Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Parachuteprone

V 3.0 performance discussion

238 posts in this topic
Those demanded specs are higher than I expected. I wonder how my rig will do, using an i5 2500K @3.4 GHZ, 8 GB Ram, and a GTX460 with 1 GB, and a resolution of 1680x1050. I hope for still fluid frames at shadow setting 2...

I think you'll manage. CPU and RAM are fine, and the graphics card isn't quite so outdated as my old Radeon HD 4870.

Reducing the screen resolution to 1280 x 720 might help you to squeeze a few more fps from it. It's also always a matter of individual preferences, as far as the looks/screen resolution/frame rate balance is concerned. We can only give a rough guideline about what to expect. Keep in mind, most of our beta testers seem to think that my frame rate demands are insanely high, so things may look more problematic from my categorization than they will turn out to be when you try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for another year or so before having to "reinvigorate" my 2 year or so old PC, i7 965 @3.2GHz 12GB RAM, GTX580.

I see no reason with your machine for a premature update. The GTX 580 should hold up well.

Now will there be any advantage in turning shadows off in multiplayer sessions? Is it going to unbalance the difficulty between one with shadows and one without?

Well, it probably depends on how fiercely competitive you and your mates are, and whether you prefer cooperative over team on team play (notice that in principle you could now have up to 12 (small) teams against each other...). This is a bit of the conundrum that all multiplayer game developers are facing - on the one hand, people want pretty scenery, but when it comes to competition, suddenly people would prefer wireframe graphics @ 400 frames per second, if they could have them. :debile2:

I think however that you can still adjust some of the settings at runtime, if not all of them.

I will wait and see how my laptop does with it's Intel i7 integrated graphics, but I don't hold out any hope beyond setting 0 for it :)

Me neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im wondering if anyone knows how Intel® HD Graphics 4000's might hold up (i5, 4gb ram, 2.6 to 3.4ghz), thanks

I'll test some integrated graphics chips during the week; I think I have two machines where this should be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll test some integrated graphics chips during the week; I think I have two machines where this should be possible.

that'd be great! i wonder how those chips perform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems I will not be able to run SB3.0 and be sticky to 2.654 for the next 2 years... (Intel E6750 and ATI 5750...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems I will not be able to run SB3.0 and be sticky to 2.654 for the next 2 years... (Intel E6750 and ATI 5750...)

even with the settings set to lowest?! it should be almost like 2.654, shouldnt it? (ie no shadow, no particle effects....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even with the settings set to lowest?! it should be almost like 2.654, shouldnt it? (ie no shadow, no particle effects....)

Don't forget the extra work given by the addition of civies.

You end up with more 3d assets wich give extra workload for both GPU and CPU.

I don't even talk about the new lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll manage. CPU and RAM are fine, and the graphics card isn't quite so outdated as my old Radeon HD 4870.

Reducing the screen resolution to 1280 x 720 might help you to squeeze a few more fps from it. It's also always a matter of individual preferences, as far as the looks/screen resolution/frame rate balance is concerned. We can only give a rough guideline about what to expect. Keep in mind, most of our beta testers seem to think that my frame rate demands are insanely high, so things may look more problematic from my categorization than they will turn out to be when you try it.

thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to see how my system handles things, as it's getting a bit old:

The CPU's a Core i7-860 running at 155 MHz, meaning 4 to 3.4 GHz, depending how how many cores are busy. Video card is a GTX 260 Core 216, which I suspect may be a bottleneck which will need to be upgraded.

IMHO the i7 will handle things no problem. There won't be many cores busy 'cos SB doesn't use hyperthreading (I sincerely hope) so the graphics card will definitely be the limiting factor. Best value graphics card at the present time seems to be the GTX 660.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a performance bias towards Nvidia cards, or is that a coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason with your machine for a premature update. The GTX 580 should hold up well.
It should be fine, and I am not intending to update the PC before end 2014 :)
Me neither.
Well the laptop runs the current version just fine with it's Intel HD integrated graphics, it is quicker due to the SSD in loading etc. compared with my desktop.

So, will a SSD make as big a difference in version 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems I will not be able to run SB3.0 and be sticky to 2.654 for the next 2 years... (Intel E6750 and ATI 5750...)

