Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Max on March 28, 2005, 10:37:36 PM
-
First off, let me say this...as a four year subscriber to Aces High, and someone who's addiction to WW2 air combat sims goes back to 1996 (AW/Macintosh via AOL)...HTC has developed the best air combat sim on the market today. That's the good news.
The bad news is that given increased eye candy via recent patches and version updates, the game becomes less and less user friendly in terms of frame rates/playability. Permit me to explain. Two years ago, prior to the release of AH2, word from the top was that AH2 was predicated more towards uppper-end graphic cards as opposed to high "octane" CPU's and motherboards.
I own a Dell Dimension 8200 loaded with a P4 1.9 Mhz CPU. It's 3 years old, came equipped with a top-of-the line Geforce 3 128 mg vid card at the time, which I upgraded to a Radeon 9800 Pro - 128 mg card...and along with that...my power supply, needed to drive the new card. Total cost, about $400. Mind you, aside from AH, my Dell purred like a kitten insofar as running all the other programs I expected it to run.
Prior to the release of AH2 I was getting upper 90 frame rates. That dropped 30% when AH2 was released. A quick chat with Skuzzy suggested that my CPU was on the lower end of the horsepower needed to maximize the Radeon 9800 Pro card I just bought. OK...fair enough...I'll live with 60 - 70 fr/sec.
In the past few months my frame rates have dropped to an average of 15 - 30. The large - lotza water/CV maps seem to take the biggest toll on FR hits. So do the clouds. All the new eye candy is lovely but the game is just about unplayable at frame rates less then 20 per second...which is what I wind-up with if there's any conglomeration of players in a specific area. By the same token it would be lovely to afford a new, top-of-the-line computer every 6 months or so. I can't.
Bottom line, as you work through the plans for new graphics and game play, please keep in mind those of us who are tethered to 2-3 yr old systems we can't afford to renew and update every year or so.
Thank you,
DmdMax
-
I have a 9800Pro and an AMD Athlon running at ~2Ghz. I have constant 60 fps (the refreshrate of my LCD monitor). No stutters.
Do you have the latest drivers for your card?
Try the Omega drivers.
-
running Geforce40 with 2.26 pent 4, wish ihad 60 frame rate.
But I have no prob running at 30fps, game plays fine, no animated water, but I'm not here to go swiming anyway.
vox works,(most of time:rolleyes: ), bad guys go boom, I go boom,
but waiting on TOD before I go ubersize.
btw; need some technical jargon excuse to give my wife, on why I need a new pc after only 2 years.
Anybody looking for a dell 4500
oh and had the same frame rate in AH1, so I'm used to it whatever that means, cause I've been in FSO with 60FPS and didn't notice a difference in gameplay. But with that said I do have better fiter results in FSO.
-
You don't need a new PC, only a new gfx card. Shouldn't set you back more than $300 for a good one.
-
DMax the game is fully configureable with regard to detail processed and hence frames per sec achieved.
A lot will depend on the graphic settings you have selected within AH.
You have made no mention of your settings, however if you have them set too high it will cripple your fps.
As an example i run an AMD64 3500 with an X800XTPE and i cannot run at full detail or even 1024 textures and get the gameplay i desire.
So i turn the detail down a bit and use 512 textures.
-
Wow - 3 years in gaming hardware is ancient... Sure, you don't have to update every 6 months but every three years should be possible.
I'd say go full eye-candy. The hardware is steadily developing - so should AH. AH is still behind box games concerning eye-candy. It made some good ground lately but still some distance to go.
Cav, I got a similar setup (Athlon64 3800/6800GT) and I run 1024 tex at 1280x960, 8s AA, no AF - capping out at 60 most of the time. Dropping around mid 40s over large areas of water. Set the detail sliders slightly higher than default. Setting them way up gives me a slide-show without any visible change in IQ.
-
Yea i use 1280 res but 512 textures, i have to admit its a while since i tried the 1024 option.
However for acceptable gameplay for me i want to be able to be close to the ground in a vertical descent and able to fast roll without any jerky graphics updates.
If it does that i dont care what the fps shows.
Its worth noting i have seen jerky updates in that situation even with the fps showing 30.
Normally if i bother to check the fps is 80 or higher or pegged at monitors refresh rate.
But as some of my best fights are in the weeds thats where it matters more to me.
