200FPS in COD yes it is possible

[FS~Phat]

I have been playing around with Radeon Pro and different crossfire profiles. I know this has been discussed before but I thuoght I'd bring it up again.

I finally got COD running my 4 cards at 99% and getting 200FPS+ consistently with everything on high on the coast and 100FPS+ in land over cities. (mirrors off - mirrors drops to 20FPS)
It looks like the development team need to do some serious collaboration with Nvidia and ATI driver teams to help finalise the last performance issues, especially with SLI/Crossfire optimisation.

I still get some serious hitching with stutters and sometimes long pauses but the overall performance is now very playable again by forcing dx10 AFR mode with Radeon Pro.

I have ATI Cat 11.5b and CAP4 installed.

Seems some multiplayer servers I can get smooth high FPS too but others i get really long 20sec pauses and inconsisitent FPS between zero and 100FPS.

[DoolittleRaider]

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

[raaaid]

that fps in this game is not a problem?

myself with my old rig i can get 80 fps if i lower res :)

[roadczar]

Are you getting 200 fps + using Eyefinity (5760x1080) with everything on high?
What RadeonPro settings/tweaks are you using?

Could you do me a favor and run an average fps using the "The Black Death.trk" on very high? Thanks.

I'm currently getting 53 fps average on very high at 5760x1080.

Beta ATI 8.86 drivers here:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=345525

[FS~Phat]

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

Firstly its just a statement that the COD engine is capable of great things.

Secondly, your almost right regarding perception of 60FPS.

Though thats another can of worms... I will say though that the human eye can definitely perceive in excess of 200FPS and I can attest to that. Especially where panning motion is involved or fast action.

See the below extract and following link for more interesting information.

"The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second."

Part 1
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Part 2
http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

[FS~Phat]

that fps in this game is not a problem?

myself with my old rig i can get 80 fps if i lower res :)

Cheeky... but no Im talking 1920x1080

[FS~Phat]

Are you getting 200 fps + using Eyefinity (5760x1080) with everything on high?
What RadeonPro settings/tweaks are you using?

Could you do me a favor and run an average fps using the "The Black Death.trk" on very high? Thanks.

I'm currently getting 53 fps average on very high at 5760x1080.

Beta ATI 8.86 drivers here:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=345525

Havent tried eyefinity res with the new radeon settings but will give it a try tonight. At work at the moment for another 4 hours! I dont have the frame buffer of the newest cards (only 1GB cards) so I dont expect to get great FPS at 5760x1080.

[raaaid]

interesting article thanks

[Vrait]

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

Its a technical achievement. With 60fps your fps could easily still dip to 20-30s. But with 200fps that won't happen. 200fps > 60fps. Now of course monitors can't show 200fps, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it.

[Liz Lemon]

Though thats another can of worms... I will say though that the human eye can definitely perceive in excess of 200FPS and I can attest to that. Especially where panning motion is involved or fast action.

Well, with regards to that can of worms, how many FPS you're getting is irrelevant if its above your monitors refresh rate.

So if you have an LCD monitor thats 60hz, or 60fps. Even if the game is running at 999fps, your still only seeing 60fps, because thats all your monitor can display. If you have an old CRT laying around, or a 120hz tv or monitor, you can mess around with different hz settings and see what the actual difference 120fps is over 60fps, or 60 vs 30 (hint, its very noticeable.) But 200fps wont make a difference until you have a display that can handle 200hz.

[JG5_emil]

Well, with regards to that can of worms, how many FPS you're getting is irrelevant if its above your monitors refresh rate.

So if you have an LCD monitor thats 60hz, or 60fps. Even if the game is running at 999fps, your still only seeing 60fps, because thats all your monitor can display. If you have an old CRT laying around, or a 120hz tv or monitor, you can mess around with different hz settings and see what the actual difference 120fps is over 60fps, or 60 vs 30 (hint, its very noticeable.) But 200fps wont make a difference until you have a display that can handle 200hz.

The important thing is that if it was running with 200 fps it is very unlikely to see the fps drop to 5 when there are lots of explosions or effects happening. In that situation I would say having a very high average is important even if you cannot see the difference between 60 and 200.

[Liz Lemon]

The important thing is that if it was running with 200 fps it is very unlikely to see the fps drop to 5 when there are lots of explosions or effects happening. In that situation I would say having a very high average is important even if you cannot see the difference between 60 and 200.

