Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Blade on February 19, 2014, 06:26:14 AM
-
I want AcesHigh Benchmark, like demonstration (e.g. 3DMark etc.) .
-
This may be plausible as HTC is currently working on a new terrain engine. So after it's done, they could do a benchmark type thing? :headscratch:
-
I think there are too many variables with a game this complex. It is very difficult to get a consistent benchmark even when you do not change anything.
-
You would have to run it against every single map in rotation to account for the idiosyncrasies of each player's creations from half the fields in each country. There are maps I cannot sit in any tower within a sector of the HQ or a strat and not have my FPS stuck at 36-42. But, if I move to fields away from those areas, 59-60 all night long.
Your benchmark is really the FPS. Anything causing stress on the CPU\GPU while in the arena shows up in your FPS numbers. Unless you have a special monitor, LCD with vsync on, will be at 59-60 as your benchmark. But, that is no guarantee of being a game gauwd. You still need to factor in your Internet connection and that of each player you are shooting at.
Benchmarks in this game are meaningless to our ACM gauwds who some still play on a cheesy laptop with a mouse with WiFi and satellite modem. They have chosen to be so good at ACM that their poor personal Benchmark is no match for the fact you have just been setup to stall 100 feet in front of their guns.
-
a benchmark would be nice to compare hardware, diagnose perf issues. And to know who has the biggest.
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
-
I too would like to see a benchmark feature.
I'd use it to compare my terrains' load vs the default ndisles terrain, which I do now but without knowing why that northern ndisles base sucks frame rates so bad.
It would help me flag terrain areas or objects that might need tweaking to improve frame rates for players with less hardware.
Good idea. +1
-
a benchmark would be nice to compare hardware, diagnose perf issues. And to know who has the biggest.
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
do you know what a benchmark is? and how you would propose it is done with a different amount of players in the specific part of the map you are in?
semp
-
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
:rofl :rofl
-
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
never do
-
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
You know bustr, a wall of text that really didn't need saying.
-
Anyone read bustr's post beyond the first sentence?
Never
-
do you know what a benchmark is? and how you would propose it is done with a different amount of players in the specific part of the map you are in?
I reverse the question, do YOU know what a benchmark is? It usually makes the game engine render a scripted or recorded intense action scene, that is the same every time you run it, hence allowing you to see compare how it runs on different hardware/configs/mods/etc. It doesn't run online and is always on the same map.
-
I reverse the question, do YOU know what a benchmark is? It usually makes the game engine render a scripted or recorded intense action scene, that is the same every time you run it, hence allowing you to see compare how it runs on different hardware/configs/mods/etc. It doesn't run online and is always on the same map.
ok now, think about this. are all the map sections the same? so if you can bench mark in this portion of the map, will it be true for all the other sections?
I'd use it to compare my terrains' load vs the default ndisles terrain, which I do now but without knowing why that northern ndisles base sucks frame rates so bad.
It would help me flag terrain areas or objects that might need tweaking to improve frame rates for players with less hardware.
will it help you fix or even give you a hint of what is the problem in easyscor's question?
semp
-
ok now, think about this. are all the map sections the same? so if you can bench mark in this portion of the map, will it be true for all the other sections?
will it help you fix or even give you a hint of what is the problem in easyscor's question?
semp
Benchmarks need controlled environments to be viable. Launching the game offline default map A1 tower is a benchmark, if you compare it to the exact same view somewhere else or with diff configurations.
Easyscor should maybe use the mission editor with CM view and spawn planes to stress his PC at variable points of the map, but the amount of parameters to control to obtain viable statistics of the game performance is scary. In any way its not the usual game benchmark he's looking for.
-
ok now, think about this. are all the map sections the same? so if you can bench mark in this portion of the map, will it be true for all the other sections?
semp
Generally, one would logically benchmark what would tax the most? The conclusion is fairly easy in that a half bombed out town that has fighting going on will be a bit more taxing than an open field with fighting. Why would I want to benchmark the field if benchmarking the town would prove more efficient and effective? If you are having trouble in the field over the town, that's program problem, or your PC has a very odd issue.
You are making this out to be harder than it really is.
-
Generally, one would logically benchmark what would tax the most? The conclusion is fairly easy in that a half bombed out town that has fighting going on will be a bit more taxing than an open field with fighting. Why would I want to benchmark the field if benchmarking the town would prove more efficient and effective? If you are having trouble in the field over the town, that's program problem, or your PC has a very odd issue.
