Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: 100Coogn on September 03, 2012, 02:20:46 PM
-
I know we have a thread floating around with images of peoples rigs, but do you have one that will run everything maxed out? All sliders-max: Shadows-smooth (and at least 4096): Environment -max. Everything else maxed or turned on.
If you do, let's hear about your system. Did it bankrupt you?
Oh yea, photos of your rig is a big plus.
Coogan
-
Blade can.
-
This thread is for folks who have it and would like to show it off.
Coogan <---did not display my specs... :lol
-
Yeh.... taking my desk apart to get pictures... not going to happen.
Here is basically what I did although the CPU cooling is very different:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1262433/new-gaming-rig-case-labs-sth10/20
-
I went from a 5570 to a 6870, still couldn't max the game, same settings as before. Though Im pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that AH is more CPU than GPU and I currently have a Core2Duo E7500 at 2.93Ghz. Moment I turn on smooth shadows or 8192 shadows, the game takes a pooper. (and yes semp, I know you'll come barging in "no one needs 8192 shadows, bla bla bla, you're rig isn't strong enough, bla bla"). Well hey, it's strong enough to play Arma 2 on max, Crysis 2 max and BF3 on high. ("bla bla, those games doesn't have hundreds of players in an area, bla bla"). I dunno, Arma 2 and BF3 comes close.
-
I only use the highest settings for making movies. The new environment mapping is more interesting than the shadows. I have never really liked the way shadows make other planes look especially target bombers. It just throws the aim off.
-
:huh :huh :huh Ewwwwwww you got Semp on the brain! :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
I went from a 5570 to a 6870, still couldn't max the game, same settings as before. Though Im pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that AH is more CPU than GPU and I currently have a Core2Duo E7500 at 2.93Ghz. Moment I turn on smooth shadows or 8192 shadows, the game takes a pooper. (and yes semp, I know you'll come barging in "no one needs 8192 shadows, bla bla bla, you're rig isn't strong enough, bla bla"). Well hey, it's strong enough to play Arma 2 on max, Crysis 2 max and BF3 on high. ("bla bla, those games doesn't have hundreds of players in an area, bla bla"). I dunno, Arma 2 and BF3 comes close.
I never said no one needs 8192 shadows. all I said was your rig wont come even close to play 8192, i kind of doubt it will play with 4096 and everything else on. hey I can play pogo with everything on and there's over 100k players on at all times. but I cant do shadows at 8192 in aces high, so something is gotta be wrong with aces high.
semp
-
I have the highest settings used.
-
Maxed...steady 59fps
AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8 Ghz
Nvidea GT 440
4 gigs ram
-
http://www.overclock.net/t/1262433/new-gaming-rig-case-labs-sth10/20
M.O.G. That rig is gorgeous.
-
Maxed...steady 59fps
AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8 Ghz
Nvidea GT 440
4 gigs ram
I don't nearly believe you, or you are running the game in 800x600
-
I only use the highest settings for making movies. The new environment mapping is more interesting than the shadows. I have never really liked the way shadows make other planes look especially target bombers. It just throws the aim off.
shadows do turn the bomber's wings black at a distance, and when you close in the effect just goes away. Always thought something was wrong with my rendering.
-
Sadly, I cannot due to my running the game in multi-monitor mode. Even my SLIed dual GTX 570s can't run everything maxed when running at 5990x1080 resolution. :x
Still....it looks pretty good to me as is and I do have quite a few things turned on.....
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7640384168_90459bc0a0_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/)
IM000019 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/) by AKFulcrm (http://www.flickr.com/people/akfulcrm/), on Flickr
-
Finished redoing my system but, I havn't tried max settings all sliders. I dont' care for the shadows. I did try the shadows at 4096 and video setting at 2048? ALso the one slider in advanced 75 percent over and still had 59fps. Running game in 1600x1050 with Samsung 22 inch monitor 4 years old.
-
Building & parting a system now... Total cost with monitors is in excess of 8,000 now. It will run max no problems.
I'll post parts if you wanna see them.
(I do more than just AH which is why I'm spending close too ten grand & you can buy a new system that should max with solid frames for around 4,000)
-
I think 4096 shadows performs & looks good. I'm talking without smooth shadows. As soon as I click smooth shadows, fps are in the toilet. But 4096 isn't too bad on it's own.
Coogan
-
I have an Intel I7-2600k system and an AMD 975 quad-core system, both will run AH with
all graphics on or maxed using 4096 shadows @ 1920 x 1200 or 1080 at a constant 59/60 frame rate
TC
-
I have an Intel I7-2600k system and an AMD 975 quad-core system, both will run AH with
all graphics on or maxed using 4096 shadows @ 1920 x 1200 or 1080 at a constant 59/60 frame rate
TC
I doubt you have the new environment slider on max though.
-
I doubt you have the new environment slider on max though.
I'm not sure Midway, and will not be able to verify until I get back home to NC next week ( Tuesday ).
I am down in Florida visiting my youngest Daughter for a lil bit
TC
edit: if nothing has changed since the August Saturday koth, then yes I do have it maxed on my I7 system
-
I'm not sure Midway, and will not be able to verify until I get back home to NC next week ( Tuesday ).
I am down in Florida visiting my youngest Daughter for a lil bit
TC
edit: if nothing has changed since the August Saturday koth, then yes I do have it maxed on my I7 system
Where did you purchase your system?
-
Where did you purchase your system?
I research and select the components I want.... then build myself...
I have posted both systems specs in the hardware and software forum a few times since July
of last year.... I would try and type them out now, but it's hard typing on this EVO phone
TC
-
I never said no one needs 8192 shadows. all I said was your rig wont come even close to play 8192, i kind of doubt it will play with 4096 and everything else on. hey I can play pogo with everything on and there's over 100k players on at all times. but I cant do shadows at 8192 in aces high, so something is gotta be wrong with aces high.
semp
I didn't realize pogo and Battlefield3/Arma 2 was the same thing... :headscratch: I didn't realize AH has better graphics than both, and I didn't realize AH had more detail per kilometer than Arma 2. :headscratch:
-
Sadly, I cannot due to my running the game in multi-monitor mode. Even my SLIed dual GTX 570s can't run everything maxed when running at 5990x1080 resolution. :x
Still....it looks pretty good to me as is and I do have quite a few things turned on.....
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7640384168_90459bc0a0_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/)
IM000019 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/) by AKFulcrm (http://www.flickr.com/people/akfulcrm/), on Flickr
OH COME ON! :salute
-
I research and select the components I want.... then build myself...
I have posted both systems specs in the hardware and software forum a few times since July
of last year.... I would try and type them out now, but it's hard typing on this EVO phone
TC
Found it, although it's all Greek to me: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,331443.msg4347425.html#msg4347425
:salute
-
I didn't realize pogo and Battlefield3/Arma 2 was the same thing... :headscratch: I didn't realize AH has better graphics than both, and I didn't realize AH had more detail per kilometer than Arma 2. :headscratch:
and that is why you dont know why your computer cant run 8196 shadows. you dont have the slightest idea of how those games use your computer resources. i can put a bluray disk in my computer and the graphics are amazing better than anything any of those games can do. and yet we arent comparing the same thing are we? which is what you are trying to do with battlefield3/arm2 or aces high.
semp
-
and that is why you dont know why your computer cant run 8196 shadows. you dont have the slightest idea of how those games use your computer resources. i can put a bluray disk in my computer and the graphics are amazing better than anything any of those games can do. and yet we arent comparing the same thing are we? which is what you are trying to do with battlefield3/arm2 or aces high.
semp
I understand that point of view, but these games still look better than aces high, trained eye or not.
-
I have a 6970 and x4 phenom with 8g ram.
I dont have everything on, but my PC is 5 years old.
60fps cant see the point in some of the effects, but its a bit like cup holders in cars (handy)
The AH is small compared to other games which is a bonus, you can install it and reinstall it very quickly if there is a problem.
New clouds and shiny bits is very nice :old:
Glouster Meteor would make the game run better :old:
-
I understand that point of view, but these games still look better than aces high, trained eye or not.
It might be possible to make AH even prettier even given its limitations but it is limited in order to make things as easy as possible on your system so that your system still has enough horsepower for everything else (networking and sounds and so on). The problem that a flight sim faces when it comes to textures is that you are always looking at a very contrasty scene. They could add more realistic textures by reducing the terrain colors supported further (sounds backwards right?) but then the contrast between ground and sky (sun specifically) would draw even more complaints.
You know an education in digital design would only cost you about $50,000 and by then you could learn to use the terrain editor too plus make awesome skins and sounds.
-
I think the textures and models are ok. We know that AH displays everything in a 18 miles radius and that is a main feature of the game, along with being the major ressource hog. I'm no 3D engine expert but it seems like Aces high doesn't have many level of rendering details depending on the distance of the object displayed. Trees are still displayed the exact same whatever the distance is, planes change from detailed models to cubes abruptly, ground cutter don't go further than a few metres distance...
In the other bigger games you can see the level of detail changing smoothly as you approach an object or get separation from it, which is not really the case in here.
I perceive Aces high as a very powerful tool, but a blunt one.
-
i run max on everything with 74fps. I7, 18gigs of ram, 1 tb raid, radeon 4890. home built machine.
-
i run max on everything with 74fps. I7, 18gigs of ram, 1 tb raid, radeon 4890. home built machine.
Maybe someday we'll have a 64bit version of Aces high able to make advantage of all this RAM :pray
-
and that is why you dont know why your computer cant run 8196 shadows. you dont have the slightest idea of how those games use your computer resources. i can put a bluray disk in my computer and the graphics are amazing better than anything any of those games can do. and yet we arent comparing the same thing are we? which is what you are trying to do with battlefield3/arm2 or aces high.
semp
Have him tell you all about AH's "non-optimized code"
-
Sadly, I cannot due to my running the game in multi-monitor mode. Even my SLIed dual GTX 570s can't run everything maxed when running at 5990x1080 resolution. :x
Still....it looks pretty good to me as is and I do have quite a few things turned on.....
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7640384168_90459bc0a0_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/)
IM000019 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/akfulcrm/7640384168/) by AKFulcrm (http://www.flickr.com/people/akfulcrm/), on Flickr
*drool*
Very nice!
-
and that is why you dont know why your computer cant run 8196 shadows. you dont have the slightest idea of how those games use your computer resources. i can put a bluray disk in my computer and the graphics are amazing better than anything any of those games can do. and yet we arent comparing the same thing are we? which is what you are trying to do with battlefield3/arm2 or aces high.
semp
:rolleyes:
-
I think 4096 shadows performs & looks good. I'm talking without smooth shadows. As soon as I click smooth shadows, fps are in the toilet. But 4096 isn't too bad on it's own.
Coogan
I find the "smooth Sadows" doesn't work very well at all. It blurs the shadows rather than sharpening edges. In fact AA setting in the card do more for shadows than "smooth shadows" do for much less frame rate hit. "Smooth Shadows" is just not a good frame rate value over more AA.
-
I ticked the moving water and it did not move when I hit it. My 38 was destroyed.
-
i Have a Phenom 2 X2 Black Edition (Callisto) O.C. to 4 ghz stable along with dual 6870 ATI graphics cards and 10 gigs ram
B4 update it was solid 60 fps no matter what i had turned on. Now i can run AH with the slider full and all options checked but shadows
on other players and it gives me a solid 30 fps.
Im curious why i can run bf3 on ultimate with no issue, but the most i get from AH full is 30.
not complaining or anything :aok
-
i Have a Phenom 2 X2 Black Edition (Callisto) O.C. to 4 ghz stable along with dual 6870 ATI graphics cards and 10 gigs ram
B4 update it was solid 60 fps no matter what i had turned on. Now i can run AH with the slider full and all options checked but shadows
on other players and it gives me a solid 30 fps.
Im curious why i can run bf3 on ultimate with no issue, but the most i get from AH full is 30.
not complaining or anything :aok
Your computer is obviously not powerful enough, or Aces high is too pretty for your hardware. Choose your answer. :D
There is no problem with Aces High *waves hand ben kenobi style* :old:
-
Your computer is obviously not powerful enough, or Aces high is too pretty for your hardware. Choose your answer. :D
There is no problem with Aces High *waves hand ben kenobi style* :old:
nobody is saying ah is perfect. Otherwise explain to me why I run ah with shadow at 4096 and yet at most I get 40 fps on wot with max settings.
semp
-
nobody is saying ah is perfect. Otherwise explain to me why I run ah with shadow at 4096 and yet at most I get 40 fps on wot with max settings.
semp
I don't know. Some people with low configs report they can run AH with everything on, some others with high end configs report they have trouble running with everything on. Hard to decipher the true from the false, and HTC doesn't have the kind of money to have intel and AMD PC's to test the different hardwares and guide us on what's best to buy for aces high. Less memory? Less Cores? More Ghz? Which architecture? Which OS?
I recently upgraded to a 5900*1200 resolution, in most games, like skyrim and source games, I just had to remove antialias to have a playable framerate. In aces high I had to remove pretty much everything. Once that was done, I had to remove shadows altogether, because I was loosing 20 fps when my oil was hit! 20 fps removal just for a bitmap on my windscreen and smoke coming out of my plane!!! You've got to admit Aces High is a weird program at times.
I didn't even bother reporting this one to HTC, because the problem is obviously within my computer! Waste of my time. So now I'm playing with early 2000 graphics on a 3.6Ghz Phenom II X4, Radeon 6870, and 8Gb RAM.
I'm sorry but the 18 miles render range explanation for the low performance is getting a bit old now.
-
my setup:
I5-2500k Running stable at 4.8Ghz
XFX 6950 2Gig
16GB 1600mhz Ram
If I run the slider more than 1 or 2 notches the frame rate drops in the teens. and that is with just 512 shadows and the AA slider in AH off. I just dont see how some of you guys are running everything full as I dont think my system is that weak. :headscratch:
-
alienware aurora
ATI Radeon 5970 2GB GDDR5 eyefinity setup (3 monitors)
Intel i7 930 processor
Xeno pro frame rate booster
1TB memory
Everything is on except slider is only 1/4%. With 3 monitor setup frame rate usually around 25 to 30 except in heavy GV battles dips to around 15 but I have no problems running the game at these frame rates.
-
my setup:
I5-2500k Running stable at 4.8Ghz
XFX 6950 2Gig
16GB 1600mhz Ram
If I run the slider more than 1 or 2 notches the frame rate drops in the teens. and that is with just 512 shadows and the AA slider in AH off. I just dont see how some of you guys are running everything full as I dont think my system is that weak. :headscratch:
You have some kind of problem I think
I just upgraded 3570 stock 3.4 to 3.8 gigabyte mB 2133 patriot memory bought recently
6950 double d xfx and seasonic PSU I bought last christmas during specials last christmas
I run at 50fps full slider and 2028 video and shadows on..I forgot the shadows settings.
and 2 notches antialiasing.
Down 2 notches , about halfway I run 59 fps
I don't care for the shadows actually so I don't run them. Only for experiment.
-
I don't know. Some people with low configs report they can run AH with everything on, some others with high end configs report they have trouble running with everything on. Hard to decipher the true from the false, and HTC doesn't have the kind of money to have intel and AMD PC's to test the different hardwares and guide us on what's best to buy for aces high. Less memory? Less Cores? More Ghz? Which architecture? Which OS?
I recently upgraded to a 5900*1200 resolution, in most games, like skyrim and source games, I just had to remove antialias to have a playable framerate. In aces high I had to remove pretty much everything. Once that was done, I had to remove shadows altogether, because I was loosing 20 fps when my oil was hit! 20 fps removal just for a bitmap on my windscreen and smoke coming out of my plane!!! You've got to admit Aces High is a weird program at times.
I didn't even bother reporting this one to HTC, because the problem is obviously within my computer! Waste of my time. So now I'm playing with early 2000 graphics on a 3.6Ghz Phenom II X4, Radeon 6870, and 8Gb RAM.
I'm sorry but the 18 miles render range explanation for the low performance is getting a bit old now.
well i play with a 2500k, sli evga 465 and 16gb ram and 5760x1080 resolution. have no problems whatsoever. your system is a lot less powerful than mine. I say you are over taxing your system.
semp
-
well i play with a 2500k, sli evga 465 and 16gb ram and 5760x1080 resolution. have no problems whatsoever. your system is a lot less powerful than mine. I say you are over taxing your system.
semp
Explain this then:
alienware aurora
ATI Radeon 5970 2GB GDDR5 eyefinity setup (3 monitors)
Intel i7 930 processor
Xeno pro frame rate booster
1TB memory
Everything is on except slider is only 1/4%. With 3 monitor setup frame rate usually around 25 to 30 except in heavy GV battles dips to around 15 but I have no problems running the game at these frame rates.
And
i Have a Phenom 2 X2 Black Edition (Callisto) O.C. to 4 ghz stable along with dual 6870 ATI graphics cards and 10 gigs ram
B4 update it was solid 60 fps no matter what i had turned on. Now i can run AH with the slider full and all options checked but shadows
on other players and it gives me a solid 30 fps.
Im curious why i can run bf3 on ultimate with no issue, but the most i get from AH full is 30.
not complaining or anything :aok
-
well i play with a 2500k, sli evga 465 and 16gb ram and 5760x1080 resolution. have no problems whatsoever. your system is a lot less powerful than mine. I say you are over taxing your system.
semp
Sure I'm stressing it, but that wasn't the point of my post was it.
-
I have an Intel I7-2600k system and an AMD 975 quad-core system, both will run AH with
all graphics on or maxed using 4096 shadows @ 1920 x 1200 or 1080 at a constant 59/60 frame rate
TC
I'm running a i7-950 with an ASUS Sabertooth MB and 12 GIgs of DDR3-1800 and a brand new GTX 660Ti 2gig and can't even get close to running maxed at 2096
Ps- I have two GTX 460s for sale cheap....PM me
-
I'm running a i7-950 with an ASUS Sabertooth MB and 12 GIgs of DDR3-1800 and a brand new GTX 660Ti 2gig and can't even get close to ru prnningo maxed at 2096
Ps- I have two GTX 460s for sale cheap....PM me
Heya Changeup, I think it has alot more to do with how one sets up and tweaks their system, much more
than what components they use.... to a degree that is....
next, I would say... everyone does not run the same processes or programs, which really makes it nearly
impossible to make exact comparisions
Hope this helps
TC
-
Heya Changeup, I think it has alot more to do with how one sets up and tweaks their system, much more
than what components they use.... to a degree that is....
next, I would say... everyone does not run the same processes or programs, which really makes it nearly
impossible to make exact comparisions
Hope this helps
TC
This,
Even though I have a sweet bellybutton setup, the reason I can run aces high on full graphics etc I have absolutely nothing running in the background, I also have windows set to medicore settings so It actually improves my game play.
One other thing - In Geforce there is a setting for "Performance, balanced, or quality" I used to have to set my laptop to "performance" to have the graphics on high, which made them look kind of crappy, where if I used Quality my FPS would go through the floor, even if I had the graphics on bare minimum.
On this rig, I simply have it as Quality, however I did have a slight problem early on - when I was around "Fire" i.e in a ground vehicle, my FPS dropped from 60 to 15, thus is when I turned off the graphics for windows (Customized my taskbar) I turned off the fancy stuff off and it brought me around 30fps in fire - but my FPS overall doesn't drop below 60.