Yeah, I know that. But the problem is you'll have screen tearing.

[JG5_emil]

Yeah, I know that. But the problem is you'll have screen tearing.

I see your point. I think if I knew my pc was capable of 200 fps I would be happy with the knowledge that I wouldn't be getting slowdowns at critical times in the game. Having said that I would probably use vsinc as I use track IR and get tearing without.

[Rattlehead]

It's pretty damn impressive...but you didn't say if this was flying solo (I presume you were) how high you were flying, and over which area of the map. (Edit: sorry, I see you did - my mistake)
How does the Black Death track run on your rig?

The achievement is relevant because as noted above, once you're hitting these framerates, you've got so much performance headroom to play with that a smooth playing experience is guaranteed, not matter how much on-screen rendering takes place.

[Rattlehead]

Yeah, I know that. But the problem is you'll have screen tearing.

I'd take screen tearing (if v-sync isn't enabled) over slowdown any day.

[SQB]

200 FPS



1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit





Not quite true, the eye can tell the difference between 50 and 200hz, although most people can't place what it is that is different, most say that 200hz looks more "real".

An article I read about a year ago was exploring the possibilities of 200hz gaming computers and monitors but came up with the fact that only older games would actually run at 200fps and as such the extra money spend would be superfluous

/ramble ;)

[Hatch]

Having the ability to play at 200 fps would imply your CPU has this overhead as well.

So it's a good thing.

In simracing you really do notice this in your laptimes ( up to a point, then talent or lack thereof kicks in ).

Especially if you use FFB.

I'm assuming capping the framerates only influences the graphics?

[FS~Phat]

Heres the settings and some screen shots.

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pS28XbbK-1-3lXSCzbvGQZe0A8me6o8C-e323rYDXJ52ASaxbrD0sx1gJCExWtndktZM-BlOJzYXl8R28qnZ989t4yvTRPnE6/radeonpro.jpg?psid=1


Straight and level free flight England.

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pHL8UgeztqlqwGjP_AQSk-XEBH-uasJJ4y_U9oCp7q7eqzN7THJAQkMXEN-m7LQrJXOoTr8RmnynghqT_MXUVgNmsCQvkjzn6/radeonpro-4.jpg?psid=1



Approaching Coast free flight England.

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pvML8TBe3uPMFw2QX3MNPfqtfmbP8YhJkorXucxdVBJm_832 PrxhJWWNHHYbEOL9WbpveUtz2t6sgmPUNYqB82FgT5oI81RjW/radeonpro-5.jpg?psid=1



Rooftop free flight England.

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pQ6NjQ1FfKXWdHdORxZ-BjePuZd-g6yY6WaTbz-Wo_1e3MbM7jTgLNTJan_7eY2i0_jwF9zLuQgR6pGn4NYOsJVer w0o2Rk98/radeonpro-1.jpg?psid=1


Bomber Intercept Hawkindge

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pfR5rpDoIRCHWky4Zwfh1plIsdGdvZ5E_jxYVIr5k9KE_vpg NwczMg0O-qp01b9YBeN5-fy56aU53zPPr9nN8BHvGaEXwUomO/radeonpro-3.jpg?psid=1

[FS~Phat]

Oh and I get almost no screen tearing, certainly not enough that I notice it. I would have to look for it intentionally to see it.

[FS~Phat]

Eyefinity @ 6048x1080 (5760x1080 bezel corrected)

Free flight England over the coast.

http://w7sn5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pPeUWsiUa26XBMfxz0r1bEUKDK7xAhaQHt0uSm3aZeh6sHRz rcQlD6IROqpokbGIksEg_UYUCaOqqYcn4GFo7Yj6_JqMvW-8v/radeonpro-6.jpg?psid=1

[naz]

Thanks for posting FS Phat.

I tried your settings, including forcing AFR. I had experimented with RadeonPro previously and provided my results in roadczar's previous thread.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23180

The lost planet profile is a no go for me given the terrible flickering as reported by other 5970 owners, but a few of the other profiles seem to do the trick (I mainly have been trying the Dirt2 profile).

I get an initial FPS of around 90 or so which is a noticeable improvement over using RadeonPro without forcing AFR as I had been doing previously. I use a variation of the stock QMB Manston attack mission for all this testing, so there are quite a few other aircraft in the game, but nothing over the top.

