Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Getback on January 30, 2008, 02:18:53 PM
-
If your video card has an option of let the game decide on Antialisong or any other recommended item that Hitech suggests that we turn off should we still turn that off manually?
-
I run 2x AA.. no probs?
why turn it off, if your machine can hack it, more power to ya.
-
LOL Wingnut.
What does it do anyway? I do have a pretty awesome machine though. Duo core amd 3gighz, ati 3870 vid card.
-
Originally posted by Getback
LOL Wingnut.
What does it do anyway? I do have a pretty awesome machine though. Duo core amd 3gighz, ati 3870 vid card.
well at very high res, not much, much more than 2x is hardly noticable..
but long story short it smooths the edges of the pixels, so you dont see jagged edgest
-
It also increases resources used oin the video card by a factor of what the value is for the sampling.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It also increases resources used oin the video card by a factor of what the value is for the sampling.
Isn't that what they make GOOD video cards for, though?
:D
-
Keep it set to "Application Preference". That way, if the game supports it you can usually adjust the FSAA multiplyer in the in-game options. And if games like AH that don't support it, it won't be active.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by RedGiant
Isn't that what they make GOOD video cards for, though?
:D
The quality of the video card has nothing to do with the resources needed to run anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing uses a significant amount of video ram.
If a texture only takes 1MB of video RAM, and then you set the AA level to 8, that same texture will use 8MB of video RAM. That is just one 1024x1024 texture.
-
I always max my AA an AS settings in every game. Once you get rid of the jagged lines you can't go back.
-
Sunking, 2x you can notice a difference. 4x looks much better. 6x? No better than 4x. 8? No better than 4x.
Maxing settings doesn't always give the best performance-to-looks ratio. Setting 4x FSAA will give almost the same results at 1280x1024 resolution as will 16x FSAA. The problem is there just aren't enough pixels to anti-alias after a certain point.
It's like using SLI instead of 1 card. You double the price but only get 5-10% gains.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The quality of the video card has nothing to do with the resources needed to run anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing uses a significant amount of video ram.
If a texture only takes 1MB of video RAM, and then you set the AA level to 8, that same texture will use 8MB of video RAM. That is just one 1024x1024 texture.
Oh, that's ludicrous. Take a Geforce 7600GT and put it next to a Geforce 8800GTX and tell me there isn't going to be a difference in performance in regards to anti-aliasing (or overall for that matter). I understand the multiples of video ram used in running FSAA as well as transparency AA. I agree with you there. As I'm confident you're aware of, a better video card HAS the resources(more memory, higher memory bandwidth, higher GPU clock, etc.) with which to perform better whilst utilizing AA, Anisotropic Filtering, higher resolutions, physics, and so on. So, of course a better quality video has EVERYTHING to do with resources needed to run AA.
I don't want to make this a pissing contest. You're the boss here. But what you're saying is a bit, shall we say, elusive?
And why do you seem so anti anti-aliasing? You, being one of the architects of this game, I believed would be one who would champion the ability for better graphics and performance to enhance the gaming experience. Am I in error in observing this?
By the way, for anyone wanting to see the differences in settings for anti-aliasing, here's a pretty good little thing I found that allows you to see an image with different AA settings. Anti-Aliasing presentation (http://www.nhancer.com/help/AASamplesLow.htm)
Good Day.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Sunking, 2x you can notice a difference. 4x looks much better. 6x? No better than 4x. 8? No better than 4x.
Maxing settings doesn't always give the best performance-to-looks ratio. Setting 4x FSAA will give almost the same results at 1280x1024 resolution as will 16x FSAA. The problem is there just aren't enough pixels to anti-alias after a certain point.
It's like using SLI instead of 1 card. You double the price but only get 5-10% gains.
Respectfully, I can see a HUGE difference between 4x and 16x at 1280X1024. As well as 16x Anisotropic Filtering. The textures inside the model look much better than if set to 4x.
