37 FPS on the Black Death track. Bad?

[Skarphol]

Hi!

I built myself a new rig in january as I could no longer wait for BOB. I built it with BOB in mind, but guess I will have to upgrade a litle bit more when it finally arrives. Anyway here are the specs of my computer:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 running at 3,0 GHZ
MoBo: Gigabyte P35 DS3R
RAM: 2 Gb DDR2
VidCard: EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTS with 320Mb DDR3
OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit

I am running Track IR 4.1

When it comes to the game itself :
V 4.091b
Video Mode: Open GL, 1280x960x32, Full Screen, Attempt stecil buffer turned on.
Video Options:
Visibilty distancs: High
Object lighting: High
Object detail: Excellent
Landscape lighting: Excellent
Landscape detail: Perfect
Cloudes detail: Detailed Cloudes

With these settings I get an average FPS on the "Black Death" ntrack of 37.
I would have expected to get far more.
Any hints to get more out of this rig?

Skarphol

[Brain32]

Yeah you should definitely get far more with your machine, my system which is an old POS comparing to yours can pull about 50 with same settings only 1024x768 resolution.
Maybe the OS is kicking your behind? I had no expirience with 64-bit Windows so I can't say, hopefully somebody that uses it can help you better...

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Actually with detailed clouds on and at that resolution its probably pretty close. Are you running any AA or AF?

[jurinko]

If it runs smoothly, fps does not matter too much.

I have fps 33-19-61 (avg-min-max) with AMD64 3700+ @ 2.7GHz, 2GB RAM and ATI X850XT at 1680*1050 LCD, 4xAA/AF, 32km visibility, perfect settings, 16bit texture compression.

Remember that 72km visibility takes ~5fps away.

[mazex]

That sounds rather bad, something must be possible to find..

I get the results below with a rather similar rig (1,5 years old now - waited for BoB news but decided to buy anyway in december 2006 - good choice!):

From the Fraps log:

2008-05-12 21:44:00 - il2fb
Frames: 10774 - Time: 155469ms - Avg: 69.300 - Min: 24 - Max: 117

That is with 4.09b1 (latest dll:s), every thing maxed out that I know of

Open GL 1280x1024 (all on high/perfect etc)
Nvidia driver forced to 16x Aniso and 16qx Anti Aliasing + AA Transparency
Forest=3
LandShading=3
Water=4

etc...

Have you tried this?:

conf.ini:

ProcessAffinityMask=2

Nvidia 3D options "overrides" for il2fb.exe:

Texture Filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization = on
Texture Filtering - Trilinear optimization = off
Vertical sync = force off

Some say the above can help...

My once smoking rig - in december 2006 it was hot

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (@3.0Ghz - 1200Mhz FSB)
Asus Striker Extreme NForce680i SLI MB
Asus GeForce 8800GTX 768Mb
2 x 1Gb Corsair PC6400 XMS2 XTREME CAS4 @900Mhz 4-4-4-15 2,1 Volt
1 x RAPTOR 150GB + 2 x Raptor 74Gb (raid 0) + Hitatchi T7K500 320GB
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Fatal1ty Professional
Zalman CNPS9700 Cpu cooler
Antec TruePower Trio 650W
Antec P180B Chassis
Dual boot - Windows XP SP3 and Vista64 Ultimate

PS - running XP SP3 for IL2 naturally... Vista makes me fall asleep gaming.

[choctaw111]

This is from a test I did last November and posted on these forums at that time.

All of my tests are running at 1920x1200 resolution, 16xAF, 16XQAA, water=4, forest=3 and 3dgunners=1. For the record I play using water=3. My rig just doesn't like water=4 but I did the tests with it anyway. Oh, and my driver is 158.22. I found that for now, it works best.

For the Black Death I got Min.29 Max.109 Avg.73.736
For Kamikaze I got Min.27 Max.239 Avg.71.884

I also used ProcessAffinityMask=2 which only uses the second core I believe. Even having a four core system, Il2 seems to run best using only Core#2 for some reason. If there is a way to somehow optimize this quad core system I am all ears.

The ONLY difference now is that I am currently using Driver 162.18 with nearly identical results.