I don't see why that would be the case. Sure, you may not be able to run it with shadows activated, but surely all the other improvements are still worth an upgrade?

It won't look worse than 2.654, and still offer a few interesting extras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the extra work given by the addition of civies.

You end up with more 3d assets wich give extra workload for both GPU and CPU.

I don't even talk about the new lighting.

That's strictly optional, and will largely depend on mission design. With clever resource management you only need to have a few dozen of them where the player is. Civilians as such do not cost a lot of performance. HUNDREDS of civilians - well, that's another matter. But it is something very much under your control, given the integrated mission editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a performance bias towards Nvidia cards, or is that a coincidence?

I can report the performance of only those graphics cards that our beta testers (and I myself) have in use. To this extent it reflects a bias in the sample, but one that reflects actual buying habits. We do not intend to imply that more modern Radeon cards couldn't perform adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A trend, just a trend.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/

I think that the Steam Hardware Survey is a less biased indicator, as it doesn't ask for the preferences of the readers of a particular website, but rather what is actually the installed hardware base across all Steam subscribers, arguably a closer match of what typical games will have in use.

It suggests that AMD is more popular than what the Hardwarezone poll suggests, but of course it's a sample of the installed base and not so much the short-term buying trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the shadows, they've added shaders for bump and specular maps, plus the new sky and clouds, plus anything else we haven't been told about or noticed. It looks to me like at least some buildings have bump maps, and maybe some ground textures too, assuming the shading on the concrete here isn't just part of the texture:

main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=18745&g2_serialNumber=2

You hit it spot on! For those of us who are in virtual units playing with Russian equipment, we normally have missions with battalion level TO&Es on the map. We are going to have to watch this closely and adjust things in order to play scenarios with those amount of units in them. Personally for myself I don't really care about shadows. I never notice not having them now and will probably not implement them at a high level, if at all. I am more interested in new explosions, smoke columns from burning vehicles or buildings, dust cloud effects etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Steam Hardware Survey is a less biased indicator, as it doesn't ask for the preferences of the readers of a particular website, but rather what is actually the installed hardware base across all Steam subscribers, arguably a closer match of what typical games will have in use.

It suggests that AMD is more popular than what the Hardwarezone poll suggests, but of course it's a sample of the installed base and not so much the short-term buying trends.

Yes, I was looking for something more official and more serious than hardwarezone, but failed to find something correct.

This Steam survey is actually interesting! (and closer to the reality too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hit it spot on! For those of us who are in virtual units playing with Russian equipment, we normally have missions with battalion level TO&Es on the map. We are going to have to watch this closely and adjust things in order to play scenarios with those amount of units in them. Personally for myself I don't really care about shadows. I never notice not having them now and will probably not implement them at a high level, if at all. I am more interested in new explosions, smoke columns from burning vehicles or buildings, dust cloud effects etc.

+1 enigma

Shadows don't bother me either.

Its a cool feature but when your being engaged by Opfor its not really important.

I can see some possible scenarios where the feature would be useful.

But with my rigs limitations i am going to have to live with out it

It certainly wont stop me purchasing the update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are self shadowing and shadow mapping independent of each other? In particular, may I ramp up self shadows and tune down shadow mapping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more interested in new explosions, smoke columns from burning vehicles or buildings, dust cloud effects etc.

But I suspect (no proof yet because the new particle model is still be worked on) that having a few burning buildings / vehicles may create a similar graphics / performance burden as running with shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Many here were whining because they wanted eye candy, without taking in count that they would need a far better computer to be able to run it now...

Same guys who were asking for Arma 3 or BF3 looking landscape, but can't run them at medium setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I suspect (no proof yet because the new particle model is still be worked on) that having a few burning buildings / vehicles may create a similar graphics / performance burden as running with shadows.

I surmise the same. But if it is the choice between the new particle model and shadows, I'll take new particle effects hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pc parts are dirt cheap, least here in Finland so it's not so hard to upgrade system.

Better graphics are nice, shadows will make all lot realistic looking.

-haukka81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are self shadowing and shadow mapping independent of each other?

No. Self-shadowing is a subset of the same (=SM level 1, with no shadows being SM level 0).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now