-
Explain this then:
And
well explain why I can play with full settings? I am not unique. there's lots of things that affect the game. for example do you have steam installed. do you use file sharing programs. do you watch a lot of pron and have lots of virus. do you have a good heatsink installed. components overheating will cause your computer to slow down.
titanic one thing to point out is that if it was the game then it would affect EVERYBODY. but if it only affects a few then more than likely the system itself has a problem. little things like having the right drivers or which antivirus you use will affect your computer speed. that along with the fact that you have a slow processor and are trying to play with full settings is your problem, not the game.
semp
-
oh titanic gonna save you some typing. my computer is way faster than yours about 4 or 5 times faster. and I cant play with shadows at 8196 and cant play with the new sliders on. but I again know my system's limitations. you do know that a man has to know his computer's limitations don ya :).
semp
-
So at point can a PC run AH with 8192 shadows and new sliders on? :lol
No wait, lemme guess, 2 more weeks.
-
So at point can a PC run AH with 8192 shadows and new sliders on? :lol
No wait, lemme guess, 2 more weeks.
In two weeks he'll accept my DA request. Carry on.
-
So at point can a PC run AH with 8192 shadows and new sliders on? :lol
No wait, lemme guess, 2 more weeks.
If it will make you happy I can take out the 8192 from the option, then you can run on full settings.
-------------------------------
Did it ever occur to you that the options could be run 2048 with smooth shadow, or higher res with out smooth shadow?
This idea that you can run some games at full, and not AH is a very very strange view point, similar to it goes all the way to 11. Per your view point I could simply pull out options , then you could run full and be happy.
The requirements and choices made by AH vs other games is drastically different. Please tell me what other game has has a vis range of 18 miles and a playing area with out reloading of 262144 square miles that plays from both a ground point of view and an air point of view and supports a 1000 people in 1 virtual arena.
Other games make other choice and make these choice based on the games criteria, just as any design there are always trade offs.
Can AH do some things better, of course it can, just like almost any product besides coke.
PS.
I also have never been happy with the performance and look of the smooth shadow, it is just 1 of many things I am not satisfied with that we will get to when the item rates it.
HiTech
-
If it will make you happy I can take out the 8192 from the option, then you can run on full settings.
-------------------------------
Did it ever occur to you that the options could be run 2048 with smooth shadow, or higher res with out smooth shadow?
This idea that you can run some games at full, and not AH is a very very strange view point, similar to it goes all the way to 11. Per your view point I could simply pull out options , then you could run full and be happy.
The requirements and choices made by AH vs other games is drastically different. Please tell me what other game has has a vis range of 18 miles and a playing area with out reloading of 262144 square miles that plays from both a ground point of view and an air point of view and supports a 1000 people in 1 virtual arena.
Other games make other choice and make these choice based on the games criteria, just as any design there are always trade offs.
Can AH do some things better, of course it can, just like almost any product besides coke.
PS.
I also have never been happy with the performance and look of the smooth shadow, it is just 1 of many things I am not satisfied with that we will get to when the item rates it.
HiTech
Arma 2 comes pretty close, land and ground, 10km visibility range, not a 1000 players in one server but ~100. Though I'm sure the detail packed into the 10km zone is more than what AH has in it's 18mile zone.
And no, I'm happy with the way AH is right now. But could it be improved? Sure, any game can. I'm just curious as to why there is an even option for 8192 shadows if only a handful of people can even run it. Semp is going head over heels because he still thinks (after what? 2 threads and 100 posts?) that I'm hating Aces High. I'm not, otherwise, why would I play it?
And I'm puzzled, 18 miles? You can barely see past 15K (about 8.2 miles). Why render another 10? :headscratch:
And my question is still unanswered. At what point will you be able to run AH at "max" settings for curiosity sakes? Some of these guys have the best PCs money can buy and they can't do it. So what can? And why?
-
If it will make you happy I can take out the 8192 from the option, then you can run on full settings.
-------------------------------
...
This idea that you can run some games at full, and not AH is a very very strange view point, similar to it goes all the way to 11. Per your view point I could simply pull out options , then you could run full and be happy.
...
HiTech
Very well said. I'd much rather see those options and not run "maxed out" than have a limited set of options to claim "maxed out". The comparision to other game's "maxed out" settings is silly since their definition of max is very different from game to game.
-
The requirements and choices made by AH vs other games is drastically different. Please tell me what other game has has a vis range of 18 miles and a playing area with out reloading of 262144 square miles that plays from both a ground point of view and an air point of view and supports a 1000 people in 1 virtual arena.
HiTech
In his defense Hitech, he's only a kid, pretty much to stupid to understand when people came from VGA and bought their first video card. Then again text based games were before everything started, some people simply won't understand.
-
In his defense Hitech, he's only a kid, pretty much to stupid to understand when people came from VGA and bought their first video card. Then again text based games were before everything started, some people simply won't understand.
:rofl Or maybe this "kid" actually does his research and some people including you are too stupid to read my posts and actually answer the questions I'm asking. So again, for the third time.
At what point will you be able to run AH at "max" settings for curiosity sakes? Some of these guys have the best PCs money can buy and they can't do it. So what can? And why?
-
:rofl Or maybe this "kid" actually does his research and some people including you are too stupid to read my posts and actually answer the questions I'm asking. So again, for the third time.
At what point will you be able to run AH at "max" settings for curiosity sakes? Some of these guys have the best PCs money can buy and they can't do it. So what can? And why?
Please describe how you see 10km in Arma 2 - I'd so dearly love to see this. As any simulation or war game, beyond a certain point doesn't get rendered. I cannot see past 1200 meters in Arma 2 or Dayz. please feel free to show where I can see 10km because I would so Love to hear this.
-
:rofl Or maybe this "kid" actually does his research and some people including you are too stupid to read my posts and actually answer the questions I'm asking. So again, for the third time.
At what point will you be able to run AH at "max" settings for curiosity sakes? Some of these guys have the best PCs money can buy and they can't do it. So what can? And why?
TC says he can, I posted the link to where he posted his specs earlier. I still find it hard to understand that any PC can run all AH options on max settings, but I'm not that proficient with hardware. Just based on how dramatic the FPS drop is with some options means, to me, that anyone that can run maxed out must have a PC with power I can't comprehend yet.
The shadows on others, env slider maxed, max shadow texture size and max AA combined with all other settings in a furball with 30 or so cons and GVs on the ground seems impossible for most current PCs to run. I was very surprised that TC says his does...but again, I'm no expert.
-
At what point will you be able to run AH at "max" settings for curiosity sakes? Some of these guys have the best PCs money can buy and they can't do it. So what can? And why?
I have a second hand PC I built myself, I run aces high on max settings, not the best PC money can buy, then again it works :) As I said - I can run just fine as long as I dont look into "FIRE" in a ground vehicle, graphics stay at around 60fps until I do then it drops off horribly.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ
Please describe how you see 10km in Arma 2 - I'd so dearly love to see this. As any simulation or war game, beyond a certain point doesn't get rendered. I cannot see past 1200 meters in Arma 2 or Dayz. please feel free to show where I can see 10km because I would so Love to hear this.
Oh, and likewise, please describe how you see 18 miles in AH2. I'd so dearly love to see this. I cannot see past ~15K or 8.22 miles in AH2. Please feel free to show where I can see 18 miles because I would so love to hear this.
Max range that I can even see planes is about 13K at full 1080p resolution on a 24inch monitor with the detail bar at max. Hop in a field gun and at 12K, you would barely see the plane if not for the icon. At ~13K you can barely make it out as a dot when fully zoomed in. 14-15K (can't tell exact range because at that range, the icons are gone), and the dot disappears.
In Arma, get a sniper rifle and you can see soldiers holding their guns at max zoom at around 2000-3000m.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRoUpIxEPqs
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ
Oh, and likewise, please describe how you see 18 miles in AH2. I'd so dearly love to see this. I cannot see past ~15K or 8.22 miles in AH2. Please feel free to show where I can see 18 miles because I would so love to hear this.
Max range that I can even see planes is about 13K at full 1080p resolution on a 24inch monitor with the detail bar at max. Hop in a field gun and at 12K, you would barely see the plane if not for the icon. At ~13K you can barely make it out as a dot when fully zoomed in. 14-15K (can't tell exact range because at that range, the icons are gone), and the dot disappears.
In Arma, get a sniper rifle and you can see soldiers holding their guns at max zoom at around 2000-3000m.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRoUpIxEPqs
12k In ah 2 - 3k in ARMA, That is 4 orders of magnitude, or in reality 16 orders in detail required to render differences and your question is?
HiTech
-
I wish I could even run Detailed Terrain :cry :cry :cry :cry :confused:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ
Oh, and likewise, please describe how you see 18 miles in AH2. I'd so dearly love to see this. I cannot see past ~15K or 8.22 miles in AH2. Please feel free to show where I can see 18 miles because I would so love to hear this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRoUpIxEPqs
LOL I sit in a sniper scope all day long and there is no way I can see 2,000 meters in Arma 2. Then again there is no way in hell I can see 12 miles in Aces High either. Maybe if If it was total darkness and I turned my gamma and brightness all the way up, I just might (maybe).
Throw one cloud in there and yeah... it wont be 18 miles or 3000 meters, then again I averagely snipe at 700 meters and shoot down planes at 200 yards as well.
-
I wish I could even run Detailed Terrain :cry :cry :cry :cry :confused:
It's sooo beautiful. :x
...Oh, and the detailed water... well...it can bring tears to your eyes, assuming you can see it. :D
...and I haven't even mentioned all the shadows, bump maps & other beautiful scenery, have I? :ahand
-
12k In ah 2 - 3k in ARMA, That is 4 orders of magnitude, or in reality 16 orders in detail required to render differences and your question is?
HiTech
Right..and you can see a chute (without icons) at 12k? I know I can't.
If there was a plane at 10km in Arma 2, you'd see it. If there was a soldier at 2-3k in AH, you wouldn't. Not unless an icon showed it to you.
-
LOL I sit in a sniper scope all day long and there is no way I can see 2,000 meters in Arma 2. Then again there is no way in hell I can see 12 miles in Aces High either. Maybe if If it was total darkness and I turned my gamma and brightness all the way up, I just might (maybe).
Throw one cloud in there and yeah... it wont be 18 miles or 3000 meters, then again I averagely snipe at 700 meters and shoot down planes at 200 yards as well.
You realize DayZ servers vis settings are fixed right? It only works offline or if they server admin changes it to 10000.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ
so you post this video of a guy that can see a billion miles with a video card THAT YOU DONT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. PROBABLY WITH A CPU THAT YOU DONT HAVE EITHERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
then you wonder why you cant play aces high with everything on a cpu that is about 1/4 of what the guy in that video has. it's like you having a Yugo but telling everybody that since your friend has a Ferrari that you should have the same speed as the Ferrari.
semp
-
Yes, but my squad get's jelly.
-
So the mipmap detail settings in the video card driver has a major impact on Aces high?
-
Right..and you can see a chute (without icons) at 12k? I know I can't.
If there was a plane at 10km in Arma 2, you'd see it. If there was a soldier at 2-3k in AH, you wouldn't. Not unless an icon showed it to you.
Whats your point? I assume you do see the ground at that range?
HiTech
-
:rofl Titan don't make yourself look any more ignorant than you already have.
I won't bother reading this whole thread it can't be good either way. :bolt:
Go easy on him Hitech using big words will only throw him off. :D
-
so you post this video of a guy that can see a billion miles with a video card THAT YOU DONT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. PROBABLY WITH A CPU THAT YOU DONT HAVE EITHERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
then you wonder why you cant play aces high with everything on a cpu that is about 1/4 of what the guy in that video has. it's like you having a Yugo but telling everybody that since your friend has a Ferrari that you should have the same speed as the Ferrari.
semp
:rolleyes: Once again, that is not the point of the video. Whoosh, right over your head.
Whats your point? I assume you do see the ground at that range?
HiTech
The point is that a soldier is what? 10x smaller than the size of a fighter plane, at least. That's at least 10-16 orders of magnitude, like you said. Now if that soldier was a plane at 3000m, you could see even the markings or even it's paint job. In AH, a plane at 3000m is a moving dot.
:rofl Titan don't make yourself look any more ignorant than you already have.
I won't bother reading this whole thread it can't be good either way. :bolt:
Go easy on him Hitech using big words will only throw him off. :D
So apparently, voicing my opinion and trying to learn more about the game design is a bad thing. Yea, definitely. :rolleyes: I really could not care less what others posts if all they do is try to bash me because I'm "hating" the game. Once again, I'm not. Hitech is answering most of my questions and I appreciate it. You (plural) on the other hand, is ignoring the questions, landing as much insults as you can without turning into Skuzzy's food and assuming because I'm not an "adult" like you (plural) that I'm clueless. Well I got news, I do have a clue, I do not care for your comments unless you work at HTC, is a computer expert or developed your own PC game, and I do not gives a rat's bum about your insults, CO, squadmate or some random scrub Ill wipe the floor with or not. Thank you, have a nice day.
So HTC:
Why render 18 miles if you can barely see past 8-9 miles?
What does it take to run AH max? Why? And how come some can and can't?
Is updating the game graphics (any part of it) at the top of your list?
If not, what's holding you guys back from doing it? (besides angry customers with old PCs, I'm sure you could turn it into a toggle option with on or off so they won't be affected.
-
valid questions IMO, I'm rooting for you!
-
I don't nearly believe you, or you are running the game in 800x600
Yeah...I come on here and lie every thirteen years or so just to feel like a hero.
-
Yeah...I come on here and lie every thirteen years or so just to feel like a hero.
In January I ran the game at 1024x768 - just because my laptop couldn't go any higher.
Now running at 2600x1600 and absolutely loving it.
-
Maxed...steady 59fps
AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8 Ghz
Nvidea GT 440
4 gigs ram
With all due respect your computer is mid to low range, there is NO way you run everything at maximum, except if your resolution is really low.
-
Gotta love the raged wall of text.
Classic Titan. :aok :rofl
-
Yep, and classic Bone not listening to anyone but himself. :rolleyes:
-
Ive got a Rig I built last year:
Intel Core i7 overclocked to 4.4ghz
8gigs RAM
nVidia 580gtx Superclocked
And I still get jitters while looking around with my trackIR in a large furball even with settings set around mid-high, I cant imagine trying to play with settings maxed in one of those fights. Otherwise I hum along with a stable 119-120 fps at 1920x1080.
-
Back to the subject at hand...
My system is as folows
Intel I5 2600k overclocked at a steady 4.4
16 gig Ripjaw Ram (timings I couldnt tell you)
Dual EVGA gtx570 HD video cards in SLI
Dual 1tb Hard drives running in raid.
Water cooling on CPU with temps being a low 36* celcius
950 watt PC Power and cooling PSU
all of it stuffed... (cough cough) in a NZXT Switch 810 case.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/d5d5e8f9a107e313a0401eaa7a9ccb5d810dca30d81ea0e0d94881e8483eb5a46g.jpg)
all run on triple 24 inch monitors. I can do a max of 59 fps in a furball with everything selected and 1 notch on the new enviroment slider. I have shadows set off but that should change soon as I just got my water blocks for my video cards. I also have it torn apart as I will be doing a MAJOR mod to it and when it gets done I will post what I did.
LawnDart
-
The point is that a soldier is what? 10x smaller than the size of a fighter plane, at least. That's at least 10-16 orders of magnitude, like you said. Now if that soldier was a plane at 3000m, you could see even the markings or even it's paint job. In AH, a plane at 3000m is a moving dot.
Again what is your point, size is simply set on the screen by your field of view.
So HTC:
Why render 18 miles if you can barely see past 8-9 miles?
What does it take to run AH max? Why? And how come some can and can't?
Is updating the game graphics (any part of it) at the top of your list?
If not, what's holding you guys back from doing it? (besides angry customers with old PCs, I'm sure you could turn it into a toggle option with on or off so they won't be affected.
I really have no idea what your asking, because you seem to not understand that you have to see the ground?
As far as what can and can not, it is far to large a scope of a question to simply answer. I run max on my machine with the exception of soft shadows.
But you appear to me to be grinding axes and not asking questions.
Because of questions like this.
Is updating the game graphics (any part of it) at the top of your list?
You seem to not realize we just did a fairly complicated graphics update the last version. And what piece of the graphics are you referring to , once again it is a huge scope question. Are you speaking of the art work, terrain, some specific effect, the user inter face, Or something else? Because we pretty much are always working some piece of the graphics.
HiTech
-
:salute HiTech :rock
-
The point is that a soldier is what? 10x smaller than the size of a fighter plane, at least. That's at least 10-16 orders of magnitude, like you said. Now if that soldier was a plane at 3000m, you could see even the markings or even it's paint job. In AH, a plane at 3000m is a moving dot.
So apparently, voicing my opinion and trying to learn more about the game design is a bad thing. Yea, definitely. :rolleyes: I really could not care less what others posts if all they do is try to bash me because I'm "hating" the game. Once again, I'm not. Hitech is answering most of my questions and I appreciate it. You (plural) on the other hand, is ignoring the questions, landing as much insults as you can without turning into Skuzzy's food and assuming because I'm not an "adult" like you (plural) that I'm clueless. Well I got news, I do have a clue, I do not care for your comments unless you work at HTC, is a computer expert or developed your own PC game, and I do not gives a rat's bum about your insults, CO, squadmate or some random scrub Ill wipe the floor with or not. Thank you, have a nice day.
So HTC:
Why render 18 miles if you can barely see past 8-9 miles?
What does it take to run AH max? Why? And how come some can and can't?
Is updating the game graphics (any part of it) at the top of your list?
If not, what's holding you guys back from doing it? (besides angry customers with old PCs, I'm sure you could turn it into a toggle option with on or off so they won't be affected.
trying to compare aces high with a retail box game is not a good idea. i don't think you quite understand the full differences between games like arma2 or bf3 and games like aces high. the manner in which objects are rendered and displayed, especially at distances is different from ah. take the environment for example. in games like arma, everything beyond the actual map grid are simply overlays, not solid objects and that includes the sky. the actual viewing range is limited as well, shorter than the distance in ah. in ah when you look at a mountain 18 miles away, it actually exists in the environment, it's not just a rendered image overlay. in arma2 there are limitations to map sizes to maintain highest resolution objects, the common recommended limit is 20km x 20km with 10m cells. some people are going bigger (especially in the mods) but they are sacrificing object image quality by using bigger cell sizes. you're actually playing inside a cube, get outside that cube and the world ceases to exist. i think the maps in the main arenas are generally 250 miles x 250 miles, with almost unlimited altitude.
-
Again what is your point, size is simply set on the screen by your field of view.
What I'm trying to say is that how come we can't clearly see troops or even planes at 3K in AH? It can be done as proven by Arma while still rendering a large area like AH does.
I really have no idea what your asking, because you seem to not understand that you have to see the ground?
:headscratch: I can see the ground at 3K but I can't see what a plane looks like or a parachute?
As far as what can and can not, it is far to large a scope of a question to simply answer. I run max on my machine with the exception of soft shadows.
But you appear to me to be grinding axes and not asking questions.
Not my intent if it appears that way.
Because of questions like this.
You seem to not realize we just did a fairly complicated graphics update the last version. And what piece of the graphics are you referring to , once again it is a huge scope question. Are you speaking of the art work, terrain, some specific effect, the user inter face, Or something else? Because we pretty much are always working some piece of the graphics.
