still settling in

[MADe]

You guys keep drawing conclusions based on faulty data.  You really think the CPU usage is really ever at zero?  No, it is not.

Microsoft is not showing how much CPU it is taking to run the operating system.  It does not show how much CPU activity it takes to just run all those threads it uses.  There are some very active threads in the operating system.  Just processing the message queues for all the GUI based threads is significant.

As far as taking over control, from the operating system and picking our own cores goes, there is nothing to be gained.  What you might perceive as being better for your computer could be worse for another computer.  The base assumption that what works for my computer must work for every other computer is not accurate.  If it were true, then every computer would run Aces High III exactly the same.

You can take two identical computers and they will not act the same, based on what is installed on them. The operating system behavior is very easily altered by user software.  It is why malware/spyware/viruses are so easy to inject into the system.

What you guys are doing is interesting, but it is almost impossible for you to draw conclusions, which can applied to any computer running Windows.

absolutely no question

I am not sure I am drawing a conclusion, more an assumption. But I am still playing around and there is 1 recurring event, hiccup. The cpu cores usage drops, the frametime and framerate suffer accordingly. Its a minor thing but it happens no matter what my settings are. Can I ask, whats the server to client tick rate? just the positional sends is what I'd be interested in. My reasons are cuz I am playing around with vync and refresh rates on a 60Hz LED HDTV and well I'm playing...........

The game, with my system, runs better on 2 cores visually, less anomolies and hiccups. This is at its best, I complain 0 cuz its really nice looking  and plane on plane is very good.
The game runs better when it is removed from cpu0.  Of a 6 core cpu, I have run the gambit of core selection
TBH total understanding of the whys is not as important as a result.
For moi it is just 1 step to tuning my system for AH. I have no illusions/delusions. he he
 

[MADe]

MADe, did I understand your post correctly, are you suggesting that AH should use the less used cores instead of core #0?

If so, knowing that AH can utilize three cores (IIRC) at the max, what would you suggest for a dual core cpu which can run AH just fine?

I did hint that I feel AH/DX11 might benefit from a little aggressive handling with regards to the windows operating system. I do believe at minimum it should be coded not to use cpu0. My laymans reasoning being that the OS lives there 1, and 2 it appears that the hiccups I get coincide with thread handling. Windows appears to allocate cores by crisis management...............star t with cpu0 and spill down the line.

As far as dual core.....I have one and I have been considering checking this but its GHz is slow....
however I think with my current reasoning, AH runs better on 2 cores that it owns, so to speak, while the OS continues with cpu0. When running the game I have taken to just assigning AH just 2 cores. What happens is no single core is 100%, which is what happens if I do nada. Prolly minor thing.

But I have also taken to disabling vsync, in game and in nvidia. I use a 60Hz display, I now run it at 59Hz and use afterburners frame limiter, frames are capped at 59 now. I am slowly starting to convince myself that this is a big deal. I am now getting a spontenaity that was missing????????  Pudgie got me on this tac cuz he uses a freesync monitor and once I understood them well I just had to push my display to attain what it can't. My mind says 1:1 yes! way good so how can I get this. It appears through googling also that there is something to vsync causing input lag.
freesync/Gsync alleviate this.

 

[Bizman]

I understand what you say, or at least I think so...

Just out of curiosity I opened Task Manager on the graph tab, I suppose the graph tells more about trends than the once in a second changing digits. There was very little going on, so I started AH. Immediately core #0 jumped to the top, #1 showing more modest action. So, it might make sense that setting #0 in a supporting role while favouring the other cores might balance the load. Then again, I know absolutely nothing about coding so I don't know if it were even possible. Also, as Skuzzy said, picking cores might not work for all computers. Plus the multitude of supported Windows versions not to mention what their updates might change in the operating system behaviour... Too many variables, IMO.

[Pudgie]

Through free software I've set my programs to permanently use higher cpu priority (in this case TrackIR, Teamspeak, and Aces High).
Specially TrackIR was sometimes lagging in operation before I started to use it.

Hi Save,

I've ran some tests running AHIII on my box using CPU affinity alone, then using CPU priority alone, then using both CPU affinity & CPU priority together by using cmd.exe......................

From all this testing it has shown me that the real goal is to get AHIII game client increased CPU core processing time to assist AHIII to operate better since it is a multi-threaded game client software that can take advantage of more CPU processing time assigned to it.

Setting CPU core affinity alone does accomplish this from a percentage standpoint but this also is limited to the CPU cores that are designated for Windows to assign the game threads to so when the game usage gets very heavy & the game thread counts were very high this tended to cause some CPU contention at certain points in the game scenes showing minor FPS drops but noticeable stuttering that even FreeSynch couldn't correct, depending on the number of CPU cores chosen at the time. After making a lot of game runs w\ various CPU core affinities set I found on my box using my Intel I7 5820K 6-core CPU w\ HT disabled the magic number of CPU cores needed to absorb all this activity was 4 CPU cores (which would equate somewhat to 2 CPU cores w\ HT enabled).

Setting CPU core priority alone also accomplishes this as well from a percentage standpoint but using priority also has the advantage of making this application across all available CPU cores as when CPU priority is used Windows is instructed to give the AHIII process a higher priority of CPU processor time regardless of which CPU core(s) AHIII's threads are assigned. I found this to be very useful and much more flexible w\ the game running, especially when the game usage got very heavy & the AHIII thread counts were very high & the performance as measured between running AHIII using CPU priority alone was overall better than running AHIII using CPU affinity alone so advantage goes to using CPU priority over CPU affinity w\ AHIII in either Dx API.