-
Dmax, only thing I can suggest, and your rig is about on par with mine, is to make a fresh reformat, install the latest drivers, and see what you have then. When AH2 came out it wasn't playable. A few updates in I was discouraged, and finally did a fresh format with new drivers. The results were AH2 started working like Ah did, with only a small noticable FPS drop. To be fair I also changed some settings in the game, but forget which now. Certainly someone could post a guide to setting up AH2. There is just too many settings I don't understand, but i do know there is hope for getting it to run better.
As far as the 3 year old computer upgrade thing. That is a long time in a true gamers world. Problem is your kinda stuck as it's a Dell. Hope you find a fix.
-
One of the biggest differences for me in terms of frame rate is view distance. Setting it to medium instead of long gives me about 15-20 fps back, running on old 9600XT card.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Kirin
Wow - 3 years in gaming hardware is ancient... Sure, you don't have to update every 6 months but every three years should be possible.
Im running on a 3 year old rig as well but the development has NOT been as drastic as a few years ago. This is actually the first time Ive not felt desperate to change my rig within 2 years.
As it will approach the 3.5 year mark this summer Im likely to upgrade though.
Tex
-
Here's some info on my card and set-up specs which I should have included to begin with.
Radeon Pro 9800 128 mg using Omega 2.5.97 drivers. I'll check today for newer drivers. Questions here: it's mu understanding that Omega drivers are tweaked to the max when they're installed. True? If any of the 3D setting options should be reset, to what do I reset them to?
My game settings are ~
Video resolution 1024x768
Preload textures and skins are both checked
Max texture = 512
frame rate = unlimited
my three detail/performance sliders are all set about 1/3 rd across from the left
All of the "disbale" boxes are checked; animated water is unchecked.
Under options, horizons, transitions and terrain mapping are all checked.
Thanks folks.
DmdMax
-
Just remembered another thing I do now that helps. I kill all programs running in the windows tool bar. Seems memory is a good thing with AH2, and anything sapping it will hurt your performance. I always shut everything down that isn’t essential before I get into AH gaming mode.
Granted I have let them get out of control, but if you have a lot of stuff running, try starting AH2 with them on and check your FPS. Then kill them all but what you need to operate, and see if there is a difference. Is for me.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Dmax, only thing I can suggest, and your rig is about on par with mine, is to make a fresh reformat, install the latest drivers, and see what you have then.
Creamo could you please explain reformat? Of what? Not sure if you're talking about wiping my hard drive and doing a clean reinstallation of WinXP or what...
DmdMax
-
Yes, a clean reformat of the HD, and then install the Service Packs and latest drivers. Like i said, AH2 would just not run on my machine to where it was playable at first. I really don't know the tech stuff on computer programs, but AH2 seems real memory dependant. That should kill any hidden programs, startup crap that saps your system, etc.
In fact, I'm due for a reformat again myself, but I'm so close to an upgrade I pry won't have too, but I bet that will make AH2 run well enough on your system to enjoy it.
-
Frankly, I feel that the increase in visual realism (aka 'eye-candey') just cannot be delayed anymore.
Times change. How people view games change, and the customer base also changes with it. Most of us currently playing AH have seen what the early days of PCs were like. I used to have a great deal of fun playing ascii coded games.. and the RPG that I really loved were the totally text-based Ultima series from Lord British.
To us, AH1 is more than enough. Eye candy is always 'secondary', as long as gameplay is always smooth and fun.
But think about the teenagers now. These young people were born in the late '80s. When these boys and girls were playing games as toddlers, they were using Pentium III based machines with GeForce2 cards and internet connections. In their mid-teens, these people are now playing games with incredible visual qualities. Anything less than they've already experienced, they will be turned off by it.
It's just how things go. The standards of the eras never flows against time.
These people are offered with a variety of other games of different genre(RPGs, MMOGs, action, driving, FPS, RTS etc etc..) that has incredible level of graphics. Would they even care about simulation games, if it at least didn't have some graphical quality that sparks interest?
To the young people, graphics, is a part of game play. If it looks old and outdated, then the game is not fun for them. They're not like us, DMax.
In a few years, these young people will also become potential customers for Aces High. Are we gonna be still saying that "AH looks sucky, but that's okay, since gameplay is what matters the most"?
They are gonna carve that on AH's tombstone, DMax.
AH still has a lot of catching up to do. AH2 is a refinement of AH1 engine(at least I think so), but it's shown tremendous potential, when compared to old AH1.
This should not stop, ever.
