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

Well luckily I wasn't in that position but if its a value judgement of say:

Is a frame rate of 25 fps acceptable to get the product out the door now, or do we spend another X months working on it?"

Your reponse would have been? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Well luckily I wasn't in that position but if its a value judgement of say:

Is a frame rate of 25 fps acceptable to get the product out the door now, or do we spend another X months working on it?"

Your reponse would have been? :)

The beta tester(s) who made that comment doesn't speak for me. Personally, 25fps is not acceptable. There are few other games on the market that play that low.

Please go ahead and take the time. I'm in Afghanistan until September :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like a little VooDoo

If you want to daisy chain a few I think I have two in the back of a closet, in a box, under a pile of other old hardware somewhere.

That's right, Voodoo cards. I had forgotten what they were called. I have my collection too, pii, including a 16MB one with the 4 fans on it!

I hope I get the chance to check out 3.0 before classes start again in late August, but as a SB fanboi I would of course wait if need be.

I was wondering, have generic shadows (like in the original SB) been considered as an option? I think it would be a good compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beta tester(s) who made that comment doesn't speak for me. Personally, 25fps is not acceptable. There are few other games on the market that play that low.

Please go ahead and take the time. I'm in Afghanistan until September :-)

As it has been many years since I have owned a high end gaming PC, what is the advantage in having a high FPS?

It was my understanding that the human eye runs at approximately 10-14 FPS and I can only see a visual problem in games once they drop below about 15FPS on my Frankenstein rig.

Surely anything that can run above these levels is nothing more that future proofing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with frames is that when you change any angle of a viewing perspective fast, you might perceive a slight stutter where before, in ordinary visual manouvering, you do not. For a civilian flightsim like FSX where you fly a heavy iron, lets say a big Boeing or Airbus, frames beyond 20-22 are a waste, and thus many player lock their frames at some value to have system resources not wasted on getting more frames, but to have it available for other background tasks, traffic generation or instrument update rate for example. In FSX, when being in situations you move even slower, during taxiing or being docked, even lower frames are acceptable (and in fsx unavoidable when using complex airport sceneriey addons) However, if you do dogfights and pull many Gs while turning hard, the viewing field changes dramatically faster, and you may feel greater eye comfort withhigher frames than just 20.

In SBP I find this relevant only when using the gunners sights and turning the turret very fast. In all other aspects I cannot claim that SBP is a high-frames simulation, it is not even when your tank is moving at50 kmh.

But I recall the days 10 and 15 years ago when I needed to play Falcon 4.0 with frames in the range of 15-18, and before that I have memories of sims running at even lower frames. My critical frame barrier is 20-22 today, that is the minimum I seek to get, however, even 17-20 is absoluetly playable., though not desirable. People claiming that frames of below lets say 40 are unplayable or a pain to the eyes I honestly cannot take serious. And those complaining when their frames drop from 120 to 90 or so just make me laugh. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about you guys but I find SB 1 runs at a very nice 60 FPS :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My critical frame barrier is 20-22 today, that is the minimum I seek to get, however, even 17-20 is absoluetly playable., though not desirable.

If we want to talk about taking other people serious, I'd have to say that I can't seriously at all. :cul:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it has been many years since I have owned a high end gaming PC, what is the advantage in having a high FPS?

It was my understanding that the human eye runs at approximately 10-14 FPS and I can only see a visual problem in games once they drop below about 15FPS on my Frankenstein rig.

Surely anything that can run above these levels is nothing more that future proofing?

even 30fps vs 60fps is easily visible.

Under 20fps is teribble, how hell you can play with your rig ?? :shocked:

Human eye cam see difrence even whem you go over 60fps..

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

" The real limit is in the viewing device, not our eyes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When benchmarking graphics cards most magazines and websites consider 30fps to be the minimum playable without some flickering. But some people claim to be able to tell the difference between that and 60fps. Not saying they can't but it's not visible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to talk about taking other people serious, I'd have to say that I can't seriously at all. :cul:

+1

Cant understand people how are happy with 15-20fps, it looks jerky as hell.