I am, however, having the same problems I reported in the previous thread in that the FPS soon diminishes by well over half. The funny thing is, i noticed this time that the huge drop in FPS can be reproduced every time by my simply moving my head (TrackIR) to look over one of my shoulders!!

Basically, I am on the runway looking ahead, I play around with the cockpit instruments etc and as long as i am looking ahead, my FPS stays generally between 80-90...but if i quickly look over, say, my right shoulder, the FPS drops down to between 20-40 and then stays there for the remainder of the mission. If I exit the flight, go back to the menu and start a new mission, the FPS remains stuck at the lower figures. This happens every time. Its as if something breaks the RadeonPro settings and the benefits never return unless I log out of the game totally, shut down steam and then start it all up again.

I cant for the life of me understand why simply looking over my shoulder/changing my view could have such a ridiculous effect on the game's performance. Especially as the reduced FPS remains even if I restart a fresh mission, and I get the lower FPS in the same situation where I was getting 80-90 previously.

Any ideas guys?

I know this sounds too ridiculous to be true by the way, I swear it is however!

[FS~Phat]

Thanks for posting FS Phat.

I tried your settings, including forcing AFR. I had experimented with RadeonPro previously and provided my results in roadczar's previous thread.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23180

The lost planet profile is a no go for me given the terrible flickering as reported by other 5970 owners, but a few of the other profiles seem to do the trick (I mainly have been trying the Dirt2 profile).

I get an initial FPS of around 90 or so which is a noticeable improvement over using RadeonPro without forcing AFR as I had been doing previously. I use a variation of the stock QMB Manston attack mission for all this testing, so there are quite a few other aircraft in the game, but nothing over the top.

I am, however, having the same problems I reported in the previous thread in that the FPS soon diminishes by well over half. The funny thing is, i noticed this time that the huge drop in FPS can be reproduced every time by my simply moving my head (TrackIR) to look over one of my shoulders!!

Basically, I am on the runway looking ahead, I play around with the cockpit instruments etc and as long as i am looking ahead, my FPS stays generally between 80-90...but if i quickly look over, say, my right shoulder, the FPS drops down to between 20-40 and then stays there for the remainder of the mission. If I exit the flight, go back to the menu and start a new mission, the FPS remains stuck at the lower figures. This happens every time. Its as if something breaks the RadeonPro settings and the benefits never return unless I log out of the game totally, shut down steam and then start it all up again.

I cant for the life of me understand why simply looking over my shoulder/changing my view could have such a ridiculous effect on the game's performance. Especially as the reduced FPS remains even if I restart a fresh mission, and I get the lower FPS in the same situation where I was getting 80-90 previously.

Any ideas guys?

I know this sounds too ridiculous to be true by the way, I swear it is however!

I tried a few of the other profiles too but lost planet was the smoothest and most consistent. Interestingly I also have a 5970 + 2 x 5870s and no such flickering. I do however get FPS degradation over several missions but I dont have a problem looking around the cockpit.

[naz]

I just tried the Aerial Battle-Dover QMB mission which is an airstart. This time I had a solid FPS in the 90s+ (often well over 100) for the whole 5 or so minutes of the mission (lots of looking over my shoulder which seemed not to break anything this time)....

...then I got shot down (probably spent too much time looking at the FPS counter instead of the baddies). :grin:

So I hit exit, and then "restart" and bang ... FPS stuck in the low 30s again for the next run of the same mission :(

Something is definitely knocking out the benefits of the RadeonPro settings somewhere along the line. God this game is so good (despite all its flaws and missing/broken features) but it is so damn frustrating at times.

Oh well.

[speculum jockey]

I wonder how many of the performance issues are just bugs that are easily fixed once tracked down and how many are limitations of the engine and the way it was designed to utilize hardware which would require extensive work and re-coding.

I think that DX9 compatibility was probably one of their biggest mistakes. Wasting so much time and effort to make the game compatible for cards that are too slow to run it, and an OS that Microsoft has pretty much abandoned must have eaten up so many man-hours that could have been used to make it run properly on DX10 and DX11 (which are so much easier to code for).

[roadczar]

Thanks for posting FS Phat.

I tried your settings, including forcing AFR. I had experimented with RadeonPro previously and provided my results in roadczar's previous thread.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23180

The lost planet profile is a no go for me given the terrible flickering as reported by other 5970 owners, but a few of the other profiles seem to do the trick (I mainly have been trying the Dirt2 profile).

