Patch 89

[bustr]

AH2 - Video and effects are processed through your CPU using system board memory.
AH3 - Video and effects are processed through your GPU using video card memory.

If you turn off the graphics option in the game "post processing" and move the environment slider all the way to the right, you will gain back FPS. Also turn off both clutter options. 1024 Mode still looks very good and uses less memory. I test with everything on to catch bugs and anomalies. I test my terrain with all of that off. Unless I want to make sure the visual effects present appealing eye candy for the audience I hope will use my gunnery practice terrain.

[Shrike]

AH2 - Video and effects are processed through your CPU using system board memory.
AH3 - Video and effects are processed through your GPU using video card memory.

If you turn off the graphics option in the game "post processing" and move the environment slider all the way to the right, you will gain back FPS. Also turn off both clutter options. 1024 Mode still looks very good and uses less memory. I test with everything on to catch bugs and anomalies. I test my terrain with all of that off. Unless I want to make sure the visual effects present appealing eye candy for the audience I hope will use my gunnery practice terrain.

I did a little research on the forum and just tried what you suggested.  Disabling post processing makes a huge difference in FPS.  However, I still get the funky images on the CV.

On another note, I took the Brewster up and the sound slider, in the advanced settings, got stuck at 74%.  The slider is at 100. I can move it but it does not adjust the sound.  It was initially at luck number 13 initially.  I'll see if I can duplicate this weekend.

[Chilli]

I did a little research on the forum and just tried what you suggested.  Disabling post processing makes a huge difference in FPS.  However, I still get the funky images on the CV.

On another note, I took the Brewster up and the sound slider, in the advanced settings, got stuck at 74%.  The slider is at 100. I can move it but it does not adjust the sound.  It was initially at luck number 13 initially.  I'll see if I can duplicate this weekend.

As far as optimization from HiTech, I would suggest looking at the size of the resolution.  This has been the quickest root to solving low FPS.  Today, more than ever, we are seeing higher resolutions and monitor sizes.  Nvidia even has a dynamic resolution (which I am currently pleased with) that allows a much "finer" image even on smaller monitors by some small miracle    Okay, it goes to reason, the more pixels to render the longer to refresh FPS, or something similar to that (not trying to be exact, only trying to explain the concept in a simple manner).

So if there were any more miracles to be discovered by HiTech, this is the area that I feel would give the best of everything.  Note, I honestly do NOT expect any new breakthroughs with AH3 to do what I described, but from what I have seen from these guys up to now, it would not surprise me very much if HiTech were to unleash his mojo and inflate FPS as if through voodoo, and leaving me chanting, "We're not worthy...." 

One would think that SLI would be useful at such, however it only seems to be capable of alternating the workload from card to card, and not boosting memory at all. 

My best wishes to all for a Happy New Year. 

[Shrike]

I test with everything on to catch bugs and anomalies.

I've been doing the same.  It's sluggish but it's not really that bad.  However, 2MB of video ram is quite horrid compared to what's available on the market these days.  It's time for a hardware refresh.

[Bizman]

I've been doing the same.  It's sluggish but it's not really that bad.  However, 2MB of video ram is quite horrid compared to what's available on the market these days.  It's time for a hardware refresh.

Is that a typo? I had that much in my Windows95 system two decades ago... 2GB on the other hand should work quite well.

[Shrike]

Is that a typo? I had that much in my Windows95 system two decades ago... 2GB on the other hand should work quite well.

I was wrong it's 4 MB....lol.  Horrid!!

[Chilli]

Is that a typo? I had that much in my Windows95 system two decades ago... 2GB on the other hand should work quite well.

I had the same question, are you sure that you are not confusing video memory with RAM?  I doubt that you would be able to get even a sniff of AH3 with 4 MB of video Ram, as the low end of video memory is 1024 MB. 

Where is your dxdiag?

[Shrike]

I had the same question, are you sure that you are not confusing video memory with RAM?  I doubt that you would be able to get even a sniff of AH3 with 4 MB of video Ram, as the low end of video memory is 1024 MB. 

Where is your dxdiag?

Your correct.  4GB total and 1GB dedicated.  It was reporting in MB's.

[Bizman]

Where is your dxdiag?