Maybe they should try to fly DCS Huey where you need every fps that you can get, because you really have to make tiny corretions to controls alltime. So it must be smooth.

And shooting moving targets in steelbeasts is not good if you get only 15-20fps..

Under 25fps is not good in sims (but if you play strategy or something smilar maybe then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When benchmarking graphics cards most magazines and websites consider 30fps to be the minimum playable without some flickering. But some people claim to be able to tell the difference between that and 60fps. Not saying they can't but it's not visible to me.

You can feel the diffrence , sure you need good mouse and monitor but it's so much natural and easier to shoot people in battlefield 3 when you go from 30 to 60 fps..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far, in past years whenever there was the opportunity to compare frames on screen and get somebody's feedback on what he believed his eyes saw on screen, beyond 30-35 frames people no longer were able to discriminate higher frame rates reliably, and approached the 50%-mark in the correctness of their comments beyond that frame rate index. Which means they just fed back random guesses. which means they had a 50:50 chance of being close or right, or not. :)

Perception psychology is something fascinating, i tell you. Especially when somebody wants to justify why he has bought that expensive card for 500 bucks when he also could have gotten one for 150 :D

Maybe I am too old, and you spoilt youngstes just did no go through that tough school of hunting single frames on systems that literally were smoking when bringing Falcon to an fps rate higher than 20. :biggrin: Anyone here remembering Hawk on the Amiga...!? Now, there we are talking problematic frame rates! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far, in past years whenever there was the opportunity to compare frames on screen and get somebody's feedback on what he believed his eyes saw on screen, beyond 30-35 frames people no longer were able to discriminate higher frame rates reliably, and approached the 50%-mark in the correctness of their comments beyond that frame rate index. Which means they just fed back random guesses. which means they had a 50:50 chance of being close or right, or not. :)

Perception psychology is something fascinating, i tell you. Especially when somebody wants to justify why he has bought that expensive card for 500 bucks when he also could have gotten one for 150 :D

Maybe I am too old, and you spoilt youngstes just did no go through that tough school of hunting single frames on systems that literally were smoking when bringing Falcon to an fps rate higher than 20. :biggrin: Anyone here remembering Hawk on the Amiga...!? Now, there we are talking problematic frame rates! :biggrin:

Except you are forgetting one huge aspect in that 'test' - User input. Why do you think movies are running 24FPS? Because there is no connection between visualization and human input plus motion blur is used to smooth out frames to give the illusion of a much smoother image.

However GAMES have user input. That means what you are doing with your hands and what is happening on the screen needs to be much smoother and more accurate to get the same feeling. With games you are also working with PC monitors that have a set refresh rate, meaning 60 and 30 are the two framerates that fit within a typical monitor's refreshrate to not create tearing, which is another visual anomaly.

When you are working with such low framerates it probably means your hardware is struggling and then you also have to factor in frametimes, which is yet another input delay that can screw up.

Yet another factor with sub-30 for many will most likely mean your framerate isn't Vsync locked or stable. The most jarring thing you can ever have in a game is unstable framerate, even small numbers can be a huge nuisance.

So no, you simply can't compare the two nor do you have any ground to stand on in the "22FPS is enough" because it simply isn't. You may have gotten used to it or simply accept it but you simply can't make that a blanket statement of anyone actually wanting anything above that can't be taken seriously or like 'they are doing something wrong' by having that opinion.

Disregard any visual only tests, give someone an actual game they can play running 60FPS and then give them a game running a terrible, unstable 22FPS and the difference is like night and day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone be able to comment on how this machine will run v3.0?

Model Name: MacBook Pro

Processor Name: Intel Core i7

Processor Speed: 2.7 GHz

Number of Processors: 1

Total Number of Cores: 4

L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

L3 Cache: 8 MB

Memory: 16 GB

Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M

Type: GPU

Bus: PCIe

PCIe Lane Width: x8

VRAM (Total): 1024 MB

I'll be using Windows 7 native mode..

Thanks...

Regards,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone be able to comment on how this machine will run v3.0?