I already said "any part" of the graphics. Explosions, textures, landscape, special effects, post processes, any of those. I'm asking what part are you going to work on or wish to change next? Or do you focus more on adding new vehicles/planes rather than what we already have? I understand HTC is a small company, but it'd be nice to have something to look forward.
HiTech
-
trying to compare aces high with a retail box game is not a good idea. i don't think you quite understand the full differences between games like arma2 or bf3 and games like aces high. the manner in which objects are rendered and displayed, especially at distances is different from ah. take the environment for example. in games like arma, everything beyond the actual map grid are simply overlays, not solid objects and that includes the sky. the actual viewing range is limited as well, shorter than the distance in ah. in ah when you look at a mountain 18 miles away, it actually exists in the environment, it's not just a rendered image overlay. in arma2 there are limitations to map sizes to maintain highest resolution objects, the common recommended limit is 20km x 20km with 10m cells. some people are going bigger (especially in the mods) but they are sacrificing object image quality by using bigger cell sizes. you're actually playing inside a cube, get outside that cube and the world ceases to exist. i think the maps in the main arenas are generally 250 miles x 250 miles, with almost unlimited altitude.
But then why render 18 miles away? That's what I'm also puzzled about. You can barely see anything past 8 miles. Why not reduce it to 10 miles?
-
But then why render 18 miles away? That's what I'm also puzzled about. You can barely see anything past 8 miles. Why not reduce it to 10 miles?
You have the detail sliders to limit visible details and distances.
-
You have the detail sliders to limit visible details and distances.
Its a max on my PC. Trees and terrain objects disappear long before 18 miles.
-
Its a max on my PC. Trees and terrain objects disappear long before 18 miles.
So what's the problem? If you want things rendered at 10 miles max, set your detail slider to the appropriate position.
-
:headscratch: The detail slider only goes out to 4 miles...
-
But then why render 18 miles away? That's what I'm also puzzled about. You can barely see anything past 8 miles. Why not reduce it to 10 miles?
you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. get up in any airplane up to 20 or 30k then look at the horizon. then try to imaging what the game would look like if it would only render to 10 miles.
and btw the reason you can barely see past 10 miles is that you have a low end processor matched with a low end video card. if and when you invest in something newer then you will see why 18 miles rendering is good.
I think this thread should be locked as you just keep on repeating yourself. you will never admit that the reason the game doesnt look good for you is basically your computer. what you should be concered with is why your computer doesnt look as good as others, instead of others are having problems. like I said before, if there was a big problem with the game then it would affect all of us and not just a few. but until you understand why your computer cant play with 8196 shadows then it doesnt matter what everybody tells you.
semp
-
And I'm puzzled, 18 miles? You can barely see past 15K (about 8.2 miles). Why render another 10? :headscratch:
Huh? I can look out the window behind my monitor and clearly see a mountain that is 74 miles away.
-
you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. get up in any airplane up to 20 or 30k then look at the horizon. then try to imaging what the game would look like if it would only render to 10 miles.
So then make it an option, I for one don't need to see past 10 miles.
and btw the reason you can barely see past 10 miles is that you have a low end processor matched with a low end video card. if and when you invest in something newer then you will see why 18 miles rendering is good.
Really? Does your game look like any of these?
I think this thread should be locked as you just keep on repeating yourself. you will never admit that the reason the game doesnt look good for you is basically your computer. what you should be concered with is why your computer doesnt look as good as others, instead of others are having problems. like I said before, if there was a big problem with the game then it would affect all of us and not just a few. but until you understand why your computer cant play with 8196 shadows then it doesnt matter what everybody tells you.
I should get Redbull in here and post a facepalm gif.
semp
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss9.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss10.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss11.jpg)
That mountain in the last two pics are 18 miles away. How do I know? Because if I pulled away, the mountain started disappearing bit by bit. Does ANYONE really need to see that mountain 18 miles away? Is it going to affect my dogfight in anyway if I don't see that mountain?
-
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss9.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss10.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss11.jpg)
That mountain in the last two pics are 18 miles away. How do I know? Because if I pulled away, the mountain started disappearing bit by bit. Does ANYONE really need to see that mountain 18 miles away? Is it going to affect my dogfight in anyway if I don't see that mountain?
Yep afterall air warrior was working fine with 2D graphics and no textures. Vectors is all we need! :x
-
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss9.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss10.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss11.jpg)
That mountain in the last two pics are 18 miles away. How do I know? Because if I pulled away, the mountain started disappearing bit by bit. Does ANYONE really need to see that mountain 18 miles away? Is it going to affect my dogfight in anyway if I don't see that mountain?
Yes, mountains give you a quick reference point when you're upside down and rolled while turning a few times. :aok
-
Seriously do not get why we have to sacrifice performance in order to render something 18 miles away that you don't even pay attention to. Hell, make it a slider like the detail slider we have now. From 10 miles to 18 miles or beyond if you have a PC like semp here. :rolleyes:
Yes, mountains give you a quick reference point when you're upside down an rolled while turning a few times.
So does the green and blue. :)
-
Seriously do not get why we have to sacrifice performance in order to render something 18 miles away that you don't even pay attention to. Hell, make it a slider like the detail slider we have now. From 10 miles to 18 miles or beyond if you have a PC like semp here. :rolleyes:
So does the green and blue. :)
Horizontal ref points are also useful
-
Horizontal ref points are also useful
Well then you can always leave the slider at 18 miles if it gets added. :)
-
Titanic3:
There is a Full/Med/Short Vis setting at you disposal. Even an option to disable the horizon, if you so choose.
-
Seriously do not get why we have to sacrifice performance in order to render something 18 miles away that you don't even pay attention to. Hell, make it a slider like the detail slider we have now. From 10 miles to 18 miles or beyond if you have a PC like semp here. :rolleyes:
So does the green and blue. :)
so...you're wondering why hitech doesn't dummy the game down so low end systems can make pretty pictures like you find in arma2? ah is scalable ya know.
i think you should reserve what you think you know for a time when you actually do...say after you learn game programming...
-
so...you're wondering why hitech doesn't dummy the game down so low end systems can make pretty pictures like you find in arma2? ah is scalable ya know.
i think you should reserve what you think you know for a time when you actually do...say after you learn game programming...
Maybe that would be why I'm asking... :huh Show me where I posted that any of you were wrong.
-
Titanic3:
There is a Full/Med/Short Vis setting at you disposal. Even an option to disable the horizon, if you so choose.
Oh right.. I had forgotten about that, you wouldn't happen to know the range at which each setting is at?
-
Does ANYONE really need to see that mountain 18 miles away? Is it going to affect my dogfight in anyway if I don't see that mountain?
What if I like to fly a slow buff up high and enjoy the landscapes? Like this:
(http://www.soulrevolution.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/view-from-jack-plane.jpg)
-
What if I like to fly a slow buff up high and enjoy the landscapes? Like this:
(http://www.soulrevolution.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/view-from-jack-plane.jpg)
That's why I'm asking to make it a slider..everyone is happy. :huh
-
Oh right.. I had forgotten about that, you wouldn't happen to know the range at which each setting is at?
No, I don't know the range for any of the settings. I just thought you'd like to know that you do have some control over what your computer is capable of displaying.
I'm sure somebody will be along with the exact measurements, if you that really matters.
Coogan
-
That's why I'm asking to make it a slider..everyone is happy. :huh
Press Shift F3, and you should be happy.
HiTech
-
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss9.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss10.jpg)
(http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af23/titanic3/ahss11.jpg)
That mountain in the last two pics are 18 miles away. How do I know? Because if I pulled away, the mountain started disappearing bit by bit. Does ANYONE really need to see that mountain 18 miles away? Is it going to affect my dogfight in anyway if I don't see that mountain?
looking at the picture, i see you dont have smooth shadows selected but yet you have shadows at 4196, why is that? and why do you have enviromental map selected? that will suck up a lot of frames on low end computers like yours.
and if you want the game to only render at 10k then post it in the wish list. dont just start making accusations that the game is not as good as arma or the others.
semp
-
But then why render 18 miles away? That's what I'm also puzzled about. You can barely see anything past 8 miles. Why not reduce it to 10 miles?
You can. Visible distance is a Function key command. It truncates the terrain beyone a couple of preset distances. I remember that because I did it once by accident and didn't know how to fix it. The map looks like a pre-Columbus map of the earth where the oceans and land masses suddenly fall of cliffs. I think it was done for exactly the reason you are stating. Just remember if you are looking at a vertual world from 10, 20, or even 30,00ft., it looks a little funny if you can't see anything beyond 10 miles. :salute
-
looking at the picture, i see you dont have smooth shadows selected but yet you have shadows at 4196, why is that? and why do you have enviromental map selected? that will suck up a lot of frames on low end computers like yours.
and if you want the game to only render at 10k then post it in the wish list. dont just start making accusations that the game is not as good as arma or the others.
semp
If a Radeon 6870 is low end.. Wow.. Can't imagine what you think mid end is. A core2Duo is old but it's not "low end". And because smooth shadows and 8192 destroys my FPS into low 20s and dips into single digits. One notch of environmental map has almost no effect on my fps, at least none that I could see.
And where have I said AH is not as good as Arma? :huh Where are you getting these words from?
-
If a Radeon 6870 is low end.. Wow.. Can't imagine what you think mid end is. A core2Duo is old but it's not "low end". And because smooth shadows and 8192 destroys my FPS into low 20s and dips into single digits. One notch of environmental map has almost no effect on my fps, at least none that I could see.
And where have I said AH is not as good as Arma? :huh Where are you getting these words from?
radeon 6870 matched with your cpu doesnt make it any more than low end system. and looking at the pictures everybody can see that you dont really know how to get the best fps or pic out of your system. and that is what's holding you back.
semp
-
radeon 6870 matched with your cpu doesnt make it any more than low end system. and looking at the pictures everybody can see that you dont really know how to get the best fps or pic out of your system. and that is what's holding you back.
semp
So then please tell me how without dropping into single digits oh great and mighty one.
-
radeon 6870 matched with your cpu doesnt make it any more than low end system. and looking at the pictures everybody can see that you dont really know how to get the best fps or pic out of your system. and that is what's holding you back.
semp
the guys got a point, at least about the hardware. A core2duo may not be as obsolete as a single core processor, but its still old. Like 4-5 yrs old to be exact. Your GPU is only gonna be as strong as your weakest component, and in this case it is your core2duo by a decent margin. regardless, if you turn down your eye candy a core2duo should be able to pull at least respectable frame rates out of this game.
EDIT: to answer the question you just posted, turn down anything having to do with textures. When you are having FPS drop due to a processor bottleneck you get the most return out of lowering settings that impact the amount of textures/polygons on your screen.
semp, I dont have frame rate issues in game (steady 119 to 120fps at my current settings), but I do have minor microstutter issues when in a large furball running a TrakIR. I'mf pretty savvy when it comes to hardware, but if thats something you have any suggestions on I'm all ears. Have you ever experienced this even though you may have high frame rates?
-
the guys got a point, at least about the hardware. A core2duo may not be as obsolete as a single core processor, but its still old. Like 4-5 yrs old to be exact. Your GPU is only gonna be as strong as your weakest component, and in this case it is your core2duo by a decent margin. regardless, if you turn down your eye candy a core2duo should be able to pull at least respectable frame rates out of this game.
EDIT: to answer the question you just posted, turn down anything having to do with textures. When you are having FPS drop due to a processor bottleneck you get the most return out of lowering settings that impact the amount of textures/polygons on your screen.
semp, I dont have frame rate issues in game (steady 119 to 120fps at my current settings), but I do have minor microstutter issues when in a large furball running a TrakIR. I'mf pretty savvy when it comes to hardware, but if thats something you have any suggestions on I'm all ears. Have you ever experienced this even though you may have high frame rates?
I get constant 58-60 FPS with my current settings. Semp still thinks I want 8192 shadows and is going bonkers over it. I *was* curious as to why AH demands so much power for non-impressive graphics, but now that I know it's displayed in a 18 miles radius (why anyone needs 18, I don't know), I get it. Have fun tearing what's left of your brain out Semp. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to say that this reply is bashing AH and that I want 8192 shadows/soft shadows.
-
semp, I dont have frame rate issues in game (steady 119 to 120fps at my current settings), but I do have minor microstutter issues when in a large furball running a TrakIR. I'mf pretty savvy when it comes to hardware, but if thats something you have any suggestions on I'm all ears. Have you ever experienced this even though you may have high frame rates?
you must be running a 120hz monitor... if you're getting any stuttering in large furballs, turn off other player skins. could also be shadows on other players causing it too...
the guys got a point, at least about the hardware. A core2duo may not be as obsolete as a single core processor, but its still old. Like 4-5 yrs old to be exact. Your GPU is only gonna be as strong as your weakest component, and in this case it is your core2duo by a decent margin. regardless, if you turn down your eye candy a core2duo should be able to pull at least respectable frame rates out of this game.
EDIT: to answer the question you just posted, turn down anything having to do with textures. When you are having FPS drop due to a processor bottleneck you get the most return out of lowering settings that impact the amount of textures/polygons on your screen.
it's not necessarily the the cpu that is the source of the bottleneck, more like one of a chain of components. the socket 775 mobo (even the fastest one) has a comparatively slow front side bus and the memory controller on the mobo is affected by the fsb speed. as far as core clock speed, the cpu is fast enough. turning down the texture size may help a little but turning down the shadow texture size and some of the shadow options would do more. the video card only has 1gb of memory on it and shadows will eat through that fast.
-
OMG, I love it when people post that they spike around 180 fps at one moment, then squeak about studders in the next. (usually around 12 fps)
Turn On Your VSync.
It's not just AHII using it.
I would recommend that people use some type of half assd research, before posting crap.
Coogan
-
semp, I dont have frame rate issues in game (steady 119 to 120fps at my current settings), but I do have minor microstutter issues when in a large furball running a TrakIR. I'mf pretty savvy when it comes to hardware, but if thats something you have any suggestions on I'm all ears. Have you ever experienced this even though you may have high frame rates?
if you have vsync disable then enable it. your frame rate should be 60 unless you have a 120 mhz monitor. the other thing i found out is that microstutters happen if the speed on your trakir is too high. I have mine set to 1 and smooth set to 10 under profile. under the camera tab I have status led brightness at 255, light filter threshold at 240 and video processing mode set to precision and precision mode smoothing set to 100. this is the profile i use and I used to get mini stutters like you but it was more like the speed was too fast.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?kwndou3zc19bdqz
semp
-
It's sooo beautiful. :x
...Oh, and the detailed water... well...it can bring tears to your eyes, assuming you can see it. :D
...and I haven't even mentioned all the shadows, bump maps & other beautiful scenery, have I? :ahand
:cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :confused: :( :cry :cry :cry :cry
-
Use AlacrityPC and tell it which CPU you want TrackIR to use and set the affinity there. :aok
Not using a multi-core? Sorry. :confused:
-
Use AlacrityPC and tell it which CPU you want TrackIR to use and set the affinity there. :aok
I think you are saying that TrackIR will work better if you set it to run on a dedicated core of the CPU? interesting. Also, what is "affinity"? :salute
-
OMG, I love it when people post that they spike around 180 fps at one moment, then squeak about studders in the next. (usually around 12 fps)
Turn On Your VSync.
It's not just AHII using it.
I would recommend that people use some type of half assd research, before posting crap.
Coogan
Hoping this isn't directed at me, as i do indeed have a 120hz monitor (sorry, left that out) and i DO have vsync enabled, not to mention that at 120 FPS if i had vsync off I would see screen tearing, not microsutter. I guess I should also state that I have an i7 2600k and a gtx 580 in my computer and do not have a problem running 120 fps steady on my computer with my current in game settings. Even when the microstutter occurrs, the FPS do not drop.
Semp, thank you for the info, I shall try that next time I'm at my home PC. It makes sense that its probably more related to the TrackIR than it is AH.
And Chalenge, "affinity" is just that, setting a program to run on either one or multiple specific cores. I tried doing this with AH, but it never crossed my mind to set the trackIR's affinity. I'll give that a shot as well.
-
Aw man Ripley, I'm truly sorry that I worded my post that way. That was not directed at you in any way.
Coogan :frown:
-
And Chalenge, "affinity" is just that, setting a program to run on either one or multiple specific cores. I tried doing this with AH, but it never crossed my mind to set the trackIR's affinity. I'll give that a shot as well.
Yes. I do not recall if TrackIR has an affinity setting but I do know there are other means to set it (I think in Windows) but it should be done in AlacrityPC for the best results (my meaning in what I said).
-
Boy I posted what the OP wanted an no comments..... :cry
-
if you have vsync disable then enable it. your frame rate should be 60 unless you have a 120 mhz monitor. the other thing i found out is that microstutters happen if the speed on your trakir is too high. I have mine set to 1 and smooth set to 10 under profile. under the camera tab I have status led brightness at 255, light filter threshold at 240 and video processing mode set to precision and precision mode smoothing set to 100. this is the profile i use and I used to get mini stutters like you but it was more like the speed was too fast.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?kwndou3zc19bdqz
semp
My TrackIr settings are alomost identical to yours and I can confirm no microstutters as well. Great minds, eh? :D
Never thought about assigning the TrackIr process to a single cpu (I have a 6-core AMD)....hmmmmmm.... :)
-
I ran Max settings on my rig... A Radeon HD 5770
27-32 fps if I limit AA to x2. I dread to think how low the fps would go if i'd tried any online combat. :(
-
lol Dolby. I tried max settings with no aa on my system offline and got stuttering frame rates from 22-45fps. i had to really dummy things down to run any aa.
amd phenom2 x4 965 3.4ghz
xfx double d radeon 6950 2gb
8gb patriot g2 1333mhz
-
Yes. I do not recall if TrackIR has an affinity setting but I do know there are other means to set it (I think in Windows) but it should be done in AlacrityPC for the best results (my meaning in what I said).
So AlactrityPC is a seperate program that manages which cores various processes run on? what are the risks of loading a new program to manage chip use that compete with the OS?
Sorry I'm not that software savvy. :salute
-
AlacrityPC does much more than just core managing. You can also shut down processes before gameplay. If I have understood its behaviour correctly, it uses Windows' tools and commands in a nice one click interface. I'm still using FSAutoStart, its predecessor on XP...
-
AlacrityPC does much more than just core managing. You can also shut down processes before gameplay. If I have understood its behaviour correctly, it uses Windows' tools and commands in a nice one click interface. I'm still using FSAutoStart, its predecessor on XP...
Is it free? I wil llook into it. Not being a sofware/hacker/type I'm get a little nervous using free software from third parties, but I'm getting very interested in system performance optimization.
Thanks for the info. :salute
-
Yes, it's free. Better yet, it doesn't do any permanent changes into your system. You just create a profile to start a game - or any other program for that matter - where you choose which procedures should stop or remain untouched. There's also an option whether the changes would be undone right after the game/program or after a reboot. A reboot will always undo every setting you've configured in any profile. Simply put, it is a list of processes and background programs with a shutdown option for each. A profile is a saved list of your choices added with a command to start a game. Instead of double clicking the game icon you d-click the profile icon.
BTW the old name, FSAutoStart comes from "Flight Simulator Auto Start" which tells us that the guy behind is a virtual pilot himself. Who knows, if he's an AH'er, too?
