To the kind attention of developers # Re: Performance issue

[HFC_Dolphin]

Originally Posted by W0ef

Only above a major city it has to load in a little.

Well, this is a problem. You know well that a fighting is about the second you have enemy on your 12. If, every time someone has a problem dives into a city to save himself, then game is of no use.
In such case, we'll have to introduce rules such as "combats allowed only over sea" and this would be a bad joke.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

ABsolutely nothing to do with hardware - its to do with horrible programming/optimization. Buildings should not be an issue (neither should tree hitboxes).

Not so sure about this - I know a little about programming but not to this level. But yes, I agree, that this shouldn't be a problem: buildings should not destroy a whole game. We can live without buildings - we can't live without smooth flying.
In general, the way graphics load seems like there is a specific problem.
Even in planes you see them loading layers each time you view them.

[Decker_runner65]

hello all
well 8 year later and were here,this last patch seem to of done me,in that after 10 -15 mins it crashs to desktop maybe a ram problem or map with way to many buildings,was okish to last patch,shudders are less but now the lag comes in which bring my flps way way down to 1 and it stop playing.

why if i change the screen rev to low say 1028x768 that my desk top changes to that too,needs to be looked at. and that been like it from the start of the game in all patchs, ammo needs to be doubled,really ? we all see what your doing and the realism but it has to be fun to,dont want to spend half hour getting there and 34 sec fireing and im careful 4 sec burst?

flps use to be 12-24 over london but in the air 34-60-to even 100 and over?
i know use are working on all these things and doing your best to a comadate all players pc. hope the next patch come qiuck as i cant play it at all now.

now to the crew and bob , look at what uses have done, it fantastic a wow game i surport use in all that you do even if after all patch im still not able to play it smothly, you done a real serves to all flyers of the game, i ~s use all for your work, plus ty for the lancaster even if we cant fly it ??

my sep is vista 32, 4 gb ram. intel core 2 duo at 2,66 Ghz and 1gb nvida sonic gfx card. last word keep on keeping on ~s

[Decker_runner65]

hello all
well 8 year later and were here,this last patch seem to of done me,in that after 10 -15 mins it crashs to desktop maybe a ram problem or map with way to many buildings,was okish to last patch,shudders are less but now the lag comes in which bring my flps way way down to 1 and it stop playing.

why if i change the screen rev to low say 1028x768 that my desk top changes to that too,needs to be looked at. and that been like it from the start of the game in all patchs, ammo needs to be doubled,really ? we all see what your doing and the realism but it has to be fun to,dont want to spend half hour getting there and 34 sec fireing and im careful 4 sec burst?

flps use to be 12-24 over london but in the air 34-60-to even 100 and over?
i know use are working on all these things and doing your best to a comadate all players pc. hope the next patch come qiuck as i cant play it at all now.

now to the crew and bob , look at what uses have done, it fantastic a wow game i surport use in all that you do even if after all patch im still not able to play it smothly, you done a real serves to all flyers of the game, i ~s use all for your work, plus ty for the lancaster even if we cant fly it ??

my spec is vista 32, 4 gb ram. intel core 2 duo at 2,66 Ghz and 1gb nvida sonic gfx card. last word keep on keeping on ~s

[samich]

The whole arguement that this game has so much more depth then other games which is why it runs worse is ridiculous.

The flight model isn't drastically more complex then some other flight sims around at the moment and while it may be better/more accurate, it is horribly coded.

And arguing that map size and draw distance is a valid reason for it lagging is equally ridiculous. Yes there are games with as large a map, B17 II had as big a map and its like 10 years old, its not a new thing and graphically the game has nothing on shooters like Crysis II that run much more complex lighting solutions or the physics in the frostbite engine (used in the bad company series). Hell even wings of prey looks a lot better.

Don't get me wrong i like the game and im as hopeful as everyone else that things will be fixed but people really need to stop blinding making excuses for obvious failures in its development.

also: no company has ever or will ever release a game in 2011 that is only supposed to work in 2015. It doesn't happen.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

[good will and fun mode always ON]
By the way, here you mention that this is a 2013 game. Now you're saying it is a 2015 game. Does this mean that for every developer's failure we'll move the game's date to a few years later?

No! I just found out recently that the game has much more potential - for 2 more years at least

[squidgyb]

There are so many entirely polar opinions here, I feel I need to fill some of the middle ground with some nice grey...

In response to "no games are released for the future" and/or "I can play any game on my PC" - there are plenty of games which are released with very high settings which eclipse what the PCs of the time are capable of. Crysis. GTA IV. FSX. Metro 2033. IL2. All these titles had settings, which (at the time of release) when set to the maximum, would cause severe performance issues. Some still do. I'd love to see someone play Metro 2033 at 1920x1200 with max settings on a single card system. Maybe a GTX 590 would scrape through... 2015 is hyperbole; he's just making a point.

I'm not excusing the performance issues on lower end machines - and it's true that the mid-range set will be the largest demographic, and they are working on, and have been working on performance issues and fixes. The game will continue improving as they work through bugfixes - I do think that a lot of development time has been spent on historical accuracy/modelling, and that more time could be spent on performance - but to a certain extent we've got to remember that the dev team's hand may well have been forced by powers higher up than themselves.

It's not like they've been doing "nothing" for the last 5 years, far from it. But for one reason or another, the devs have been given a shorter time frame and a reduced deadline which has resulted in them not being able to finish all the work they intended to do - we can wait, we can play the game as it is, or, erm, we can moan about it on the internet.

I just wish I wasn't drawn into these conversations quite so easily.

