Why GFX card with more RAM?

[SEE]

To help others and myself, maybe someone with technical understanding can help others and I regards the selection of GFX cards and the question of on board RAM. Please, could posters consider the future optimisation of the engine rather than its current format.

(Maybe the mods will leave this in the general forum before transferring the thread to Technical.)

Most of the reviews regards 2gb v 1GB seem to suggest that the benefits are mainly seen when using Higher Resolutions than 1920 x 1080 and very few gaming titles benefit from more on board Ram than a typical 1GB.

1. Is CloD one of the exceptional tiltles that requires more than 1Gb even for a modest resolution and why?

2. There seems to be an industry practice of using identical chipsets but by disabling or changing a peformance parameter (i.e No of shaders, reducing clock speeds, etc) marketing a budget version. I.e a Nvidea GTX 2GB 560 is slightly cheaper than the 560ti version yet bench tests show only a 5% reduction in performance across the most demanding games which can be adressed by oc'ing. Would someone looking to upgrade on a budget be better going for the better chipset with lower RAM or the budget version with more RAM?

[Tree_UK]

Well its hard to tell in truth, but i would imagine that when or if the game is optimised correctly GPU's with 1GB of Ram should be able to run happily. As it stands at the moment the game is in a state where you really need all the power you can muster to get it to perform, that said it still as stutters and FPS drop even with the most powerful rigs.

[JG52Uther]

2GB cards perform much better in BF3 than 1GB cards apparently, so its not just CoD, but more game titles will go that way.
I remember playing il2 on a nvidea mx440 GFX card that had what, about 128mb memory.
You can now get 4GB graphics cards...

[SEE]

Thanks Tree and JG, from that I guess that the answer to Q2 is get the best 1GB rather than a slightly dumbed down but cheaper chipset with 2Gb based on future optimisation of the current engine.

[Ataros]

1. Is CloD one of the exceptional tiltles that requires more than 1Gb even for a modest resolution and why?

2. There seems to be an industry practice of using identical chipsets but by disabling or changing a peformance parameter (i.e No of shaders, reducing clock speeds, etc) marketing a budget version. I.e a Nvidea GTX 2GB 560 is slightly cheaper than the 560ti version yet bench tests show only a 5% reduction in performance across the most demanding games which can be adressed by oc'ing. Would someone looking to upgrade on a budget be better going for the better chipset with lower RAM or the budget version with more RAM?

1. CloD has probably one of the highest visibility ranges multiplied by the highest texture details in gaming history multiplied by extreme number of texture surfaces. This is a next-gen game. That is why next-gen videocards come with 3GB vram (e.g. HD7970).

As I mentioned in another thread
From my experience with ArmA2 visibility distance can bring any hardware to its knees. Most of the servers limit it to 3-4 km only to provide decent FPS while game allows 10 km max. And this is a 2 year-old game.

What is the visibility distance in CloD? When visibility radius is increased amount of required CPU and GPU calculations grows exponentially. This is a big issue.

It is not supposed to run well on a 1GB card in resolutions higher than 1400x900 according to my estimates.

2. Better chipset is faster than more ram in general unless you run resolution higher than full HD. E.g. imo gtx580 3gb > gtx580 1.5gb > gtx560 2gb. Not sure how to rank gtx570 2.5gb.

However when I bought a cheap $200 video card 2 years ago I went for 2 gb version because extra 1 gb costed only about $20-30 and I am glad I did it since it runs CloD reasonably well after system optimisation. I am saving cash to get a 3GB version of gtx580 or hd7970 or hd7950 for BoM depending on their price/performance ratio and possible driver bugs.

[SEE]

Wow! great info there Ataros - I never considered the visibilty/rendering distance calculations - even when optimised, that set of algorithms remains to be performed - I have learn't something already and appreciate the problems regards current performance issues.

[bongodriver]

i.e most people having performance issues are trying to run it on max using totally innadequate hardware.

[Ataros]

I do hope that optimisation is still possible but say when I set land detail on low or even medium landscape already looks very low-res beyond the high detail square surrounding the aircraft.

Bohemia Interactive is an indi studio that made ArmA1/2/3 and VBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2). They work for the US government and are 2-4 times bigger than MG (140 people) but they still do not have resources/capabilities to make ArmA2 decently run with 10km visibility radius. This means to me that optimisation has its limits or becomes prohibitively expensive at some point.

For instance I remember the first time I learned about using RAM-drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_disk) to ran a game from it. This was a solution to fix stutters in MSFS in 2000 or 2004. The problem was also the visibility distance because other games could run fine on similar hardware. In 2008/2010 the same solution was used by ArmA1/ArmA2 players to fix stutters in ArmA. Now with nextgen videocards it runs faster.

[FS~Phat]

I'd love to see if there is a developer or programmer that can do the maths on this so that it can be put into perspective. I always new people were expecting too much from current gen hardware for this game.

[Tree_UK]

I'd love to see if there is a developer or programmer that can do the maths on this so that it can be put into perspective. I always new people were expecting too much from current gen hardware for this game.

In truth though phat, the dev's did tell us that it would run perfectly well on low/medium spec PC's. Luthier always said that all is screen shots/video's were done on a poor quality PC, I even offered to build him a top spec PC so he could show us images with FSAA on because at the time he said his PC wasn't powerful enough to show FSAA, I also said a better spec PC would allow him to show video's with 'true' in game footage. The offer was declined.

[FS~Phat]

In truth though phat, the dev's did tell us that it would run perfectly well on low/medium spec PC's. Luthier always said that all is screen shots/video's were done on a poor quality PC, I even offered to build him a top spec PC so he could show us images with FSAA on because at the time he said his PC wasn't powerful enough to show FSAA, I also said a better spec PC would allow him to show video's with 'true' in game footage. The offer was declined.

Yes we all know that.. Im only speculating here, but somewhere along the line something significant changed in the game engine development, maybe it was the switch from opengl to directx to enable support across more platforms for the game engine? Oleg was quite disappointed about having to make this change so late in the development. That combined with other changes like the anti-epilepsy definitely broke something. Im sure with time it will be fixed though.

Remember how good the promo videos looked with AA working too? Im pretty confident they will get back to that, the quality is in there, they just have to tweak it to get it back.


Oleg

Is Open GL dropped from SoW in favour of DX ?

Yes. Unfortunately.
And this is done also becasue of future possible portings. It is more easy from DX...
However to make better is still better in OpenGl... even it is harder now. But the life dictate us DX...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPTYOCSFKb4&list=UUCO8nlHPf9gAJ0Qo5MxGZ4w&index=6&feature=plcp

BTW I can play it just fine with 1 or 2 of my 1.5GB GTX 580s running at 50FPS+ without any driver tweaks, but I need to run in split frame rendering at a lower frame rate with tri or quad SLI running to keep it smooth. With settings on Ultra I can still play in surround mode 6040x1080 with AA off and I only have 1.5GB cards. More GPU memory helps but its not the whole story, the graphics engine still needs major work and hopefully the next patch that Luthier mentioned will be the main fix we've all been waiting for.