I get an initial FPS of around 90 or so which is a noticeable improvement over using RadeonPro without forcing AFR as I had been doing previously. I use a variation of the stock QMB Manston attack mission for all this testing, so there are quite a few other aircraft in the game, but nothing over the top.

I am, however, having the same problems I reported in the previous thread in that the FPS soon diminishes by well over half. The funny thing is, i noticed this time that the huge drop in FPS can be reproduced every time by my simply moving my head (TrackIR) to look over one of my shoulders!!

Basically, I am on the runway looking ahead, I play around with the cockpit instruments etc and as long as i am looking ahead, my FPS stays generally between 80-90...but if i quickly look over, say, my right shoulder, the FPS drops down to between 20-40 and then stays there for the remainder of the mission. If I exit the flight, go back to the menu and start a new mission, the FPS remains stuck at the lower figures. This happens every time. Its as if something breaks the RadeonPro settings and the benefits never return unless I log out of the game totally, shut down steam and then start it all up again.

I cant for the life of me understand why simply looking over my shoulder/changing my view could have such a ridiculous effect on the game's performance. Especially as the reduced FPS remains even if I restart a fresh mission, and I get the lower FPS in the same situation where I was getting 80-90 previously.

Any ideas guys?

I know this sounds too ridiculous to be true by the way, I swear it is however!

I have not witnessed a slow FPS degradation over time. Maybe it is because I did not follow a specific sequence of events. Can you record a track where this happens? I can tell you if it happens with my setup.

Try this crossfire profile:
Create one with game title: Battlefield Bad Company 2 and executable name: BFBC2Game.exe this also gave me a good result.

[Oldschool61]

200 FPS

I am Not a technical person, but I thought that:

1. The human eye can't discriminate/appreciate anything over 72-75FPS; some say 60FPS is limit

2. The limit for the normal LCD monitor is 60FPS...and I'd guess that 95% of folks these days have 60Hz LCD's.

3. I've read that there is absolutely no visible difference between 60 and 200FPS, if you have a 60Hz LCD monitor.

Sooooo...if I am even close to understanding those three matters, I have NO idea what your 200 FPS achievement actually means........?!?

Can you explain?

yes and no

[speculum jockey]

You can easily tell the difference between 30, 60 70, 80, 90, and 100hz. You might even be able to place them in ascending order if your eye is sharp. After 100-110 you're getting into the realm of diminishing returns. Back when I had a top of the line NEC CRT monitor I had to run it at 100hz because anything else seemed to flicker. I could take it all the way up to 120hz, but could notice any improvement past 100hz. Maybe if you had two monitors side by side with each refresh rate you could tell, but not by looking at one then the other.

FPS above your monitor's refresh rate is a waste, unless the game is like CLOD and you need that much overhead to stay above your monitor's RR during intense parts.

[FS~Phat]

On a static image, less than 1 frame per year would be sufficient.
On a static background with slow to medium speed object with a few pixels movement per second, 30 FPS is sufficient as the human brain can automatically fill in the gaps.
On a panning background with static objects the human brain can sometimes fill in the gaps and sometimes not which is why 60FPS or 60Hz is used as the so called benchmark.

On a panning background with fast moving objects the human eye cannot fill in the gaps so frames above 60FPS are useful as the extra frames will fill in the missing info that the brain cannot fill in.

Ever noticed stutter at the cinema or on a TV broadcast??... there is insufficient intermediate detail per frame in a lot of panning shots or fast action so the brain sees a stutter.

This is why above 60FPS even at 60hz looks smoother, because there are more frames available to fill in per screen refresh so the motion looks smoother and more fluid and natural as there are more pixels per inch available to render for panning and moving objects.

I will try to find a graphic to illustrate this.

[naz]

I have not witnessed a slow FPS degradation over time. Maybe it is because I did not follow a specific sequence of events. Can you record a track where this happens? I can tell you if it happens with my setup.

Try this crossfire profile:
Create one with game title: Battlefield Bad Company 2 and executable name: BFBC2Game.exe this also gave me a good result.

Hi mate

I made a track but whenever I try to upload it i get an error message saying it is an invalid file (sigh)... One of the file types listed when trying to upload is .zip, so I have tried uploading the trk file as is, and also compressed with 7zip and also winzip to no avail..I think I am going to just give up LOL.