Damn my fence sitting, reasonable argument producing mind.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by samich

Hell even wings of prey looks a lot better.

Because it has veeeeeery low visibility range and simplified physics.

RoF has good visibility range but it does not have as complex engine physics calculation, radiators, heaters, etc and ground units AI, as many instruments on very detailed panel, etc, etc.

I did not try DCS personally but iirc it does not model many planes, ground units and landscape with the detail of CoD.

ArmA2 can be compared to CoD as a very complex milsim and it is extremely demanding even lacking detailed instrument panels and visibility limit of 10 km (however playable with decent fps only at 2 to 5 km visibility settings). Visibility distance has huge impact on performance. You can check it for yourself in ArmA2.

I do hope the game will be further optimized though.

[HFC_Dolphin]

Originally Posted by squidgyb

There are so many entirely polar opinions here, I feel I need to fill some of the middle ground with some nice grey...

In response to "no games are released for the future" and/or "I can play any game on my PC" - there are plenty of games which are released with very high settings which eclipse what the PCs of the time are capable of. Crysis. GTA IV. FSX. Metro 2033. IL2. All these titles had settings, which (at the time of release) when set to the maximum, would cause severe performance issues. Some still do. I'd love to see someone play Metro 2033 at 1920x1200 with max settings on a single card system. Maybe a GTX 590 would scrape through... 2015 is hyperbole; he's just making a point.

I'm not excusing the performance issues on lower end machines - and it's true that the mid-range set will be the largest demographic, and they are working on, and have been working on performance issues and fixes. The game will continue improving as they work through bugfixes - I do think that a lot of development time has been spent on historical accuracy/modelling, and that more time could be spent on performance - but to a certain extent we've got to remember that the dev team's hand may well have been forced by powers higher up than themselves.

It's not like they've been doing "nothing" for the last 5 years, far from it. But for one reason or another, the devs have been given a shorter time frame and a reduced deadline which has resulted in them not being able to finish all the work they intended to do - we can wait, we can play the game as it is, or, erm, we can moan about it on the internet.

I just wish I wasn't drawn into these conversations quite so easily.

Damn my fence sitting, reasonable argument producing mind.

That's a reasonable post, but I think we all have to agree in a couple of points:

1) It's not acceptable to wait for a couple of years in order to get the game playable in decent settings.
2) Flying performance should be on top of every priority. This is not MS Flight Sim, where you take off, stroll and land. Here you're fighting in the air and every second, every frame, is important.
3) Its total performance (flying, graphics, sounds) must be better than IL-2's, otherwise what's the whole point?

Ending, I will have to make clear one thing: this game looks fantastic. Whenever I fly without stutters it's just marvelous. The graphics, the FM, the DM...almost everything!
But knowing that in the end we're all gonna meet in the air for some "fights", I know that bad performance can create huge problems, therefore (and keeping in mind one of Luthier's posts, where he mentioned that he doesn't think he can optiomize much more the buildings -can't find it now), I'm just saying that if this is the case, then alternative scenarios should be employed.

One last thing: I know, really know, that devs are doing their best and they're working really hard for the benefit of all of us. I do respect and admire their work and all of my posts are with good will and always keeping in mind how to make the game the best flight sim experience we ever had. I'm not yelling at them. I'm doing some reasonable conversation and I know that devs need and want this. In the end, it's only them who know what's best and what they can offer.

[335th_GRAthos]

Look guys,

Clearly there are a lot of points there and I can not say that this is a great programming work and everything is smooth as silk, only the HW is the thing that is ready yet and we have to wait for intel, AMD/ATI and NVidia to develop the proper hardware for our flight-sim.

Despite that, we waited for many years and finaly we got our simulation, with an amazing number of things incorporated based on a lot of input from many of us. I even believe a lot of us are surprised seeing how many things got inside this flight sim...
It is a hard core sim and it is A M A Z I NG!
And we should be happy that 1C is giving us so much support and are online fixing things with such speed. Yes, I am happy to have the game as is (I have two versions), had I waited for all the things to get ready I would probably have been waiting for another year...

It is becoming clear that GPUs with less than 1,5Gb RAM are immediately seeing the limit.
Some people proved that there are quick fixes to lower the immense and somewhat uncessesary load of graphics and luckily, the last patch managed to incorporate all that making the game very much playable.

Still there is no SLI (which should considerably improve things) but people try to fly at res 1600x and have demands both in terms of graphics quality and fps!
Well you can not have it all guys, let's moderate a bit the level of demands...

I can fly this game at 3840x but I fly only at 1280x because I want to keep my fps over 50. And sometimes reading the posts here, I have the feeling I fly the smallest resolution anybody ever tried in this forum! (have two 570GTX on my PC...)
1280x and I see my GPU RAM reaching 1200MB (max is 1280MB) so I know there is no need trying to go for more.

To cut the very long story short: Patience is required, if you want to dogfight online, the buildings have to go!!!!!
We had it in the past, when in trouble dive to the buildings (and pray the other guy is running on a 6800GTS...) I do not think it will ever change so I do not see the reason to complain.

Happy Flying!

~S~

[HFC_Dolphin]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

...We had it in the past, when in trouble dive to the buildings (and pray the other guy is running on a 6800GTS...) I do not think it will ever change so I do not see the reason to complain.

Hi Athos!

I agree in what you're saying except from this small part.
Back in IL-2 it was only a few cities that would produce real problems with decent GPUs.
Here in all cities that I've flown over I had this problem - not only in London. This means that the extension of the problem is rather bigger.

And by the way, I do not test the game in high resolution

In any case, I'll test again later, setting SSAO off.
Maybe it'll make the difference.