-
I might add that if your running the game at your monitors maximum resolution..
FSAA wont do very much..
if I took a screen of 2x and one of 16x you couldent tell the difference.
-
Wingnut: I can tell the difference between 2x and 4x. 4x is much more refined. However I can't tell the dif between 4x and 6x, or 4x and 8x (that's my vid card's max, or I'd have tested 16x as well!)
EDIT: Ge 7600 GTS 256MB running DVI to Dell FP 1900 (?) running at native resolution of 1280x1024.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Wingnut: I can tell the difference between 2x and 4x. 4x is much more refined. However I can't tell the dif between 4x and 6x, or 4x and 8x (that's my vid card's max, or I'd have tested 16x as well!)
EDIT: Ge 7600 GTS 256MB running DVI to Dell FP 1900 (?) running at native resolution of 1280x1024.
right what Im getting at is that for example..
my monitor supports a max of 1920x1200
i run AH at 1920x1200.. on a 8800GT-OC so the extra AA does not do much. if I set it to 2x it looks indistinguishable from 16x..
-
All in all, it's in the eyes of the beholder.
Take my wife ack for example.. she can't tell the difference between FM radio, and HD FM radio... heck she can barely distinguish VHS from DVD, or even Stereo vs Surround!
Some people are going to notice the difference more than others...
-
RedGiant, I am not against anti-aliasing when it is properly used. I get about 20 emails a day from people who complain about warps and stutters. Many of them have to do with turning anti-alising up to high levels, then run with the high res pack and preload of textures.
if your video card has 4GB of video RAM, then you can get away with it without any issue at all. I will not go into how many people in this very thread have complained about performance issues and still refuse to disable or adjust anti-aliasing settings.
The truth is, most people have no idea how to use it properly. They think it is free and it is anything but free. It can kill performance in critical areas of the game. Say when saddling up on a plane's 6 and then you get that stutter right when you have a firing solution. Or when you want to play a film back and it stutters, which kills the enjoyment of the film.
I will never advise anyone to potentially sacrifice gameplay for the sake of graphics.
Elusive? Sit in my chair for a few days and deal with all these issues, then maybe you will understand why a blanket endorsement of anti-aliasing will not be forthcoming from me. You want ludicrous? That would be anyone making a general endorsement for anti-aliasing without understanding the potential performance issues involved.
When I see blanket endorsements for turning up the AA to the highest levels along with anisotropic filtering, then I have to say something, as it would be irresponsible to sit by and watch people do something that would potentially cause them gameplay issues.
And no matter what you think you know. I know a good deal more about our game than you do.
-
Since skuzzy won't give a blanket endorsement, I will :)
No really, I think FSAA makes AH look better, but as skuzzy said it can really cause system performance issues if you turn it up too far. That said, I think even reasonably fast mid-level video cards ought to be able to use at least 2x FSAA. On my 6800GT (256 meg memory) I can run either 2x or 4xQ FSAA without any stuttering and while maintaining 40+ FPS, with screen resolution of 1280x1024 and the graphics sliders turned about 3/4 of the way up. Plain 4X FSAA looks nicer I think but it drops framerates enough that I don't use it.
It's all a tradeoff. hi-res textures are IMHO nicer than running higher FSAA. Higher resolutions (up to the native resolution of your monitor if you're using an LCD) looks nicer than FSAA in my opinion. And in my experience, never ever turn up any options that make your framerate drop below 40 when maneuvering around other planes near an airfield, or you'll get stuttering when you saddle up for shots.
For me, the "sweet spot" has been 2x FSAA because I get just enough of a dip in framerates with 4X or 4xQ that it can ruin the feel of the game. But again that's with an nvidia 6800GT. I suspect that if I got a nice 8800GT with 512 meg memory, I could turn that up to at least 4x and also use transparancy antialiasing, which ought to make things look nicer.