For what its worth when I recorded it, this is what happened...

Sitting in Cockpit...FPS mainly between 70-80 (a few dips in to the 60s and the odd spike into the 90s)
I zoom into the right hand side of the cockpit panel...FPS over 100 ... even up to 120
Turn on Fuel cock and magnetos...FPS still 65-75
Start engine...FPS same
Wait for engine to warm up...FPS same
Turn my head and look over right shoulder...FPS instantly drops to high 20s
Look forward again...FPS now remains in the 20s and 30s
Zoom in to right side of cockpit..FPS in the 50s now instead of 100+
Take off, fly a bit, dodge a few bullets, fire a few myself...FPS mainly in 20s and 30s.

I haven't tried the Bad Company profile yet...might leave that to another day if at all. I don't want to sound lazy or unhelpful but I think I am just flogging a dead horse now and am pretty much over all the continual testing. Thanks for the offer to help in any event.

I basically get nice gameplay with solid FPS of 40+ (In QMB missions at least) using pseudo fullscreen (which only uses one of my GPUs on the 5970), so i might just stick with that for now.

It may well be something i am doing wrong to be fair as i am no expert at these things...as being unable to upload the trk file here probably attests! :grin:

[roadczar]

Hi mate

I made a track but whenever I try to upload it i get an error message saying it is an invalid file (sigh)... One of the file types listed when trying to upload is .zip, so I have tried uploading the trk file as is, and also compressed with 7zip and also winzip to no avail..I think I am going to just give up LOL.

For what its worth when I recorded it, this is what happened...

Sitting in Cockpit...FPS mainly between 70-80 (a few dips in to the 60s and the odd spike into the 90s)
I zoom into the right hand side of the cockpit panel...FPS over 100 ... even up to 120
Turn on Fuel cock and magnetos...FPS still 65-75
Start engine...FPS same
Wait for engine to warm up...FPS same
Turn my head and look over right shoulder...FPS instantly drops to high 20s
Look forward again...FPS now remains in the 20s and 30s
Zoom in to right side of cockpit..FPS in the 50s now instead of 100+
Take off, fly a bit, dodge a few bullets, fire a few myself...FPS mainly in 20s and 30s.

I haven't tried the Bad Company profile yet...might leave that to another day if at all. I don't want to sound lazy or unhelpful but I think I am just flogging a dead horse now and am pretty much over all the continual testing. Thanks for the offer to help in any event.

I basically get nice gameplay with solid FPS of 40+ (In QMB missions at least) using pseudo fullscreen (which only uses one of my GPUs on the 5970), so i might just stick with that for now.

It may well be something i am doing wrong to be fair as i am no expert at these things...as being unable to upload the trk file here probably attests! :grin:

You can email file to me, I can host it. @hotmail.com ;)

[roadczar]

naz TEST FPS.trk (http://www.roadczar.com/il2/naz%20TEST%20FPS.trk)

Hey naz, for what it's worth-
When I played your track as you were panning around the cockpit I did see FPS swings like you described. However on my machine FPS were consistent throughout t the track.

Using the highest settings @ 5760x1080 the final FPS were
current 65
average 56
highest 93
lowest 10
Link is included for others to try…

[naz]

cheers mate :cool:

[FS~Phat]

Hi mate

I made a track but whenever I try to upload it i get an error message saying it is an invalid file (sigh)... One of the file types listed when trying to upload is .zip, so I have tried uploading the trk file as is, and also compressed with 7zip and also winzip to no avail..I think I am going to just give up LOL.

For what its worth when I recorded it, this is what happened...

Sitting in Cockpit...FPS mainly between 70-80 (a few dips in to the 60s and the odd spike into the 90s)
I zoom into the right hand side of the cockpit panel...FPS over 100 ... even up to 120
Turn on Fuel cock and magnetos...FPS still 65-75
Start engine...FPS same
Wait for engine to warm up...FPS same
Turn my head and look over right shoulder...FPS instantly drops to high 20s
Look forward again...FPS now remains in the 20s and 30s
Zoom in to right side of cockpit..FPS in the 50s now instead of 100+
Take off, fly a bit, dodge a few bullets, fire a few myself...FPS mainly in 20s and 30s.

I haven't tried the Bad Company profile yet...might leave that to another day if at all. I don't want to sound lazy or unhelpful but I think I am just flogging a dead horse now and am pretty much over all the continual testing. Thanks for the offer to help in any event.