-
Dmax has a point though. Take Farcry or even Doom 3 and look at the graphics compared to AH. Farcry and doom 3 look alot better get higher frame rates then this game. I not a programer but it seems that this games runs to ineffiecient or should I say not utilizing resourses proberly. I get doubled the frame rates in farcry, Silent Hunter 3, doom 3, FS2004, etc...
AMD 64 3200+
Asus K8NE Deluxe MB
1 gig ram
80 gig SATA Seagate
Geforce FX 5700 128 meg
AH I get 25- 100(if I look up at sky) fps running at 1024x768 res
4x antialias
Farcry I get 50-70 at same settings Never falling below 50
FS2004 60-80 at 1280 x 1024 Never falling below 60.
Etc..
-
Another thing that is important to do is to clean spyware regularly, they eat resources like crazy.
Tex.
-
I think it's more getting it to run properly, as he stated 15 fps in some situations. I can run everything like Far Cry and SH3 just fine, but 'double' the frame rates? I'm getting 40-60 in AH2 which is more than enough.
Bang for the graphic buck AH2 is certainly behind the curve, but compaired to AH1 and the new features, it's working itself out slow but sure. You forget gameplay and the gaming format AH2 provides. Operation Flashpoint craps all over Far Cry, and has dated graphics. To each his own.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
To the young people, graphics, is a part of game play. If it looks old and outdated, then the game is not fun for them. They're not like us, DMax.
Agreed.
Anyone I've ever shown AH1 or AH2 to has always remarked something like, "Well, cool idea, looks fun, but the graphics aren't that great..."
But, it's not just the young folks. Big kids like graphics too.
-
@Creamo
I raised my FPS about 3-5 by just cleaning out a crap load of spyware. Releaseing memory resoruces does help.
@XrightyX
Ultimate combo is ofcourse Game Play + Graphics.
To sell a game to new players graphics is important, especially when dealing with 2 week trials. First impressions ARE important.
Beyond that its all about the gameplay if players stick to a game long term. If the gameplay aint there the eye candy doesnt help to retain them.
A game with great gameplay and crapy eye candy will always struggle to attract new players.
A game with crappy game play and great eye candy will always struggle to retain players.
Both are needed.
While all the vets that are hooked on the game play dont need the eye candy HTC needs it. HTC needs to attract new players to their game to keep their business going. If HTC falls further behind in eye candy, meaning dont do anything, they will keep loosing customers to "worse games" and if one day a equaly good game shows up they are out of business.
Tex
-
Mwdogg, you cannot compare FPS games to a flight simulator.
FPS games have highly restrictive view distances and far fewer complex objects and modeling than a good flight simulator does.
The physics alone in a good flight simulator would kill a FPS game. Motion, for the most part, in a FPS game is predefined and scripted. Not so in flight simulators. Flight simulators work in real-time.
So let's turn the view down to a mile or less in the arena and watch how high your frame rate gets. Of course you will not be able to shoot down many planes, but the performance would be killer.
Max, there is something eating CPU time up on your system. My little 800Mzh P3 w/ATI8500 video card runs about what you are claiming yours does. Give me call.
-
I believe that HT is running in safe mode. They are programming the game to be available to those with low to high end computers. The game is mainly CPU dependant and not GPU dependant and the other high end games are taking advantage of the Graphics Processing Unit instead of the CPU. I base this upon my last two graphics cards, an ATI radeon 9800 Pro 128 AGP card and my current Geforce 6800GT OC 256 mb card. I always run optimized drivers and noticed only a small frame rate increase between the two cards. HT is not only running in "safe mode" but also "smart mode" in a business scense as if they were to take advantage of the GPU, it would shut out those with lesser graphics cards. The bottom line is they are programming for the middle ground. This will need to change as older system are upgraded on a large scale. Then again I've been wrong before and could be wrong this time.:) If I'm offbase on this one, my reply is in the words of Emily Letilla, "NEVERMIND".
All the Best...
Jay
awDOC1
-
Skuzzy, I have added a flight sim which was FS2004 which has alot more moving parts on planes then AH, Viewing distance is about same, clouds etc... As for water effects, look at Silent Hunter 3. The waves and water effects far surpass AH water effects. I not trying to get into an argument here I just trying to compare graphics to others. I understand what U saying about FPS games but like I said with FS2004 and Silent Hunter 3. These games run perfect even with my avg video card with higher graphic settings.