Oh yea, good FSAA can help reduce edge shimmering, which is a personal destroyer of game feel for me. That's why when I'm fly9ing I turn down ground visual range... I just don't care to see the shimmering treetops. But FSAA seems to slightly reduce the shimmering and allegedly, transparancy antialiasing is supposed to help antialias more than old-style antialiasing alone. But I haven't tried it so I don't know for sure.
When my MBA is done, I'll buy a new 8800GT to update my computer and do some testing online :)
-
Originally posted by eagl
Since skuzzy won't give a blanket endorsement, I will :)
No really, I think FSAA makes AH look better, but as skuzzy said it can really cause system performance issues if you turn it up too far. That said, I think even reasonably fast mid-level video cards ought to be able to use at least 2x FSAA. On my 6800GT (256 meg memory) I can run either 2x or 4xQ FSAA without any stuttering and while maintaining 40+ FPS, with screen resolution of 1280x1024 and the graphics sliders turned about 3/4 of the way up. Plain 4X FSAA looks nicer I think but it drops framerates enough that I don't use it.
It's all a tradeoff. hi-res textures are IMHO nicer than running higher FSAA. Higher resolutions (up to the native resolution of your monitor if you're using an LCD) looks nicer than FSAA in my opinion. And in my experience, never ever turn up any options that make your framerate drop below 40 when maneuvering around other planes near an airfield, or you'll get stuttering when you saddle up for shots.
For me, the "sweet spot" has been 2x FSAA because I get just enough of a dip in framerates with 4X or 4xQ that it can ruin the feel of the game. But again that's with an nvidia 6800GT. I suspect that if I got a nice 8800GT with 512 meg memory, I could turn that up to at least 4x and also use transparancy antialiasing, which ought to make things look nicer.
Oh yea, good FSAA can help reduce edge shimmering, which is a personal destroyer of game feel for me. That's why when I'm fly9ing I turn down ground visual range... I just don't care to see the shimmering treetops. But FSAA seems to slightly reduce the shimmering and allegedly, transparancy antialiasing is supposed to help antialias more than old-style antialiasing alone. But I haven't tried it so I don't know for sure.
When my MBA is done, I'll buy a new 8800GT to update my computer and do some testing online :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
RedGiant, I am not against anti-aliasing when it is properly used. I get about 20 emails a day from people who complain about warps and stutters. Many of them have to do with turning anti-alising up to high levels, then run with the high res pack and preload of textures.
if your video card has 4GB of video RAM, then you can get away with it without any issue at all. I will not go into how many people in this very thread have complained about performance issues and still refuse to disable or adjust anti-aliasing settings.
The truth is, most people have no idea how to use it properly. They think it is free and it is anything but free. It can kill performance in critical areas of the game. Say when saddling up on a plane's 6 and then you get that stutter right when you have a firing solution. Or when you want to play a film back and it stutters, which kills the enjoyment of the film.
I will never advise anyone to potentially sacrifice gameplay for the sake of graphics.
Elusive? Sit in my chair for a few days and deal with all these issues, then maybe you will understand why a blanket endorsement of anti-aliasing will not be forthcoming from me. You want ludicrous? That would be anyone making a general endorsement for anti-aliasing without understanding the potential performance issues involved.
When I see blanket endorsements for turning up the AA to the highest levels along with anisotropic filtering, then I have to say something, as it would be irresponsible to sit by and watch people do something that would potentially cause them gameplay issues.
And no matter what you think you know. I know a good deal more about our game than you do.
-
Originally posted by RedGiant
Respectfully, I can see a HUGE difference between 4x and 16x at 1280X1024. As well as 16x Anisotropic Filtering. The textures inside the model look much better than if set to 4x.
I can see a huge difference too.
It's like going from
(http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6913/g14defljn2.png)
to
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f278/Makoyouidiot/Kimakesapassonspit.jpg)
(notice the jagged wings in the 1st picture, it's worse in the actual game at default settings)
You can totally see a difference. If I can push my hardware and not loose performance in game, I'm going to. With AH2 my rig runs fine with everything maxed.