-
Yes, it's free. Better yet, it doesn't do any permanent changes into your system. You just create a profile to start a game - or any other program for that matter - where you choose which procedures should stop or remain untouched. There's also an option whether the changes would be undone right after the game/program or after a reboot. A reboot will always undo every setting you've configured in any profile. Simply put, it is a list of processes and background programs with a shutdown option for each. A profile is a saved list of your choices added with a command to start a game. Instead of double clicking the game icon you d-click the profile icon.
BTW the old name, FSAutoStart comes from "Flight Simulator Auto Start" which tells us that the guy behind is a virtual pilot himself. Who knows, if he's an AH'er, too?
that's not really accurate. I had to reinstall windows because somehow a needed process disabled. I tried the "undo" function and it totally corrupted windows. had to do a full reinstall to get my computer to work. that was the first and last time i used it. to this day I still dont know what went wrong as I was careful as to which processed I disabled. after that I never used any program again. I just manually disable whatever needs to be disabled, after all why have a program adding processes to disable processes?
after that I always used this site to figure out which processes I dont need.
http://www.blackviper.com/
semp
-
Best way is to learn which processes do what and trim the system permanently so that there are only the bare minimum of processes running.
Of course with Win7 process trimming can actually lead to slowing down the system or errors as it has many processes that rely on eachothers to work.
-
that's not really accurate. I had to reinstall windows because somehow a needed process disabled. I tried the "undo" function and it totally corrupted windows. had to do a full reinstall to get my computer to work. that was the first and last time i used it. to this day I still dont know what went wrong as I was careful as to which processed I disabled. after that I never used any program again. I just manually disable whatever needs to be disabled, after all why have a program adding processes to disable processes?
after that I always used this site to figure out which processes I dont need.
http://www.blackviper.com/
semp
Good to know. My experience is with the older version and on XP. Newer OS'es and a newer version of the program may interact differently. Also, I used some common sense and knowledge based on *surprise!* BlackViper's site (http://www.blackviper.com/) when determining what to disable.
-
I just want a nuclear powered video card so that I can plug it in and it does everything max'd out....every game, video, pic, web site, etc. fire and forget...so why isn't that available yet?
-
I just want a nuclear powered video card so that I can plug it in and it does everything max'd out....every game, video, pic, web site, etc. fire and forget...so why isn't that available yet?
talk to td, i am pretty sure he will set you up :).
semp
-
I just want a nuclear powered video card so that I can plug it in and it does everything max'd out....every game, video, pic, web site, etc. fire and forget...so why isn't that available yet?
here ya go...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130790
gonna need this stuff too...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188120
-
Probably needs this as well. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151105
-
and this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=01M-0002-00031&ParentOnly=1
semp
-
Seriously,
there is a certain point when its absolutely unnecessry to increase the resolution: you practically wont notice the difference anyway.
My system is old, wasnt quite high-end back in its day though, still, i can run AH with almost everything enabled, with a steady 55-60fps.
PhenomIIx4 at 3.2 GHz, 8 GB ddr3-1600, HD-5830, 64GB OCZ SSD, 750GB Western Digital HDD, old 790 series Gygabyte mobo, 500W Chieftec PSU. Nothing special at all.
Yet i have the hi-res pack installed, anti-aliasing one notch from the maximum (unnoticable difference), every slider sent to the maximum except the reflection one (its at one notch, i dont like the way it refreshes), shadows at 4096 (8192 is a huge drop, for a very minor difference), every box checked except the smooth shadows (now thats a large frame rate killer, but it has nearly no effect with 4096 shadows). All in 1920x1080...
If youre running this game "maxed out", your screen is as much identical to mine, you probably couldnt really notice the differences.
And yea i dont really like how the landscape looks (cause it look very old indeed), how the grass is rendered (all or nothing). But the (newer) planes and buildings are top notch, and thats what counts for me.
-
Seriously,
there is a certain point when its absolutely unnecessry to increase the resolution: you practically wont notice the difference anyway.
My system is old, wasnt quite high-end back in its day though, still, i can run AH with almost everything enabled, with a steady 55-60fps.
PhenomIIx4 at 3.2 GHz, 8 GB ddr3-1600, HD-5830, 64GB OCZ SSD, 750GB Western Digital HDD, old 790 series Gygabyte mobo, 500W Chieftec PSU. Nothing special at all.
Yet i have the hi-res pack installed, anti-aliasing one notch from the maximum (unnoticable difference), every slider sent to the maximum except the reflection one (its at one notch, i dont like the way it refreshes), shadows at 4096 (8192 is a huge drop, for a very minor difference), every box checked except the smooth shadows (now thats a large frame rate killer, but it has nearly no effect with 4096 shadows). All in 1920x1080...
If youre running this game "maxed out", your screen is as much identical to mine, you probably couldnt really notice the differences.
And yea i dont really like how the landscape looks (cause it look very old indeed), how the grass is rendered (all or nothing). But the (newer) planes and buildings are top notch, and thats what counts for me.
bulding dont look different but it's the little things that make the game look different. like the shadows on the water/floor of airplanes engaged in a furball, or the shadows of your own airplane on the canopy as you move around that's a big thing for me. or the reflecting airplanes/mountains as you are close to the water that is awesome. sometimes I have gotten killed because i was too busy looking at the reflections of nearby planes instead of paying attention to what is happening behind me.
the grass all or nothing is not really any different than wot. and i hate the painted look of the horizon there. that looks like something my 3 year old grandaughter can do. it looks like they got the idea from the impressionism art movement.
semp
-
Probably needs this as well. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151105
If its nuke, why do I need this?
-
Detailed terrain, water, reflections, shadows at 1024, smooth shadows, slider in 2nd notch, 2048 textures, solid 59FPS, 256 with Vsync off and on runway.
ibuypower Valkyrie 17" laptop.
-
That being "said" and shown, these amazing rigs are kewl.but, for those on a laptop and using a cheap twisty is there a performance disparity for those who experience extreme lag and those who don't? Doesn't it give those who have those carte blanche rigs an advantage because of a reduced/lack of lag?I've been in a wirby and shot at a con at 300-400 feet and not one bullet scratched it, my aim is bad but not THAT bad.
-
That being "said" and shown, these amazing rigs are kewl.but, for those on a laptop and using a cheap twisty is there a performance disparity for those who experience extreme lag and those who don't? Doesn't it give those who have those carte blanche rigs an advantage because of a reduced/lack of lag?I've been in a wirby and shot at a con at 300-400 feet and not one bullet scratched it, my aim is bad but not THAT bad.
Whatever you hit, on your front end, is damaged. However, you need to film it so you can jump to the vehicle location to see exactly what and where you hit. Just because you hit it, does not mean it is going to explode. It all depends on what you hit it with and where you hit it.
Check the armor maps in the game to see the armor layouts for any given vehicle.
-
I am running 1920/1080 with full AA 2048 textures every thing maxed out with all bump maps on and every thing checked except the disable boxes and i have 8192 shadows.With vsync of in f3 mode in tower i get 87fps.Now i havent got to see the new clouds yet so have no idea what those will do.
i5-3570k
His iceq 7850 2gb
corsair vengence 8 gb at 2133mhz
600 watt corsair psu
gigabyte z77 mb
Liquid cooling for cpu
180GB intel ssd
1tb hd
-
here ya go...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130790
Two 680s in SLI are better. I would get the GTX 680 with the 4GB memory and then get a GTX 680 with 2 GB to SLI with it (fastest clock you can find). Put the 4GB in the primary slot.
-
Two 680s in SLI are better. I would get the GTX 680 with the 4GB memory and then get a GTX 680 with 2 GB to SLI with it (fastest clock you can find). Put the 4GB in the primary slot.
Wouldn't the 4GB card then only run 2GB as well, thus wasting the extra 2 GB?
-
I would look into that if I were you. If you think about it how much ram does a 690 have onboard?
EDIT: Okay so here is the difference between 680 SLI and 690 all wrapped up.
680 SLI requires the bigger PSU that Skuzzy suggested. You DO NOT need that for the 690. I think he must have calculated that based upon the older Fermi 580s. Kepler is more conservative and a stock 690 requires only 300W. If it uses the 580 365W then it must be substantially overclocked which also means more cooling and drawing more from the PSU. The powerboost target for the 690 is actually 263W but in Aces High you will not see that because the game is designed to use everything your system has (that is a good thing).
As to memory size the first thing you should note is that the 690 is using only 2GB per GPU. With that card you will still run into system resource issues with everything in AH maxed out. Now as to the reason I chose a 4GB and a 2GB memory frame.
Scaling issues! If you want the better scaling of two cards working together the Crossfire system is currently the way to go. While a 680 compared to a 7970 is an obvious winner the Crossfire method delivers more power in the end. Scaling actually works better on a single card but the 690s top performance comes in overclocking (not overvolting!) although power consumption can climb to 375W! At 375W usage the memory bandwidth climbs from 6GHz to 7GHz!
Nvidia no longer builds bridges. Am I still talking computers? Yes. For the 690 Nvidia reached out to a company called PLX to build a PCIe 3.0 bridge. The problem is that can be a problem on Sandy Bridge-E systems since Nvidia specifically excluded them. PLX did not however and so far I have not heard of any problems but that is also why I dont recommend the 690 to just anyone (you never know and I cant test systems I dont have).
Reason #2! Pipeline issues. Memory pipes are specifically limited on the Kepler cards. I have no idea why and it doesnt make sense to me. However if you plan on using two 4GB cards you will discover that you cannot match the performance of two 2GB cards. I chose a 4GB and a 2GB because you can then still use a single card (turn SLI off) and have a 4GB memory frame. When you mix memory sizes like this you must use Coolbits. If that makes you nervous then use the exact same cards. Using two 4GB cards and then maxing out the shadow sizes will hit the pipe issue on the majority of systems. The one time I got beyond that was using an Extreme CPU (Sandy Bridge-E interestingly enough) but the system was still experiencing frame jitters every few seconds. Turning the shadow textures down eliminated the problem. I normally do not use shadows as I have said on previous occasions and this was just a test.
Having said everything that I have to this point I will add that having two GPUs on a single card also leaves sorely needed space in a computer case. Adding a second card only increases power consumption and decreases airflow.
Back in September I ran benchmarks with FRAPS and tested the 690 compared with two 680s (matched/unmatched) and the 4GB/2GB model won out on AH and Portal 2 and Metro 2033 which were the only programs I used.
-
I agree with Challenge 100%, as I just built a 3930k system that had a 690 in it for a few days, then I went to 4gb 680 in SLI. What he describes is exactly my experience.
Now, that system is on 3 screens, so it's hard for me to judge the question the OP asks, but I just had a new box built for my bro in law that is staying with us for a little bit. Specs and results as follows:
X79 Sabertooth 2011 MB
i7 3820 CPU@4.6ghz, h100i cooler
16 gb Corsair Vengeance Ram
128gb SSD drive w/1tb data drive
680 GTX FTW+ eVGA GPU
Win7 64bit
Asus 24" 1080P LED
With this system, with the entry screen video setting set at 2048 texture, one notch from the top anti aliasing, and everything MAXED in the control panel in game, the avg FPS is under 50 I would say. Taking off from a base with some friendlies and smoke is around 47-52. Flying low over tanks at your town with some cons, as low as 35, but around mid 40's avg. Up high, so long as no clouds are around, you CAN see 59/60, but this isn't the performance I see often.
Now before you say it's the settings or something not set up right, this PC has the full black viper treatment, and I tried it in AH both before and after this, and with the current nvidia drivers AND the ones most people say are the best, from a few months ago. Same result in Aces High. The system also has been through the 3d Mark vantage and dx11 tests, and scores right around where similar systems do on that site, even slightly higher when I've overclocked it to 4.6ghz. Guys in the game that have these 3 and 4 year old systems that claim to have "60 constant" at full settings are dreaming I think. I can post lots of screen shots to verify this. In order for me to get 60 fps semi constant with his system I have to turn down the shadows to 4096 from 8192 or whatever, turn off the cloud bump mapping, and move the updates slider down several notches to where it is only a couple from being completely off. Even then i see drops to 50fps at times.
I'd love to see screen shots of guys with these older systems with cons and smoke and clouds around, at 1920 res with max settings, with the needle pegged at 60 fps, as I can't see it happening without a LOT of stuff turned down or off.
I'll be happy to send anyone dxdiag and screen shots if they want to see them, but this is how AH performs on this system with everything TRULY maxed and at 1920 resolution with vsync on, and the other settings as I mentioned. It is playable at absolute max, but when looking around when at low altitude with lots going on, you do see a noticeable "chugging" going on when it drops into the 30's. As I said though, this system really performs well in the 3dmark tests, and in games like BF3 and the like, they can be played at ultra and see 55-60fps most of the time. AH can really challenge a system, even a new one, with everything absolutely maxed. My system on 3 monitors is a bit more powerful than this 3820 1 GPU machine, but not my leaps and bounds. I may try it on one screen with the same settings and see how much of a difference there is in performance from a 3930k sli box to a 3820 single 680 box.
edit: I just ran 3dmark11 for kicks, here is the result.
ScoreP10154 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680(1x) and Intel Core i7-3820 Processor
Graphics Score
10243
Physics Score
11196
Combined Score
8433
Like I said, very common performance numbers when I compare it to other testers on the 3dmark site, the scores are actually slightly better than the average 3820 with a 680 from what I've seen there. I've tried messing around with the settings for the video card in nvidia's control panel, trying Aces high with various things both on and off, and with the card overclocked with MSI afterburner utility as well, and still, there are drops into the mid to high 30's when around gv's at a town, and some other activity in the air happening. It's kind of disappointing when a 2200$ system can't max out a game that is 10 years old almost, lol. Oh well, he'll have to be happy at 4092 shadows and 2 notches of environment. One thing that is odd I find is that we can go offline with these settings and the fps do stay pegged at 60fps, flying through the ack and low over the town etc. I wonder why it drops so much in game...is it just having other players around, and the smoke from burning hangars and the like when at low altitude? I'd love nothing more than somebody to come on here and say "hey moron, you have x setting wrong, fix this and poof, you'll have the constant 60 fps in game that all these guys with 3 year old systems are claiming".
-
that's not really accurate. I had to reinstall windows because somehow a needed process disabled. I tried the "undo" function and it totally corrupted windows. had to do a full reinstall to get my computer to work. that was the first and last time i used it. to this day I still dont know what went wrong as I was careful as to which processed I disabled. after that I never used any program again. I just manually disable whatever needs to be disabled, after all why have a program adding processes to disable processes?
after that I always used this site to figure out which processes I dont need.
http://www.blackviper.com/
Try and Decide (Acronis True Image) would have saved you.
-
Gman, the game title (Aces High) is 13 years old. The graphics engine went through another massive update less than a year ago. It is our fourth graphics engine update.
The shadow texture size requires 256MB of video RAM, for ONE texture when you set it to 8192. It is simple math. It does not matter how fast or powerful any video card is. It boils down to the amount of memory used by the shadow texture.
HiTech is not happy with the performance drop when the clouds are enabled and is working on it.
-
Gman, the game title (Aces High) is 13 years old. The graphics engine went through another massive update less than a year ago. It is our fourth graphics engine update.
The shadow texture size requires 256MB of video RAM, for ONE texture when you set it to 8192. It is simple math. It does not matter how fast or powerful any video card is. It boils down to the amount of memory used by the shadow texture.
HiTech is not happy with the performance drop when the clouds are enabled and is working on it.
A little off topic but why is the required memory so high for the shadow texture? Isn't that larger than the other standard textures already?
-
Do the math.
8192*8192 = 67108864 pixels
Each pixel requires 4 bytes of memory (32 bits).
67108864 * 4 = 268,435,456 bytes
268,435,456 / (1024 * 1024) = 256MB
-
Thanks for that info Skuzzy. I should have worded that better, I know that the graphics are in a constant state of change and improvement, I've been playing since the game was free beta, and my upgrades have always been dictated by what this game is doing. I guess what I mean by disappointment is that when you buy two systems, both of them the fastest or at very close to the fastest you can buy for gaming, and they don't max out ANY game, it's a bit of a disappointment, but please don't take that as an insult to AH, it's rather the reverse. I'd rather always be chasing Aces High with hardware than the other way around, as that would mean that the game is stagnant and not being improved - that's about as clear as I can make myself I guess. Maybe "surprised" is a better word when it comes to maxing out the game in terms of the hardware I'm running right now. So please don't take my points as complaints.
I do mean what I say, I don't believe for a single instant that these guys with E4xxx whatever 3 or 4 year old dual core systems with 5870 video cards or whatever that claim "I can run at full settings at 60 fps all day long", as there are SEVERAL people in this thread with claims somewhat like this (yes I'm exaggerating for effect, but not by much) are completely off their meds or just plain lying when they make these claims. I'm as big a defender of Aces High's graphics looks and performance as anyone, but come ON. I'm pulling one of the video cards out of my 3930k box today, and going to run it on a single monitor, just to see how it stacks up to the 3820/single 680 4gb gtx box numbers. I'll bet they aren't a whole lot different. As stated, I'll state it again, at TRUE full settings, in fact not even full, as I have anti aliasing backed off a notch from full in the opening screen settings, but everything else absolutely maxed incl shadows at 8192, I see fps in the 30's when in heavy action on the deck with the 3820/680 system. That's just fact, not a complaint, or anything like that. I've taken film with digital camera off the system completely, as well as many screen shots to prove this through the wee morning hours today, and ran 3dmark and other benchmarks before and after, with hardware monitor running and not running, etc etc in terms of testing this, and the systems performance/heat/etc numbers WHILE testing.
Now as for what Skuzzy said about the shadows, I understand how the numbers break down now thanks to that post, but in terms of real world decision on using it, what's the bottom line? Should it just be backed off, even on really high end systems like I'm running? The same question goes for the environment slider. I find it is the one that causes the largest performance hit. I'm running it at 2 notches from the right, or bottom as it were right now, and happy with how the game looks, and with shadows at 4096, it looks super to me, and is nearly always at 60fps. This is in clouds with the bump mapping ON in tank town, while we had that map a couple nights ago. So the clouds at least to me aren't a huge performance issue right now. Moving the sliders on environment however are what kills it down to 30's on the deck in traffic/smoke/etc. I'm just assuming that this is expected to be the norm from what Skuzzy has written regarding how much power the shadows take, without even mentioning the environment. HT said in another post someplace that there isn't a game out there that is dealing with so much going on at the extreme ranges visible in Aces High, and I think he's right, I can't think of a single game, be it Total war series, BF3, any of the DCS sims, whatever that have SO much going on. I WOULD however like it to be clear that buying the highest end system/hardware doesn't automatically mean you'll be able to run Aces High on full blast at 60fps constant, far from it in fact. Once the new socket 2011 chips are out in the next quarter or two, we'll see I guess so far as single GPU performance, as I purposely bought the Sabertooth and Asus RIVE motherboards for upgrading to these chips. I sort of wish I'd kept that 690 now in order to try it in the 3820 system to see if it would handle AH at max settings and keep 60 fps with a single PCI-E slot video card solution, albeit an expensive one.
In closing:
The shadows on others, env slider maxed, max shadow texture size and max AA combined with all other settings in a furball with 30 or so cons and GVs on the ground seems impossible for most current PCs to run.
This is about the only time I've ever read anything from Midway that isn't him acting and pretending to be a 12 year old in love with Bruv and the few, hah. This sums up my feelings perfectly really, in a thread with a lot of confusing claims and information. I don't think there is a single person in this thread that has a system as powerful as my 3 screen box, 3930k at 5ghz with 32 gigs of the best ram you can buy and 2 of the best 680gtx's in sli, and I think it MAY run max settings in Midway's scenario on a single screen, just MAY, as it doesn't on 3 screens I can assure you of that, and the 3820 system has absolutely NO hope of 60fps in this scenario. Both of these systems are brand new, no viruses, no file sharing software, built only to play this game and a couple others.
