AH2 rig benchmarks

[oboe]

In case others are interested to know how a well a proposed build might run AH2, I thought a benchmark thread might help.   This was my simple method:

1) Start AH
2) Select Video Settings

• Disable Vsync
• Note screen resolution
• Set Max texture size to 2048
• Move Anti-Aliasing slider to "Most"
• Click OK

3) Choose terrain

• Select ndisles

4) Choose Offline Practice

• Go to field A1
• Looking East from tower view, record Frame Rate (CTL-I toggles video info)
• Go to Hangar, select P-51D
• Spawn NE
• Looking Forward, record Frame Rate
• Look Back-Right, record Frame Rate

5) Post results

My machine specs:  

   MOBO: Asrock H97 Pro4
      CPU: Core i5-4590 @ 3.3 GHz (no overclock)
     RAM: 8GB G.Skill DDR3-1600
  VIDEO: XFX Radeon R9 280X 3GB
       OS: Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit

SCREEN: 1680x1050

Performance:

Looking East, tower: 167 fps
Looking fwd in cockpit, on runway: 101 fps
Looking back-right in cockpit, on runway: 195 fps

Hope that helps, hope my methodology makes sense in creating a useful, comparable benchmark between different hardware configurations.   I'd be really interested in what MrRipley's Pentium G3528 build produces, and some of you guys' i7 builds using the NVidia GTX 970 video card.

EDIT:  I think I missed some info - aren't there other graphic settings I should make a note of?  I can't recall where they are right now.  This was a brand new install of AH, using the HiRes textures, so those other graphic settings are set to the default, whatever that might be...

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The GTX660 I have in the budget box is much weaker than the 280x. But once I get AH downloaded I'll post results.

[Skyyr]

Your effort is appreciated. I do think that for the benchmarks to be useful, however, a few standards need to be applied:

Resolution - the most common resolution for gaming is 1920x1080p. Your "benchmarked' resolution is below that, and so your framerates will be higher than those who run the "standard" resolution. You should re-run the benchmarks at 1080p, if possible.

FPS - frames-per-second is always fluctuating. By listing a single value, you're basically cherry-picking numbers that may or may not be representative of actual performance. You should download a program like MSI Afterburner that gives you charts for your performance, and then calculate your average values, with min/max to show the range.

In-game graphics settings - you should provide the in-game graphics settings you used. For example, was ground clutter turned on? What about environment updates? Plane skins? Etc. You will probably also want to provide performance under various configuration settings.


I'm sure there's other ways to improve, but, at a bare minimum, the above should be provided with your results to give an accurate idea of performance.

[oboe]

Your effort is appreciated. I do think that for the benchmarks to be useful, however, a few standards need to be applied:

Resolution - the most common resolution for gaming is 1920x1080p. Your "benchmarked' resolution is below that, and so your framerates will be higher than those who run the "standard" resolution. You should re-run the benchmarks at 1080p, if possible.

FPS - frames-per-second is always fluctuating. By listing a single value, you're basically cherry-picking numbers that may or may not be representative of actual performance. You should download a programs like MSI Afterburner that gives you charts for your performance, and then calculate your average values, with min/max to show the range.

In-game graphics settings - you should provide the in-game graphics settings you used. For example, was ground clutter turned on? What about environment updates? Plane skins? Etc. You will probably also want to provide performance under various configuration settings.


I'm sure there's other ways to improve, but, at a bare minimum, the above should be provided with your results to give an accurate idea of performance.

Yes, standards, absolutely!   I tried to think of as many video/graphic settings as possible, but forgot about those in-game graphic settings - although since its a brand new install of AH, they're all set to whatever the default values are, unless AH detects vidcard capability and sets them to an appropriate value that could vary between people's configuations.   

Unfortunately, my monitor doesn't support 1920x1080.  I have it set to its recommended (and highest) resolution, so I thought I could handle that by including my resolution setting in the benchmark (I wonder how many people have older monitors like me?).   A monitor upgrade is next for me (first I need flight controllers).