[Ataros]

In truth though phat, the dev's did tell us that it would run perfectly well on low/medium spec PC's.

Never happened. Sorry.
18. Dissemination of false information is prohibited regardless of the poster's awareness.

Users who violated this rule will be banned from the section in the following pattern:
1st violation - 3 day
2nd violation - 7 day ban
3rd violation - 30 day ban
I do not report it. Just for your information.

[FS~Phat]

Never happened. Sorry.

I do not report it. Just for your information.

Yes perhaps Tree should have said "...would run perfectly well on low/medium spec PC's at lower quality settings."

It was never promised to run max quality on midrange rigs. In fact it was quite the opposite, saying it would take a few years for the hardware to catch up and be able to turn all the features on.

[FS~Phat]

Here's some more info from Oleg's old ready room.
For those that have never read it, its long but a worthwhile read that gives you some insight into the plans and difficulties in achieving what has been done with CoD.

Here's one of my favourite quotes from one of Olegs responses to questions.

"For us is a great task how to make a lot of details and at the same time to render a lot of aircraft in air simultaniosly.... So all things will be optimized for this...
Say it is possible to make even greater details of damage, aircraft itself , etc... but probably in case of hundreds aircraft in action around you you will need the PC that will be existed only say ten years after release
Hope you all understand what the tasks we have and what the technical problems are on our board...
The is no problem to make increadible amount of polygons in aircraft (or ground units), but then will follow problem of PC power, when in air isn't just one aircraft.... When the water is trasparent, when the clouds looks like real and moving, etc...
BoB will be again a "fight of compromises" in technologies and will offer the best compromises that wioll be usable for many years ahead, like it was with Il-2"

From Q64> http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909

[Buchon]

Back to the topic ...

I did not measured but I think that the game on high settings uses more than 1 GB over cities and low altitude terrain (1920x1200), over the channel there no problems on high.

BF3 uses more than 1 GB on high settings over 1920x1080 for example, 1GB is a past thing on high level gaming, today mid range cards packets 1.5 GB usually and top end cards pack even 3 GB on a single GPU as the ATI 7970.

[FS~Phat]

Back to the topic ...

I did not measured but I think that the game on high settings uses more than 1 GB over cities and low altitude terrain (1920x1200), over the channel there no problems on high.

BF3 uses more than 1 GB on high settings over 1920x1080 for example, 1GB is a past thing on high level gaming, today mid range cards packets 1.5 GB usually and top end cards pack even 3 GB on a single GPU as the ATI 7970.

Yes it uses the full 1.5GB in my cards a lot of the time at 1920x1080 with all details on max. Not all the time though, sometimes it hovers around 1.2, 1.3GB.

[SEE]

Great post FS_Phat, thanks for keeping and posting those comments and reminding us all of the technical challenges this sim imposed!

One more question, what is the relationship between the GFX card and the CPU with regards 'bottlenecking'? Is this simply a GFX card whose performance outclasses the CPU and thus has to wait for X amount of CPU cycles and seen as stutters, drop in FPS etc and why the use four cores should have a major advantage of say two?

[FS~Phat]

Great post FS_Phat, thanks for keeping and posting those comments and reminding us all of the technical challenges this sim imposed!

One more question, what is the relationship between the GFX card and the CPU with regards 'bottlenecking'? Is this simply a GFX card whose performance outclasses the CPU and thus has to wait for X amount of CPU cycles and seen as stutters, drop in FPS etc and why the use four cores should have a major advantage of say two?

Forgive me if im a little out on this as your testing the limits of my knowledge here.. but i believe the CPU determines how fast polygons and triangles co-ordinates are calculated and the GPU renders the scene when all co-ordinates are complete for each frame. So for complex scenes with many polygons and triangles the CPU is very important.

I believe that currently the 3d rendering engine in the game is not running on separate cores yet so occasionally it hitches/stutters while it waits for the cpu core to complete some other instructions before it gets back to computing the polygon co-ordinates for the next frame.

When they move rendering to a dedicated core (or even split it over 2 cores) I believe most of the stutter issues will be gone. A lot of work has already gone into streamlining the rendering pipeline since the first release which is why stutters are all but eliminated in the current version. IT WILL only get better over time. Maybe they wont get it 100% first go with the next big change but they will keep working on it as its a very complex issue to spread the load across multiple cores and still keep the game fluid and everything in the game world in sync with each frame. 1 or 2 cores just isnt enough CPU power for everything that has to be calculated in this game, and more than 2 cores is harder to get everything running smoothly and in sync. Add SLI or Crossfire to the equation and its even harder again!

PS. This is why 4way SLI on my rig runs smooth as silk in split frame rendering mode because the scene is split into 4 smaller windows with less polygons per GPU to handle and no stutter in the rendering pipleline waiting for each frame to be rendered as all 4 GPUs render to the same frame at the same time. This also splits the load a little more over the CPU cores because Nvidia drivers are multi-threaded.
SLI Split frame rendering is smoother than a single card and way way way smoother than SLI alternate frame rendering, especially when 4GPUs are involved.

Forgive me for any inaccuracies, im just a sales guy working in IT with enough knowledge to be dangerous! ;)

[Ataros]

One more question, what is the relationship between the GFX card and the CPU with regards 'bottlenecking'? Is this simply a GFX card whose performance outclasses the CPU and thus has to wait for X amount of CPU cycles and seen as stutters, drop in FPS etc and why the use four cores should have a major advantage of say two?

CPU has to provide enough data for GPU to work with. It can be a problem if CPU has to calculate AI of many aircraft or ground vehicles.

I had stutters both online and offline with stock speed of my CPU (2.8 Ghz) and happy to run it on 3.8Ghz online or offline with about 30-40 AI around. I guess if you can take a dual-core to 4.5Ghz+ it may be sufficient not to bottleneck gtx560 but sometimes a 3rd core may be needed to avoid stutter or fps drop. I think no one did much testing on this. You can check out results of some benchmarks of many various systems here http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sukhoi.ru%2Fforum%2Fshowthread. php%3Ft%3D68723
Easy to understand and make conclusions.

[NervousEnergy]

I haven't seen any comment in the thread about texture size. IIRC, the game defaults to 'original' texture size, which are enormous uncompressed images. Reducing these to 'medium' will have a profound impact on the amount of VRAM used to run the game.

It's a minor thing, but the devs should have the game default to medium textures instead of original, if they haven't already. A lot of folks may never touch this setting, and with a 1 GB card they'd have to set the resolution really low to avoid thrashing.

[vanelle]

Well this game does not run very good at a ATI 4890 1GB.
Medium/low with stutters @ -30 fps. (above land, sea is a lillte bit better.)

Although my card is bottlenecking my system, good to know CLOD does need more vRAM.

(Appearantly my fist post)

[Chivas]

I assume the graphics rewrite the development is currently undertaking will address some of these problems. To what degree is anyones guess.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

The sim uses over 2.4 gb of vram when I play online at times @ 1080p with all settings high except ssao (fps drop near ground). That being said a 3gb card might not work all that well unless the rest of the system is up to the task.