Again, restating, I'm not complaining at all about AH performance, it's extremely good looking and playable at the settings I'm using, if anything I'm just trying to state the facts as I'm seeing them regarding performance of AH with high end hardware on absolute max settings.
-
Thanks for that info Skuzzy. I should have worded that better, I know that the graphics are in a constant state of change and improvement, I've been playing since the game was free beta, and my upgrades have always been dictated by what this game is doing. I guess what I mean by disappointment is that when you buy two systems, both of them the fastest or at very close to the fastest you can buy for gaming, and they don't max out ANY game, it's a bit of a disappointment, but please don't take that as an insult to AH, it's rather the reverse. I'd rather always be chasing Aces High with hardware than the other way around, as that would mean that the game is stagnant and not being improved - that's about as clear as I can make myself I guess. Maybe "surprised" is a better word when it comes to maxing out the game in terms of the hardware I'm running right now. So please don't take my points as complaints.
I do mean what I say, I don't believe for a single instant that these guys with E4xxx whatever 3 or 4 year old dual core systems with 5870 video cards or whatever that claim "I can run at full settings at 60 fps all day long", as there are SEVERAL people in this thread with claims somewhat like this (yes I'm exaggerating for effect, but not by much) are completely off their meds or just plain lying when they make these claims. I'm as big a defender of Aces High's graphics looks and performance as anyone, but come ON. I'm pulling one of the video cards out of my 3930k box today, and going to run it on a single monitor, just to see how it stacks up to the 3820/single 680 4gb gtx box numbers. I'll bet they aren't a whole lot different. As stated, I'll state it again, at TRUE full settings, in fact not even full, as I have anti aliasing backed off a notch from full in the opening screen settings, but everything else absolutely maxed incl shadows at 8192, I see fps in the 30's when in heavy action on the deck with the 3820/680 system. That's just fact, not a complaint, or anything like that. I've taken film with digital camera off the system completely, as well as many screen shots to prove this through the wee morning hours today, and ran 3dmark and other benchmarks before and after, with hardware monitor running and not running, etc etc in terms of testing this, and the systems performance/heat/etc numbers WHILE testing.
Now as for what Skuzzy said about the shadows, I understand how the numbers break down now thanks to that post, but in terms of real world decision on using it, what's the bottom line? Should it just be backed off, even on really high end systems like I'm running? The same question goes for the environment slider. I find it is the one that causes the largest performance hit. I'm running it at 2 notches from the right, or bottom as it were right now, and happy with how the game looks, and with shadows at 4096, it looks super to me, and is nearly always at 60fps. This is in clouds with the bump mapping ON in tank town, while we had that map a couple nights ago. So the clouds at least to me aren't a huge performance issue right now. Moving the sliders on environment however are what kills it down to 30's on the deck in traffic/smoke/etc. I'm just assuming that this is expected to be the norm from what Skuzzy has written regarding how much power the shadows take, without even mentioning the environment. HT said in another post someplace that there isn't a game out there that is dealing with so much going on at the extreme ranges visible in Aces High, and I think he's right, I can't think of a single game, be it Total war series, BF3, any of the DCS sims, whatever that have SO much going on. I WOULD however like it to be clear that buying the highest end system/hardware doesn't automatically mean you'll be able to run Aces High on full blast at 60fps constant, far from it in fact. Once the new socket 2011 chips are out in the next quarter or two, we'll see I guess so far as single GPU performance, as I purposely bought the Sabertooth and Asus RIVE motherboards for upgrading to these chips. I sort of wish I'd kept that 690 now in order to try it in the 3820 system to see if it would handle AH at max settings and keep 60 fps with a single PCI-E slot video card solution, albeit an expensive one.
In closing:
This is about the only time I've ever read anything from Midway that isn't him acting and pretending to be a 12 year old in love with Bruv and the few, hah. This sums up my feelings perfectly really, in a thread with a lot of confusing claims and information. I don't think there is a single person in this thread that has a system as powerful as my 3 screen box, 3930k at 5ghz with 32 gigs of the best ram you can buy and 2 of the best 680gtx's in sli, and I think it MAY run max settings in Midway's scenario on a single screen, just MAY, as it doesn't on 3 screens I can assure you of that, and the 3820 system has absolutely NO hope of 60fps in this scenario. Both of these systems are brand new, no viruses, no file sharing software, built only to play this game and a couple others.
Again, restating, I'm not complaining at all about AH performance, it's extremely good looking and playable at the settings I'm using, if anything I'm just trying to state the facts as I'm seeing them regarding performance of AH with high end hardware on absolute max settings.
Are you sure your AH2 sli profile works at all? That fps seems unbelievably low for that setup.
-
Rip, I'm only running one 680 video card in the 3820 box I'm talking about. My 3930k box is running 3 screens on an SLI setup, but the 3820/single 680 isn't SLI (yet), and THAT is the box that drops into the 30's when at low alt in the "crap" with lots going on. In 3 screens with my 3930k/SLI box, with everything maxed but shadows at 4092 and environment at 2 notches, I get 60fps much of the time, except in that scenario Midway described, where it will drop A LITTLE, but not a whole lot. I'm going to do some mixing around for testing purposes today, putting one of the 680 cards in the 3820 box and running SLI on it, and vice versa on the 3930k box, pulling one out and running just a single 680 on a single screen, then going back to sli on the 3930k and keeping single screen, then going back to normal, 3930k SLI on 3 screen, and compare all the results.
As I said, I'm completely satisfied with how my 3930k box performs with Aces high, particularly with the multi monitor gig, I think it's the most satisfying upgrade I've done since I started flying this game 13 years ago. However, I was surprised that the 3820 box with a single 680 performs how it does in the "nightmare graphics" scenario on the deck with smoke at 30 cons around at max settings. I had figured it would still be powerful enough that you could safely assume as an upgrader that you would have constant 60fps for an investment of over 2 grand. Don't get me wrong, the 3820 box is still really good in Aces high, it's just that a few settings need to be lowered to keep it at 60, and it's really not that noticeable in terms of how it looks at plays.
-
The math never seems that simple. If you have a duo core Machine with a chip speed of X, with single Vid card of Speed y, and 1 gig vidram, and 4 Gig of ram at speed Z and you get a frame rate of 20 with everyting turned on, you'd think that by getting a quad core maching with chip speed of 2X, with dual Vid cards of Speed 2Y each, and 2 gig of vid ramRam, and 8Gig of ram at Speed 1.67 Z, you'd think you'd run 80 FPS...
... But you run you end up with 32.
how the game is broken up and distributed to be processed over the varius processors is a mistery to me, but I have experience with doubling the ram, and quadroupling the vid capability of my rig and getting a 12 FPS bump.
I think we long for simple math to work, which is why there are so many of these threads here. But it's just not that simple. ;)
-
There is no way to tell the exact impact any given hardware upgrade is going to make.
Just speaking about Aces High, for any given frame draw, the game has to process data from the network, prepare data for the sound and video card, and process inputs from the user. Any one of those things can shift the workload around enough to alter the time it takes to draw that one frame.
-
Well, the jury is in on the OP's question. I can run max everything now.
On my 3930k box, with both 680 4gb ftw+le's in SLI, on a single screen, with anti-aliasing at full blast on the entry screen, textures at 2048, and every single thing turned on and at max detail in the clipboard settings, including shadows at 8192, and the environmental slider cranked, I'm getting 59/60 fps constantly, again on a single 24" LED LCD Asus monitor. That's pretty impressive considering how much was going on in the areas I quickly flew in today for about 45 minutes of testing, with lots happening on the deck to about 6k or so. I didn't see the FPS counter even flicker to 58 once, in all the action I saw. This system is o/c'd to 5ghz on water cooling, and the video cards have a very mild overclock with the Afterburner utility. I'm going to try SLI in the 3820 system later today or tonight, and see if it will perform the same way.
I see the system requirements on newer boxed games often have three categories now, required, some sort of intermediate requirements, and "ultra" or "really smokes" hardware recommendations. I would say for Aces High, if it were ever sold in a box format with these things written on its box, the "Ultra" or "Max settings" system requirements would be a 3930k, or even a 3770/3600k/3820 CPU, with 680 SLI or 690. Pretty heady stuff, definitely puts HTC at the top end of the heap in terms of graphics capability and requirement in the gaming arena. <S> To a continuing job well done IMO.
-
Even with the best system you can have individual computers that cannot fulfill the results that others achieve. I remember chasing down one particular squaddies issue as being the email system he chose to use. Once that was removed everything was back to normal. It is hard to tell someone they have to get rid of program A so that AH will run smoothly. People just dont realize what they are doing to themselves and then they blame the game.
-
This game really doesnt use that much gpu or cpu.I can get 87 fps with everything maxed out at 1080 with vsync off and my gpu never even gets above 40c.I go into Far Cry 3 and i get 25 fps with everything maxed out and my gpu temp is at 60c.You dont need sli or crossfire to max this game out.I have a 7850 with 2 gigs and a 3570k all stock clocks and it will drop down to 50fps in a major fight but thats it.
-
Apples versus oranges.
The idea is to have a smooth video whether you use vsync on or off. You can experiment with vsync off but to say you are getting more than 60fps with it off is not accurate in most cases. Unless your monitor is capable of a higher refresh rate it will not display more than 60fps. What vsync does is match refresh to frame rate (as best it can). The adaptive vsync that Nvidia is experimenting with is intended to turn vsync on and off seamlessly (pun there somewhere) in order to give users the best video experience possible. Ati may have something similar I dont know but in any case vsync works the same way no matter who makes the card.
It used to be said that humans cannot see faster than 32fps. That is not true. This urban legend began because Hollywood chose a frame rate of 24fps for its movies. That frame rate was selected because it was the lowest rate at which humans would take in video and accept it as smooth enough. However humans can see many more frames in a single second than that and always have been able to. Even 120fps does not maximize the human ability to discern a change in frames. We 'allow' ourselves to accept it as smooth but it isnt the same thing.
So. . . you can say you get 87fps only if your refresh rate is higher than 60Hz. Otherwise your system is 'capable' of 87fps only when the limiting factor of your monitor is removed. You might be surprsied to find that some systems can hit frame rates into the hundreds but the monitors cannot display frames at that rate.
-
I have my vsync on.The point of me saying that was that you dont need sli and 2 680s to get good fps lol.But thanx for telling me what i already knew 8 years ago lol
:aok
-
Numb1, so your res is 1920 max, with 2048 textures and max anti aliasing, with everything maxed in control panel, distance, environment, shadows 8192 and every option turned on, with the high res texture package installed? With a 7850, I find it strange you don't drop lower than 40fps in the "nightmare" scenario of 30 or more cons and 15 gv's near a smoking town or base. Your 3570 cpu isn't much less powerful than the 3820, very close in fact, but the 7850 out performing the single 680 gtx 4gb is hard to understand. Especially when you describe your Far Cry 3 numbers, as I'm getting 60 fps on Ultra with temps in the 50's with the GPU fan profile adjusted up a bit, and that's with the CPU and GPU o/c. Why would I be smoking you in FC3 numbers (I can post screens and video of both FC3 and AH2 fps numbers) so badly, yet be slower than you in AH? This is with our 3820/680 single box.
Any ideas what I should try? I will say that at 1600x1200 in AH the difference in performance re fps is noticeable, but at 1920, numbers are as stated in previous posts, down into the 30's when pushed. I'm by no means an expert on CPU/GPU performance and tweaking, and I'm just going by the last few months of research on other boards that specialize in this, but I've tweaked both systems out as per blackviper, have very simple win7 running with all the performance sapping stuff off, and only about 1/2 dozen games and nothing else on both boxes. I can post/email dxdiag's and screen shots/video to anyone that thinks they can help increase my AH performance in the 3820/680 system. The 3930k/sli box smokes AH on a single screen with max settings like I said, I'm not concerned with it. I almost built a 3570 and o/c it to 4.6 with a 7950 GPU, but considering it would 3dmark out with less performance numbers than the 3820/680 box, I'm glad I didn't, as it SHOULD on paper perform a little less....does anyone else like Numb1 have a similar system to that who can test AH on max everything and let me know the results? If they are better than my 3820, I'll then know for certain that something is amiss and to keep messing with tweaks and settings.
-
Your right the only thing i dont have is the enviroment set up.Been trying to figure out what the hell that was its the full updates one correct?And i dont have that on at all.And it will drop to about 45 min in a heavy fight but like i said the full updates are not on.If i turn those on it kills my fps.So srry i was wrong i guess its not fully maxed out sir.Plus my far cry is bad because i am using really old drivers due to the flickering in AH i get when using new drivers for my 7850 which is pretty common with 12.8 drivers and above for 7series gpus.The new drivers are suppose to improve far cry performance by like 36 percent.
I would just turn off the full updates and keep everything else maxed out.
-
My head hurts. :confused:
-
congrats on making the most demanding game in the market :D
-
In helping users to figure out why their systems are not giving the expected results it became obvious that two options that confuse people on the driver settings are the antialiasing setting "Override any application settings" and the "Adaptive" setting under power management. If a user chooses to override the antialiasing setting so that they can make use of their cards' optimized routines (rather than standard anti-aliasing) then they need to be aware that the setting also might override the vsync setting.
The "Adaptive" setting for power management is supposed to allow for cooler and quieter operations but for Aces High this is NOT a good idea. You want the card set to maximum performance at all times. The clock speed of the card itself are controlled with this setting and you might very well be forcing your video card to slow down when you dont want it to (you never want it to).
When someone says "I can get..." it is not a very scientific statement because "can" clearly is saying there is a time when "cannot" occurs.
-
In Catalyst Control Center "Override Application Setting" is a per feature item, i.e. the override for AA is separate from the override for Vsync. Same for AF.
-
Okay. Currently I can only test Nvidia. Quad SLI with 2x690s. SLI with 2x680s (4GB). SLI with 680(4GB) + 680(2GB). SLI 580(3GB).
EDIT: The one thing that is clear is that SLI does scale well but with AH once you get to the 690 range you have just about hit the peak. The 680 4GB model is the best Nvidia has to offer. The 2GB model is fine for single monitor but if you are into multi-monitor then you want 4GB. Yes the 690 has 4GB but its 2GB/GPU is the issue. Also the difference between Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E is not significant enough to suggest an upgrade would be beneficial unless you have another need for that type of setup. The real bottleneck of performance is the CPU right now. GPUs are really much further ahead than one might think. So (here is the rub) multi-monitor systems and big fancy GPUs cannot hit their stride yet and you might as well stick to one monitor. Three and four monitors might make you feel macho but your killing yourself.
-
Three monitor isn't about "macho" imo at all, but just a part of the constant evolution of gaming. I saw a guy at NCIX's display at a tech show in Vancouver running 3 42" LED size TV's with a quad SLI setup...now THAT I would classify as showing off/macho, but tons of people I know are running 3 screen, and none of them have even HEARD of Aces high, much less play it.
That said, I'm a believer in what Chalenge is saying, 100 percent. The more I'm fiddling with this, the more I'm realizing that it is the CPU holding back performance. Also, I don't know anyone running "adaptive" power settings, unless they haven't read up on anything regarding video card performance settings. As for the anti aliasing, I just want to be sure I understand what Chalenge is saying, that the best setting is to just leave it to application control, in terms of Aces High at least.
I've been saying what Chalenge has said regarding the 4gb 680s since I bought them, on the advice of somebody who is a tech/gamer and builds all of NCIX's systems, and has his own uTube tech channel. That with 3 monitor gaming, the 4gb 680's SLI are better than the 690 option, which is why I traded my 690 in for the 680's in the first place, as I wanted to run a cheap (24" Asus LED) 3 screen setup (sorry, I didn't buy any MACHO high end monitors) just to see if it was really worth going to a higher end 3 screen setup at some point. I already had one of the Asus screens, and they had a bundle on sale for buying 2 of the exact same model for 150$. How can you go wrong with that? I would say that it is, as so many other games are really cool with the extra screens. As for Aces, I'm still undecided if it is worth the performance hit and the strangeness of how every thing seems and looks. Of your setup configurations possible, what would you recommend Chalenge to a person looking for a high end box/upgrade in terms of Aces High? I understand you points regarding the 2011 x79 at this time, but considering that some people are investing in this platform awaiting the new stuff coming out, what would you think the best cpu/gpu set up would be for both current platforms, ie 3770/2600k 3820/3930k?
When someone says "I can get..." it is not a very scientific statement because "can" clearly is saying there is a time when "cannot" occurs.
I'm not sure if that is directed at me, I'm not trying to win the science fair, and I've been pretty clear about the scenario I'm talking about with regards to fps in Aces High at max settings (multiple friendly and enemy cons both as aircraft and gv's, low alt over smoking town/base nearby). I would consider it understood that at higher altitudes with less action that any of the cpu/gpu in the last few pages of the thread would suffice for sustained max FPS with vsync on with a 1080p or similar monitor at 60hz, I realize the 120hz monitors will perform differently.
-
I am not digging at anyone. The macho comment was directed at the stereotypical male image of buying bigger and faster which I myself am guilty of. The "I can get..." comment was actually answering what I think you were pointing out about people claiming they achieve from their systems. No one has posted a benchmark method for AH and yes I was looking into making one but when I wrote Skuzzy about it he pointed out that consistent results would be difficult to acheive. Square one.
If asked for a recommendation I would recommend buying what you can afford. I am using a Sandy Bridge-E which is something Nvidia clearly never intended their cards to run well on. I like the 2011 (3970X) but I dont expect to see more than a couple of people in AH running with one. I usually dont reach outside of my own experience so if I make a recommendation or report results that is because I have that system and have tested it to the best of my ability. I have a 3770 and I have to tell you I dont even like the Intel graphics being there. It just doesnt seem right. This last buying cycle for me was the first time in a long time that I moved away from EVGA motherboards. I bought the Z77 and X79 Sabertooth boards because they seemed less glitchy (I tried the EVGA boards and returned them). I think the Z77 is a tad more stable but the X79 has not had any real issues aside from ESET not initializing smoothly every time.
Whatever you buy make sure you research the memory you intend to use and make sure it works well with your board. I only found one manufacturer that could supply the maximum memory and neither was expensive. You can probably imagine the aggrevation when a MB is not stable because it cant offer reliable voltage to the memory you chose.
As to your last comment about high altitude. . . dont count on it. I bought these systems to work on rather than to play AH. AH is just something I like to do not something I have to do. My work system (the 3970X) has Adobe Creative Master Suite on it and more Autodesk apps than I can count. I also attend online classes with it and so it must have JAVA and Flash and several other security problems active. In testing AH I have used it (without using AlacrityPC) and even though the system is capable of great things running the background processes for all those apps can get in the way. You and I and several others know how to handle that but I bet you Skuzzy can tell you nightmare stories about troubleshooting those situations. Then again there is the situation of strat raids. Consider full settings on your card when you have twenty formations of B-29s (like it or not they hit resources more than any other aircraft do) escorted by thirty P-51s. With shadows on and multiple skins (does the B-29 have more than one skin?) your resources are going to take a hit. Then toss in defenders and puffy ack.
These uber cards are nothing! But yes they are still held back by the CPUs.