The game has come along way, that I will say but it just seems like were using yesterdays graphics and not todays if U know what I mean.
-
Doc1: your never mind is correct.
HiTech
-
I am running an Athlon 2000XP, 512m ram, FX5700 128m vid card.
Until a few days ago I also had an Audigy sound card in my machine. I pulled the Audigy card out because I heard Sound Blaster and VIA chipsets dont do so well together. I am now running on the onboard AC97 sound. I did see a performance increase, but not as much as I was hoping for.
The large maps like Oz-Kansas, FesterMA, and Trinity are HUGE fr hogs for me. On the other maps (with the exception of Cat 5 furballs) I can maintain an acceptable fr. I have all the detail sliders all the way to the right, and I have other planes skins, plane/vehicle wpn effects off. I also preload textures to system memory.
On the large maps I have to avoid large fights, or stay on the very fringes to avoid watching a *slide show*.
I have tryed running with lower resolutions in-game. I currently am running the game at 1024x768. Lower resolutions did not improve my fr and in fact, the lower resolutions actually hindered my fr.
I don't have spyware on my machine, I run multiple proggies to ensure this. I also shut down all processes that Windows will allow before playing. I only have 13 processes running when I start the game.
Now I think my only option for better performance is to overclock my cpu, although I am unsure of how to do this.
*edit* last night I also unchecked Horizons and Mipmapping in the video options. I already had transitions off.
-
i think what i love most about AHII is the ability to turn off and adjust the eye candy. :aok
i play on a 1.53mhz AMD with 512 megs of ram GF5700.
average 30fps, 1280x1024, medium/high eye candy.
-
I don't play anymore, but I still browse the boards. One thing that very much turned me off about the game was that when I went out and bought Pacific Fighters.
I get 50+ frames in high combat action, low to the ground, in PF, compared to under 20, meybe with 3 or 4 planes in the area, in AHII.
I believe there is something wrong with the way AHII utilizes graphics and CPU power, but I think it can easily be corrected.
-
I'm lucky to get in the 20's when planes are around, and in large missions I get 3 . That's 3 frames per mission, one on takeoff, one in the air and one blowing up.....
..I still manage to amuse myself .
'Framerates?...we don't need no stinking framerates'.
(...hmm maybe i'll make that my sig.)
-
I think everybody has missed the point.
DMax is talking about gameplay vs. "eye candy" Granted, as was suggested, many of the "younger" types equate the two as the same. It is not.
ALL Dmax (i'll assume here) and myself really WANT would be a smooth game playing experience. With the current setup, it is far from smooth. I have the greatest fear (reading the update re. new terrain etc) that with the release of 2.03 AH will become even less stable, and harder to enjoy.
I have no need to have hirez cockpits with little chigger gauges that my old eyes can't read. I could care less about (i had a list going, but decided against it) all the other "eye candy" that seems to be the main thrust as of late.
I DO care about a smooth, enjoyable experience in a flight sim. I wish with all my heart that HT thinks back to the old AirWarrior days, and remembers just what got him addicted to flight sims in the 1st place. It was never about the graphics, but about smooth gameplay. I dearly pray, that in future releases, HT moves the focus on to making the "flying/fighting" part of this most excellent sim the main thrust of his attention, and turns away from the dark path of more "eye candy", which is an evil, horrible path to travel. Granted, there is a happy medium, and that of course can be obtained with some effort, but please, PLEASE HTC move your focus BACK to what made it great in the first place. Don't tread the path of the heathen IL2 types, or cater to the FPS wanna b's. Awesome looking trees won't make AH2 a better sim. Smooth flying, and great fighting will. Far, FAR better to be the best flight model and smoothest game experience, than the best looking.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Mwdogg, you cannot compare FPS games to a flight simulator.
FPS games have highly restrictive view distances and far fewer complex objects and modeling than a good flight simulator does.
The physics alone in a good flight simulator would kill a FPS game. Motion, for the most part, in a FPS game is predefined and scripted. Not so in flight simulators. Flight simulators work in real-time.
So let's turn the view down to a mile or less in the arena and watch how high your frame rate gets. Of course you will not be able to shoot down many planes, but the performance would be killer.
Max, there is something eating CPU time up on your system. My little 800Mzh P3 w/ATI8500 video card runs about what you are claiming yours does. Give me call.
skuzzy...why do my FR take a huge dive when i switch to ground view mode as opposed to full view?
