Antialisong

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by RedGiant
Well, to add to your analogy, having a better video card is like topping off the tank in the Ferrari with every clock cycle.  Better cards have higher memory bandwidth and faster GPU's so they can replace those resources far quicker than older cards.  C'mon man  There are games out there with 1000X better graphics and physics than Aces High.  From what you're saying, those games should barely run or not run at all when you hold them to your criteria.  .

This is where your argument falls apart.  There is not a game on the planet which has more physics involved in it than a good flight simulator.  None.

Secondly, concerning the graphics of the game.  You are acting on visual data alone which is very misleading as it pertains to what is actually being done.  You show a lack of understanding of how DirectX works.  DirectX works hard to not replace textures used, so they can be quickly reused.  The less video RAM available, the less those textures can be cached.

The speed of the video card is irrelevant.  It is all about the volume of data needed to process a single frame.  All data has to be present before the frame can be rendered.  If you exceed video RAM capacity, then the card is forced to work across the bus it is plugged into which will cause a performance hit.

The video card recommendations were true when it was written.  I'll go back and update that text.  The high res texture pack is nice for those who have cards that can handle it.  But when you start pumping up the AA, the amount of video RAM needed goes up by a factor.  Then add skins on top of that, which we did not have when we first shipped the high res texture pack and it is quite easy for the game to overwhlem the resources of any video card, including the NVidia 8800GT.

The game could use up to 4GB of video RAM if you have AA set to 4X, when you have all the skins loaded and the high resolution texture pack as well.

[Skuzzy]

I'd like to go back and address one thing about anti-aliasing.  I incorrectly stated the texture size requirements based on the anti-aliasing levels.

While there are many algorithms used in anti-aliasing, it can be pretty much assumed those all act on frame buffers after all the textures have been merged into the frame and there are multiple frame buffers used depending on the AA settings.

In the end you really have to decide on your own as to whether or not it is worth it or not.  Pertaining to video graphics, nothing is free.  I would advise a conservative approach.  Every computer is different and every computer is configured differently via the software loaded on it.  Indeed, I know od many players who have much faster hardware than I have but the game runs poorly for them.

No one is better equipped to determine the ramification of any video setting than the person who owns the computer.  It is why I try to not make recommendations based on any given hardware.  I have no idea what else is loaded on your computer and no one can know the exact perspective or priority you have as it pertains to the game.

All one can do is try it, and if you do not like the results, turn it off or down.  Of course, it helps to understand the impact of any given setting.  AA makes the game look good, especially in screenshots, but is has performance implications.  It is not something you want to run when working on films.  It can cause stutters, frame rate drops, and so on.  If you over load a video card, that is what happens.

[wooly15]

[Max]

Until a few weeks ago, I used an eMachine laptop based on an early AMD 64+ chipset using an onboard Radeon Mobility vid card. Total system memory was 768 MG. Overall I had a 50+ FR that would peak at screen refresh rate maybe 50% of the time. My in-game texture was set to 512.
End result? Pretty good ground details, no shimmering. Cockpit details were ok but not great.

New system: Intel Core 2 Duo running at 3 Ghz with 2 Gig of RAM + 7600GT 256 MG GF card. AH vid settings now are HiRes. While the cockpits now look crisp n clean as a whistle, certain ground details shimmer, despite pushing AA up to 16x as recommneded by Falcon23. Haven't encountered any stuttering yet. I haven't had the time to tweak the nHancer setting enough to lower the shimmering.

My guess is there's a trade-off here. The plan is to go back to  512 textures and drop AA back to 4x and see what the difference is...I'm guessing less shimmering and less crisp cockpit details. We'll see.

[RedGiant]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
This is where your argument falls apart.  There is not a game on the planet which has more physics involved in it than a good flight simulator.  None.

Secondly, concerning the graphics of the game.  You are acting on visual data alone which is very misleading as it pertains to what is actually being done.  You show a lack of understanding of how DirectX works.  DirectX works hard to not replace textures used, so they can be quickly reused.  The less video RAM available, the less those textures can be cached.