-
With the new upgrades to the game, hardware, drivers etc, maybe it's time for another fps improvement document. I know one is out there but things have changed a ton, even since I built my rig a year ago. I've bought two gpus since I built it.
Just thought because you guys are providing a lot of important information that most folks don't already know
-
Btw, maybe just a doc for nVidia control manager settings for optimal performance and once for Radeon.
-
I pass to Gman. Right now I have too many irons in the fire.
-
Actually, the game is designed around using the defaults for both ATI and NVidia.
-
Actually, the game is designed around using the defaults for both ATI and NVidia.
So if I messed with the control manager after I installed my 660Ti I should just reset it to the default settings and I'm good?
-
With a 660 thats probably the best you can expect. With more horsepower on a single monitor there is some tweaking you could do. I would try the different AA settings anyway myself even with that card.
Something like AF x4 AA override CSAA x16 3 pre-frendered clamp bias quality textures and vsync locked (from memory).
-
With a 660 thats probably the best you can expect. With more horsepower on a single monitor there is some tweaking you could do. I would try the different AA settings anyway myself even with that card.
Something like AF x4 AA override CSAA x16 3 pre-frendered clamp bias quality textures and vsync locked (from memory).
I do real well around 59-60 unless I load Full Updates...then it craters pretty easily
-
I tested the environment with a 480 just before I got rid of it. I was not using any shadows and it had no trouble. Okay now that I said that it still keeps you in the dark about a lot of things about the system I was using at the time. What kind of AA and AF and so on?
The best procedure to follow is to set the card to use the application settings. Get the best settings out of AH that you can by adjusting the graphic settings in AH. Finally adjust the settings of the card by setting up an AH profile and then adjust things as I outlined (as a beginning point). If nothing works that way just delete the profile.
-
I tested the environment with a 480 just before I got rid of it. I was not using any shadows and it had no trouble. Okay now that I said that it still keeps you in the dark about a lot of things about the system I was using at the time. What kind of AA and AF and so on?
The best procedure to follow is to set the card to use the application settings. Get the best settings out of AH that you can by adjusting the graphic settings in AH. Finally adjust the settings of the card by setting up an AH profile and then adjust things as I outlined (as a beginning point). If nothing works that way just delete the profile.
Ill try but I suck at setting up profiles. I'll give her a whirl. BTW, I have AA in AH at full on the startup menu
-
You should get greater frame rate if you use the first setting (I think thats x2) and then use the profile to use CSAA x16 (I think it is). I believe the 670 can do that but I dont actually have one.
-
You should get greater frame rate if you use the first setting (I think thats x2) and then use the profile to use CSAA x16 (I think it is). I believe the 670 can do that but I dont actually have one.
CSAA X16 escapes me. I can't find that in the nVidia Control Manager anywhere or your acronym sucks, lol. Last night I just dropped all the settings and it ran at 60-59 all night on the new map but when I first got there it cratered around 43 and got down to 1.
-
In the 3D Settings there should be an Antialiasing - FXAA option. Make sure that is off. Now your video card is hot meaning it will be working a lot harder. Try CSAA x16 to begin with and make sure your FPS does not suffer. This is coverage sampling versus multi-sampling and this is why you buy Nvidia because there is no comparison in the Ati world. That doesnt mean it is better in all things or all ways because of the cost associated with it.
FXAA is the cheapest easiest anti-aliasing you can use. Use that if the other two let you down.
MSAA is the next best thing.
CSAA is all and everything you have but it will cost you power (heat) and possibly performance (fps). It is the best if you can use it.
-
In the 3D Settings there should be an Antialiasing - FXAA option. Make sure that is off. Now your video card is hot meaning it will be working a lot harder. Try CSAA x16 to begin with and make sure your FPS does not suffer. This is coverage sampling versus multi-sampling and this is why you buy Nvidia because there is no comparison in the Ati world. That doesnt mean it is better in all things or all ways because of the cost associated with it.
FXAA is the cheapest easiest anti-aliasing you can use. Use that if the other two let you down.
MSAA is the next best thing.
CSAA is all and everything you have but it will cost you power (heat) and possibly performance (fps). It is the best if you can use it.
There is no CSAA in the control manager. NO MSAA either.
-
Antialiasing - Mode must be set to overide the application and then the antialiasing setting should show the various modes. It will not show MSAA because that is the default unless you specifically choose a mode marked CSAA.
If you still do not find it then post a screenshot of your antialiasing options.
-
Antialiasing - Mode must be set to overide the application and then the antialiasing setting should show the various modes. It will not show MSAA because that is the default unless you specifically choose a mode marked CSAA.
If you still do not find it then post a screenshot of your antialiasing options.
Found it but it gives you plenty of warning not to override applications that have built in AA...lol. Stops just short of saying, "don't be a dumbazz"
-
Well you have already been told how the game is setup. You can either settle for that or try to see what your system is capable of. Blue pill or red.
-
Well you have already been told how the game is setup. You can either settle for that or try to see what your system is capable of. Blue pill or red.
I changed it. We'll see what happens tonight. I have 67 services running too, lmao! That could be a lot of it. I have peared it down a lot.
-
OS ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5213934&CatId=306
Case ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4146085&Sku=C283-1187
SSD ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5247113&Sku=S203-8003
HD (2 of these along with ssd set up in RAID 0) ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2898931&CatId=2459
CPU ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1380574&CatId=7377
CPU Cooling ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7413643&Sku=C13-2101
MotherBoard ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1498061&CatId=7381
RAM (total of 64 gigs) ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3683290&CatId=4534
Video Card (2 in SLI) ~ http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3693123&CatId=7387
I can run everything max with a framerate of 30-40 in a furball dips into the 20s'
-
Well, the jury is in on the OP's question. I can run max everything now.
congrats for ya Gman!
today I logged in to the MA on the map before it was reset, and saw that my fps was dropping down to around 49 ~ 52 range......... I have not bothered to tweak my system or do any cleaning to it in a good while, and we have had several new updates/patches to boot.......
I went and did a little cleaning and did some checking/tweakingon my processes ( btw this is on my Intel i7 system that is linked to back on the 1st page of this thread Note: Midway linked it )
I now have it back to running as I claimed before, with full environmental slider up, 4096 textures 2048 setting before logging in and everything x'ed/checked box turned on/using within the game settings..... I am still hoovering at 59/60 fps at 1920x1200 1080i @ 60Hz
I did take film & screenshots as well both in the MA with a bunch of bish and knights around A110 and also in the MW arena I tested and took screenshots as well......... also had the clipboard open to graphic control and the advanced tab open to show what all I had checked / turned up to
I'll see if I can get these pics uploaded to my photobucket either to morrow evening or Monday Morning when I get back home..........
note: I did have to go do a lil process tweaking/cleaning on this system since the last 2 updates, but I now am back to what I claimed originally
also - I have not gotten to experience the clouds as of yet, so I do not know if or how bad that might affect my setup
cheers
hope everyone had a Good New Year ( time bringing it in anyways )
TC ( Johnny )
-
Go HERE to test out your rig!!!!
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,343697.0.html
-
I run an i7 2600 stock speed 8GB RAM and a 6970 at 2560x1600. I run Process Lasso which is set to give priority to Aces High and I can run with all the graphics maxed out and typically get 50-ish fps. I do not otherwise optimize my system. Sometimes it gets larded up and the framerate drops, usually when I'm trying to get a sight picture or evade someone at 50 feet. Frustrating, but rare enough that I can live with it. When it does drop, turning off self-shadow inevitably gets me back up to nice fast framerates.
-
Hi All,
YMMV, but if your using the new Nvidia 600 sers Kepler GPU's (I got an EVGA 670 FTW w/ 2Gb mem) w/ AHII I found out w/ mine that using the in-game AA setting along w/ the Nvidia driver set to use the application settings for AA, AF & V-synch throws the driver's ability to control the GPU thru the driver's dynamic clock boost/power boost control system off kilter--meaning my 670 tended to have the clock speed of the GPU cut below the base clock speed of 1006 & the speed control was very erratic regardless of the GPU temps being far below the 70*C throttle threshold. The game ran fine as it was but this did bother me.
One day I was bored & thought to try my card w/ the driver set to run it all. So when I reset the in-game AA setting to None, set the card's driver in NCP to override the application settings in AA, AF & V-synch & set everything at the driver's level my 670 now runs flat out in-game at it's highest GPU boost clock rate of 1228 w/ occasional dips to 1150, highest mem clock rate of 3105 w/ no speed dips & GPU temps holding between 55*C-65*C regardless of load---w/ Adaptive power control enabled & card's power offset set at 100% & GPU/mem offsets at 0% (stock settings).
Again YMMV.
:salute
-
I have just spent £2000 on a gaming pc it will arrive on saturday :old:
:)
-
That is great advice Pudgie. I tried this, setting the AA in the AH2 opening screen to "off", and then forcing the video card controls in Nvidia's control panel to "force application", and set it to 8x, and then set the transparency setting to something similar, and the performance gain over the AH2 controlling it is huge. This really surprised me, as I figured it would be likely the same diff. It certainly is the way to go, and I recommend anyone with a 670 or 680 series car to run AH2 this way.
-
That is great advice Pudgie. I tried this, setting the AA in the AH2 opening screen to "off", and then forcing the video card controls in Nvidia's control panel to "force application", and set it to 8x, and then set the transparency setting to something similar, and the performance gain over the AH2 controlling it is huge. This really surprised me, as I figured it would be likely the same diff. It certainly is the way to go, and I recommend anyone with a 670 or 680 series car to run AH2 this way.
What about 660Ti?
-
In helping users to figure out why their systems are not giving the expected results it became obvious that two options that confuse people on the driver settings are the antialiasing setting "Override any application settings" and the "Adaptive" setting under power management. If a user chooses to override the antialiasing setting so that they can make use of their cards' optimized routines (rather than standard anti-aliasing) then they need to be aware that the setting also might override the vsync setting.
The "Adaptive" setting for power management is supposed to allow for cooler and quieter operations but for Aces High this is NOT a good idea. You want the card set to maximum performance at all times. The clock speed of the card itself are controlled with this setting and you might very well be forcing your video card to slow down when you dont want it to (you never want it to).
When someone says "I can get..." it is not a very scientific statement because "can" clearly is saying there is a time when "cannot" occurs.
Been saying something like this since the days of the Fermi.
-
My 670's set up in NCP using driver 310.70:
AO-Off
AF-16x
AA(FXAA)-Off
AA(GC)-On
AAMode-Override any application settings
AASetting-16xQ CSAA
AATransparency-8x(supersample)
CUDA-GPU's-All
Max Pre-rendered Frames-2
MultiDisplay/mixed GPU acceleration--Single display performance mode
Power Management Mode-Adaptive
TF(ASO)-On
TF(NLB)-Clamp
TF-Quality
TF(TO)-On
Threaded Optimization-Auto
TB-On
VS-On
In-game:
Video Settings:
AA-None
Textures-1024
Graphics Preferences:
Both sliders full left
Horizon enabled
Ground Clutter enabled
Disable Clutter in Flight enabled
Advanced Options:
All boxes checked
Reflections slider-(w/ 4096 shadow tex-3/4; w/ 8192 shadow tex-1/4 can't settle on 1 or the other)
ShadowTextures-either 4096 or 8192 can't settle on 1 or the other)
Vid card stays locked at max boost speed of 1228 98% of the time-lowest dip to 1150 w/ mem speed at 3105 100% of the time (most of this was observed w/ 4096 shadow tex w/ 3/4 reflection slider set) w/ vid card at all stock settings for EVGA 670 FTW w/ 2Gb mem. Pretty much maintains the set FR of 59 FPS.
This is running on a Asus Rampage IV Gene w/ Intel 3820 I7 SB-E (cooled by an Artic Freezer I30F HSF) all at stock settings on 16Gb of Corsair Vengence DDR3-1600 mem (4x4 to enable Quad Channel mem w/ mem speed set off SPD @ 1600) w/ Win 7 HP SP1 w/ 2 OCZ Vertex4 256Gb SSD's (non RAID) housed in internal hot-swappable docking station powered by a Cosair TX 850 V2 PSU all packed in a CM Storm Scout case & viewed on a HP 2710m LCD 27" monitor set at 1920x1080x32 @ 59Hz RR.
Just so y'all know what platform my 670 is running on........................... ....
:salute
PS-I know that y'all gurus know that I'm using the 64bit vers of Win 7 HP SP1.....forgot to add this. :D
-
So you think mine will run it that well with those settings on my 660Ti?
I7-950
Asus Sabertooth x58 MB
12 gig Corsair XPS 1600
850w corsair gold 80
nVidia GTX 660Ti
I'll try those settings tonight. Why adaptive power setting? Why not Max Performance?
-
Hi Changeup,
What I found out w/ my card is that when I put it in Max Performance the card wouldn't downclock back to 2D speeds once I closed the game & I didn't like that so I put it back to Adaptive.
With the Kepler's dynamic speed/power control the only time the card would clock down off max GPU boost speed is if the load on the GPU was sufficient to slow it down once the power had hit 100% w/ GPU & mem offsets set at 0% (this is my card's stock settings....since my card's GPU temps are still below the 70*C throttling range I could raise the GPU/mem offsets & power target range & get even more out of it) but this happens so rare that I really don't see the need to mess w/ it (max GPU usage that I've seen in Precision was 87%).
But this is w/ a GTX 670 FTW. I would think that your 660Ti would respond somewhat similar as it is a Kepler GPU using the same control regime. The rest will depend on the system capabilities that you're running the vid card on.......that is why I posted my card's settings both in NCP & in-game as well as my system set up so that all could see.
:salute
-
Hi Changeup,
What I found out w/ my card is that when I put it in Max Performance the card wouldn't downclock back to 2D speeds once I closed the game & I didn't like that so I put it back to Adaptive.
With the Kepler's dynamic speed/power control the only time the card would clock down off max GPU boost speed is if the load on the GPU was sufficient to slow it down once the power had hit 100% w/ GPU & mem offsets set at 0% (this is my card's stock settings....since my card's GPU temps are still below the 70*C throttling range I could raise the GPU/mem offsets & power target range & get even more out of it) but this happens so rare that I really don't see the need to mess w/ it (max GPU usage that I've seen in Precision was 87%).
But this is w/ a GTX 670 FTW. I would think that your 660Ti would respond somewhat similar as it is a Kepler GPU using the same control regime. The rest will depend on the system capabilities that you're running the vid card on.......that is why I posted my card's settings both in NCP & in-game as well as my system set up so that all could see.
:salute
It performed better. When it did hit 38-48 fps, there was zero stuttering. It was a smooth 38-48. The rest of the night it ran 57-60. I never hear it run though...it never seems like its being pushed at all and I guess I'm waiting for it to crank up and I guess it doesn't work that way, lol. I just can't run the settings wide open though. I bet I have too much running in the background.
-
Changeup,
Don't know if you're using Precision/Afterburner to monitor your card's vitals......if not you may want to do so.
I would have Precision/Afterburner running when I was in-game recording the card's vitals then when I exited the game I would pull the info up in Precision/Afterburner to see how the card was performing then based on what I saw I made adjustments at the driver level &/or in-game until I got what I was satisfied with. The card should start out at max GPU/mem boost clock speeds & stay there until you either max out on power or exceed the temp threshold (throttling back). Reading into what you posted it would seem that you're not having temp issues (you would have heard the fan cycling) so if true you may have some headroom to up the power range & GPU/mem offsets (IOW overclock) & get more out of your card, but the data from the Precision/Afterburner graphs will tell you for sure.
Only reason why I'm bringing this up is that you didn't post any data concerning the card's GPU base/boost clock speeds or mem clock boost speeds or temps, etc. This data will show you how the card is handling the game at the settings that you choose.
Hope this helps you. Enjoy!
:salute
-
Changeup,
Don't know if you're using Precision/Afterburner to monitor your card's vitals......if not you may want to do so.
I would have Precision/Afterburner running when I was in-game recording the card's vitals then when I exited the game I would pull the info up in Precision/Afterburner to see how the card was performing then based on what I saw I made adjustments at the driver level &/or in-game until I got what I was satisfied with. The card should start out at max GPU/mem boost clock speeds & stay there until you either max out on power or exceed the temp threshold (throttling back). Reading into what you posted it would seem that you're not having temp issues (you would have heard the fan cycling) so if true you may have some headroom to up the power range & GPU/mem offsets (IOW overclock) & get more out of your card, but the data from the Precision/Afterburner graphs will tell you for sure.
Only reason why I'm bringing this up is that you didn't post any data concerning the card's GPU base/boost clock speeds or mem clock boost speeds or temps, etc. This data will show you how the card is handling the game at the settings that you choose.
Hope this helps you. Enjoy!
:salute
Standby....doing it today and will post them. Based on my system, do you see any reason for such drops in fps?
-
Changeup,
Don't know if you're using Precision/Afterburner to monitor your card's vitals......if not you may want to do so.
I would have Precision/Afterburner running when I was in-game recording the card's vitals then when I exited the game I would pull the info up in Precision/Afterburner to see how the card was performing then based on what I saw I made adjustments at the driver level &/or in-game until I got what I was satisfied with. The card should start out at max GPU/mem boost clock speeds & stay there until you either max out on power or exceed the temp threshold (throttling back). Reading into what you posted it would seem that you're not having temp issues (you would have heard the fan cycling) so if true you may have some headroom to up the power range & GPU/mem offsets (IOW overclock) & get more out of your card, but the data from the Precision/Afterburner graphs will tell you for sure.
Only reason why I'm bringing this up is that you didn't post any data concerning the card's GPU base/boost clock speeds or mem clock boost speeds or temps, etc. This data will show you how the card is handling the game at the settings that you choose.
Hope this helps you. Enjoy!
:salute
Temp never exceeded 59C, GPU usage was 100% at times and held at non busy fields to 50% but generally ran at 92%+ (above 92%, the FPS went to around 39-55) the very moment I entered an area where there were friendlies or cons. This was at 2048 shadow textures with 3/4 update slider. What's funny is that when I backed off the in-game settings, it still gave me roughly the same spikes at the same places on the map. We fought last night, all night, at the same base. Same course ingress and egress vs basically the same cons (nice fights Triton28, AlBundy, Cobra83, etc).
Also, I cant seem to retrieve the log file from Precision. I know it saved somewhere but oh well. I'll get more familiar with Precision and post some more.
-
Temp never exceeded 59C, GPU usage was 100% at times and held at non busy fields to 50% but generally ran at 92%+ (above 92%, the FPS went to around 39-55) the very moment I entered an area where there were friendlies or cons. This was at 2048 shadow textures with 3/4 update slider. What's funny is that when I backed off the in-game settings, it still gave me roughly the same spikes at the same places on the map. We fought last night, all night, at the same base. Same course ingress and egress vs basically the same cons (nice fights Triton28, AlBundy, Cobra83, etc).
Also, I cant seem to retrieve the log file from Precision. I know it saved somewhere but oh well. I'll get more familiar with Precision and post some more.
Interesting...............
On the whereabouts of the log file storage that Precision created just look under the Monitoring tab in Precision in the bordered box just under the checkbox for log history to file...should show the syntax for where the log was saved (C:\Program Files (x86)\...........\............), that is, if you checked the box to log it to file..............
From my testing the areas of the Nvidia driver that constitutes the lion's share of the load on the GPU's performance will be AA, TransparencyAA & Texture Filtering. AF to a lesser degree.