-
DMax is talking about gameplay vs. "eye candy" Granted, as was suggested, many of the "younger" types equate the two as the same. It is not.
Emphasis on graphics is a long term investment. We're the disappearing kind of guys Lute.
The "young 'uns" are the dominant drive behind the gaming market now. AH, due to its nature, and thanks to a strong fan base (of WW2-based aerial combat sims) which existed from years and years ago, has been relatively uneffected by that drive, but how much more do you think that's gonna last?
In about five years most of us 'veterans' will be gone from this game for one reason or another. Newer, younger people will fill the rosters in the MA(or TOD) more and more - that is, if they are interested in AH in the first place. And to those who have the future in AH, graphics IS gameplay. Nothings gonna change that. It's like chanting "the world is still flat" if you wish to deny it.
If AH doesn't start catching up now, it won't ever.
ALL Dmax (i'll assume here) and myself really WANT would be a smooth game playing experience. With the current setup, it is far from smooth. I have the greatest fear (reading the update re. new terrain etc) that with the release of 2.03 AH will become even less stable, and harder to enjoy.
I have no need to have hirez cockpits with little chigger gauges that my old eyes can't read. I could care less about (i had a list going, but decided against it) all the other "eye candy" that seems to be the main thrust as of late.
I want that too, and I think I have it - at least upto satisfactory levels.
Like Skuzzy said, it could be about how your system is set up. I'm not exactly using a state-of-the-art system myself. I bought my Pentium4 PC more than four years ago, running with a 1.7Ghz CPU and 512 ram. Over the course of four years I bought one additional 512DDR, and got a used GeForce4 Ti4600 for a cheap price. The CPU is still the same, and my hard drive's never been reformatted over those four years. (Occasionally defragmented)
With about 'mild' level AH2 graphic settings(graphic detail sliders to 50% detailed) I get smooth 40~50 fps in most situations, 30-ish when there's a lot of smoke, and 20~30 when there's smoke, fire, heckuvah lot o' planes, flak bursts, and CVs and buffs nearby.
Recently, I've found out that for some reason, adding in 4x AntiAliasing doesn't effect my AH2 even for 1 fps - which also increased the graphics quality of the game without substantial loss of performance.
I DO care about a smooth, enjoyable experience in a flight sim. I wish with all my heart that HT thinks back to the old AirWarrior days, and remembers just what got him addicted to flight sims in the 1st place. It was never about the graphics, but about smooth gameplay.
Air Warrior is dead, Lute. Granted, not because of graphics, but for more variety of reasons, it was lagging behind.
I dearly pray, that in future releases, HT moves the focus on to making the "flying/fighting" part of this most excellent sim the main thrust of his attention, and turns away from the dark path of more "eye candy", which is an evil, horrible path to travel.
The flying part is as high as it gets(since the FM is good), and the fighting part is upto the gamers to choose - unless a totally new strat/tact/gameplay option/settings is introduced into the game which might effect how people fight(which HT is working on, in the name of TOD).
The path of eye-candy is the path leading to the future Lute. Besides, the more the flying gets detailed, ironically, the more performance hit it would take - more sophisticated calculations, as Skuzzy said.
Granted, there is a happy medium, and that of course can be obtained with some effort, but please, PLEASE HTC move your focus BACK to what made it great in the first place.
Let's not forget - AH already was in the 'happy medium' for years and years, since v1.04 to the final release of AH1. It was already obtained for more than five~six years. It's time to move on.
Don't tread the path of the heathen IL2 types, or cater to the FPS wanna b's. Awesome looking trees won't make AH2 a better sim. Smooth flying, and great fighting will. Far, FAR better to be the best flight model and smoothest game experience, than the best looking.
Lute, what you're basically saying is that AH should stay in the same place. It would indeed make AH into a more smooth flying game, but it will also make it a DEAD game.
Think about it - a few years ago, before IL2 came out, noone would ever expect a mere, packaged, boxed game with limited multiplayer environment would ever influence the WW2 air combat fans so deeply. AH was always the best - comparable graphics to its major contendors such as WB, AW, FA etc.. and still better game play.
Then IL2 steps in, and the WW2 air combat gamers would never be the same. Frankly, as someone who reviewed games for money(part-time job in my country anyway), my opinion is IL2 is the most significant influence into the whole flight simulation genre since EAW. It changed the way we think about air-combat sims, our perceived 'limitations' about what the graphics can do, and the standards of which future air-combat sims should follow.