FPS - yes, the numbers sometimes fluctuated, depending on the # of drones in view and the #s of ack firing, but I tried to report a number that was in the middle of the fluctuating values.   Looking Back-Right actually had no activity at all - just some runway, a little bit of terrain, and sky.

I'll look into MSI afterburner - I started looking for benchmarks like 3Dmark, etc but talked myself out of it because I was just interested in this machine's performance in Aces High anyway.   But I'll give Afterburner a look.

Thanks for your help, I hope this helps other vets like me who are thinking about coming back but know they need new hardware.   Just some basic ideas for comparison on what an i5 vs an i7 does, for example, or the FPS difference between a $350 vidcard and a sub-$200 one.

[38ruk]

For some reason in offline mode im capped at 128 fps even with vsync disabled in AH and CCC .... been that way since install . Online i dont have any issue with as i have a 144hrz monitor and with vsync i rarely see it drop off 143fps .... without vsync  i see 200's in the tower havent really tested it flying  . The only one i can really show as a comparison to yours above is :

Looking fwd in cockpit, on runway: i get between 111 low- 113 high fps . All other views max at 128fps

I5 3570k @ 4.5ghz
8 gb gskill 2133
sapphire r9 280x

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The download from HTC took so long that I had to go to sleep and now I'm on a work travel. I will try to post results on thursday.

[38ruk]

opps forgot my res is 1920x 1080

[MrRiplEy[H]]

My build: Asus Z97-pro gamer + Corsair Vengeange 8Gb combo (was on offer for 155 bucks)
XFX black 450W PSU
Pentium G3258 with stock cooler overclocked to 4.3Ghz with the one click automatic setting
GTX660 DirectCU II OC
Many hdd:s and the Intel 520 256Gb SSD
OS Windows 10 release preview

SCREEN: 1680x1050, max anti-alias

Performance:

Looking East, tower: 158 fps clipboard up, 164 fps clipboard down
Looking fwd in cockpit, on runway: 94 fps
Looking back-right in cockpit, on runway: 215 fps

I'd say this is pretty good bang for buck.

[ebfd11]

My rig

AMD 8350 8 core @ 4.3
16 gig Corsair Vengeance
EVGA 970 4gig vid card
Windows 7 sp1`

Screen resolution 1920 X 1080

full water cooling loop on cpu and vid card

In Tower looking forward 192 FPS with map up
In Tower looking forward 244 FPS with map down

In P51d looking forward 124 FPS with map up
In p51d looking forward 215 FPS with map down

In Panther position 2 zoomed in/out 312/244 FPS
in Panther position 3 zoomed in/out  245/211 FPS

I hope that is what you are looking for..

LawnDart

[oboe]

Some of these numbers are making me drool!

I did find more graphic settings under options, Graphic Detail/Advanced.  I found out I can tank my fps into the low 40s by sliding the environment map to "Full Updates".  I leave it at one notch.

Also I have Object Self Shadow set to "smooth" and 4096, all other options X'd on that window.  Object Detail is set all the way toward "detail",  and Ground Detail Range is set to the max of 4 mi.

[715]

E8400 @3GHz, 4GB RAM, HD7870 Radeon @ 1GHz, WinXP SP3
4XSSAA, 8XAF
AH settings: detail max, gnd range max, gnd clutter off, environment off, obj self shadow on, smooth shadow 4096, detail water on, detail terrain on, local water reflection off, bump map clouds on, bump map bldgs off, bump map other planes on

A1 Tower E: 63 fps
P51D Forward: 58 fps
P51D Back Right: 64 fps
P51D Left: 28 fps

[Skuzzy]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but you do realize none of these results mean anything once the new version of the game is released?

[ebfd11]

Skuzzy I know LOL but I thought I would post..


LAwnDart

[Masherbrum]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but you do realize none of these results mean anything once the new version of the game is released?

QFT

[715]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but you do realize none of these results mean anything once the new version of the game is released?

Of course, but they mean something now and it may be quite some time before the new version is released.  Plus, when the new version does come out we can run a similar test again to see how it compares with these results from the old version.