[furbs]

Just as Chvias said the sim needs optimizing...if you put 1 plane on one of the small online maps with nothing else and try to take off and look at the dust your wheel kicks up it drops the FPS to single figures.

[Ataros]

Just as Chvias said the sim needs optimizing...if you put 1 plane on one of the small online maps with nothing else and try to take off and look at the dust your wheel kicks up it drops the FPS to single figures.

Did it for you :) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=382899&postcount=116

If we keep our feedback in one place it will be easier for us to track fixes or failures and keep the devs accounted for them. All feedback in any other threads can be just lost without any use unfortunately.

[Flanker35M]

S!

I can tell you within days how the new AMD 7970HD runs CoD :) It has showed some exceptional performance so very eager to test it on CoD :D

[Ataros]

S!

I can tell you within days how the new AMD 7970HD runs CoD :) It has showed some exceptional performance so very eager to test it on CoD :D

Great news! Could you please test if 3 blue horizon lines bug exists on it (shows at certain altitude) and a landscape stripes bug on the border of land and water.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Will put the card through it's paces for sure :) New drivers for it just came out too.

[sorak]

Great news! Could you please test if 3 blue horizon lines bug exists on it (shows at certain altitude) and a landscape stripes bug on the border of land and water.

I get the horizon problem also and im on Nvidia.. i dont think its just an ATI thing for this bug.

I think most people just dont notice it... you dont unless you look for it specifically

[Ataros]

I get the horizon problem also and im on Nvidia.. i dont think its just an ATI thing for this bug.

I think most people just dont notice it... you dont unless you look for it specifically

I have never heard it happens on nVidia :confused: It was present only on HD 69xx series till 2 parches ago, then was fixed and came back in the last patch. This is what I read on the forums. HD4xxx or HD5xxx series did not have this bug.

Could you post a screenshot? If it is the same bug maybe it is worth reporting it as possible area for improvement here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341&page=12

[Buchon]

The sim uses over 2.4 gb of vram when I play online at times @ 1080p with all settings high except ssao (fps drop near ground). That being said a 3gb card might not work all that well unless the rest of the system is up to the task.

So it peaks at 2.4 gb ... I guess the last ATI 7980 3 gb hit the spot.

I have an eye on it but is too expensive, hope it have a drop soon.

[recoilfx]

I have never heard it happens on nVidia :confused: It was present only on HD 69xx series till 2 parches ago, then was fixed and came back in the last patch. This is what I read on the forums. HD4xxx or HD5xxx series did not have this bug.

Could you post a screenshot? If it is the same bug maybe it is worth reporting it as possible area for improvement here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341&page=12

I have a 570gtx and I definitely notice the horizontal line.

[KG26_Alpha]

No horizon lines here on max/full settings with original textures.

560ti 2gb

[Flanker35M]

S!

NO lines with 7970HD :D

[Talbot]

S!

NO lines with 7970HD :D

Stuttering?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Still testing, just ran Black Death tests. Next actual game play tests.

[Skoshi Tiger]

In truth though phat, the dev's did tell us that it would run perfectly well on low/medium spec PC's.

I can't remember any of them actually saying that, could you please post a link. :)

[FS~Phat]

I can't remember any of them actually saying that, could you please post a link. :)

Sorry Skoshi, Tree is taking a break from the forums so he wont be able to respond. I have already responded to this above somewhere just below his statement. I think he was well intent but left out the vital, " on lower quality settings" Oleg had always planned for the sim to be playable on a broad range of hardware, but that means turning off features and using lower resolution. The game was always meant to be a challenge for hardware for the next 10 years just like the original IL2, with new features being turned on as hardware became more capable.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Making a graphics engine for next 10 years just does not mean you need a supercomputer to run them. Rather well done base engine that runs well on today's high end machines, playable and still good looking on medium range and playable with low end machines even the details have to be reduced.

This same base engine could be updated over time with new features as hardware progresses. Sure sounds a bit oversimplified, but would it not be better if the game engines would be done better and more optimized from the start with flexibility rather than slap together a gargantuan heap of code no system can handle and that is a nightmare for the devs to handle?

Just my opinion. Eagerly waiting for the patch.

[JG301_HaJa]

I don't really know what would classify as midrange but my setup
with 3.4 GHz Athlon II BE and 8 GB RAM, SSD together with a
crossfirex setup, HD6870, don't run well.

I have set almost everything on medium or low except some kept
at high and the FPS drops to 10 or 20 over cities.

So I'm eagerly awaiting the patch becasue a new GPU isn't on the
horizon for me :)

[FS~Phat]

I don't really know what would classify as midrange but my setup
with 3.4 GHz Athlon II BE and 8 GB RAM, SSD together with a
crossfirex setup, HD6870, don't run well.

I have set almost everything on medium or low except some kept
at high and the FPS drops to 10 or 20 over cities.

So I'm eagerly awaiting the patch becasue a new GPU isn't on the
horizon for me :)

Thats a nice setup but still a midrange system.
The GPU's are what are holding you back a bit, especially if in crossfire because the game isnt working with crossfire unless you force it with some workarounds.
The CPU is still ok too unless your playing at lower resolutions, in that case it will hold you back too.

[JTDawg]

I have 2 6870 xfx black editions, with cliffs of dover i take it out of crossfire,an avg.60-70 fps on atag server. When i use crossfire pushing to get 20-30 with all settings high, orig. an med. so try with out crossfire salute

[JG301_HaJa]

But the intresting thing is that the cpu stays at 40% load maximum in game and
the cards never go above 40% load. It could be that the memory on the cards
is filled and needs cycles to swap and clean itself but i have no stutters at all even
over cities. Just a fps drop from VSYNC 60 to 12-20.

[Ataros]

Stutters and FPS drops occur when the 1st core is loaded above 75-80%. Overall CPU load may remain very low at the same time because usually there are 4 cores in total. Therefore it is necessary to monitor load per core and overclock. (2.8 to 3.8 helped me a lot).

My video card is loaded 98-100% all the time because it is a bottle-neck in my system.

AMD @3.4 can be a bottle neck because it is generally slower than Intel nowadays and especially in case it is Athlon it has very low or no cache at all which is extremely important for gaming. In case it is Phenom and not Athlon it has some cache but a lower one than modern Intel processors. Gaming benchmarks on PC sites usually show this very well.

[Ataros]

Just a fps drop from VSYNC 60 to 12-20.

Vsynk causes fps to reduce in big steps from 60 to 30 and then to 15. It does not allow you to have 29 fps even if your card is capable to render 29 fps. Try running with vsync off. If you need vsynk make sure you force triple buffering on with a 3rd party utility like ATI Tray tools or Direct3D Overrider (D3DOverrider) which is a part of RivaTuner.

GPU may be not 100% loaded if it is held back by vsynk too.

[SEE]

I installed a 2Gb version of the 560Ti and monitored vram usage. Just as a comparison I loaded IL1946 maxed to the hilt on a mission using Cannons Channel map - VRam was around 1.6GB so I knew that the extra VRAM was actually being called on at 1080p native res.