That 'heathen', also swept away a lot of avid AH2 fans into its ranks - which is a surprising thing to think about, since before IL2/FB, everybody came to AH, noone walked away from it to go to something other.
.....
I'm not refuting you just to piss you off Lute. I know how you feel, and I know how the old fans can feel left out. But the iron rules of the market and progress must apply to AH2 too. HT doesn't offer us this for charity.
AH has stayed in its place for more than five years, in the form of AH1, ever since I was first hooked up to it in the late '90s.
It's time to move on, if AH is to survive through the long years and continue to serve us with better gameplay and graphics. It can't do that if it lags behind because some of us cannot cope with the change. It would be best if every user can always follow AH2 whereever it goes, but someone is always left out when change occurs.. and when that happens, AH is not gonna wait for us.
-
JB88, the 'ground view' cancels out everything visible on the horizon, but increases the visible distance of ground objects to four miles(3 miles max in normal circumstances).
Since 1 mile worth of all the ground objects are now visible, ofcourse it takes a hit when you enter that mode.
-
makes sense.
i was just asking because skuzzy had mentioned field of view in relation to frame rates, but i guess it makes sense that it would only increase the amount of objects that way...duh 88...lol
:)
88
-
Originally posted by DMax
my three detail/performance sliders are all set about 1/3 rd across from the left
That is the key when you move sliders you can see as you move them what kind of FPS you are getting. If you set them you will be fine. have a ATI AIW Pro 9700 and had sliders all the way up and had 15 to 30 fps. moved them like 75% up from the left to the right now getting 40 to 80 and I use everything but water. Distance is all the way up.
Hope that helps
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Mwdogg, you cannot compare FPS games to a flight simulator.
FPS games have highly restrictive view distances and far fewer complex objects and modeling than a good flight simulator does.
The physics alone in a good flight simulator would kill a FPS game. Motion, for the most part, in a FPS game is predefined and scripted. Not so in flight simulators. Flight simulators work in real-time.
So let's turn the view down to a mile or less in the arena and watch how high your frame rate gets. Of course you will not be able to shoot down many planes, but the performance would be killer.
Max, there is something eating CPU time up on your system. My little 800Mzh P3 w/ATI8500 video card runs about what you are claiming yours does. Give me call.
Skuzzy , this sounds fine but if it's the case, why are my frame rates the worst ina gv? There are no flight physics going on there.
-
Gotta pay to play people...Lesson of the day is that computer games cost more than the box, or the monthly fees. Sad fact of life...you could just buy a console and play "Secret Weapons over Normandy" or "Halo2"...I guess ive just grown up with computer games...and the way i always looked at it was this: "Buying a decent computer and some good games to occupy your time will save you money in the long run...you might end up with bad hygene and no girlfriend...but at least you didnt spend 1000 dollars on prom with a girl who you havnt seen in 10 years and never put out anyway =)" What does that have to do with anything?? Absolutely nothing.
-
It would be beneficial to alot if someone would update or post a link to optimizing our computers. I'm sure there are stickies somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look....:p
-
That'd be good.
But the problem is, since the days of the Microsoft Windows, internet, and multi-tasking.. everything on one's own system has become so frickin' complicated that it's virtually impossible to come up with a general help to optimize one's system.
Like for instance, some people recommend installing all of the latest Windows drivers and upgrades... however, in my case, my system runs fine with XP service pack1, and when I installed service pack2, the system went haywire. Some people say defragging the disk helps, but in my case defragging has almost no effect in perceivable difference in performance.
It's very hard to come up with anything recommendable, except for a very loose guidline.
-
Skuzzy , this sounds fine but if it's the case, why are my frame rates the worst ina gv? There are no flight physics going on there.
More visible ground objects.
-
Yes, and there are plenty of visible ground objects in other FPS games. But they look much better and run better on my machine. Skuzzy was saying you can't compare due to the flight engine which I assume is mostly absent in a pnzr but still the graphics are 5 plus years ago in appearance yet it hogs way more cpu time than something that looks much better.
-
amd 3.4/64 , radeon ati 9800 pro, i used to get 75 fps most of the maps
but 2 days ago i found my comp infested with "Trojan virus", that passed through, windows service pack2, Northon updated,(with auto protect enabled always, !!!)
i reinstaled Windows, drivers update for ATI,and all programs but , i get less fps 40- 50-60, freezes and when i change view left/right up/down i have a delay of view change,:confused:
-
I used to pity people who wanted nothing to do with computers. Now I envy them.