My rig:
QX6700 @ 3.21 MHz
2 Gigs Ram
2 x 8800 GTX 768 MB running in SLI
2 x 140 GB Raptors (raid 0) + 375 GB Storage Drive
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio
1KW PSU
Windows XP SP2
and a bunch of other stuff

[GF_Mastiff]

Ok found it Ran it with the 190 FW and got from 41 to 110.
Ran the Ussr side La5
fps:69 to 96, avg:79 Max 1000Min2 #138246
96 to 115 avg: 78 " " " 148368

Manufacturer: Foxconn 975X7AB-8EKRS2H
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2046MB RAM pc2-6400ddr2 800mhz
Hard Drive: 500 GB Total
Video Card: 2X-ATI Radeon HD 3650 512mb
Monitor: HP w2007 Wide LCD Monitor
Sound Card: SB X-Fi Audio [BC00]
Speakers/Headphones: Turtle Beach 5.1 Surround sound headset w/amp
Keyboard: USB Root Hub
Mouse: USB Root Hub Razor Diamond back
Mouse Surface: Fuzie Glidpad
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp.080413-2111)

[Skarphol]

OK, thanks for your replies.
I tried to set ProcessAffinityMask=2, and I set:
Forest=3
LandShading=3
Water=4

Then I overrided AF to just 4x. That made the graphics rather 'edgy'.
But the FPS stayed at an average of... 37! Excactly the number I had in the first place!
This is really strange, I would at least have thought that reducing the AF would have made an impact. I'll have to study this more..

Skarphol

[mazex]

I don't know if you are aware that Vista is really bad at OpenGL due to m$ design decisions that may be interpreted as almost a stab in the back of OpenGL? DirectX is really no fun in IL2 as you get no perfect settings etc. but it would be interesting to know the fps you get using DirectX?

As I use a dual boot config I have tried OpenGL in Vista 64 premium and the fps is a lot worse than Dx (which looks a lot worse at the other hand)...

I found some old benchmarks i posted at Ubizoo way back when (feb 2007, same rig but IL2 version 4.0.7.1m - I used Vista 32 Ultimate back then instead of 64 which makes no difference I guess).

Interesting to note is that I lost 20 fps in BlackDeath (at the end of the quote) between Vista and XP. Not far from your score in Vista. Sure the dirvers have improved a lot since then to I'm gonna reboot and try it out. At the other hand the 4.09 landgeom=3 makes the 72km range happen that should do some negative stuff for the fos (5 fps as noted in this thread).

Originally Posted by mazex at ubi in february 2007

...

I first booted it in Vista using 100.59 forceware and IL2-1946 version 4.0.7.1m

I used 1280x960x32 and maximum settings (not perfect to be able to compare OGL and DX at first).

I just took a quick mission (A20C-Crimea-No AAA) and flew straight forward default FOV inside and checked the FPS using fraps. Default forceware settings, no anisiotropic filtering or aa, but with vertical sync off (no fun fps otherwise).

DirectX - 105fps
OpenGL - 70fps

Then I did it "my way" using 1280x1024x32, OpenGL perfect settings, water=4, 16x anisotropic and 16qx aa, and then I got 80fps. Weird, better than the test above with no bells and whistles.

OK, so how about XP then?

Same settings as above (accept forceware 97.92 for XP).

Standard settings:

DirectX: 150fps
OpenGL: 150fps

And "my way" all bells and wistles: 115-120fps (and it looks awsome! )

...

To be a bit more professional about the testing, I did the BlackDeath track fraps test as NerdConnected did... "my way" settings (OGL 1280x1024x32, perfect landscape, water=4, 16x anisotropic, 16qx anti aliasing):

XP(SP2):

2007-02-05 22:52:04 - il2fb
Frames: 9886 - Time: 155544ms - Avg: 63.558 - Min: 31 - Max: 113

Vista 32 Ultimate:

2007-02-05 23:00:09 - il2fb
Frames: 6571 - Time: 155252ms - Avg: 42.325 - Min: 19 - Max: 87

[Skarphol]

Wow!
Switching to DirectX, but otherwise unchanged raised the FPS to an average of 82!
But it lookes a lot worse, especially the water.

Another strange thing was that I was unable to switch to DirectX while in hardware setup inside the game. When I switched to DirectX it switched back to OpenGL on its own. I had to exit the game and use IL2Setup.exe instead. No big deal though.

I think I will switch back to OpenGL, it looks so much better and in usual flying my FPS is around 50-60, so its not exactly a slideshow. Even though I had expected higher framerates..

Skarphol