You may try the FXAA (supposed to use the cuda cores-shaders-to do the AA to offload the GPU some) to see if that helps any. I tried it on mine & I didn't see where it helped my card....but my card wasn't nowhere near 100% GPU usage either.
The in-game graphics settings under Graphics Details seem to work like a fine tune of the driver settings w/ the biggest impacts coming from the objects detail rendering level (top slider), the distance from the center of FOV to render objects (lower slider) & the object shadow rendering settings (the checkboxes within the Advanced folder) w/ resolution of the shadow textures (1024, 2048, 4096, 8192). I thought that the info that you gave concerning reducing the in-game graphics settings not reflecting any significant changes in relation to the areas of the game mapping to the card's GPU loading was interesting..........would be curious to know which in-game settings you changed when you noted this. 1 thing I watched w/ my card is the amount of on-board vid card mem Precision shows being used by the card....example: with all set as posted, when I used 4096 w/ 3/4 reflection the amount of mem used was around 830-855 Mb. When I used 8192 w/ 1/4 reflection the amount of mem used jumped to around 1.17-1.21 Gb. This is a relation of how much data per frame the GPU has to render.....larger means more work per GPU clock cycle. This is why I tend to stay w/ 4096 w/ 3/4 reflection. I might try going to 2048 w/ full reflection to see what the results would be.
I ran a test on my set up last night. With all set up as I had posted earlier I went in NCP & reset the TF setting from Quality to High Performance & left all else as set then flew awhile...game ran fine as always but when I checked the Precision graphs of my card I saw that the driver had downclocked the GPU from the max boost clock level to the base clock level & boosted the GPU clock speed upwards as it needed instead of being pinned at the max boost clock level when the driver was set at Quality. This is telling me that the GPU dynamic load is affected the most from the TF settings in the Nvidia driver. Need to test this more.
Even on the box that I have you can see that I'm not running the game at max everything. What I see from your data is that your X58 platform is doing just fine running the game.
:salute
-
<snip>
You may try the FXAA (supposed to use the cuda cores-shaders-to do the AA to offload the GPU some) to see if that helps any. I tried it on mine & I didn't see where it helped my card....but my card wasn't nowhere near 100% GPU usage either.<snip>
Just FYI, if the GPU is at 100% utilization, it means the CPU is fast enough to supply the video card data quicker than the video card can process it all. Or, the GPU is having resource issues.
If you GPU does not get above 90% utilization, then the CPU is too slow for the GPU, when running Aces High.
A well balanced system will have a CPU fast enough to keep the GPU at 90%, or higher, utilization.
Now, when you start dinking with the resource controls in the video driver, all bets are off.
-
Just FYI, if the GPU is at 100% utilization, it means the CPU is fast enough to supply the video card data quicker than the video card can process it all. Or, the GPU is having resource issues.
If you GPU does not get above 90% utilization, then the CPU is too slow for the GPU, when running Aces High.
A well balanced system will have a CPU fast enough to keep the GPU at 90%, or higher, utilization.
Now, when you start dinking with the resource controls in the video driver, all bets are off.
Last nights map was a different story. My card was running at 92 - 100% all night and 1.4 gig mem usage but the temp went to 77C. I backed off the in-game settings to no shadows on anything and 1024 textures with 1/2 Updates.
I'm trying to figure out how/why my card and my system won't run the game max'd. The eye candy in the game is not THAT candy-ish. There are a ton of games that are prettier that I can run full tilt so I just want to try. I also think there are in-game advantages to seeing better/everything.
-
Last nights map was a different story. My card was running at 92 - 100% all night and 1.4 gig mem usage but the temp went to 77C. I backed off the in-game settings to no shadows on anything and 1024 textures with 1/2 Updates.
I'm trying to figure out how/why my card and my system won't run the game max'd. The eye candy in the game is not THAT candy-ish. There are a ton of games that are prettier that I can run full tilt so I just want to try. I also think there are in-game advantages to seeing better/everything.
It is about resources. It is easier to run a game, with better appearing graphics, when those games limit the view distance to really short values.
That is one component. The next is the shadow texture size, when used with ant-aliasing. As a rough figure, take the shadow texture size, and multiply the size by the anti-alias value, then you come up with one texture using X amount of video RAM. That does not take into account the rest of the game requirements.
Example: 2048 shadow texture size = 128MB of video RAM for that one texture. Now, set you anti-alias to 4x. Now that one texture can take approximately 512MB of video RAM.
Of course the rest of the displayed textures also incur a like increase in video RAM usage.
Aces High can chew through video card resources, quite easily. The biggest single reason is the view distance we have (17 miles, a minimum of about 2,500 vertices, which does not include any terrain objects).
Also keep in mind that real time environmental wrapping is very, very expensive, both on the CPU and GPU side.
-
skuzzy did you ever considered running an ingame hardware poll to see what is the average computer used these days for aces high? I'm thinking 64bits version :angel:
-
No poll needed, really.
It will not help Aces High much at all. Resource usage is pretty much fixed, regardless. It changes nothing for the video card.
I am sure there will be a time when it makes sense to move to 64 bit. Right now, it really does not make sense. It is not as simple as flipping a flag on the compiler. It will require quite a bit code work to migrate to 64 bit.
-
No poll needed, really.
It will not help Aces High much at all. Resource usage is pretty much fixed, regardless. It changes nothing for the video card.
I am sure there will be a time when it makes sense to move to 64 bit. Right now, it really does not make sense. It is not as simple as flipping a flag on the compiler. It will require quite a bit code work to migrate to 64 bit.
Ive tried everything now. Is there a software program that is shareware that you can run to manage your processes while you play? I really don't want to learn what each process is and then turn them all off, lmao!
-
Oh...how much of a resource pig is iTunes running on a machine?
-
You do not want anything Apple or anything Adobe or anything Intuit running on your computer when you play.
AlacrityPC is a great place to start.
-
1 x Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-E 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 2011 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73820
1 x GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD3 LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
1 x Galaxy 65NGH8DL7AXX GeForce GTX 650 GC 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card
1 x Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - OEM
1 x KINGWIN ABT-1050MM 1050W ATX 12V v2.2 / EPS 12V v2.91 / SSI EPS 12V v2.92 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready Active PFC Power Supply
1 x CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ16GX3M4A1600C9B
1 x Rosewill Blackbone Black Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
1 x ASUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM
1 x Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver Thermal Compound AS5-3.5G - OEM - OEM
Water Cooled and running max settings at 559-60 fps on a 24" acer monitor.
-
iTunes is one of the worst. Anything from Apple for Windows is bad. Think about it. Why would Apple do anything nice for Windows?
iTunes eats resources like a six year old would chew through a candy store. It will cause stutters in frame rates, impede network connections to the arenas, and cause rampant and errant disk activity which causes a host of other problems.
Running the Windows Aero desktop is also a resource problem.
If you have anything from Norton, McAfee, Intuit, Roxio, Apple, Adobe, and probably more, then you are sacrificing resources that should not be sacrificed.
NOTE: You can kill most of the Adobe things, but the others are married to the operating system once they are installed.
-
iTunes is one of the worst. Anything from Apple for Windows is bad. Think about it. Why would Apple do anything nice for Windows?
iTunes eats resources like a six year old would chew through a candy store. It will cause stutters in frame rates, impede network connections to the arenas, and cause rampant and errant disk activity which causes a host of other problems.
Running the Windows Aero desktop is also a resource problem.
If you have anything from Norton, McAfee, Intuit, Roxio, Apple, Adobe, and probably more, then you are sacrificing resources that should not be sacrificed.
NOTE: You can kill most of the Adobe things, but the others are married to the operating system once they are installed.
Ok. Here's a plan. New SSD that only has Windows and the game loaded. I could set the bios to let me choose which drive to boot right? Can't be that hard. Then, when the wife and kids wanna jump on they just reboot to "their" system. That would be clean right? Essentially 120 bucks solves my problem....for the most part.
-
@changeup Process Lassoo is a great process manager. I have two truly speed critical apps that I use, one being AH and the other being voice dictation. PL automatically sets them to realtime priority when they run. If that doesn't work for you, use gaming mode and it will give AH all system resources automatically.
And it's ten bucks!
-
@changeup Process Lassoo is a great process manager. I have two truly speed critical apps that I use, one being AH and the other being voice dictation. PL automatically sets them to realtime priority when they run. If that doesn't work for you, use gaming mode and it will give AH all system resources automatically.
And it's ten bucks!
I tried Lasso and it didn't help much. See, I think my kiddos load crap when they go to gaming sites that I never know is there. Lasso is great but it still didn't maximize the system. In fact, I saw no real difference. Now, I used the freeware, not the paid version. Still I'd like to try a small SSD on my system. Windows gives every component in my system a 7.9 except the HD...which turns in a 5.4.
My case has hot swap HD bays on top. I don't even have to install the new drive. I can tell the bios to look at the swap bay and if there's no HD in it, move on to the SATA 6 drive. I just have to believe that an SSD drive with windows, video card drivers, and the game only would be about as unencumbered as you can get, wouldn't you?
-
A dedicated hard disk just for gaming is a good idea indeed. Speaking about AH, an SSD doesn't make a significant difference, though. It would make windows load faster, but from personal experience the boot time can be pre-emptively used to avoid having to go for a leak during gameplay.
-
A dedicated hard disk just for gaming is a good idea indeed. Speaking about AH, an SSD doesn't make a significant difference, though. It would make windows load faster, but from personal experience the boot time can be pre-emptively used to avoid having to go for a leak during gameplay.
Easyest is to put the computer to sleep so it can wake up in a couple of seconds. Especially Win8 wakes up almost mac-like.
-
Never allow the computer, or parts of it, to sleep under Windows 7, and earlier. I have not tested Windows 8 yet, but all previous versions of Windows have had issues with the 'sleep' mode.
Just FYI.
-
Never allow the computer, or parts of it, to sleep under Windows 7, and earlier. I have not tested Windows 8 yet, but all previous versions of Windows have had issues with the 'sleep' mode.
Just FYI.
Oh man, I love you for that! :salute
-
Oh man, I love you for that! :salute
Skuzzy,
He has conditional love....selfish turd. My love is unconditional
-
Skuzzy,
He has conditional love....selfish turd. My love is unconditional
That's only because you live so near you could have consequences if not. :bolt:
-
That's only because you live so near you could have consequences if not. :bolt:
Good call
-
Never allow the computer, or parts of it, to sleep under Windows 7, and earlier. I have not tested Windows 8 yet, but all previous versions of Windows have had issues with the 'sleep' mode.
Just FYI.
Win8 is the first windows where sleep becomes fast enough to actually use. I run my W8 computer all the time and just put it to sleep when it's not needed. In that sense W8 took a giant leap towards Apple in ease of use. No more bootup and waiting when you want to access the computer.
-
Win 8 worth it without a touch screen?
-
Hi All,
Been flying & testing some more. The more I play w/ this thing the more I LIKE it!
:D
Here are my latest settings:
Using 310.70 Nvidia driver......
AO--Off
AF--16x (max)
FXAA--Off
AA(GC)--On
AAMode--Override any application setting
AA--32x CSAA (max)
AA(Transparency)--8x supersampling (max)
CUDA-GPU's--All
Max Prerendered Frames--2
Multi Displays/Mixed GPU Acceleration--Single Display Performance Mode
Power Management Mode--Adaptive
TF(ASO)--On
TF(NLB)--Clamp
TF--Quality
TF(TO)--On
TO--Auto
TB--On
Vsynch--On
In-game:
AA--None
Textures--1024
Graphics Detail:
Both sliders full left
Horizon enabled
Ground Clutter enabled
Disable Ground Clutter in Flight enabled
Advanced:
All boxes checked
Reflection slider full left
Shadow Textures--2048
Same box set up as listed earlier.........
In game vid card runs flat out at max boost clock speed of 1228 w/ occassional dips to 1215 at 3105 mem clock speed w/ no dips at 74%-87% GPU usage at 63*C-66*C temp at 87%-100% power at 714Mb-744Mb mem usage maintaining 57-59 FPS. Gameplay, looks & feel was.....oh so beautiful! I love this game especially w/ it running on this platform!
When I put the TF setting in driver to High Quality (full trilinear filtering--driver side maxed out) all pretty much held sway except GPU usage jumped to 98% & straight-lined & max boost clock speed dipped occassionally to lowest speed of 1206 from max of 1228 w/ power usage straight-lined on max of 100%.
If what Skuzzy said is true then I must have gotten hold of a one-of-a-kind EVGA GTX 670 FTW vid card running on a very good X79 set up.....none of it is OC'd....all on stock settings. Makes me feel GOOD! I'll take that as a positive.........:D
All this data came off Precision X. The vid card's mem usage was significantly affected only when I changed the in-game shadow textures amount. None of the Nvidia driver setting changes moved the mem usage much....most I observed was 10-15 Mb whereas the in-game shadow texture settings would move the mem usage 114 Mb-242 Mb per setting change. FWIW I run w/ Aero enabled so some of the mem usage amounts will be from Aero but from earlier testing my vid card doesn't show to be affected performance-wise whether Aero is enabled or not. I thought that Win 7 was supposed to turn Aero off when it detected a 3D game app running....................oh well.......
I do know that Win 7 recognized the SSD's & turned off defrag, readyboost, superfetch on it's own & I like that.
Still believe that Nvidia 600 sers vid cards as a general rule perform w/ AHII at their best when the Nvidia driver is overriding the in-game application settings & in-game AA setting is turned off, but that's my assessment due to my box's results from all this testing.........your's may be different.
Gotta go fly now!
:salute
-
I dont think there is any benefit of running AF as high as you have it. I wonder about your Prerendered also. Power management. . . sounds like something is wrong, or your 670 has an issue somewhere. My 690 has never had a problem throttling.
Actually, AH does not require a 600 series to get a good looking game. Setting things as high as we have them is great for maintaining the load above 90%, but even the older 480s could get the same performance we have without the shadows and I think they could probably handle the environmental mapping also.
Why are you running 1024 instad of 2048? And ground clutter? All it does is hide tanks from your view. Foxgloves are not that important are they?
-
Win 8 worth it without a touch screen?
I had posted this in another thread but it deserves a repost. I noticed Newegg is selling their PCs with a free downgrade to windows 7.
-
Win 8 worth it without a touch screen?
With or without... It can be "used" with a mouse, too. And it is at least as good a platform for gaming as Vista.
I've heard a scientific study has been made, the result being that a human arm will soon exhaust when using an upright touch screen. Would you believe that???
-
With or without... It can be "used" with a mouse, too. And it is at least as good a platform for gaming as Vista.
I've heard a scientific study has been made, the result being that a human arm will soon exhaust when using an upright touch screen. Would you believe that???
Benchmarks show that Win8 is just as fast as Windows 7 and even faster in some aspects. It has a new leaner kernel. It's getting a bad rep mostly because of the new user interface (which can be circumvented mostly) and other technical aspects which do not affect the user experience.
-
I run XP64 and have for ten years now. It does everything I need it to do.
-
I had been running my Radeon Card (5970) with default setting for a year now, with the newwer stuff that been released my frames rate had been dropping into the mid 30s, with mome heavy action periods requing me to turn lots of stuff off to get my Frame rate back. At one point last week I had shut off deatailed terrain just to get mack into the 40s. after reading through this thread I went and tried a few thing and here is what I found.
Morfilogical filtering
- set to OFF
AA has two paramerters:
- Pixels set to 2X
- AA mode (Wide Tent) 4X
Tessalation
- Set to Off
...and to make this short, I turned everything else off.
The only thing that affected graphics quality was the Anti Aliasing setting, and setting them higher than the first two settings did not make inprove the look of the game, but did has an effect on Text fonts. They did however have a big effect on Frame rate. After I did this I turned on....
2048 textures
Bump map My plane with 1 notch of "New features" (this added the reflections to the glass surfaces)
Detailed terrain set to 4 mile range
Self shadows set to 4096
Detailed water (with local water reflections)
Bump map terrain
Bump map clouds
Running and holding 50-60 FPS. Game looks great. still getting some micro studdering with track IR...
I played a little with the AA mode (Edge detect versus, Narrow tent, versus wide tent...trying to see which had a bigger impact on image quality and frame rate. I found the wide tent and the 2X samples looked just fine and the other setting weren't worth the fps hit. but I was still getting some micro-studdering from timeto time and holding 50-60
so I started the game at the first screen, then started the Task manager. I went to the process screen and shut off all the other useless stuff, and set AH t priority yo HIGH, as well as the TrackIR to HIGH. I then set everything else to low. (windows7) Now the games runs at a stead 60 FPS and the studdering is gone.
I thik there are a lot of these features in the Graphics card that are of no use in AH. Leaving them turned on makes the card do a lot of calculations that dan't add anything but they do use up GC resources and slow you down. Shut them all off except Anti aliasing, and there seems to be no need to over do that either.
I can't run 8192 shadows because it reeally eats frames vs 4096. I go from 60 to 35-40 with the shadows at the highest resolution. I think changing the priority allows more CPU resouces to be focused on AH and that made a big difference. I'm going to try one for the resources tracking programs to see if the CPU and the GPU are beingutilized in a balanced way. I suspect my CPU (2.66 Quad core Duo) is the bottle neck for further improvements. I also tested the slider bar for the "New eycandy" aby moving it to the left. 25% moved up to 75% was worth about 10-15 frames, but I couldn't tell what in came was changing. So to me it wasn't worth it. Of course it my be for something I didn't come across.
OK hope that is value to someone. :salute
-
only just coming back to teh game but my rig has been upgraded since i last played so im gona say pretty close to max on everything.
i play planetside 2 on max and that is graphic heavy
here is my spec
Intel Core i7-3930K 4.4GHz (Sandybridge-E)
Asus X79 Sabertooth Intel X79
Corsair Dominator 32GB (4x8GB) PC3-12800C10 1600MHz Dual/Quad Channel
Sapphire HD 7970 VAPOR-X GHZ 3072MB GDDR5
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache
-
Hi All,
YMMV, but if your using the new Nvidia 600 sers Kepler GPU's (I got an EVGA 670 FTW w/ 2Gb mem) w/ AHII I found out w/ mine that using the in-game AA setting along w/ the Nvidia driver set to use the application settings for AA, AF & V-synch throws the driver's ability to control the GPU thru the driver's dynamic clock boost/power boost control system off kilter--meaning my 670 tended to have the clock speed of the GPU cut below the base clock speed of 1006 & the speed control was very erratic regardless of the GPU temps being far below the 70*C throttle threshold. The game ran fine as it was but this did bother me.
One day I was bored & thought to try my card w/ the driver set to run it all. So when I reset the in-game AA setting to None, set the card's driver in NCP to override the application settings in AA, AF & V-synch & set everything at the driver's level my 670 now runs flat out in-game at it's highest GPU boost clock rate of 1228 w/ occasional dips to 1150, highest mem clock rate of 3105 w/ no speed dips & GPU temps holding between 55*C-65*C regardless of load---w/ Adaptive power control enabled & card's power offset set at 100% & GPU/mem offsets at 0% (stock settings).
Again YMMV.
:salute
I have been discussing this with the people on the Nvidia boards. It sounds like you may have installed a driver set without properly removing older drivers first. It is a common problem that even the most experienced users are experiencing, because if a user forgets to turn off MSI Afterburner, or XPrecision (or Steam, FRAPS, . . .), or anti-virus programs and the list goes on. . . it might very well interfere with the proper installation of your newer drivers. Also, if you have Adobe, or Apple software on your system, or do not properly reconfigure Internet Security settings, or forget to disable Windows Update before updating drivers, then you may have a problem.