You are making this out to be harder than it really is.
but you do benchmark both every time. benchmarks only gives you fps and you already get that in the game. so you can compare how you do in the town against how you do in the field. if you want to compare fps then all you do is ask players to post their fps.
if you really want to stress your system to it's limits then use something like 3dmark and ask others to post their info. that would be a little bit more useful.
in the game it wont be as useful since there's portions of some maps where fps will take a dip. I am pretty sure you can make a note of that and compare it against next time you fly.
semp
-
but you do benchmark both every time. benchmarks only gives you fps and you already get that in the game. so you can compare how you do in the town against how you do in the field. if you want to compare fps then all you do is ask players to post their fps.
if you really want to stress your system to it's limits then use something like 3dmark and ask others to post their info. that would be a little bit more useful.
in the game it wont be as useful since there's portions of some maps where fps will take a dip. I am pretty sure you can make a note of that and compare it against next time you fly.
semp
I meant a flat, open plain or grassy field. And the town would include a flyover of the airfield and whatnot. Sorry for not being clear on that issue.
The thing is, benchmark helps out in terms of what you can and can't do without ruining game play. Popping into the game knowing you have well more than enough hardware capability to run something at max, only to find yourself tanking badly when you shouldn't, is very frustrating. In a way it does alert folks to stuff as in; "Wait a sec. I KNOW my machine can run this at max with 120 fps. Why is it flopping at this point here???". Example being that I have 2x 5770 Radeon's, and I CANNOT have AA on whatsoever, or my FPS tanks BADLY. This should NOT be happening, but it does. Thing is, I just don't care enough to bother getting it checked out because turning off AA (while making everything jaggedy), doesn't really degrade the visuals enough for me to bugger off. I use to play on almost absolute min graphics in the past (only having enough power to have terrain set to see where water truly is), so my current issue don't bother me too much.
I can tell you when my problem roughly came about though. This happened around the time HiTech made a change to the gunners in bombers. The change introduced a bug where, if the lead bomber plane lost a wing tip, you would lose all three planes. The drones would act like their wing tips were gone, even if they suffered ZERO damage. It was around this time I couldn't use AA anymore. Just kinda degraded from there.
I myself wish AH had a benchmark and/or an auto-analyzer that some games come with that would set your "default" video settings to what would keep your machine at 60+ FPS. Otherwise it's all trial and error.
-
I meant a flat, open plain or grassy field. And the town would include a flyover of the airfield and whatnot. Sorry for not being clear on that issue.
The thing is, benchmark helps out in terms of what you can and can't do without ruining game play. Popping into the game knowing you have well more than enough hardware capability to run something at max, only to find yourself tanking badly when you shouldn't, is very frustrating. In a way it does alert folks to stuff as in; "Wait a sec. I KNOW my machine can run this at max with 120 fps. Why is it flopping at this point here???". Example being that I have 2x 5770 Radeon's, and I CANNOT have AA on whatsoever, or my FPS tanks BADLY. This should NOT be happening, but it does. Thing is, I just don't care enough to bother getting it checked out because turning off AA (while making everything jaggedy), doesn't really degrade the visuals enough for me to bugger off. I use to play on almost absolute min graphics in the past (only having enough power to have terrain set to see where water truly is), so my current issue don't bother me too much.
I can tell you when my problem roughly came about though. This happened around the time HiTech made a change to the gunners in bombers. The change introduced a bug where, if the lead bomber plane lost a wing tip, you would lose all three planes. The drones would act like their wing tips were gone, even if they suffered ZERO damage. It was around this time I couldn't use AA anymore. Just kinda degraded from there.
I myself wish AH had a benchmark and/or an auto-analyzer that some games come with that would set your "default" video settings to what would keep your machine at 60+ FPS. Otherwise it's all trial and error.
so did you read your first sentence before starting :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
semp
-
so did you read your first sentence before starting :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
semp
DOH!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I seem to recall a sort of benchmark in AH multiple versions back. Years ago. Might have been during/after the last graphics bump. It had a separate .exe file. The idea was, in offline mode, you spawned at a specific field on a specific map on a specific runway and recorded your FR. Makes sense we could do the same sort of thing again. A benchmark would be something that would produce the same load conditions for everyone, the variables would be their rigs and whatever settings they might use. You'd have to tweak your stuff to maximize your performance. The game can't do that for you. No game can. It'd never work the other way around. By that I mean you could never have a "benchmark" that would magically give everyone 60FPS. That's why they say YMMV after all! :D
-
I seem to recall a sort of benchmark in AH multiple versions back. Years ago. Might have been during/after the last graphics bump. It had a separate .exe file. The idea was, in offline mode, you spawned at a specific field on a specific map on a specific runway and recorded your FR. Makes sense we could do the same sort of thing again. A benchmark would be something that would produce the same load conditions for everyone, the variables would be their rigs and whatever settings they might use. You'd have to tweak your stuff to maximize your performance. The game can't do that for you. No game can. It'd never work the other way around. By that I mean you could never have a "benchmark" that would magically give everyone 60FPS. That's why they say YMMV after all! :D
that was the test version for the AH2 engine IIRC