The speed of the video card is irrelevant.  It is all about the volume of data needed to process a single frame.  All data has to be present before the frame can be rendered.  If you exceed video RAM capacity, then the card is forced to work across the bus it is plugged into which will cause a performance hit.

The video card recommendations were true when it was written.  I'll go back and update that text.  The high res texture pack is nice for those who have cards that can handle it.  But when you start pumping up the AA, the amount of video RAM needed goes up by a factor.  Then add skins on top of that, which we did not have when we first shipped the high res texture pack and it is quite easy for the game to overwhlem the resources of any video card, including the NVidia 8800GT.

The game could use up to 4GB of video RAM if you have AA set to 4X, when you have all the skins loaded and the high resolution texture pack as well.

What??????  Oh yes there is.  COD4, Crysis, FLIGHT SIMULATOR X, Eve Online.  Just to name a few.  Are you claiming AH uses more than these games where water shimmers and produces waves depending on weather conditions and leaves characteristic patterns depending on how you move when you walk on it, trees sway due to wind, human bodies take up an ultra-realistic rag-doll effect when damaged (shot, exploded, etc.)
 
C'mon man.  No offense, and I LOVE AH, but AH graphics and physics are a generation or two behind, at best.  I'm not sure when AH2 was released.  However, my best guess would be 03-04????  There is no weather, trees do not sway, water does not move (except the sprites seen while in a boat or grass/dirt being kicked up when in a GV but that doesn't count). I see an indication for wind but have never seen it implemented.  However, there isn't much physics involved in all of that.  The only large amount of physics involved is in the flight engine.  Don't get me wrong, the flight engine characteristics are great.  Probably some of the best around for a flight sim, even for today.  However, that's really not much when you compare it to games released in the last 2-3 years with their advanced physics/graphic/sound engines.  And those physics characteristics are only observed in the flight engine.  As I said, I don't see any water moving, no trees swaying, not even legs moving on the troops.  Obviously there have been upgrades and updates to the flight model and what not.  But you're still working with a game made back in 03-04.  There have been HUGE advancements since then in the gaming industry in every aspect, as I'm sure you know.  The criteria you mention of AH taking up to 4 gigs of video ram: Current generation games don't even use that much.  I have a problem believing that AH takes 8 times as much memory as Crysis or Oblivion.  Even at 1600X1200, neither of those game use that much.  And they are much more advanced than AH in every way.    

And, I understand DirectX perfectly.  I have been a beta tester for every release candidate since DX2.  How about you?  If I may, you said  DirectX (depending on which release) works hard to NOT replace textures so they can be reused.  HOWEVER, if those textures are being shown from a different perspective or angle, you cannot reuse those textures.  You must render them again at the proper angle and geometry.  When you must re-render these textures, speed and performance is life.
 
However, as I said before, which I will say again:
A better video card can and will replace those resources FASTER, so quality of card has EVERYTHING to do with it.  I like to think of it similar to Voltage vs. Amperage.  Voltage is the actual amount of electricity, amperage is the amount of "pressure" (so to speak) the electricity is running at.  A videocard runs the same way however it's "voltage" and "amperage" (I am speaking figuratively) are dependent on how much memory it has, the speed of the memory, how fast the GPU is and so forth.  Newer cards have more pixel shaders, more vertex shaders, higher bandwidth memory, faster GPU, etc. in order to bring in large amounts of data, process the info (including FSAA) and put out that data at a faster rate than a lower end card would.  When one gets SLi or Crossfire involved, the amount of data it can handle can potentially quadruple.  PCI/e 2.0 transfer rate has a potential transfer rate of 16gb/s across the bus both ways.  Well within the realm of more than adequately producing every frame of data that you say would take up to 4gb's of memory.  To continue what I mentioned in the paragraph above: I doubt the game uses that much video ram even at the highest possible settings.  Show me some more proof if you wish.  First off, there is no 4GB video card so why would you even offer the option for 1024 textures at higher resolutions if it truly required that much memory?  That would mean that all of us(even with the best system) could only run the game at an abysmal 1024X768(the lowest resolution available) with 512 textures or less with no FSAA and none of the other options you offer.  Secondly, my 4 year old PC runs the game at the settings you mentioned without a hitch.  And third, even the latest games using the latest graphic,physics, and sound  engines don't use that much.  If AH truly uses that much video ram, it was poorly and inefficiently written.