I still like Aces High; I've just grown to hate computers.
-
Do not use omega drivers.Your vid card and wallet will thank you .
-
Size Matters!!!!
:eek:
Originally posted by doobs
running Geforce40 with 2.26 pent 4, wish ihad 60 frame rate.
But I have no prob running at 30fps, game plays fine, no animated water, but I'm not here to go swiming anyway.
vox works,(most of time:rolleyes: ), bad guys go boom, I go boom,
but waiting on TOD before I go ubersize.
btw; need some technical jargon excuse to give my wife, on why I need a new pc after only 2 years.
Anybody looking for a dell 4500
oh and had the same frame rate in AH1, so I'm used to it whatever that means, cause I've been in FSO with 60FPS and didn't notice a difference in gameplay. But with that said I do have better fiter results in FSO.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
More visible ground objects.
Actually Kweassa it also has to do with the 17 mile visibilty above the vehicle.
-
Why would someone in a gv need 17 miles visibility above them? How far can the human eye see? Maybe 2 miles up? I don't care if space lab is flying over only a IL2....
My point being, and I may be wrong , this game is a major system hog for what it appears to be. I'm glad to see you folks cleaning up the trees but I'll bet there is a few other places in need for coad review.
-
And yes, you are wrong rabid. Your remarks are so far from reality I cannot even comment on them nor find a way to relate them to the reality of the situation.
That is not a dig, but a limitation of my own ability to find a path back to what is going on from your perception of what is going on.
-
No offense taken..
How else should I interpret this:
"Actually Kweassa it also has to do with the 17 mile visibilty above the vehicle."
-
Skuzzy, what about an option to setup minimum fps. The game would adjust detail automatically to keep the desired minimum (if possible). And also setup a maxium fps, if the game detects fps above that limit, the game automatically increases the level of detail to get fps as close to max as possible.
A good example, minium of 30 fps, maximum of 60 fps. A system like that would ensure a great level of playability and detail for every system.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Skuzzy, what about an option to setup minimum fps. The game would adjust detail automatically to keep the desired minimum (if possible). And also setup a maxium fps, if the game detects fps above that limit, the game automatically increases the level of detail to get fps as close to max as possible.
A good example, minium of 30 fps, maximum of 60 fps. A system like that would ensure a great level of playability and detail for every system.
ooooo I like that idea! Is this possible?
-
Dont know what the heck you all are doing, I have all old stuff in my pc (ya know the stuff thats 6 months or older) :) I dont have a High dollar computer, I build my own. 2.6 p4, intel mothaboard 800fsb , pc400 ddr duel channel 512mb, gf2 5200 <--old card paid 49.00 for it , etc.... my frame rates at 800x600 are from, starts at 60 all the way to 120+ ... no 300.00 to 400.00 dollar video card here,..running same graphics as you guys, .
You gotta match what you get, Just like a motor in a car, putting a big 4v carberator on your stock 350 chevy is Not gunna make it faster, unless you put the matching parts in the motor also. Not expensive parts, just matching, and know how to set them up.
only time the my frame rates are low is on the ground view setting, I dont use animated water and my sliders are in the middle, transitions and all are on.
Dell and the rest of the prebuilt store bought systems are not always the big bang computer the sales person tell you they are. They say mostly what you wana hear, not what you need to know and not what the unit will REALLY do and handle. IMO all store bought PCs from dell or you name it, are crap. some may get lucky and get a good one, but 95% of the time your Over paying and getting less. (not to hear the sales people talk though, but thats there job, I guess)
I also have been online gaming for a few years , so im not in the dark here. New expensive vid cards are not always the answer , for sure if your pc is store bought. sigh............ It took me a few to figure it out, so far its working ok.
have you all made sure you,ve checked for all settings available on your current vid card? ...
Just saying hate the computer maker you bought your computer from, dont hate the Game.
And if you built your own pc and still have Frame rate problems, well, hate yourself then I guess, for not matching parts put into your pc. Not everything works together no matter what the box or sales person says, all pc stuff is different even if its on the same shelf. I too have had problems here and there over the years, but not lately on AH2. knock on wood!! :p
-
Quote:
"btw; need some technical jargon excuse to give my wife, on why I need a new pc after only 2 years"
In computer time that is considered archaic
-
Originally posted by mojo55
Do not use omega drivers.Your vid card and wallet will thank you .