-
sunking, my 2x FSAA looks better than your "4x FSAA"... I don't know what card/drivers you've got, but that's not representative of most cards I've used that support FSAA. I've had 3 cards over the past 6/7 years or so that allowed me to do FSAA and even 2x FSAA on a GeForce 256 DDR (32MB) looks better than what you posted in your first image. I know. I used it on a fe games back then. SLowed it down for sure, but looked way better.
Also, AH does not use aniso filtering. You can turn it on but the game won't use it. I think the elusive "placebo effect" is kicking in here.
P.S. Blurry JPEGs aren't best to show anti-aliasing on. Need higher quality JPEGs or BMPs.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
sunking, my 2x FSAA looks better than your "4x FSAA"... I don't know what card/drivers you've got, but that's not representative of most cards I've used that support FSAA. I've had 3 cards over the past 6/7 years or so that allowed me to do FSAA and even 2x FSAA on a GeForce 256 DDR (32MB) looks better than what you posted in your first image. I know. I used it on a fe games back then. SLowed it down for sure, but looked way better.
Also, AH does not use aniso filtering. You can turn it on but the game won't use it. I think the elusive "placebo effect" is kicking in here.
P.S. Blurry JPEGs aren't best to show anti-aliasing on. Need higher quality JPEGs or BMPs.
Don't take those screenshots as the end all, they aren't mine. I was just trying to explain what I see and dislike without having AA and AS on.
The screenshot compression changes what it actually looks like anyway.
But you get the idea what am I'm talking about.
Arguing over this is silly, we'll do what we want with our pc's regardless.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
...
Also, AH does not use aniso filtering. You can turn it on but the game won't use it. I think the elusive "placebo effect" is kicking in here.
...
I have my AF set to 16x Krusty. I see a difference at extreme angles such as when in the tower looking out in the distance or if I'm on the ground and I'm looking around.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
RedGiant, I am not against anti-aliasing when it is properly used. I get about 20 emails a day from people who complain about warps and stutters. Many of them have to do with turning anti-alising up to high levels, then run with the high res pack and preload of textures.
if your video card has 4GB of video RAM, then you can get away with it without any issue at all. I will not go into how many people in this very thread have complained about performance issues and still refuse to disable or adjust anti-aliasing settings.
The truth is, most people have no idea how to use it properly. They think it is free and it is anything but free. It can kill performance in critical areas of the game. Say when saddling up on a plane's 6 and then you get that stutter right when you have a firing solution. Or when you want to play a film back and it stutters, which kills the enjoyment of the film.
I will never advise anyone to potentially sacrifice gameplay for the sake of graphics.
Elusive? Sit in my chair for a few days and deal with all these issues, then maybe you will understand why a blanket endorsement of anti-aliasing will not be forthcoming from me. You want ludicrous? That would be anyone making a general endorsement for anti-aliasing without understanding the potential performance issues involved.
When I see blanket endorsements for turning up the AA to the highest levels along with anisotropic filtering, then I have to say something, as it would be irresponsible to sit by and watch people do something that would potentially cause them gameplay issues.
And no matter what you think you know. I know a good deal more about our game than you do.
Wow, keyboard sticking and having issues. sorry for double reply post.
Got to keep kids with juice away from my equipment.
Anyhow, SKuzzy I completely respect ALL your knowledge. You are an architect of this game and wouldn't be able to be so if you didn't have advanced knowledge of PC's, networking, video, etc.
<>
I was not making a blanket endorsement for FSAA. Not sure if you meant that for me or not. Just want to make that clear. And, as you are, I'm an advocate of FSAA and all other enhancements WHEN THEY ARE APPROPRIATE to use. Someone running the game on a Pentium 3 933mhz with a substandard graphics card and 128 megs of ram: no, I wouldn't tell them to run ANY graphical enhancements. This is common sense.