Using the Quick mission 'Bomber Intercept London' with 15 ac and Flak, etc.
I tested Vram using my CloD MP settings which are High except for Buildings/ Land Detail at medium and Trees Off, the max Vram used was around 1GB and FPS very playable even on a 2.7Ghz Duel Core - some stutters as you might expect over London.

Setting Textures to Original and repeating the mission added a bit more Vram use at 1.2GB. I then cranked every setting to the highest available except for SSAO and VRAM went to 1.6GB - at low alt over London the FPS took a severe hit but no suprises there on my system.

I don't particularly see a lot of Visual impact when having some settings such as Buildings and Land detail set to medium other than improved FPS and lower Vram usage. Dropping the resolution to 1600 x 900 and max Vram used was less than 1Gb using my MP video settings as described earlier.

My next upgrade will be the PC Mobo but will wait untill the next patch is out.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Thats interesting EvangelusE, the sim must scale to the available vram. I thought it might use as much as possible, is it possible that the sim doesnt realy show all the settings in game play that are chosen.

P.S. stop shooting at Ju88s;)

[SEE]

Don't know about the scaling as such. AFAIK, if you exceed the capacity of the VRAM by a combination of high video settings and Screen Res then I suspect CloD gets the data from elswhere, maybe Page RAM or the HD which I suppose would cause stutters, etc. Some one else is probably better at answering that question.

What I do know is that with everything at max and within the limits of the available VRAM fps drops significantly on my system probably because of the CPU speed and everything processed by one or possibly two cores.

Finally, I promise I won't interrupt your JU88 sorties again! :grin:

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

I was totaly kidding, you know I like shooting back at you lol:)

[KG26_Alpha]

Vsynk causes fps to reduce in big steps from 60 to 30 and then to 15. It does not allow you to have 29 fps even if your card is capable to render 29 fps. Try running with vsync off. If you need vsynk make sure you force triple buffering on with a 3rd party utility like ATI Tray tools or nHancer which is a part of RivaTuner.

GPU may be not 100% loaded if it is held back by vsynk too.

Triple buffering is in the default Nvidia panel above Vsync no need to add any other programs.





.

[Ataros]

Triple buffering is in the default Nvidia panel above Vsync no need to add any other programs.

This one works for OpenGL games only IIRC. This could have changed though as I did not use NV recently.
Enabling Triple Buffering for OpenGL-based games such as Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey or Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is very simple - go to your graphics card's control panel and enable it from there. However this won't work for enabling Triple Buffering in Direct3D-based games, which are the bulk of modern games. Instead, you will need to use a utility called Direct3D Overrider (D3DOverrider) which comes with free RivaTuner utility.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_10.html

Many reports of "terrible fps" are caused by not switching it On imho having vsynk On.
On my ATI card I have 30 fps with triple buffering off and 40-50 fps if it is on. I force it via creating a game profile for CloD in ATI Tray Tools.
I guess this allows my card to be 98-100% loaded according to a monitor when many others report 70% load only.

PS. Moreover I noticed if vsynk is switched on both in game and in drivers it results in further fps reduction because of some conflict. I prefer to run the game with vsync off recently to get rid of all these limitations altogether and stop screen tearing by reducing graphics settings, overclocking and other system optimisations.

[JG301_HaJa]

Well I don't know if the Athlon II Black Edition cpu is the bottleneck but
my setup produces stable playable fps in DCS-A10, ROF, ARMA2 and
som other titles. It is just here that the problems occur.

EDIT:

I made a test. I turned off VSync and the fps go up but the tearing is completely unbearable when
looking through the propeller arc. That would give me epilepsy even though I don't suffer from it.

The only remedy is to turn on the filter and live without the prop arc. That at least seems to give
acceptable fps without to much tearing even though it's not nice.

The intresting part is that the CPU now gets taxed up to 60% as opposed to about 40% and the
GPU's get taxed up to 95% each as opposed to not above 40%. This to me is very strange!

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Well I don't know if the Athlon II Black Edition cpu is the bottleneck but
my setup produces stable playable fps in DCS-A10, ROF, ARMA2 and
som other titles. It is just here that the problems occur.

Im just repeating what others have said but have you? Checked the performance section in the forum?

1) forced the AA in the Ati tray tool to 2x or 4x or off and shut it off in the il2 video options.

2) forced vsync in tray tool, off in game

3) maybe set textures to performance ati tray panel(can you do that in ati)

4) go to RUN and enter "msconfig" go to start up and shut off everthing at start up, go back if you need that stuff later.

5) go to advanced system properties and select performance under the visual effects tab also r click on desktop and personalize so you dont have the aero if you have win 7.

6) lower the trees, lower the buildings, grass off, ssao off, everything else med or so except texture(makes planes look good so that one last)

[Ataros]

but the tearing is completely unbearable

If this is the case than turn vsynk back on but force triple buffering ON in
ATI Tray Tools >> Game Profiles >> Create a profile for Launcher.exe >> Direct3D tweaks tab >> "Force to use triple buffers" checkbox. >> Save the profile.

Epilepsy filter is not a good solution imho.

[JG301_HaJa]

I will try ATT and RadeonPro if that doesn't work.

I have however tried with both applications before and done everything suggested
even deinstalling everything and just installing the radeon driver and operate it with
ATT but that leaves crossfire disabled since ATT in the latest version is broken in that regard.

It doesn't seems to fare well with my system unfortunately. Perhaps the solution is to
test with a monitor capable of 120Hz?

But i will keep fiddling, sooner or later i will perhaps get it to a state where it is operational.

[icarus]

I have monitored CoD using well in excess of 2 Gb memory on my card and it climbs slowly but surely ever higher. I believe there is a memory leak in CoD.

Ataros's suggestions do nothing for me that I can notice.

[KG26_Alpha]

Interesting stuff Ataros.

It seems since Vista Win 7 triple buffering has had some changes.


"Q
Can anyone let me know whether the triple buffering and vsync in the Nvidia Control Panel work for DirectX games?


A
The 'triple buffering' option does affect rendering behavior within the modern DirectX APIs.
The 'vertical synchronization' control is less cooperative: in Windows XP, it applies to both OpenGL and DirectX 9 APIs; in Windows Vista and Windows 7,
it only affects the OpenGL APIs."

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=173860

[icarus]

The 'vertical synchronization' control is less cooperative: in Windows XP, it applies to both OpenGL and DirectX 9 APIs; in Windows Vista and Windows 7,
it only affects the OpenGL APIs.[/I]"

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=173860

That's curious. I get lots of tearing in W7 DX API's when vsync is off and none with it is on, so it appears it does something in DX???

[Codex]

1. Is CloD one of the exceptional tiltles that requires more than 1Gb even for a modest resolution and why?


No. VRAM usage is increasing with many newer games, particularly with more games using tessellation and advanced shader routines.

The thing with VRAM is that its where the developer wants all the scene assets to live, because it's traditionally the fastest RAM on a PC, also DirectX has "direct" access to it. So what the devs do, assuming they use Direct X routines, is load all the 3D models, Textures etc into that memory space and do all the pixel, vertex and tessellation processing on those assets in that memory space.