Hate to sidetrack but can't email ya Mojo. I'm running a 9800Pro and just installed the Omega drivers after a friend received a tremendous performance boost. I also have seen a very healthy boost to my graphics performance w/them. I'm of course very interested to know exactly how they may harm my vid card. Sure would appreciate any additional info you may have. Thank you, aztec.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Quote:
"btw; need some technical jargon excuse to give my wife, on why I need a new pc after only 2 years"
In computer time that is considered archaic
Just point her to this website
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Mo/Moores_Law.htm
And explain to her
Honey... 2 years is a lifetime. According to Moore's Law, we should be getting a new one every 18 MONTHS!
;-)
-
Originally posted by aztec
Hate to sidetrack but can't email ya Mojo. I'm running a 9800Pro and just installed the Omega drivers after a friend received a tremendous performance boost. I also have seen a very healthy boost to my graphics performance w/them. I'm of course very interested to know exactly how they may harm my vid card. Sure would appreciate any additional info you may have. Thank you, aztec.
Yes I'd like to also know as I've used Omega drivers for well over a year and a half with my old ATI 9800 pro and my NVIDIA 6800gt oc and I've never had a problem with either card. The drivers were not anything more than "donation ware" and that was not required. Perhaps he didn't install them correctly by completely removing his old drivers. The bottom line is I've tried many third party drivers and have found the OMEGA drivers very stable in just about every game I have used them with.
All the Best...
Jay
awDOC1
-
Originally posted by DMax
Here's some info on my card and set-up specs which I should have included to begin with.
Radeon Pro 9800 128 mg using Omega 2.5.97 drivers. I'll check today for newer drivers. Questions here: it's mu understanding that Omega drivers are tweaked to the max when they're installed. True? If any of the 3D setting options should be reset, to what do I reset them to?
My game settings are ~
Video resolution 1024x768
Preload textures and skins are both checked
Max texture = 512
frame rate = unlimited
my three detail/performance sliders are all set about 1/3 rd across from the left
All of the "disbale" boxes are checked; animated water is unchecked.
Under options, horizons, transitions and terrain mapping are all checked.
Thanks folks.
DmdMax
A nice A64 with a much upgraded motherboard; better chipset and so on. Your 9800 Pro will work just fine, but you will need another power supply... which should run $60-70 for a decent 400 - 450W. Oh yea.. throw in a Gig of much faster RAM... RAM is easily half the price of what it used to be.
You can replace the CPU, mobo, RAM and PS for under $400 these days.
..or.. check out
http://www.ibuypower.com and get yourself a nice AMD gaming rig for $700 or so bucks... orders one without a vid card and use your 9800 to save a few $$.
You'll get a-lot of upgrade features like S-ATA, FSB to burn, a chipset developed with gaming in mind (nvidias' for example, usb 2.0.. plus added goodies lie iRD support and extra expansion slots.
Your mobo's chipset is likely stuck at AGP 4x, and crippled FSB.. add that "slower" CPU & your 9800Pro is begging for more.
I'm assuming you have a seperate sound card?, on board sound sometimes off-loads tasks to the CPU and can give a performance hit... the same goes for running extra programs. I personally run nothing but the game; no AV, no firewall (I'm behind a router tho) no extra services.. nada. If I'm surfing the net, you bet my AV and added FW protection is on full blast.
Last... "FPS" isn't everything, it's become the "MHZ myth" of gaming. I'm running a relatively older system: XP3200 with a budget vid card 256M FX5700le (overclocked clocked to 400 / 480) at 1024 res / 512 textures.. 85 FPS most of the time... same as my monitors refresh rate.
85 FPS sounds good huh?.. not bad ffor a $119 vid card... but it doesn't look the same, or as good, as a more expensive vid card with more eye candy goodies (texture shaders, pipelines.. techno babble) would offer... what I do get is a "nice" looking game at average settings that performs outstranding.
And yea... AH probably is taxing older systems, HT wants to release a game on par with "like" titles that take advantage of todays computers.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Doc1: your never mind is correct.
HiTech
OK, so is your game dependent on the CPU or the GPU? That really wasn't much of an answer. Look I would NOT blame you if if was NOT GPU dependent as it would shut out a lot of users and would be like cutting off our noses despite our faces. My response was purely an inquisitive response to the thread and not a provocative response.
All the Best...
Jay
awDOC1