But saying that the quality of video card has nothing to do with FSAA performance, I just don't agree with, respectfully. This is what I meant by elusive. You have so far not explained (not that you are obliged to or anything) what you meant by "The quality of the video card has nothing to do with the resources needed to run anti-aliasing."
I just don't agree with this statement. Yes, the PC's other components have a part to play in that as well. But for the sake of my broken forfinger, I won't go into all that. (unless you really want me to)
Skuzzy, I have the utmost respect for you and all the guys at Hitech.
And as far as what I think I know, I have ownership of a chain of successful PC shops in my area, have been working with PC's since hard drives would've taken up the better part of my shed out back, and live, eat, breath and sleep computers all day, all night, for the rest of my life. I'll give you the fact that you know more about AH. That's a given. I'll even give you credit for being an expert with PC's. You obviously are. However, my knowledge is something I'm very confident in.
Regards
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
I have my AF set to 16x Krusty. I see a difference at extreme angles such as when in the tower looking out in the distance or if I'm on the ground and I'm looking around.
Somebody at HTC can verify, but I believe Skuzzy has said aniso is not used in AH at all. (Maybe it was Pyro?)
-
RedGiant, let's try this tact.
Take a Ferrari and a Prius. Put one gallon of gas in them both. They both go down the road, albeit the Ferrari is going to blow the Prius away,...until they both run out of gas. At that point in time they are identical in performance due to resource starvation.
Video RAM is a resource on every video card. When you exceed the amount of RAM on any video card, it hurts the performance of that card. It matters not whether the video card is a 8800GT or a GF2.
Every PC is different. Given the same hardware, anyone would be hard pressed to find any two that are the same due to all the various software elements people will invariably load on thier computer. From my perspective, I have to take it a case at a time. There is no way I would urge anyone to turn up AA to high levels. There are far too many variables involved in a PC for anyone to assume "it will work for them, just because it works for me".
Anti-aliasing is a nice feature, when properly used. It can also overwhelm the resources (i.e. video RAM) of any video card when it is not used correctly. It is worth trying, but if stutters are an issue due to the video card thrashing, then turn it down, or off.
On Anisotopic filtering, we do not use it. There are only a couple of instances where there would be any benefit. For the most part, it is something not really noticable during normal game play. When you are fighting someone else, it really does not offer any benefits.
It might be more useful when filming or taking screenshots than any other place.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
RedGiant, let's try this tact.
Take a Ferrari and a Prius. Put one gallon of gas in them both. They both go down the road, albeit the Ferrari is going to blow the Prius away,...until they both run out of gas. At that point in time they are identical in performance due to resource starvation.
Video RAM is a resource on every video card. When you exceed the amount of RAM on any video card, it hurts the performance of that card. It matters not whether the video card is a 8800GT or a GF2.
Every PC is different. Given the same hardware, anyone would be hard pressed to find any two that are the same due to all the various software elements people will invariably load on thier computer. From my perspective, I have to take it a case at a time. There is no way I would urge anyone to turn up AA to high levels. There are far too many variables involved in a PC for anyone to assume "it will work for them, just because it works for me".
Anti-aliasing is a nice feature, when properly used. It can also overwhelm the resources (i.e. video RAM) of any video card when it is not used correctly. It is worth trying, but if stutters are an issue due to the video card thrashing, then turn it down, or off.
On Anisotopic filtering, we do not use it. There are only a couple of instances where there would be any benefit. For the most part, it is something not really noticable during normal game play. When you are fighting someone else, it really does not offer any benefits.
It might be more useful when filming or taking screenshots than any other place.
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.
Also, a video card uses system memory as well as it's own memory. And with the speeds that memory is attaining these days as well as system bus speeds and processor cache sizes, cache thrashing is becoming less and less of an issue. There is hardly any, if any at all, latency between the video card and system memory. On newer systems within the last 2-3 years, mind you.