Remember the actual buffers that hold the final image are fairly small, for example:

1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
2073600 pixels x 32bit pixel (RGBA 8bit each colour) = 8MB (roughly)
DirectX default buffering is double = 16MB of VRAM space

It's all the scene assets that take up the majority of space.



2. There seems to be an industry practice of using identical chipsets but by disabling or changing a peformance parameter (i.e No of shaders, reducing clock speeds, etc) marketing a budget version. I.e a Nvidea GTX 2GB 560 is slightly cheaper than the 560ti version yet bench tests show only a 5% reduction in performance across the most demanding games which can be adressed by oc'ing. Would someone looking to upgrade on a budget be better going for the better chipset with lower RAM or the budget version with more RAM?


This is no different to how CPUs are badged and priced. It may surprise you that your 560 GPU would most likely have come from the same silicon wafer that produced a 580 chip. The difference is the 560 chip may not have performed to meet the 580 specs so the factory would have locked down the clocks, the number of shader units etc etc and made it a 560.

The performance gains from having extra VRAM memory is more than likely having enough space to store assets and preventing scene assets from being copied over to system ram. I've only dabbled in rendering and animating basic 3D objects in Direct X but there's a lot of stuff happening in background that needs to be appreciated.

[icarus]

No. VRAM usage is increasing with many newer games, particularly with more games using tessellation and advanced shader routines..

Except I have not ever seen any games use over 2 gb vram even at 2650 x 1600 res with AA at 16x super and I have seen Cod use well over 2 Gb with no AA or AF. That seems exceptional to me.

[Codex]

Except I have not ever seen any games use over 2 gb vram even at 2650 x 1600 res with AA at 16x super and I have seen Cod use well over 2 Gb with no AA or AF. That seems exceptional to me.

There are a few reasons why I think this may the case. Mind you I'm only speculating here:

1) I believe the code base of CoD lives in the managed world, i.e. .NET and it makes unmanaged function calls to the DX API to render the graphics. This style of programming model is inherently a more memory intensive operation and slower (only slightly) as there's lots of storing of memory heaps and stacks and buffers going on. But it means more manageable code, no need to worry about memory leaks as much as unmanaged code and easier to update / modify.

2) We're dealing with a flight simulation that needs to create a land mass which is not only accurate but vast as seen from the sky, this means more memory is needed than the average game to store the environment. On top of all that, you have textures and buffers (pixel, vertex, shaders etc.), and 3D models with a higher than average poly count.

3) Optimization. I don't think CoD is properly optimized, hence why it's going through a complete rewrite at the moment.

[Liz Lemon]

Except I have not ever seen any games use over 2 gb vram even at 2650 x 1600 res with AA at 16x super and I have seen Cod use well over 2 Gb with no AA or AF. That seems exceptional to me.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that there are games that use over 2gb of vram - and cod is one of those titles.

Also keep in mind that the game is using a deferred rendering pipeline. That means that the game is rendering to multiple buffers - all of which take up space that is directly tied to resolution.

[icarus]

There are a few reasons why I think this may the case. Mind you I'm only speculating here:

1) I believe the code base of CoD lives in the managed world, i.e. .NET and it makes unmanaged function calls to the DX API to render the graphics. This style of programming model is inherently a more memory intensive operation and slower (only slightly) as there's lots of storing of memory heaps and stacks and buffers going on. But it means more manageable code, no need to worry about memory leaks as much as unmanaged code and easier to update / modify.

2) We're dealing with a flight simulation that needs to create a land mass which is not only accurate but vast as seen from the sky, this means more memory is needed than the average game to store the environment. On top of all that, you have textures and buffers (pixel, vertex, shaders etc.), and 3D models with a higher than average poly count.

3) Optimization. I don't think CoD is properly optimized, hence why it's going through a complete rewrite at the moment.

Agreed, which makes it more memory intensive than other games or even other sims. I've seen it in Evga Precision peak at 2.5 Gb vram! That is exceptionally high and most likely a result of #3 not so much #2.

[icarus]

So what? That doesn't change the fact that there are games that use over 2gb of vram - and cod is one of those titles.

Also keep in mind that the game is using a deferred rendering pipeline. That means that the game is rendering to multiple buffers - all of which take up space that is directly tied to resolution.

Name one that uses 2.5 gb vram with no AA or AF applied. Crysis2 and BF3 use 1-1.5 gB with 16x AA and 16x AF and there is no sim that uses 2.5 Gb with no AA and AF. CoD uses so much, not because it is so complex, it is because it is not optimized. That is why they are redoing the graphics engine.

BTW, I'm not being negative here, I'm being positive. When this is optimized there will be hope for those with less than 3 Gb ram.

[SEE]

The discussion regards Vsync and Triple Buffering interested me based on the frame rate integer jumps that Ataros mentioned.

I have always had Vsync enabled and triple Buffers set but decided to test a MP session with Vsync disabled and Triple buffers Off. Apart from the screen tearing, I was acheivineg 80+ fps at altitude and game play was much better even in the hotspots were FPS sink badly - it seemed much smoother even when fps went below 30.

I am torn wether to put up with the screen tearing (which isn't so bad that its unplayable with headtracking) or go back to Vsync capping at 60hz:confused:

EDIT: After writing this I did a bit of googling and found this interesting article regards Vsync/Triple Buffering and the advantages/disadvantages.


http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html


This link explains how Triple Buffering works - why it isn't supported in DirectX3D, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/1

[Codex]

I agree with that tweak guide. It's comes down to personal preference. We've all got different hardware and its a matter of trying different settings.

[Chivas]

I have less than 3 gigs of vram and have never had a CTD, or Launcher exe problem, or frame rate issue. It tells me the code isn't all bad, but an optimization/rewrite of the code it still urgently required. Hopefully the next patch will fix most of the performance issues, and the developers can put more resources in fixing the game play issues.

[Ataros]

Interesting stuff Ataros.

It seems since Vista Win 7 triple buffering has had some changes.


"Q
Can anyone let me know whether the triple buffering and vsync in the Nvidia Control Panel work for DirectX games?


A
The 'triple buffering' option does affect rendering behavior within the modern DirectX APIs.
The 'vertical synchronization' control is less cooperative: in Windows XP, it applies to both OpenGL and DirectX 9 APIs; in Windows Vista and Windows 7,
it only affects the OpenGL APIs."

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=173860

I think he must know what he is talking about :)

However there are many different opinions and discussions on other forums like guru3D, etc. Some say only OGL lines of code are present inside the drivers.

Another opinion is that an application itself must have triple buffering enabled and some applications enable it by default when a user switches vsynk on inside the app (but not in drivers). Some apps like Left for Dead and BF3 have tripple buffering as a separate checkbox in settings.

We do not know how CloD is programmed and need to benchmark it with various settings to find out. IIRC when I switched vsync ON in drivers I had some issues. Maybe ingame CloD vsync uses TB.

ATI Catalyst still lists triple buffering inside OGL section only. I run vsynk off to be on a safe side. Having TrackIR smoothing set to max helps me to avoid tearing. It still happens but on very rare occasions. Reducing settings also helps with it.