Personally, I run the game on several computers, including a  4 year old laptop.  The Specs of one of them is
a P4 3.2 ghz w/800mhz FSB, 1meg L2.  2 Sticks equaling 2 gigs of matched PC4000 RAM, and a Geforce 6800UltraExtreme(AGP).  ON A DAILY BASIS, I run AH at 1280X1024 with the enhanced texture package at 1024 w/4xAA at the High Quality setting in the Nvidia control panel (and until now, was running 8xAF but shut it down now that I know AH doesn't use AF).  By your standards, I should not be getting the constant 60FPS or better (rarely dipping to 40) that I'm receiving.  Can you explain why?

However, the system is substandard at running the games I mentioned before (Crysis, COD4, Etc.).  I have to run those games at the lowest possible settings on this particular PC and it's not even really worth it.  I'm spoiled. However, when I feel like spending the evening in the basement away from pesky children and wifeack, on my new build, especially when running them in DX10 mode (which COD4 doesn't support unfortunately, but still looks awesome) it is life-like in almost every way.  Again, I'm pretty sure those games are putting through much more data than AH, and yes, you CAN tell by what you see on the screen.  It is your best judge(if you know what to look for)  Your eyes do not deceive you.

Respectfully, I understand what you are to this game and that you have an image to uphold.  I can respect that.  However, you are not all knowing as you lead to believe and there is no need to be insulting by saying "you show a lack of knowledge/understanding" about something.  I've been in the industry for over 25 years and I'll talk shop with anyone all day, all night, at anytime.

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by RedGiant
What??????  Oh yes there is.  COD4, Crysis, FLIGHT SIMULATOR X, Eve Online.  Just to name a few.  Are you claiming AH uses more than these games where water shimmers and produces waves depending on weather conditions and leaves characteristic patterns depending on how you move when you walk on it, trees sway due to wind, human bodies take up an ultra-realistic rag-doll effect when damaged (shot, exploded, etc.)

Water shimmering and waves are done with shaders, not physics,  I have written those shaders before.  There are many tricks used to fool the human eye as it pertains to the use of 3D graphics.  Most do not need physics to accomplish the task.  Rag doll does use physics.  If you think that is more intense than a flight model, then you are sadly mistaken.

Flight modeling is the most intense physics modeling there is.  If it is was easy, aeronautical companies would not need multiple supercomputers to accurately model flight tests of new approaches in design.  And Flight Sim X is a flight simulator.  I never stated AH was the only flight sim using physics.  I believe I said, "any good flight simulator".

The others do not come close to matching the calucations per frame of any good flight simulator.  The thing about flight simulators is the amount of physics calculations done, per frame, which have nothing to do with the graphics.

What those other games do more than we do is lighting calculations.  They do make extensive use of lighting, which is mostly simple math calculations, but it is iterative which is expensive.

As far as DirectX goes, I wrote a game engine (graphics, sound, input....) using it.  I figure it really is the only way to get a handle on how it worked.  I am not rying to insult you, but when you state something about our game that is erroneous, I will call you on it to the extent of letting you know you are wrong.  That is as far as I can go.  To go further would be a breach of our intellectual property.

I never said you cannot run AA, nor have I said flat out that AA is bad.  I am saying every system is different, even with the same hardware, they are different.  If you experience stutters and gameplay which is not smooth, then you cannot rule out AA being an issue.

