Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: FT_Animal on September 02, 2006, 04:35:17 PM

Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 02, 2006, 04:35:17 PM
Ok first I haven't flown the game for a couple years due to lack of proper PC to run the new versions.

Recently, I built a 1GB machine and started testing AH settings and Machine performance. Using the same exact runway and land marks in ever single offline testing sortie. Using a mouse as a joystick.

CPU: PIII 1GB
RAM: 512
Video: Pny Geforce 4 MX 420 (gag!)
HD: 2-40 GB

At first I had an older version of AH II (202). Using the default Offline Field, and runway NW.

In the Tower I got 28 fps.

Starting engine period would be around 15-18 fps. Depending on settings.

Passing the first hanger object on the runway I was getting between 14-17 FPS, depending on settings. 19 was tops I could milk out of it.

When the wheels left the ground I was at between 18-22 fps, again depending on the settings.
Once in the air I averaged between 21-24.
As I made a left bank I could sustain anywhere between 23-32 fps.
Over the ocean I could keep it at 40 fps.
As soon as I turned back towards the base it would drop as I got closer back down to 19-21 fps.  
On someone's 6 around 18-22 fps

In almost every occasion side views produced a much higher fps no matter where I was, probably due to the cockpit graphics etc..

I decided to update the game version, of course anticipating another fps hit.

NOT SO. Version 208 actually produced a much higher fps. I attribute this due to the optimizations provided in the new version. And as stated some cards will not notice much difference while others will.

Evidently the Pny Geforce 4 MX 420 benefits greatly from this feature.

I was just floored to see the results using the same testing method. making no changes in my settings at the end of my 202 test.

In the Tower I got 34+ fps.
Starting engine - 24+ fps
Passing first hangar object - 23 fps
Lifting off ground - 25+ fps
Once in air - 28-32+ fps
First Left Bank - 35-41+
Over ocean between 45-58+ fps
On someone's 6 - 31+ fps.

Now some people whith current fast paced machine won't think a 10 fps increase isn't all that much. But when older machine like mine is on the brink of not being able to deal with intensive graphics, 10+ fps puts it in the playing field.

A little more tweaking and I'll be able to deal with the hords to a point.
Then again, Grimm (if I remember right) and I had PIII 450s tweaked to almost be able to play the game.

I'll be back into the game REAL soon, I just have to fix a broken stem on my X45. ;-)

Animl
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: wetrat on September 02, 2006, 04:54:50 PM
a 1GB machine? but you say you have 512 ram? HUH :confused:
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: Roscoroo on September 02, 2006, 05:09:03 PM
translates 1gb = 933mhz pent 3 .... (most likely )
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 02, 2006, 05:34:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Roscoroo
translates 1gb = 933mhz pent 3 .... (most likely )


Actually, it shows up as 1001? Doesn't make sense to me, I'll go on your theory. It was junked in someone's garage, so I didn't buy it I just report what it reads as.
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 02, 2006, 05:36:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by wetrat
a 1GB machine? but you say you have 512 ram? HUH :confused:


Well um,... Amount of RAM does not label a machine. It's an add on to what you have.

At least I don't label a machine base don't RAM, I can yank ram and still have the same machine. ;-)

People who label it based on RAM have missed the point. ;-)
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 02, 2006, 05:37:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Well um,... Amount of RAM does not label a machine. It's an add on to what you have.

At least I don't label a machine base don't RAM, I can yank ram and still have the same machine. ;-)

People who label it based on RAM have missed the point. ;-)


Well now that was nice wording
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: Roscoroo on September 02, 2006, 09:02:24 PM
yea the 933 was a very common cpu and alot of them clocked to 1 ghz or more exspecially when placed on a mainboard with Rambus memory .If you have 512 in rambus  your lucky cause that stuff is $$$ .

now the vid card well that puppy really sux. a 9600pro/5900 or better  would wake it up some but it would still be limited as a gamer.
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: wetrat on September 02, 2006, 09:52:09 PM
so you're saying that by GB you mean GHz
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: culero on September 03, 2006, 11:17:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by wetrat
so you're saying that by GB you mean GHz


He beats his wife, too :)

culero
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: 1ijac on September 03, 2006, 11:22:10 AM
Hola Anim      :)

Hope ya make it back soon bud!
Title: Video card ....
Post by: CHECKERS on September 03, 2006, 11:37:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Roscoroo
yea the 933 was a very common cpu and alot of them clocked to 1 ghz or more exspecially when placed on a mainboard with Rambus memory .If you have 512 in rambus  your lucky cause that stuff is $$$ .

now the vid card well that puppy really sux. a 9600pro/5900 or better  would wake it up some but it would still be limited as a gamer.

'

 I have a (built by ATI ) RADEON XT850 XT AGP card ( PT # 102A4750400 000001

 256 MB card ....... that is not being used .
 I bought it new at Best Buy a few months ago... ran it untill I built a new PC using SLI .....
 If you have interest in it , just drop me an email at
 rlksh@hotmail.com


   Bob / CHECKERS
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 03, 2006, 07:13:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by wetrat
so you're saying that by GB you mean GHz


I'm saying, that if I say anymore I'm going to dig a deeper pit.

Hey what dus ya want, I excite easy. ;-)
Title: Re: Video card ....
Post by: FT_Animal on September 03, 2006, 07:22:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CHECKERS
'

 I have a (built by ATI ) RADEON XT850 XT AGP card ( PT # 102A4750400 000001

 256 MB card ....... that is not being used .
 I bought it new at Best Buy a few months ago... ran it untill I built a new PC using SLI .....
 If you have interest in it , just drop me an email at
 rlksh@hotmail.com


   Bob / CHECKERS


Man I sure do appreciate the offer, let me look into the specs and the money flow. I'll email yas if I can do it.
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 03, 2006, 09:55:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by 1ijac
Hola Anim      :)

Hope ya make it back soon bud!


Hiya 1ijac, long time.

I'm pedaling as fast as I can. But at least I see the hill cresting. ;-)

You'll know it's me when you see some poor sap getting his ars handed to him over and over. It's amazing I still have fun doing that.
Title: Re: Re: Video card ....
Post by: CHECKERS on September 04, 2006, 08:41:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Man I sure do appreciate the offer, let me look into the specs and the money flow. I'll email yas if I can do it.



 OK.

 Bob/CHECKERS
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: FT_Animal on September 05, 2006, 12:21:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Roscoroo
yea the 933 was a very common cpu and alot of them clocked to 1 ghz or more exspecially when placed on a mainboard with Rambus memory .If you have 512 in rambus  your lucky cause that stuff is $$$ .

now the vid card well that puppy really sux. a 9600pro/5900 or better  would wake it up some but it would still be limited as a gamer.


FINALLY found out it's actually a Intel PIII EB 1000mhz Copermine-T
on a VIA VT8686 MB.

but hey I'll get by for now.
Title: Performance increase>?
Post by: Kurt on September 05, 2006, 02:43:49 AM
You are making my head hurt and I command you to sleep now.