For NV users to be on a safe side I would install D3D Overrider to force triple bufering ON and test it. It is free :)
Download and install recent RivaTuner, find the D3D Overrider executable inside the install folder and copy it somewhere. you can now uninstall RivaTuner. D3D Overrider does not require RivaTuner to run.

[icarus]

I have less than 3 gigs of vram and have never had a CTD, or Launcher exe problem, or frame rate issue. It tells me the code isn't all bad, but an optimization/rewrite of the code it still urgently required. Hopefully the next patch will fix most of the performance issues, and the developers can put more resources in fixing the game play issues.

You are lucky or you have a lot turned down. I have nearly the same rig as you with more ram and 2x gtx 580 3 gb and it stutters and looks bad with no AA or AF even with decent fps. CoD uses way more video ram than you have so you must have it turned way down or fly over water all the time. It uses upwards of 2.5 gb vram and I have a few things turned down and that is with no AA or AF remember. Turn those on and it would be a slide show for everyone, that's for sure. That is proof of a need for optimization. I look forward to the next patch and stutter free flying.


I also have had a couple of CTD's and the launcher doesn't respond sometimes when you change settings and it reboots the game. BTW, why does the game have to restart whenever you change video settings?

EDIT: "On the other hand, locating a memory leak can take many long months of dedicated work by some extremely qualified programmers." -Luthier today. There well may be memory leaks which I had suspected.

[SEE]

For NV users to be on a safe side I would install D3D Overrider to force triple bufering ON and test it. It is free :)
Download and install recent RivaTuner, find the D3D Overrider executable inside the install folder and copy it somewhere. you can now uninstall RivaTuner. D3D Overrider does not require RivaTuner to run.

Thanks Ataros. Using the QM 'Intercept Bombers - London' by starting with the comabat scenario and then flying low alt over Tower Bridge/Parliament I tried the following:-

1. Vysinc Disabled. (Pre render frames=1 NVidia CP)

2. Vysinc enabled. (Pre render frames=1 NVidia CP)

3. Vsync Enabled + (Triple Buffering - Pre Render Frames =3 Nvidea CP)

4. Vsync Enabled + (Triple Buffering Forced D3D Overrider).


I expected to see differences in performance but didn't except for Screen Tearining in 1 above. In fact, just having Vsync enabled in 2 above seemed just as good as 3, 4, and 1 but without the screen tearing....:confused:

[Ataros]

I expected to see differences in performance but didn't except for Screen Tearining in 1 above. In fact, just having Vsync enabled in 2 above seemed just as good as 3, 4, and 1 but without the screen tearing....:confused:

I can not say for sure or test it as I have ATI. It may be the case that your CPU is the bottleneck and FPS is limited only by CPU no matter what graphics settings you have. You can try running a track like the Black death with everything maxed out to see if you can stress GPU enough. (However it loads processor too.) Then you can run the same test with tripple buffering.

I mention some tips on running a test here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=383901&postcount=2

To make sure the performance is not stuck because of your CPU only you can try running the same test in a small window on low settings. If this does not give you big fps increase then it is CPU fault.

PS. Is it necessary to change pre-render frames? IIRC I always have them on auto/default. Increasing them causes input lag. Reducing - reduces performance. I would change it only if I have a very old card. But again for nVidia it may be different.

[Chivas]

You are lucky or you have a lot turned down. I have nearly the same rig as you with more ram and 2x gtx 580 3 gb and it stutters and looks bad with no AA or AF even with decent fps. CoD uses way more video ram than you have so you must have it turned way down or fly over water all the time. It uses upwards of 2.5 gb vram and I have a few things turned down and that is with no AA or AF remember. Turn those on and it would be a slide show for everyone, that's for sure. That is proof of a need for optimization. I look forward to the next patch and stutter free flying.


I also have had a couple of CTD's and the launcher doesn't respond sometimes when you change settings and it reboots the game. BTW, why does the game have to restart whenever you change video settings?

EDIT: "On the other hand, locating a memory leak can take many long months of dedicated work by some extremely qualified programmers." -Luthier today. There well may be memory leaks which I had suspected.



I have everything turned ON and set to HIGH and run @1920-1080. I only installed one 580 until the sim is optimized to run with two. I think the main reason I have no problems as I have the sim installed on a separate SSD, with only a copy of Windows 7 64 bit, and peripherals installed on it. The game loads, missions start in a few seconds, and never CTD's. I also have a very fast 50mbps online connection. A 60gig SSD is relatively cheap, but I have to reboot to its Operating System when I want to fly COD, although the reboot is very quick. I also have COD installed on a HHD with Windows XP, and its excruciatingly slow in comparison.

[icarus]

I have everything turned ON and set to HIGH and run @1920-1080. I only installed one 580 until the sim is optimized to run with two. I think the main reason I have no problems as I have the sim installed on a separate SSD, with only a copy of Windows 7 64 bit, and peripherals installed on it. The game loads, missions start in a few seconds, and never CTD's. I also have a very fast 50mbps online connection. A 60gig SSD is relatively cheap, but I have to reboot to its Operating System when I want to fly COD, although the reboot is very quick. I also have COD installed on a HHD with Windows XP, and its excruciatingly slow in comparison.

It must be the SSD. I have W7 on an SSD and CoD on a Velociraptor. Perhaps I should install it on my SSD. That would explain the stuttering at good fps. I'll let you know if it makes a difference.

Edit: $%#%^$# Steam won't let me put it on my SSD C drive and I'm not going to dual boot on a separate SSD. For me, sooo not worth the hassle. I'll wait for the patch. If that doesn't fix it, I'm shelving it for good. Thanks for the reply though.

[Chivas]

It must be the SSD. I have W7 on an SSD and CoD on a Velociraptor. Perhaps I should install it on my SSD. That would explain the stuttering at good fps. I'll let you know if it makes a difference.

Edit: $%#%^$# Steam won't let me put it on my SSD C drive and I'm not going to dual boot on a separate SSD. For me, sooo not worth the hassle. I'll wait for the patch. If that doesn't fix it, I'm shelving it for good. Thanks for the reply though.

Hmmm... Steam was able to install COD on three seperate harddrives 2 HHD's and one SSD on my system. One with XP, and two others with windows 7. Can you copy and paste Steam and IC Softclub onto your SSD, and try running it from there?

[icarus]

Hmmm... Steam was able to install COD on three seperate harddrives 2 HHD's and one SSD on my system. One with XP, and two others with windows 7. Can you copy and paste Steam and IC Softclub onto your SSD, and try running it from there?

No, my Steam account is bigger than the remaining space on my SSD I need two instances of Steam and that is a no go.

[addman]

I can't say an SSD will solve all of your CloD problems but it sure loaded faster and ran smoother on my SSD. Harddrives are so over the top expensive right now so why not go for one?:)

[icarus]

I can't say an SSD will solve all of your CloD problems but it sure loaded faster and ran smoother on my SSD. Harddrives are so over the top expensive right now so why not go for one?:)

Because my Steam account is too big for my SSD C drive and I can't afford the $1200 for an SSD big enough to replace one of my 600 GB HDD's. I'm not removing my data/programs to put in a small drive and I'm not dual booting for CoD. If it wasn't for the insistence on Steam, I'd buy a DVD and install it on my C drive.

