good flight simulator has to do.

[Elfie]

Skuzzy why are there so many more objects visible on the big maps then on the small/medium maps?

I do ok FR-wise on the medium and small maps but the large maps really slow my system down in any kind of furball.

[Skuzzy]

It is not the number of objects, it is not the size of the map, it is how close they are all together.  Some of the maps have fields and towns right on top of each other.

The map could be a 10 mile square, if you put enough stuff in that 10 mile square it will bring down your frame rates.

[Engine]

Thanks for the clarification. I do keep wondering whether polygons are being rendered needlessly on my end, though.  For instance, if there's a spit 4.5k distant from me, it's rendering a simplified spit model, right?  Not the whole spit skin, replete with rudder, ailerons, cockpit struts, etc etc?

And I assume if this is the case, one of the graphics sliders within AH controls the distance at which the more advanced poly models are rendered?

[Skuzzy]

There are LOD's to keep the full object from being drawn when it is in the distance.