Not the systems that barely meet the hardware req's like the majority who play this game have.
Let me ask you something else:
Why do you even offer a high-res pack and why even offer to have textures at 1024?? Straight from the tutorial:
"Generally speaking, you would need a very high end video card, such as an ATI X800Pro/XT or an NVidia 6800Ultra or better to be able to use 1024 textures effectively and only with anti-aliasing disabled as anti-aliasing can quadruple the amount of video ram needed for any given frame to be drawn."
You consider those very high-end cards???
Also, I run AH on my older system with a 6800UltraExtreme with 8xSAA at the High Quality setting and my card only has 256 megs of ram with 2 gigs of system ram and I have absolutely no hiccups whatsoever. Seems like you guys are trying to scare people away from running the game at higher resolutions. Why?? I have my own reasons why I think you guys are doing this which I won't get into. But, it's a smart business move. Gotta keep your customers! Can't fault you for that.
I also find this laughable "To keep all the textures in memory, either system or video card, currently requires more than 1GB of ram!"
Who doesn't have a gig of ram? And at the time you guys wrote this, one gig video cards didn't even exist. So, WHY even include the options to run the game at such high texture resolutions or higher resolutions at all??
Even the most advanced games don't have req's like these. Amusing.
-
Whoa! Chill there, redgiant!
You do realize those requirements are probably from 2000/2001? You're taking a combatitive tone, but trust me, Skuzzy's not making stuff up.
It's over 1.5 GBs if you wish to load all textures into memory now. Every skin pack release increases this. That's on hi-res with skins enabled. Granted, it takes less if you lower the res and turn some things off. It's a warning about using the best quality visuals AND the hi-res pack at the same time.
Do you have in-game settings maxed? Are you running the hi-res pack at high resolution (above 1280x1024)? Do you preload all textures and all skins into memory? Try maxing out the GAME settings, not your card settings (which, fyi, are no controlled by the game and HTC doesn't have settings/options for). You will eventually see stutters and hitches, *especially* on a 256MB vid card.
There's no hidden agenda. It's just basic resources. Up until a year ago I didn't have more than 512MB RAM. Many folks don't have 1 GB. Many folks are still running Pentium 3s or low-end P4s. Heck we got folks running on laptops, trying to run on integrated vidcards, etc. There are a lot out there BEHIND the technology curve. We see this in the help and hardware forums quite often.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
...On Anisotopic filtering, we do not use it. There are only a couple of instances where there would be any benefit. For the most part, it is something not really noticable during normal game play. When you are fighting someone else, it really does not offer any benefits.
It might be more useful when filming or taking screenshots than any other place.
I do like filming and taking screenshots, which is why I have AS to 16x.
I agree with you 100% on this topic 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.
-
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.
-
:confused:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl
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.
-
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.
:rofl
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
To make a long story short........................ ..................NOT!!
:D
Skuzzy's right.
A good rule of thumb to use:
If using lower image resolution/texture settings then using some AA to "clean up" the image is a decent methodology to use (main reason that AA was developed) as you're basically trading the resources. Meaning what you may gain by using a lower resolution/texture setting you gave back by using AA to clean up the jaggies. The net result if used carefully should give decent image/performance ratios.
If using higher image resolution/texture settings then using even less AA or turning AA off is also a decent methodology to use as you're exponentially using up the resources. Meaning that you have basically no resource tradeoffs occurring & can very quickly eat up your available resources to the extent that the vid card will then go out across it's bus (whether AGP or PCI-E) & acquire SYSTEM RAM to continue it's operations & here is where the stuttering starts occurring due to bandwidth & frequency differences between the vid card & the PC. The vid card has to start waiting to access/write out data to finish frames so that they can be displayed-thus stutters. The resolution at higher settings reduce the jaggies due to usage of a higher pixel count in the texture (1024 vs 512, for example) & at some point would need no AA at all due to the eye can't distinguish the difference anyway. But all this takes more resources to do efficiently-both mem & GPU.