Setting both CPU core affinity & CPU priority will accomplish gaining CPU core processing time from a percentage standpoint but I found is really kinda counterproductive in nature as if using CPU priority w\ AHIII this kinda makes CPU core affinity somewhat a moot issue as I could set a lower number of CPU cores using affinity but since CPU priority will be assigned on all available CPU cores anyway that Windows assigns AHIII game threads to this will essentially cancel out CPU core affinity assignments anyway as the game will get a much higher CPU core processing time increase when averaged across all the CPU cores in use relative to the total percentage of CPU core processing time gained using the lesser number of CPU cores designated until you approach near the full number of available CPU cores using affinity so I didn't see any real advantage to continue to do this.

So I've settled on assigning CPU core priority alone w\ all 6 CPU cores in use for AHIII going forward. Running usage on my box still shows that none of the logical CPU cores are getting used w\ HT enabled (all 6 of them stay parked regardless of CPU load....which says that it isn't high enough for Windows to unpark any of them) and so I will keep HT disabled.

So if you don't mind, which software programs are you using to assign CPU priority and what's your take on any that you might recommend to try?

I'd appreciate any insight you could give..............

 

[MADe]

I understand what you say, or at least I think so...

Just out of curiosity I opened Task Manager on the graph tab, I suppose the graph tells more about trends than the once in a second changing digits. There was very little going on, so I started AH. Immediately core #0 jumped to the top, #1 showing more modest action. So, it might make sense that setting #0 in a supporting role while favouring the other cores might balance the load. Then again, I know absolutely nothing about coding so I don't know if it were even possible. Also, as Skuzzy said, picking cores might not work for all computers. Plus the multitude of supported Windows versions not to mention what their updates might change in the operating system behaviour... Too many variables, IMO.

Agreed, not every machine will pass code the same, even where they have identical hardware and OS.

Thing is on my other machine, I could not get what appeared to be help, by playing with core affinity. Here tho I am isolating AH from 90% of all else, setting priority to high and using a frame rate cap instead of v-sync. These 3 choices do seem to make a difference.
Since I am running a 60Hz monitor I feel this arrangement helps to kill display input lag and focuses my pc directly on AH. I would luv to try and tune pc to servers tck rate but I think HT does not want to give up intel, I did ask.

I do better in HO's and and slight turn shots. I can see the impacts now, whereas before it was iffy. My bullets may have been hitting but v= sync frame correction was cutting things off. The ability to see hits is important considering the enemy position is constantly being updated by server.

I have often said that offline mode is much more spontaneous than online. Offline, all is on your pc realtime, online tho always felt different, always waiting for the server update and v sync appears to make the game ethereal, like fighting a ghost. Now its diminished somewhat, not gone, but less ghosty.

If you listen to the game chatter, the biggest complaints, besides getting HO'ed, is peeps saying how can they be missing shots or getting killed with single hits. I believe some of this is like what I was suffering, I have lessened it enough that I wanted to share.
 

[save]

Hi Pudgie,

I use

https://www.prnwatch.com/prio/

I use the 64-bit version.

I works for me, but I use only prio as my problem have been trackIR lagging only.

You can set prio, affinity and also I/O (that I have not tested at all) permanently.

[Pudgie]

Hi Pudgie,

I use

https://www.prnwatch.com/prio/

I use the 64-bit version.

I works for me, but I use only prio as my problem have been trackIR lagging only.

You can set prio, affinity and also I/O (that I have not tested at all) permanently.

Thanks, Save.

What are your thoughts about Process Lasso as well?

Thru all my reading up on this Prio and Process Lasso were the 2 most recommended ones to use.
I understand that Prio mostly works in the background thru the Windows context menus and Process Lasso uses a GUI.

The reason I'm asking is that I was looking into a way to access the rest of the running processes that may have been written to report to Windows that they need normal CPU priority but realistically will operate at a lower CPU priority level w\ the intent to provide even more CPU processing time for the desired running process\processes to use. Now reading up on Process Lasso the creator of this utility states that they use an algorithim that will actually automatically do this to maintain 100% CPU responsiveness for any running process\processes that have high CPU priority assigned and do it on the fly as long as those processes need the extra CPU processing time then when the high priority process\processes are done then all is automatically set back to normal as initially reported to Windows.

This does indeed catch my attention and curiosity.....was wondering if you've already tried this utility as well and what was your assessment of it.

Thanks for the response!

 

[save]

Hi again,

I have not tested process lasso, so I can not compare.

Prio have a service running to be able to change the settings, it's very straight forward, right-click in the application and select the settings you want, check in permanent if you tested that the changes works.

[Pudgie]

Hi again,

I have not tested process lasso, so I can not compare.

Prio have a service running to be able to change the settings, it's very straight forward, right-click in the application and select the settings you want, check in permanent if you tested that the changes works.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[MADe]

Dos AH3 use or benefit from these in the NVidia profile options?

Thread optimization
shader cache

[MADe]

so I added the games AA option into the mix with the cards forced maximums, wow it made a difference.
dx 11 version still hitches
dx 9 beautiful

for those using 60 hz refresh displays. turn off v-sync of any kind, game, card. use a frame limiter to cap your  video cards frame rate to 60. ie: MSI Afterburner 
I do 59Hz refresh rate and 59 frame rate.
This will prolly not benefit a 144HZ display, G sync or F sync but I noticed a difference with my 60Hz, HDTV.