I basically get nice gameplay with solid FPS of 40+ (In QMB missions at least) using pseudo fullscreen (which only uses one of my GPUs on the 5970), so i might just stick with that for now.

It may well be something i am doing wrong to be fair as i am no expert at these things...as being unable to upload the trk file here probably attests! :grin:

Firstly nice mission.

Everything on high with grass,shadows,roads on @ 1920x1080
Max 155 FPS
AVG 64 FPS

The 155 was when you zoomed into the cockpit dials.
FPS dropped slowly from a higher AVG of about 80 FPS to the 64FPS as the AI planes came into sight.

No issues with FPS dropping while looking over shoulder.
I will double check with another run.

Take II
MAX 166 FPS again when looking at cockpit dials
AVG 110 FPS when on runway starting engine
AVG 50 FPS once in combat (varied between 45-55 FPS) so the actual AVG was too heavily influenced by the amount of time on the ground
Seams the AI didnt really cause the drop in AVG FPS it was the increased draw distance once your airborne.
FPS consistent through out and smooth.

GPU utilisation was 66% for all 4 cards when on the ground and 40% when in combat.
Looks like I need some more CPU cycles for rendering as I have heaps of GPU headroom and only 4 threads of my CPU being used.
The sooner they split rendering to its own cores the better!

[naz]

Thanks guys. The way the track played on your machines makes total sense, and the relative stable FPS is how it plays in Pseduo mode for me too.

I guess CloD in Full screen mode is just guiving me some helpful "life coaching" ... dont look over your shoulder ;)

Thanks for taking a look
S!

[FS~Phat]

Here's some updated system pics for the beast that get 200FPS out of COD on high at 1920x1080.

I just need to get some Aquacomputer Blue UV additive for the loop to finish the loops and then start buying sleeving stuff to sort the cables.
The left Res is more UV reactant because the loop was running TT UV green and obviously didnt flush as well or maybe even stained the perspex.


http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pKSvt_msCBeYP6baQlRqo7b62NPF5dlZvi3TMRCXP0e1aeNL aHL3P7MiqMiHXtg5Yet04liKIF-3rgEp9RujNiQia-2Ov1PT5/IMG_1968.JPG

http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pWVCLzuwc0FzdS0jImEzBFfvWsprfAFnY4I0BTpM48PoR9Aw rdeFkNxclpXkTt1kLSOOpkckDWpAri6mbcy6TU-gWIFTmr-NX/IMG_1981.JPG

http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p_vIOgfM-SrWoFgglH2tRbG7BXgypZmvO6hXe_mBy_4KjODY37TOcsy0AGO LiTDFoxvZXz6g4GX5elAvY-nw1phGnAMzDIs_H/IMG_1978.JPG

http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p9pg2_stmmtnzWsPF1ZC4T4cy5JigWYZAyJqBzM-tk4FLhPFdKz6TIVwM5g08OBxEtf6PKOR6lq_eykjF0aS4kSvSm qxELSzV/IMG_1969.JPG

http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p10PaPs5AgYsKhvbfbXRvZ_-wKJCDtI-Qy3fsPQV8UCm0RLGysbV9z-scafAefnnuK4bwMUfI-hhP-grMadcxSwphZIS9PVIZ/IMG_1986.JPG

http://w7sp5a.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pwgsyufApa9QDOUaG1RaLCF9DJA44rlNh0TO9QAu2T2NW-ujfmNhcU_i2nrxHu18pURYzOK_iY79-9i0mW7pOjf51LC4g59yo/IMG_1976.JPG

[335th_GRAthos]

Hmmmm.... did I say I like this rig? No, I was wrong!



I love it !


:)


The only thing I just realised is that I am still with wife 1.0 and it seems to require a major upgrade in order to lay my hands on such HW... ROFL

Honestly I like it, it is the second best thing to look at in this forum while waiting for the 3Gb VRAM cards to come in the market (because anything less will not help us...)



~S~

[roadczar]

To the OP: Who cares?! Whilst you are wasting time trying to get 201 FPS out of this sim I will be flying it and learning the aircraft subtleties. Wether its 35 or 350 FPS you arent going to notice the difference, no matter how much money you waste on massively over-built PC's it wont make you better at the sim. Maybe some specific body parts on the OP are just that small, the computer takes some attention from that I suppose. Anyways, just remember, regardless of the amount of wasted time and money thrown into that monstrosity it wont make you a better pilot and you wont stand a chance when we meet in the air.