I just went through the reinstall process myself and I realized how easy it is to ruin your installation. But, I also went online with a brand new GTX 680 after a fresh driver update and reinstall with the driver settings I recommended and when I closed out AH the GPU dropped right back to idle clocks and temps. So, I have to believe the crowd at Nvidia is right.
Also, Skuzzy, if we (we meaning everyone that uses Geforce) want a new profile included for AH then we will probably have to petition for one on their boards.
-
<snip>
Also, Skuzzy, if we (we meaning everyone that uses Geforce) want a new profile included for AH then we will probably have to petition for one on their boards.
Yes, I know. That is what happened to get the first profile done and it was never right either. NVidia and ATI pretty much ignore us as a game company.
-
I had been running my Radeon Card (5970) with default setting for a year now, with the newwer stuff that been released my frames rate had been dropping into the mid 30s, with mome heavy action periods requing me to turn lots of stuff off to get my Frame rate back. At one point last week I had shut off deatailed terrain just to get mack into the 40s. after reading through this thread I went and tried a few thing and here is what I found.
Morfilogical filtering
- set to OFF
AA has two paramerters:
- Pixels set to 2X
- AA mode (Wide Tent) 4X
Tessalation
- Set to Off
...and to make this short, I turned everything else off.
The only thing that affected graphics quality was the Anti Aliasing setting, and setting them higher than the first two settings did not make inprove the look of the game, but did has an effect on Text fonts. They did however have a big effect on Frame rate. After I did this I turned on....
2048 textures
Bump map My plane with 1 notch of "New features" (this added the reflections to the glass surfaces)
Detailed terrain set to 4 mile range
Self shadows set to 4096
Detailed water (with local water reflections)
Bump map terrain
Bump map clouds
Running and holding 50-60 FPS. Game looks great. still getting some micro studdering with track IR...
I played a little with the AA mode (Edge detect versus, Narrow tent, versus wide tent...trying to see which had a bigger impact on image quality and frame rate. I found the wide tent and the 2X samples looked just fine and the other setting weren't worth the fps hit. but I was still getting some micro-studdering from timeto time and holding 50-60
so I started the game at the first screen, then started the Task manager. I went to the process screen and shut off all the other useless stuff, and set AH t priority yo HIGH, as well as the TrackIR to HIGH. I then set everything else to low. (windows7) Now the games runs at a stead 60 FPS and the studdering is gone.
I thik there are a lot of these features in the Graphics card that are of no use in AH. Leaving them turned on makes the card do a lot of calculations that dan't add anything but they do use up GC resources and slow you down. Shut them all off except Anti aliasing, and there seems to be no need to over do that either.
I can't run 8192 shadows because it reeally eats frames vs 4096. I go from 60 to 35-40 with the shadows at the highest resolution. I think changing the priority allows more CPU resouces to be focused on AH and that made a big difference. I'm going to try one for the resources tracking programs to see if the CPU and the GPU are beingutilized in a balanced way. I suspect my CPU (2.66 Quad core Duo) is the bottle neck for further improvements. I also tested the slider bar for the "New eycandy" aby moving it to the left. 25% moved up to 75% was worth about 10-15 frames, but I couldn't tell what in came was changing. So to me it wasn't worth it. Of course it my be for something I didn't come across.
OK hope that is value to someone. :salute
Update....
Ok this is going to sound like it makes no sense...because it doesn't.
I wanted to see what my "utilization" was to determine where the weak spot in my system was so I downloaded AMD System Monitor and installed. Started it up and hit the record button. Took and flew a combat sortie, where I ran into multiple bandits, with same settings as above. Ran around 57-60 FPS. went tot he file opened it and checked the data.
CPU 1 90%-100%
CPU 2 5%
CPU 3 8%
CPU 4 20%
GPU 1 20% with clock speed fixed @ 725 (which is the Overdrive setting., same with mem speed @1000)
GPU 2 5% with clock speed fixed @ 725 (which is the Overdrive setting., same with mem speed @1000)
GPU fan speed fixed at 4100 (is that supposed to be 410 RPM?)
Temps running 38C-40C for both GPUs
The GPUs were running at Zero% with an ocasional blip up to 20% on one GPU.
I thought that the CPU must be bogged down, but thought it strange that tthe other cores would be utilized more to alivieate the bottleneck. Then I though, why am I running "Overdrive" if the GPUs aren;t being taxed at all. So I went to the AMD Catalyst window, went to the Overdrive and disabled it. My plan was to go back to game and take more datat and see if the GPUs would be "utilized" more, thinking utilization must be calculated on total capability. If I slowed the GPU down, the same workload would require hiher utilization.
Back in game, same field, same plane, take off and meet the same bandits. FPS pegged at 60. To add more data condintiones to the test I go the advanced graphics and turn the "self shadows" up to 8192.
Game pegs at 60 FPS. :huh
Fly the whole sorty, I think at one point it dropped to 57 FPS.
I go back and check the sys monitor recording and now I see something that looks like this...
CPU 1 80%
CPU 2 40%
CPU 3 40%
CPU 4 30%
GPU 1 80% with clock speed Varying between 157Mhz @ 725Mhz (which is the Overdrive setting., same with mem speed @1000)
GPU 2 40% with clock speed Varying between 157Mhz @ 725Mhz (which is the Overdrive setting., same with mem speed @1000)
GPU fan speed fixed at 1700-1800.
Temps climbed from 60C to 80C (held there) for both GPUs
Game looked positively beautiful with those crisp 8192 shows rolling around my P-39 cockpit. I get woried about temps, but don't what's too high.
But clearly the take away for me is that my rig utilized all resources better with overclocking via "Overdrive" turned off. When I get home tonight I will make graphs of the data and post it.
I'm happy but confused. :headscratch:
-
Uninstall Catalyst Control Center and watch the performance get even better.
-
Uninstall Catalyst Control Center and watch the performance get even better.
I had assumed that the Radon HD-7750 was controlled by the Catalyst control panel. If I uninstall it then the color control is handled by the monitor/tv and the screen resolution is controlled by w7. Would that be correct?
-
Uninstall Catalyst Control Center and watch the performance get even better.
I use ATI Tray Tools to control my card instead of CCC. Might be a subject for another discussion but what settings there would be most beneficial for AH? Which are of no benefit and be best turned off?
I know some things would vary from card to card and machine to machine insofar as overall system performance goes and that would have to be tested but I was curious as to what the game either needs or can or can not make use of in order to make a better game profile there.
-
Uninstall Catalyst Control Center and watch the performance get even better.
I have basically turned everything in it off. So This makes perfect sense. I will try that next. :salute
-
The game is designed/optimized to use the stock settings, of any appropriate video card. However, that does not mean changing those defaults will hurt performance. It could hurt, or help.
-
The game is designed/optimized to use the stock settings, of any video card. However, that does not mean changing those defaults will hurt performance. It could hurt, or help.
The "Overdrive" seems to have limitted the game to one CPU core, and 1 GPU. I have no idea why that would be.
By the way, is there a description of what is added to the graphics with each progressive step to the left of the slider for the new updates? It seems like there are 5 steps, wit hthe first one being glass reflections. Is that for all glass BTW, or just glass in my plane? What do the other steps do?
:salute
-
What slider?
-
What slider?
Sorry, In the Advanced Graphics menue at the very top. I believe it's activated by the Bump Map my Plane check box. I call it the New graphic updates slider. I don;t know what HTC calls it. :salute
-
Sorry, In the Advanced Graphics menue at the very top. I believe it's activated by the Bump Map my Plane check box. I call it the New graphic updates slider. I don;t know what HTC calls it. :salute
You mean the "Environment Map" slider?
That slider controls how often the environment map is updated. "Full Updates" means do it real time. This is the map that is use to create the reflections on the shiny parts of planes. It is a procedural texture (i.e.the game creates it on the fly). How often that texture gets updated is all that slider adjusts.
I do not recall what each tick of the slider does. It just impacts the time between each update. It has no effect on the quality of the graphics.
-
The game is designed/optimized to use the stock settings, of any appropriate video card. However, that does not mean changing those defaults will hurt performance. It could hurt, or help.
I have a MSI R6950/2GB card with a slight overclock. I'm running one of the 12.5 beta drivers. For some reason I get an odd screen flickering in any application if I use any driver from 12.6 on. If I move the mouse around the screen flickers as if on an old TV with the verticle/horizontal needing adjustment. Discovered this problem when I tried to upgrade to the 13.2 betas you were talking about last week. They're a no go for me. I'm at the 12.5 (8.97 version) which works fine otherwise.
I was interested in tray tool settings for stuff like anistropic filtering, etc. On or off? Honestly some of these I don't even know what they do or what to look for if they were doing anything at all. My thinking is if the game won't take advantage of a certain setting it I'll just set it to off in the game profile I have set up for AH in tray tools and save some clock cycles. I don't see any issues with my setup at present, but any tweaking in a positive direction is fine by me.
-
You mean the "Environment Map" slider?
That slider controls how often the environment map is updated. "Full Updates" means do it real time. This is the map that is use to create the reflections on the shiny parts of planes. It is a procedural texture (i.e.the game creates it on the fly). How often that texture gets updated is all that slider adjusts.
I do not recall what each tick of the slider does. It just impacts the time between each update. It has no effect on the quality of the graphics.
Yes that's it. Thanks for the explanation. :aok I really couldn't tell the difference between any of the positions after the first one. Now I know why. :salute
-
You mean the "Environment Map" slider?
That slider controls how often the environment map is updated. "Full Updates" means do it real time. This is the map that is use to create the reflections on the shiny parts of planes. It is a procedural texture (i.e.the game creates it on the fly). How often that texture gets updated is all that slider adjusts.
I do not recall what each tick of the slider does. It just impacts the time between each update. It has no effect on the quality of the graphics.
Yes that's it. Thanks for the explanation. :aok I really couldn't tell the difference between any of the positions after the first one. Now I know why. :salute
-
Can Anyone Run MAX Everything?
Yes, they're called nerds.
-
Just an update. I have been monitoring the utilization on my GPUs and CPUs and as previously discussed , it seems to be the CPU that is the bottle neck in my system. I have recently posted that setting the priority for Aceshigh in the task manager to "high" helped quite a bit, but the results were inconsistant. Some days it was till slow. Recently I did some experiments with setting the "affinity". Now these results are for a Quad core Duo. When I run the game in default mode it seems to try to run everything on Core 0, which is typically 100% with spill over on teh other cores of 10-20%. Frame rates are limitted with relfections and self shadows on. But I have found the the optimum settings for me was to set the "affinity" for Aceshigh to cores 1,2,3 (just deactivate 0), and set TrackIr to core 1). When I do that core 1 runs at 85% and Cores 2 and three run 20-30%.. The game runs beautifully and conststanly between 55-60 FPS. It does take longer to Cache. When I take off after each sortie, the game runs at 20 FPS for about the time it takes to roll down the runway and lift off, but then it pegs at 55-60 and stays there, even in heavy action.
I run Window7 64 bit, on a 2.66MHz Quad core Duo, with 8 Gig of Ram and Radeon 5970. The Graphics card is running 30% and 30% utilization on the GPUs. That would suggest that the game is more CPU bottlenecked on most rigs, compared to GPU. For some reason Window7 didin't schedule the game across the CPUs efficiently, but setting AH to the back three processors did the trick.
Note: I tried to use the back two processors (3,4) and the graphics looked great but the sounds wouldn't run smooth. (they kept pausing, like they were disrupted)
Also starting the Task manager after AH is running will crash it. So you need to do it in this order...
Sequence:
Turn off real time Scanning in your Virus software (if applicable)
Start CH control manager
Start TrackIR 5.0
Start the Task Manager
Start AH and leave it at the first screen.
Go back to the Task manager screen....
-Under processes tab
- Right click on AH and left click on "affinity..."
- you'll see 5 check boxes
Select all
CPU 0 (de-select this one)
CPU 1 {
CPU 2 {Leave these checked
CPU 3 {
- Click OK
- Right click on AH and left click on "Priority"
- left click on "High" (box will come up warning that changing priority can affect performance. select "Change priority")
- Right click on TrackIR 5.0 and left click on "Priority"
- left click on "High" (box will come up warning that changing priority can affect performance. select "Change priority")
Close the task manager.
selct on-line arenas or other menue choice from AH and proceed as usual.
Make a 20-25 FPS difference on my machine. I've had this hardware for over a year and could never run 8192 Self shadows, let a lone with the Environment map at one notch. I am running 2048 graphics resolution, Bump map terrain, Realistic Water, with local water reflections on.
It's a joy to see the game in it's full glory. I pass this info on in the hopes that more will be able to enjoy it. Results may vary, but I think windows7 may not be scheduling optimumly without a little help. forcing the game onto certain cores may help your rig as well. Good luck and Please poet results if it works, or hurts your set up. I will make screen dumps and post tonight when I get home.
thanks,
vinkman :salute
-
The environmental slider put my frame rate to 45 when slider fully to the left.
Putting the slider in the middle brings it back unto 60 and I cannot tell what the difference is in game :)(monitor is native 60fsp)
I thought it was local reflections that was the problem, but it was the environmental slider :)
I have a i7 quad core,GTX680, 12gig of corsair memory and overclocked to 4.3 with water cooling :)
Everything is on but I put my shadows 1024 because anything above that makes the shadows look odd :)
-
Just an update. I have been monitoring the utilization on my GPUs and CPUs and as previously discussed , it seems to be the CPU that is the bottle neck in my system. I have recently posted that setting the priority for Aceshigh in the task manager to "high" helped quite a bit, but the results were inconsistant. Some days it was till slow. Recently I did some experiments with setting the "affinity". Now these results are for a Quad core Duo. When I run the game in default mode it seems to try to run everything on Core 0, which is typically 100% with spill over on teh other cores of 10-20%. Frame rates are limitted with relfections and self shadows on. But I have found the the optimum settings for me was to set the "affinity" for Aceshigh to cores 1,2,3 (just deactivate 0), and set TrackIr to core 1). When I do that core 1 runs at 85% and Cores 2 and three run 20-30%.. The game runs beautifully and conststanly between 55-60 FPS. It does take longer to Cache. When I take off after each sortie, the game runs at 20 FPS for about the time it takes to roll down the runway and lift off, but then it pegs at 55-60 and stays there, even in heavy action.
I run Window7 64 bit, on a 2.66MHz Quad core Duo, with 8 Gig of Ram and Radeon 5970. The Graphics card is running 30% and 30% utilization on the GPUs. That would suggest that the game is more CPU bottlenData Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????‚Ë| ‚Ë| 276614018MltCpy2.10 FILL FILLed Sector; ST500DM002-9YN14 (CC4H) S1D5GMZY Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????/>Turn off real time Scanning in your Virus software (if applicable)
Start CH control manager
Start TrackIR 5.0
Start the Task Manager
Start AH and leave it at the first screen.
Go back to the Task manager screen....
-Under processes tab
- Right click on AH and left click on "affinity..."
- you'll see 5 check boxes
Select all
CPU 0 (de-select this one)
CPU 1 {
CPU 2 {Leave these checked
CPU 3 {
- Click OK
- Right click on AH and left click on "Priority"
- left click on "High" (box will come up warning that changing priority can affect performance. select "Change priority")
- Right click on TrackIR 5.0 and left click on "Priority"
- left click on "High" (box will come up warning that changing priority can affect performance. select "Change priority")
Close the task manager.
selct on-line arenas or other menue choice from AH and proceed as usual.
Make a 20-25 FPS difference on my machine. I've had this hardware for over a year and could never run 8192 Self shadows, let a lone with the Environment map at one notch. I am running 2048 graphics resolution, Bump map terrain, Realistic Water, with local water reflections on.
It's a joy to see the game in it's full glory. I pass this info on in the hopes that more will be able to enjoy it. Results may vary, but I think windows7 may not be scheduling optimumly without a little help. forcing the game onto certain cores may help your rig as well. Good luck and Please poet results if it works, or hurts your set up. I will make screen dumps and post tonight when I get home.
thanks,
vinkman :salute
Skuzzy,
Do you think this could help other folks? I understand what he's done but I don't understand why the CPU doesn't do it all by itself. I thought CPU priorities were automatic based on need. It sounds like they just allocate resources randomly. Thoughts on what Vinky has done?
-
It all depends on what is installed on the computer and if all the updates are done. Microsoft released a recent update to Windows 7 which helps with current generation Intel CPU's.
However, some anti-virus programs also alter the scheduling for CPU's. Once installed it is permanent. The only way to revert back is to wipe out the hard drive and re-install Windows.
Aces High only uses 2 cores, at the moment. On the other hand, DirectX can use any number of cores. It will also depend on the sound card installed. Some sound cards/chips are single-threaded, while others are not.
There is just too many variables for any one combination of things to hold true for all systems.
Certainly adjusting the priority of the application will help a little, but it may not help at all, again depending on the configuration of hardware and software installed.
-
I'm actually surprised he can keep audio in sync at all!
-
Vink's trick didnt help my system, turning off a core only made it worse.
-
Vink's trick didnt help my system, turning off a core only made it worse.
Same here. Saw no gains. Maybe a little stuttering. Set it back.
-
Would simply having more available cores help reduce the problem of scheduling? For example 4 cores with HT for a total of 8 cores is less likely to have this problem just because any time a core is needed there is one available?
Just curious.
-
Would simply having more available cores help reduce the problem of scheduling? For example 4 cores with HT for a total of 8 cores is less likely to have this problem just because any time a core is needed there is one available?
Just curious.
How would someone setup for using all 4 cores. Hell I'll try it
-
Well I cant wait to see the difference my new parts are gonna make..LOL I will post here what I can and cannot do.
LawnDart
-
Same here. Saw no gains. Maybe a little stuttering. Set it back.
Did you fly the whole sortie or stop after a minute or two?
-
Did you fly the whole sortie or stop after a minute or two?
It is not going to be uncommon for one thing to work on one Windows computer and not on another. There are literally thousands of variables to deal with.
-
It is not going to be uncommon for one thing to work on one Windows computer and not on another. There are literally thousands of variables to deal with.
This is big mystery. From one day to the next the difference in performaces changes as well. What is happening in the scheduling of the tasks that screws this up. What was clear from the log data was I never ran 2 cores at 100%. So there is always overhead to run the game at max settings. It also clear that the gameis coded to be split between the cores enough to enable max settings.
We just can identify, what mysterious service, or process, is interfering with the scheduling of tasks in the CPU that results in bottlenecking. for example yesterday I ran into a new problem. Frame rates at 60, but stuttering of head movement as I swivelled around. but the frames stayed solid at 52-60. so i figured it was Track IR synch issue. Tried a few things. Nothing fixed it. It was just "wednesday's" mystery. :headscratch:
I don't know how you Code guys do it. The unstable ground you wonk on is like being asked to build a skyscraper on a strange planet who's soil properties are a function of every astronomical event in the solar system. God bless you. :salute
-
I have noticed over the years people get very obsessed with FSP,Stutters and lag.
MY new top of the range PC gets blips every now and then.
I don't care anymore :)
Its getting obsessional :)
-
I have noticed over the years people get very obsessed with FSP,Stutters and lag.
MY new top of the range PC gets blips every now and then.
I don't care anymore :)
Its getting obsessional :)
Good stuff! Lol