Resource problems are almost always manifested by motion in a 3D environment which is not smooth.  Every person has to decide what is acceptable for them and thier systems.  No one can make blanket statements about the use of AA and have it apply to every computer, including me.

When someone asks about it, my best answer is to try it and if you like it then leave it there.  When someone advocates turning up to absolute maximums without explaining the possible downsides to using AA, then I will intervene.  One should not pretend there is never any possible downside to using any advanced feature of a video card.

[moot]

Yep.. That's why Nvidia (and maybe others) started including physics calculations on their cards not too long ago.  At the time I thought "Huh?? Physics on a video card?" but, like Skuzzy says, it's more about fooling your eyes than truly modeling the physics of something.  It works in generic cases like water shimmering.
It helps take some of the load off the CPU, so the actual physics calculations get more of the budget.

[VonMessa]

The only time I see water shimmering is when I'm about to lawn dart into it.  To me its useless.

Seems like someone has made Skuzzy bring out the Skuzz Stick.


If there are better games for you, why are you worried about the performance of this one?  Why waste the space you use to argue your point?  Have you nothing better to do?  Is it really that important to see the nipples on a sheep at 400mph  from 5K?  

While you are looking at the scenery, take some screenshots for me.  I don't have the time.  I will be too busy shooting you down, while you are sightseeing.

Want more realism?  Join the navy and be a squid.  You can fly all you want, there.

[RedGiant]

Originally posted by VonMessa
The only time I see water shimmering is when I'm about to lawn dart into it.  To me its useless.

Seems like someone has made Skuzzy bring out the Skuzz Stick.


If there are better games for you, why are you worried about the performance of this one?  Why waste the space you use to argue your point?  Have you nothing better to do?  Is it really that important to see the nipples on a sheep at 400mph  from 5K?  

While you are looking at the scenery, take some screenshots for me.  I don't have the time.  I will be too busy shooting you down, while you are sightseeing.

Want more realism?  Join the navy and be a squid.  You can fly all you want, there.

Part of gaming is (especially in a flight sim) is realism.  If you would care less about realism, good for you.  I wish I was that easy to please.  However, I am not.  So, I enjoy playing games that offer world that is as realistic as possible so that I may immerse myself in it.  You may poke fun at this if you wish.

However, when you are seated in your virtual cockpit of your favorite plane, in the middle of a big furbal (especially when you are doing very well for yourself /squadmates/country), you cannot tell me that you are not immersed in the game play.  Having more realism in a game enhances that.  Being a flight sim, I understand that for the most part, wavy water and grass/dirt that moves, etc. means very much, unless one is in a GV (because you obviously don't see that stuff from the air too well).

[RedGiant]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Water shimmering and waves are done with shaders, not physics,  I have written those shaders before.  There are many tricks used to fool the human eye as it pertains to the use of 3D graphics.  Most do not need physics to accomplish the task.  Rag doll does use physics.  If you think that is more intense than a flight model, then you are sadly mistaken.

Flight modeling is the most intense physics modeling there is.  If it is was easy, aeronautical companies would not need multiple supercomputers to accurately model flight tests of new approaches in design.  And Flight Sim X is a flight simulator.  I never stated AH was the only flight sim using physics.  I believe I said, "any good flight simulator".

The others do not come close to matching the calucations per frame of any good flight simulator.  The thing about flight simulators is the amount of physics calculations done, per frame, which have nothing to do with the graphics.

What those other games do more than we do is lighting calculations.  They do make extensive use of lighting, which is mostly simple math calculations, but it is iterative which is expensive.

As far as DirectX goes, I wrote a game engine (graphics, sound, input....) using it.  I figure it really is the only way to get a handle on how it worked.  I am not rying to insult you, but when you state something about our game that is erroneous, I will call you on it to the extent of letting you know you are wrong.  That is as far as I can go.  To go further would be a breach of our intellectual property.

I never said you cannot run AA, nor have I said flat out that AA is bad.  I am saying every system is different, even with the same hardware, they are different.  If you experience stutters and gameplay which is not smooth, then you cannot rule out AA being an issue.