There isnt a game in the world that needs that much hardware to run properly... I havent found anything my system cant run and its far from top of the line. This thread is almost as pointless as a raaaid thread...:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: There is always one in the crowd...

[naz]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"...

:grin:

[FS~Phat]

To the OP: Who cares?! Whilst you are wasting time trying to get 201 FPS out of this sim I will be flying it and learning the aircraft subtleties. Wether its 35 or 350 FPS you arent going to notice the difference, no matter how much money you waste on massively over-built PC's it wont make you better at the sim. Maybe some specific body parts on the OP are just that small, the computer takes some attention from that I suppose. Anyways, just remember, regardless of the amount of wasted time and money thrown into that monstrosity it wont make you a better pilot and you wont stand a chance when we meet in the air.

There isnt a game in the world that needs that much hardware to run properly... I havent found anything my system cant run and its far from top of the line. This thread is almost as pointless as a raaaid thread...:rolleyes:

Im sharing my passion, and I know others appreciate it even if you dont.
BTW, them are fight'n words... good luck getting me in the skies, Im a 10 year veteran of IL2 and 15+ years in combat sims. I'm not too shabby with a snapshot or turn and burn, just ask my squad mates. :) So watch your 6 buddy ;)

As I have said previously in my post, if you dont have the advantage of higher FPS you wont know what your missing and it is definitely noticeable in how it smooths out overall gameplay and panning while using track-ir.

Finally, there are plenty of games out there that utilise this amount of computing power to the max. COD is obviously one of them. Then there's Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Stalker, Arma 2, ROF and others... need i go on?

[FS~Phat]

Hmmmm.... did I say I like this rig? No, I was wrong!



I love it !


:)


The only thing I just realised is that I am still with wife 1.0 and it seems to require a major upgrade in order to lay my hands on such HW... ROFL

Honestly I like it, it is the second best thing to look at in this forum while waiting for the 3Gb VRAM cards to come in the market (because anything less will not help us...)



~S~

Agreed you might need to upgrade to a compatible wife to be able run a system like this. I went through all hell with wife 1.0, 2.0, beta wife 3.0 and now running wife 4.0 before I got to a stable gaming platform. :)

[FS~Phat]

Congrats, should be a good fight considering I have all of the Il2 experience and more than 15 years of sim flying experience. As for those games you listed, my system runs them all just great except for Crysis2. I wouldnt play that garbage if they payed me. If you really think you have what it takes I am usually in the Repka 1 server with at least a 5-1 K/D ratio, and regularly take on 2+ 109's at a time and come out on top. Come and say hello, I'll give you a sweet goodbye:cool: My callsign in CoD is =US=Hell4Hitler, know it and fear it.

Only 2 109's? Pff... LOL ive taken on 4 on my own, killed 3 and wounded 1 on my own in a full-real DF server and still got home safely without a scratch on many occassion. ;) and thats without boom n zoom tactics. Still though... cant do that all the time as the SA is pretty intense with more than 3. Its a great sense of accomplishment when you do it though!

cheers and see you in the skies my friend!

[FS~Phat]

Tonight I have the X52 throttle now mounted to a camera tripod and I rest the joy stick on a mouse mat sitting on the computer when I wheel it out from the desk.
Photo to follow.

Here's the latest pics with joystick throttle on tripod.

https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pcXpnZkyMNqJKPxFP4zMbXRgPbbQdwKlh63v22pD7r3ifEL8 yhg9H81HxzkW1YBnqTecDbXzxFEEQbfkkY16HlQ/IMG_2152.JPG

https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pl60JIuiaK1R4x1b7BO9mqMKf8cUFf5T0vjmsWnEeAJAgW7Q lFO6uLCM7I68bazwl7Xuzu1zEQKl3XKovw17tNg/IMG_2154.JPG

https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pov06WczS8t6grAAcGbtEVQgj9H404OA0X1WgRgh3-gH57DGXVIqdTIg2avkWH_xv5TB2J5mHYIr-OopmPELxtA/IMG_2155.JPG

[ATAG_Doc]

Haha a wife. What do you get out of one of these? lol Life is grand when you're able to be as selfish as you want to be.

