37 FPS on the Black Death track. Bad?

choctaw111 · #1 05-13-2008, 12:22 AM

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 · #2 05-13-2008, 05:16 AM

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 · #3 05-13-2008, 05:25 PM

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 · #4 05-13-2008, 07:06 PM

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).

Quote:

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 · #5 05-13-2008, 09:32 PM

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

mazex · #6 05-13-2008, 11:24 PM

Well, I rebooted in Vista which does not happen often... Uninstalled the beta SP1 and installed the real one. Installed the Nvidia Forceware 175 64-bit driver and booted IL2 to laugh at Vista again... Right from the beginning something felt wrong. It did not feel like I was on another computer like it used to do when booting into Vista... Started fraps usning the EXACT same settings as in XP (copy of the same directory). These where my results now:

Vista 64 Ultimate SP1 (4.09 OpenGL all maxed out in settings and conf.ini (72km etc) - 16XAniso+16QX AntiAliasing etc.)

2008-05-13 23:48:36 - il2fb
Frames: 10444 - Time: 155165ms - Avg: 67.309 - Min: 20 - Max: 114

I was shocked and booted back into XP 32 and rerun the exact same settings:

XP 32bit SP3 (4.09 OpenGL all maxed out in settings and conf.ini (72km etc) - 16XAniso+16QX AntiAliasing etc.)

2008-05-14 00:00:59 - il2fb
Frames: 10638 - Time: 155549ms - Avg: 68.390 - Min: 23 - Max: 118

Adding my score from february 2007 posted above for easy comparison:

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

What the heck! Vista is supposed to be crappy at OpenGL. It must be SP1 that did the trick, or is it some magic with the 175 Nvidia driver? Following the same tests as in february 2007 posted above I also started a straight A20 run in Crimea with no AAA.

XP - 106 fps
Vista 103 fps

XP has dropped from 115-120 at maxed settings compared to the 2007 results but this is with 4.09 72km so it looks a lot better... The amazing conclusion is that Vista is now just a few percent worse than XP. I never thought I would say it but Vista seems to work for OpenGL games now! The problem is that the damage is already done. I guess that Oleg was shocked about how bad OpenGL worked when Vista was released and redid the whole engine in DX10/9 causing a 1 year+ delay as he realized OpenGL was going to die with the poor Vista preformance...

Well - back to this thread - Skarphol, have you installed SP1 for Vista? Are you rinning the 175 forceware drivers for your Nvidia card?

Good luck! /Maxex

virre89 · #7 05-14-2008, 08:49 PM

The game suffers from FPS drops overallt it's nothing unusally i've same system as you except i've one of the newer gts the 512mb version. There's some areas and citys that just completly drops fps when flying around / threw.. and that's not because the graphic card can't keep up but more of a leak in the Ingame engine. Remember it wasnt built for thoose graphic cards in mind.

Skarphol · #8 05-14-2008, 09:06 PM

Thanks for all of your replies!

Yes, I am running the Service Pack 1.
The current drivers of my graphics card is "7.15.11.6906" according to the device manager. I have to check out what "Forceware 175" is.

I will have to do some research into this, but really don't have the time nowadays.

Skarphol

Deovis · #9 05-16-2008, 04:30 AM

I have 1280x960x32 AAx4 AFx4 all setting up but effects and water(1 and 3),Visibility on 72km, with vertical syncro and triple buffering i have a 50fps avg and 60 fps on the real time counter of the game's fps counter.
Nvidia control panel:
AA gamma correction and AA transparency(multi and super sampling) disabled (il2 doesnt use them); mipmap filtering disabled(if you use Anisotropic Filtering it is useless); Thread optimization disabled(the game is not optimized for multi core processors).

amd 6400+ 3.2ghz dual core( not overclocked)
4GB of ram 800mhz
evga 8800gts 640mb superclocked

Quote:

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.

Once and for all guys!!!
IL2 is an old game. It was designed and optimized only for one core processors.If you have a multicore one, you can assign, with the ProcessAffinityMask, only one core(it is not important which one) totally devoted to Il2. YOU CAN'T USE MORE THAN ONE CORE!!! STOP!!!

Fair wind and goodbye!!!

choctaw111 · #10 05-14-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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)

I never tried running it using a specific planes "viewpoint". I always ran the BD from the "default" viewpoint that switches from plane to plane. That is where you get the real hit in fps as the view switches to where all the action is.