[Thee_oddball]

Because my Steam account is too big for my SSD C drive and I can't afford the $1200 for an SSD big enough to replace one of my 600 GB HDD's. I'm not removing my data/programs to put in a small drive and I'm not dual booting for CoD. If it wasn't for the insistence on Steam, I'd buy a DVD and install it on my C drive.

this might help, its only $149 (500GB)
"Hybrid Hard Drive Designed with high-performance core components on an innovative platform, the Seagate Momentus XT solid state hybrid drive consists of a 7200-RPM hard drive with 32MB of cache, 4GB of solid state SLC NAND flash storage, and Adaptive Memory technology, delivering an 80 percent faster performance than traditional 7200RPM hard drives."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591

[icarus]

this might help, its only $149 (500GB)
"Hybrid Hard Drive Designed with high-performance core components on an innovative platform, the Seagate Momentus XT solid state hybrid drive consists of a 7200-RPM hard drive with 32MB of cache, 4GB of solid state SLC NAND flash storage, and Adaptive Memory technology, delivering an 80 percent faster performance than traditional 7200RPM hard drives."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591

Thanks. Funny thing, I was just looking at hybrids when you posted LOL. Anyone tried these?

Edit: Testing shows the SSD part of the hybrid is twice as fast as a 7200 rpm and half as fast as an SSD. I have 10000 rpm Velociraptors which will not be as fast as this, but I don't think the difference will be that much.

[Ataros]

I think you can move only Clod files to SSD and place a simlink alias or whatever it is called to Steam folder. I think there was a thread about this it the tech forums. Also there is a link on how to use simlink with RAM-drive in the FPS guide linked in my sig (8 ).

[Thee_oddball]

I think you can move only Clod files to SSD and place a simlink alias or whatever it is called to Steam folder. I think there was a thread about this it the tech forums. Also there is a link on how to use simlink with RAM-drive in the FPS guide linked in my sig (8 ).

this might be a cheap solution to simlinking and moving you page file off the HD(Provided you have a mini pcie slot) $29
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161493

[Dano]

Steam Mover: http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover will do all the hard work of moving it for you, worked perfectly for me.

[icarus]

Steam Mover: http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover will do all the hard work of moving it for you, worked perfectly for me.


Thanks worked like a charm.

Weird thing is with the SSD... still stutters but, loads faster and higher fps. I know....it was supposed to stop stutters and do nothing for fps. :confused:

[Ataros]

You are lucky or you have a lot turned down. I have nearly the same rig as you with more ram and 2x gtx 580 3 gb and it stutters and looks bad with no AA or AF even with decent fps.

SLI or antivirus shields or power settings or something else can be a reason for stutters in your case. Look through my checklist in link #8 in my sig for possible reasons. Freycinet videos show that the game runs great on a single 580 http://www.flightsimvids.com/

[SlipBall]

SLI or antivirus shields or power settings or something else can be a reason for stutters in your case. Look through my checklist in link #8 in my sig for possible reasons. Freycinet videos show that the game runs great on a single 580 http://www.flightsimvids.com/



I agree, something else in play. I do not suffer those conditions with my 2 gb...may I also suggest to make sure your system is on a scheduled defragmentation.

@ icarus...not sure of your system because not listed in your sig. If Win 7, try running Windows Experience Index..right click computer/properties/windows experience index

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/test.jpg

[NervousEnergy]

What setting do you have Textures at? I have a 570, and see lots of stutters at 'original' setting (uncompressed textures), and some stuttering on High. It pretty much completely goes away at Medium (occasional stutter when going over new terrain down low as the textures swap out).

With the current state of the graphics engine being a coding mess of temporary patches over poorly executed original code there could be any number of reasons for hitching, but the classic one is waiting for textures to swap in and out of video memory. This seems to be supported here as SSDs reduce (but do not eliminate) the symptoms. I don't see hardly any difference at 1900x1200 between Medium and Original texures when actually flying the sim, but the performance difference is huge. Reduce the amount of data swapping in and out of VRAM and you reduce stutters.

Hopefully the graphics engine overhaul will put this to bed once and for all at medium-high settings.

[icarus]

SLI or antivirus shields or power settings or something else can be a reason for stutters in your case. Look through my checklist in link #8 in my sig for possible reasons. Freycinet videos show that the game runs great on a single 580 http://www.flightsimvids.com/

Nope, its not antivirus, not SLI (its off), not power settings or anything else on your list. I notice Frey avoids the city. Mine stutters over London big time even with decent frame rates. There must be a setting that causes the stuttering over London. I don't have textures original either. 2560 x 1600 is a must because the sim shimmers horribly because of the lack of AA and AF on my 30" monitor, even then the lack of AA/AF shows.

[icarus]

What setting do you have Textures at? I have a 570, and see lots of stutters at 'original' setting (uncompressed textures), and some stuttering on High. It pretty much completely goes away at Medium (occasional stutter when going over new terrain down low as the textures swap out).

With the current state of the graphics engine being a coding mess of temporary patches over poorly executed original code there could be any number of reasons for hitching, but the classic one is waiting for textures to swap in and out of video memory. This seems to be supported here as SSDs reduce (but do not eliminate) the symptoms. I don't see hardly any difference at 1900x1200 between Medium and Original texures when actually flying the sim, but the performance difference is huge. Reduce the amount of data swapping in and out of VRAM and you reduce stutters.

Hopefully the graphics engine overhaul will put this to bed once and for all at medium-high settings.

Nope not on original. I agree with you 100%. Its bad coding and needs optimizing. Hope the patch fixes this.

[icarus]

I agree, something else in play. I do not suffer those conditions with my 2 gb...may I also suggest to make sure your system is on a scheduled defragmentation.

@ icarus...not sure of your system because not listed in your sig. If Win 7, try running Windows Experience Index..right click computer/properties/windows experience index

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/test.jpg

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd84/icarus123456789/Untitled-10.png
Quadcore 3.67 Ghz, 8Gb RAM, 2x GTX 580 (not SLI) W7 Ultimate
7.3 is my SSD, the bottleneck? I don't think so. Neither is my CPU, vidcard or RAM.

But I do see one difference. My screen res from screen capture to Paint is really high because of my 30" screen. Perhaps CoD doesn't like the native res. My videocard can handle it, it has 3GB memory and is not maxed out at all..

[Chivas]

I think running at 2560 x 1600 might be pushing it abit until the sim is optimized. How bad does the sim stutter on your system when you run at 1920x1080 baring the shimmer problem.

[icarus]

I think running at 2560 x 1600 might be pushing it abit until the sim is optimized. How bad does the sim stutter on your system when you run at 1920x1080 baring the shimmer problem.

Not much better and at 1920 x 1200 it shimmers badly which is really very ugly. I can get it to stop but I have to turn so much down its a joke. Remember, its not fps its stuttering.