[Pudfark]

Nice setup you have there...:)

What? No five point harness or relief tube? :-P

[kendo65]

I have 25 years il-2 experience and can regularly whup 15 109s at once without breaking a sweat, and I'm prettier and more intelligent than all you guys and...

[335th_GRAthos]

Honestly, I think I prefer the Chuck Norris thread, sounds more realistic ;)

It is a nice piece of HW to admire so guys, your comments about how long some of your personal parts are (I mean your Ego ;) ), at the Chuck Norris thread please, the rest can stay here :D



~S~

[Slechtvalk]

I often get very good fps, the first 10 minutes, like 130-140 in cockpit, 150-170fps outside views, then suddenly it drops to 50-60 fps, flying over big towns goes pretty bad somethimes though, but it's just weird I get insane fps at the start. Not using any profile I'm aware off.

http://www.plaatjesupload.nl/bekijk/2011/06/19/1308498107-090.jpg (http://www.plaatjesupload.nl/bekijken/3924169.html)

i7 860@3.93Ghz, 2x 5870, 8 gig memory.

[naz]

I often get very good fps, the first 10 minutes, like 130-140 in cockpit, 150-170fps outside views, then suddenly it drops to 50-60 fps, flying over big towns goes pretty bad somethimes though, but it's just weird I get insane fps at the start. Not using any profile I'm aware off.

http://www.plaatjesupload.nl/bekijk/2011/06/19/1308498107-090.jpg (http://www.plaatjesupload.nl/bekijken/3924169.html)

i7 860@3.93Ghz, 2x 5870, 8 gig memory.

Sounds like you have the same issue as me mate.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23888

[Slechtvalk]

Sounds like you have the same issue as me mate.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23888

With latest patch I get this fps (read good fps) the whole time, even over land&towns 60-90 fps (but land quality looks poorer with latest patch though..). :eek:

Edit: problem seems to be back, that performance drops 50% suddenly. :( ???

[335th_GRAthos]

Guys, do you have a system monitoring your GPU while you fly? (vram usage, GPU usage, GPU MHz, temp)?

Because it may be that your card switches to "slow" mode for whatever reason.

Just an idea, I am a NV guy so I can not give you more concrete help as all my tools are for NVIDIA but the first thing I experienced running both my GPUs in SLI was overheatting (92°C). And after overheatting most GPUs will throttle back.

Just in case it helps anyone.

~S~

[naz]

Hi GRAthos & Slechtvalk

Thanks for posting lads.

I had been using a log feature of MSI afterburner to check all the monitoring as I was testing. GPU clocks always running at full clocks, temps ok etc (I always ramp up the vid card fan). Everything appears to have been running as intended according to those logs.

I just think that the xfire support simply does not work too well in this game (at least for my system anyway). I have spent a lot of time, and I mean a LOT (lol) of time testing things out. My final conclusion (correct or not) is that whilst xfire is now active in true full screen, it is by no means used well by the game at all. I am getting very good, stable and consistent FPS again now by going back to Pseudo full screen mode (and thereby only using one of the GPUs on my card).

I had a bit of a hiccup when for some reason the latest 11.6 drivers seemed to cut my FPS by well over a half in pseudo mode (which is part of the reason for me continuing to do so much testing in true full screen mode), but that seems to have cleared up with the latest official patch. I have no idea why as there seems to have been no work done in that regards as listed in the patch notes, but there you have it.:)

The game in pseudo mode absolutely screams along and I am finally just enjoying flying again now. The only drawback, of course, is the screen tearing with Track IR (due to no v-sync), but it is not so bad as to ruin the experience. To be fair, the tearing is much less noticeable on my system than it was in IL2-1946 without v-sync...and I simply don't notice it anymore... especially once I get into a furball anyway.

The only advice I can give to anyone reading this with ATI cards (especially a dual GPU card) is to stick with Pseudo mode, disable aero, do the delete shaders thing and most importantly, get rid of that damn ubi logo which does most of the harm. Nothing here that has not already been posted many times all over this forum. Then play around with the ingame settings and find a balance between eye candy and smooth playability. I am running things with original textures and a mixture of high/medium settings elsewhere...FPS of 40+ over land and around 70-80 over water for the most part...so i am happy (although I am quite sure flying over London will be a big no - lol).

To be fair to Luthier, he did advise that people with ATI cards should stick with Peudo mode if having FPS problems.


Cheers