Found it: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,366972.msg4921145.html#msg4921145. 8 GB of system RAM, GeForce GTX 650 with 1 GB of Dedicated Memory plus 3 GB of Shared Memory which makes 4 GB of Display Memory. Horridness explained by a mediocre video card.

[Chilli]

Found it: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,366972.msg4921145.html#msg4921145. 8 GB of system RAM, GeForce GTX 650 with 1 GB of Dedicated Memory plus 3 GB of Shared Memory which makes 4 GB of Display Memory. Horridness explained by a mediocre video card.

My video card is worse.  I have been having great results.  All that was needed was to reduce resolution, and my FPS reach the 60 mark easily.  Has anyone else who has reported low FPS tried this besides myself?  Curious, because I have been reporting this since the very first couple of patches.

More specifically, Shrike try lowering your video settings resolution to 1024 x768 and comparing your FPS with all other settings the same.  If 1024 x 768 does not fit your monitor try 1024 x 720.  Your dxdiag reports your current screen resolution 1920 x 1080 32 bit 60 Hz.

[Shrike]

My video card is worse.  I have been having great results.  All that was needed was to reduce resolution, and my FPS reach the 60 mark easily.  Has anyone else who has reported low FPS tried this besides myself?  Curious, because I have been reporting this since the very first couple of patches.

More specifically, Shrike try lowering your video settings resolution to 1024 x768 and comparing your FPS with all other settings the same.  If 1024 x 768 does not fit your monitor try 1024 x 720.  Your dxdiag reports your current screen resolution 1920 x 1080 32 bit 60 Hz.

I tried it at 1024 X 720 and a few other settings but it didn't really provide much benefit.  There is an increase, however, it seems adjusting the max texture size and adjusting the environment map setting provides the biggest benefits for FPS.  I really like the high resolution and I'm willing to sacrifice some FPS's . 

I decreased the max texture size from 4096 to 1024 and the environment map setting to none.  This seems to have lowered memory usage and provided a bump in FPS.  Maybe by 2x or a tad less.  I went ahead and set the graphics to default (which moved the environment map settings to 1) because the drop in FPS was insignificant. 

This is tolerable for goofing around and testing.  The real test in my mind is what will the FPS be like when fighting in a fuball or when attacking several formations of bombers with other competing fighters.

[Chilli]

I agree, I do like the way the higher resolution settings look.  I even boosted my dynamic resolution to 3.2k and took the drop in FPS.

As far as testing furball like performance.  Joining large online missions with AI should be somewhat of a clue.

[Bizman]

--- I decreased the max texture size from 4096 to 1024 and the environment map setting to none.  This seems to have lowered memory usage and provided a bump in FPS.  Maybe by 2x or a tad less.  I went ahead and set the graphics to default (which moved the environment map settings to 1) because the drop in FPS was insignificant.---

You did just the right things considering your card. Skuzzy has somewhere explained how max texture size correlates with video RAM, as well as the ginormous need of calculating power the environment mapping takes. Driving the card pass its physical limits will slow it down because then it compensates the need of resources from the processor and computer RAM which of course are much slower.

According to a comparison review I just read the GTX 950 is a good budget card if you're willing to lower the graphics with a side note that the fps will drop remarkably in crowded situations.

[715]

During testing of hit sounds tonight with Waffle and others I decided to hit him with 0.303s from a Spit I.  Normal frame rate was about 25 - 30 fps (low because we were low over the field).  When I landed hits on Waffle's B17 at close range, however, my frame rate dropped to about 12 fps.  I then tried again offline on a simple map firing 8 0.303s at the drone B24.  Firing the guns had no effect on fps (so it probably isn't a sound issue).  Connecting with the target, however, dropped the fps from 60 down to about 40 to 45.  Apparently it is all those hit sprites that kill my frame rate.  (Not that I am saying that would ever affect me in a normal environment as I don't normally land that many hits.    )

[NatCigg]

capture the flag arena: -smoke from burning field objects is visible one sector away and appears as a black poof in the horizon haze.
 -Ground clutter covers the two fields I was at.
-crash to desktop when I clicked ok to the clipboard with the advanced audio page open.  I don't remember if I adjusted a volume or not prior to the crash. I did adjust a volume then clicked ok on the advanced page, this finally allowed me to see the numerical value change to the adjusted volume.  It was when I clicked on the clipboard ok button with the advanced volume page still open did the program crash.

<S>