My video card is handling it with memory and GPU headroom when monitored. My CPU is not overtaxed either. I think Nervous is right. I think it is coded badly and the only fix will be the rewrite. I have thought all along that this game was poorly coded, which is born out by the fact they are rewriting it. I'm just glad they are, because the stuttering and shimmering are very annoying.

[Chivas]

Not much better and at 1920 x 1200 it shimmers badly which is really very ugly. I can get it to stop but I have to turn so much down its a joke. Remember, its not fps its stuttering.

My video card is handling it with memory and GPU headroom when monitored. My CPU is not overtaxed either. I think Nervous is right. I think it is coded badly and the only fix will be the rewrite. I have thought all along that this game was poorly coded, which is born out by the fact they are rewriting it. I'm just glad they are, because the stuttering and shimmering are very annoying.

Its definitely not coded all bad as I can run COD on HIGH everything else ON @1920x1080 with good frame rates over London, with no stutters, but I do experience some shimmering. Baring the shimmering it looks very good.
That said it certainly would benefit from a graphics rewrite and code optimizations, although this is par for the course when a sim is released unfinished. Especially when code optimizations are one of the last things done before release on a finished sim.

[icarus]

Its definitely not coded all bad as I can run COD on HIGH everything else ON @1920x1080 with good frame rates over London, with no stutters, but I do experience some shimmering. Baring the shimmering it looks very good.
That said it certainly would benefit from a graphics rewrite and code optimizations, although this is par for the course when a sim is released unfinished. Especially when code optimizations are one of the last things done before release on a finished sim.

If I run it at your settings I get great fps, but it stutters and looks really bad shimmering. It needs optimizing, but If its not coded badly and it runs fine, why on earth would they rewrite the graphics engine? Of course its coded badly or they would not go to all that trouble. NervousEnergy is right.

You probably don't notice the shimmering as much because you are using a TV. It looks WAY worse on a 30" monitor because the screen is higher quality.

You make it sound like most sims are release unfinished. They are not. Bugs yes, unfinished with no AA and AF no way. Its not my rig, my rig runs everything famously. This is messed up and it looks like I'll have to wait for the patch to get it to run well.

[Chivas]

If I run it at your settings I get great fps, but it stutters and looks really bad shimmering. It needs optimizing, but If its not coded badly and it runs fine, why on earth would they rewrite the graphics engine? Of course its coded badly or they would not go to all that trouble. NervousEnergy is right.

You probably don't notice the shimmering as much because you are using a TV. It looks WAY worse on a 30" monitor because the screen is higher quality.

You make it sound like most sims are release unfinished. They are not. Bugs yes, unfinished with no AA and AF no way. Its not my rig, my rig runs everything famously. This is messed up and it looks like I'll have to wait for the patch to get it to run well.

I never said it didn't need optimizing, I just said its not as bad as you suggest. If it was I wouldn't be able to run the sim with everything set high with decent frame rates. Also sims are released unfinished and buggy all the time, and never get fixed. Atleast the COD developer acknowledges the problems, and are doing their best to fix them. I am impressed with what has been accompished so far , even in its clearly unfinished state, and there is good chance the sim will be very good when its finished and optimized.

[Ataros]

I think only nextgen nVidia card will be able to run it on resolutions higher than fullHD (x1080). Sims like MSFS, Arma series, Il-2 or CloD run better on smaller res monitors unlike shooters or arcade games like WoP.

When BoM is out with new clouds and weather effects probably even new nVidia series will not be enough for extreme resolutions (higher than HD).

Reducing landscape shading to medium may help btw.

[flyingblind]

That is what I find. I have a mid range system with a 1 Gig 560ti and with everything on max I pretty well eliminate stutters by just reducing land shading to medium. And if I also disable clouds then fps rarely dip below low twenties even when attacking bombers over London and mostly stay in high fifties or more. As I like clouds then I tend to leave them on but because there is almost no stutters then play still seems smooth to me even if fps drop into the teens.

Mind you my resolution is only 1680 x 1050.

Sometimes I think the best way to cure the problem of low fps and minor stutters is to get rid of the counter and then I can stop obsessing about them. :grin:

[icarus]

Guys you are not listening.

I can run ANYTHING (MSFS, Arma2, DCS) on highest setings at 2650 x 1600 with good frame rates -even CoD. None of my hardware is being overtaxed, I've monitored it. The problem with CoD is the stuttering even on an SSD. My fps are fine 20- 30 over London All on HIGH at 2560 x 1600, but it stutters badly.

Its not my hardware and my monitor is calibrated LOL, its CoD. On my rig CoD is not the most resource intensive sim around, I have monitored it. In its unoptimized state it is slightly more than DCS Warthog, which is optimized.

It stutters and nothing else does. Others complain about the same problem, I'm not alone. NervousEnergy is right, this thing is messed up. BTW, lately I've been having crashes, so I think it might be moving the files. Damn this thing is problematic. Look forward to the patch fixing this or I'm shelving this thing for good.

[flyingblind]

I think you have probably answered your own question. It is not yet optimized. Right from the first release it has always been a mixed bag of pot luck as to which sytems could run it better than others. That is probably the case with most complex games but is far less noticable. Hopefully, with the next patch release, things should even up a lot more for everyone. Plus it is all a bit subjective. What I find acceptable might give another an apoplectic fit.

[Ataros]

Its not my hardware and my monitor is calibrated LOL, its CoD.

If others can run it without stutters than it is not CloD it is CloD/hardware/software/settings combination.

[icarus]

I think you have probably answered your own question. It is not yet optimized. Right from the first release it has always been a mixed bag of pot luck as to which sytems could run it better than others. That is probably the case with most complex games but is far less noticable. Hopefully, with the next patch release, things should even up a lot more for everyone. Plus it is all a bit subjective. What I find acceptable might give another an apoplectic fit.

Agreed, I believe I have answered my own question despite being told I am wrong by others. This game is not optimized (its not my hardware) and looks bad with no AA and AF. I look forward to the patch.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

2650x1600 = 4,240,000 pixels

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

Only sli can save you Icaris at that res I fear.

If just to try some things, could you join us on coms(ts3) on the ATAG server?

We might be able to go over a few settings in real time just to make sure you cant get rid of the stuttering.

You can pm me and see if a time works for you.

[icarus]

2650x1600 = 4,240,000 pixels

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

Only sli can save you Icaris at that res I fear.

If just to try some things, could you join us on coms(ts3) on the ATAG server?

We might be able to go over a few settings in real time just to make sure you cant get rid of the stuttering.

You can pm me and see if a time works for you.

Thanks, but I think I have it mostly licked. I updated to the beast Ocz Vertex 3 Max IOPS from my Vertex 2. I can run it on 1920 x 1200, but on my 30" monitor the shimmering from no AA and AF is really bad, like the promo video on Ubi but somewhat worse.

I might hop over to ATAG sometime anyway.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Thanks, but I think I have it mostly licked. I updated to the beast Ocz Vertex 3 Max IOPS from my Vertex 2. I can run it on 1920 x 1200, but on my 30" monitor the shimmering from no AA and AF is really bad, like the promo video on Ubi but somewhat worse.

I might hop over to ATAG sometime anyway.

Sounds good, see ya in the air!