Resource problems are almost always manifested by motion in a 3D environment which is not smooth.  Every person has to decide what is acceptable for them and thier systems.  No one can make blanket statements about the use of AA and have it apply to every computer, including me.

When someone asks about it, my best answer is to try it and if you like it then leave it there.  When someone advocates turning up to absolute maximums without explaining the possible downsides to using AA, then I will intervene.  One should not pretend there is never any possible downside to using any advanced feature of a video card.

Well, have you seem Crysis or COD4?  That water's movement is generated by the physics engine of those games.  And seriously man, tonight, I'm just too tired to debate anymore.  Maybe tomorrow.  I have some stuff to say about the water and a few other things.  But it can wait till then.

[Skuzzy]

Yes, I have seen those games.  I play all the latest games to see what techniques are being used.  And those water effects are shaders.  I know they are as I have written the same exact shaders myself.  The calculations are done on the video card and not by the CPU.

It is one of the primary reasons you need high end video cards to be able to do those things and maintain smooth game play.

I am not debating you.  I work in the game industry.  You play games.  From that basis the perspectives can deviate on many topics.  The sources of your information and my information is very different.  This can lead to a complete misunderstanding in various areas.

Part of my job entails trying to help people understand what can happen when they do something.  Just blindly tweaking things and having it crash and not knowing why is frustrating for most people.

I got an email from someone who took your advice yesterday.  From their perspective, the game was playing badly.  Stutters and pauses all over the place.  I had them make one change and explained why, and now they are happy campers again.

[RTHolmes]

sooo is there a simple formula for the amount of vram required for a certain res/respack/FSAA combination?

eg I use 1280x1024/hires/2xFSAA on a 256MB card. i get the odd stutter but its almost impossible to tell if its GPU-, CPU- or net -related. would be nice to eliminate vram problems.

maybe put common combinations in a table and make it a sticky?

[The Fugitive]

Originally posted by RTHolmes
sooo is there a simple formula for the amount of vram required for a certain res/respack/FSAA combination?

eg I use 1280x1024/hires/2xFSAA on a 256MB card. i get the odd stutter but its almost impossible to tell if its GPU-, CPU- or net -related. would be nice to eliminate vram problems.

maybe put common combinations in a table and make it a sticky?

This is how I did it....

Switched to hirez pack, FR dropped a bit, and I would get stutters in big furballs.

Dropped to 512 textures and everything ran smooth as silk.

Upped antialising to 4x, looked better, and still ran smooth.

Upped antialising to 8x and stutters were back,

Dropped to 4x and it is smooth.... I stayed at 512/4x antialising.

Thats what works on my machine, but your may be totally different...as Skuzzy has been saying. You can't hurt your system by changing the adjustments. A bit of trial and error and you deciding what you like on YOUR machine is what you need to do. Some folk don't care about the "eye candy" so they run there system with the lower textures, but get solid FR which is what they think is important to them.

Try it out, only takes a few minutes to set it up and test it. Good Luck!

[Skuzzy]

Thre are no canned formulas which can be used to determine the right combination as there are simply too many variables involved.  A lot of it has to do with the various background processes and operating system configurations.  Add to the fact there are people who would be willing to sacrifice smooth game play for better graphics and vice versa.

Every system is different, even when the hardware is the same.  Every user is different too.  If you understand the negative impact a setting can have and you observe that impact, then back off that setting.  Trial and error is not a bad thing.

Just know if you send me an email complaining about stuttering and you are running 1600x1200 resolution, with high res textures, all the skins loaded on your computer, 16xAA and 16xAF, I just might have to chuckle a bit before I respond.

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just know if you send me an email complaining about stuttering and you are running 1600x1200 resolution, with high res textures, all the skins loaded on your computer, 16xAA and 16xAF, I just might have to chuckle a bit before I respond.

I know my Geforce 2 MX can handle this no problem.