The main reason for the large amounts of video memory is for the frame buffers & there will be at least 2 of them (heard of double buffering anyone) due to the preferred display method of "flipping". Triple buffering helps smooth out image display quality even more but, as the name suggests, it creates a 3rd frame buffer which takes up more video memory & GPU cycles to operate-thus using up resources. For smooth video playback you DEFINITELY don't want your vid card having to create ANY part of a frame buffer in your system memory-you want ALL FRAME BUFFERS to reside in the vid card's much faster memory/bus for best playback, period.
So the main thing that helps graphic cards is the amount of on-board video memory that they have & how it's being used along w/ the GPU-the more on-board memory, the larger the buffers can be WITHOUT going to system memory-thus smoother & faster. There is nothing wrong w/ using AA at all-just know & understand the ramifications of it's overuse on a system's ability to perform well running a game--such as AH & be willing to reconsider some of your choices that you chose to set that in the end your hardware cannot handle & not just blame the game itself for your troubles--as soooooo many of us do, unfortunately. AH isn't the only game/sim that has this type of stuff happening either--they ALL do!
Yes, good graphics can enhance any game's imagery & immersion value. But gameplay is far more important IMHO.
Skuzzy, if any of what I said is not true, please correct it.
:)
-
You do not need to ask me to correct anything.
I only comment in threads like this when I can see a train wreck about to happen, and that I am the one who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
I have been supporting this community for 9 years. I have a pretty good feel for how things go. One thing I never need is for someone to make more work for me. Yes, I am being selfish. I am also aware of how frustrated someone can be when things do not work the way they have been told it will work. I have to deal with thier frustration.
I would rather stop the train wreck before it happens. I do not get a chance to do that very often.
-
I'll just say this.. if I had to choose between "pretty eye candy" and "realistic flight modeling"... I would choose the latter every time.
I'll be more than happy to deal with the lack of water movement, troop leg movement, sheep nipples, and smooth edges, to keep my FPS up high.
I have maybe five flight hours in my lifetime in a single engine Cessna 172, so I may not have a lot of ACTUAL flight to compare things to, but of all of the Flight Simulators I've flown, AHII is the most accurate when it comes to physics, accuracy, and the general "feel" of flight.
FSX is quite nice too, but I feel they may have added a bit too much eye candy. You need two 8800GTS cards in SLI to even begin to see the same performance that AH gets, even at minimal settings. It would be great to max out the video settings of FSX and still get 75FPS, but the simple truth is that if I had the money to invest in that sort of setup, I'd be out flying for real instead.
Just my two cents worth...
-
ok so no simple formula. :( from Ctrl-I offline I get:
Frame Rate 59
VM/INTERNAL DM SNAP
VidMem 245.4M Used 71.0M Cnt=0
SystemMem 1023.5M Used 683.9M Tex = 127.4M
so this means I'm not going to run into problems with vram presumably as I have plenty of headroom? can we say that if you have unused vram during normal gameplay shown on ctrl-I then you can eliminate vram as a cause of stutters?
also what does Cnt=0 mean?
-
How much video memory is being used is not a reliable number. It is dependent on what the video card driver thinks is available memory.
The 'Cnt' variable is the count of how many textures are still to be handed off to the video card driver.
Your system RAM is pretty heavily used.
The only sure fire way to tell if any combination of variables is going to work is to try it. If it does not perform well enough for you, then back down the settings.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Wingnut: I can tell the difference between 2x and 4x. 4x is much more refined. However I can't tell the dif between 4x and 6x, or 4x and 8x (that's my vid card's max, or I'd have tested 16x as well!)
EDIT: Ge 7600 GTS 256MB running DVI to Dell FP 1900 (?) running at native resolution of 1280x1024.
I got one 7900GT with 256MB. 8Xs looks A LOT better than 4X. I definitely cant go back now... if i do, reminds me of "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" back from the 90s.