Model Name: MacBook Pro

Processor Name: Intel Core i7

Processor Speed: 2.7 GHz

Number of Processors: 1

Total Number of Cores: 4

L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

L3 Cache: 8 MB

Memory: 16 GB

Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M

Type: GPU

Bus: PCIe

PCIe Lane Width: x8

VRAM (Total): 1024 MB

I'll be using Windows 7 native mode..

Thanks...

Regards,

Doug

Hmm, initial glance, I'd say medium to low performance at shadow mapping level 2 or 3

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Who says that?

They should've been fired and forced to beta test World of Tanks.

If you're a beta tester and said that, you need to punch yourself in the nuts.

I don't see anything that justifies an outburst like this. Our official categories seem to fit your tastes rather closely. That others have a different opinion is something that simply has to be accepted. Unlike you, they have direct access to the software and I asked them to submit tests with the settings that they considered the best compromise between visual quality and frame rates. If this results in the majority settling for something in the 20...25 fps range, well, then that's what their subjective optimum is.

I described the methodology of our benchmark, I summarized the findings, I gave recommendations in line with your preferences, and I mentioned that others were happy with a different trade-off. That's all. You are being given full disclosure to form your own opinion, and how to interpret the figures. How much more context could you possibly need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And shooting moving targets in steelbeasts is not good if you get only 15-20fps..

It is worth noting that the highest frame rates are consistently achieved while looking through the gun sights. So, even if the overall performance of a combination of graphics card and settings may be "low performance", the gun sight will typically be "medium" (sometimes even better!). It's the external observer's position and the unbuttoned vehicle commander where the frame rates are lowest (as I probably should have described in my posts leading up to the figures).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have an idea of how well my PC will perform with 3.0?

AMP Phenom II X6 1035T 2.6GHz

12 GB Ram

ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 1GB Ram

It runs the current version well enough for me but I'm a little worried... the upgrade has me drooling but I won't be able to spring for a new PC for a while...

Thanks,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greensmoke, check out the Performance Sticky at the top of the General Discussions forum. That should help if you are familiar with how your hardware compares to what's listed in the sticky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have an idea of how well my PC will perform with 3.0?

AMP Phenom II X6 1035T 2.6GHz

12 GB Ram

ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 1GB Ram

It runs the current version well enough for me but I'm a little worried... the upgrade has me drooling but I won't be able to spring for a new PC for a while...

Thanks,

Bill

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19357

Find your closest match here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - that sticky post is what has me worried - lol. I'm not sure how those cards compare to mine but the ATI cards don't seem to be doing very well. Going just by the card model numbers it looks like I'm going to be running with shadows disabled at best. I was hoping to at least know if it will run well enough with shadows disabled - that wouldn't bother me too much but I'll be disappointed to end up with 15-20 FPS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have an idea of how well my PC will perform with 3.0?

AMP Phenom II X6 1035T 2.6GHz

12 GB Ram

ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 1GB Ram

It runs the current version well enough for me but I'm a little worried... the upgrade has me drooling but I won't be able to spring for a new PC for a while...

Thanks,

Bill

Your cpu is ok, but your ATI 5670 is bit low end card. If you can use 150-200dollars and update your GPU -> least 6870 you can get great frame rate.

-haukka81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...beyond 30-35 frames people no longer were able to discriminate higher frame rates reliably, and approached the 50%-mark in the correctness of their comments beyond that frame rate index.

A long time ago I worked at a 1-hour photo processing lab. A customer came in and seemed immediately distracted, almost in pain, as if someone was shining a really bright light in her eyes.

"Oh my god, how can you stand this?", she asked.

"Stand what?", I replied, not knowing what on Earth she was talking about.

"That light.", she said. "It's flickering so fast. It's going to give me a headache. I have to get out of here."

She quickly paid for her photos and left. I hadn't even noticed the light was flickering until she mentioned it. And even after I noticed, it didn't bother me. I guess my point is that different people perceive things in different ways. It wouldn't surprise me if some people could tell the difference in high frame rates. Although I will admit it's probably a very small portion of the population.

SB players would probably do well to find out their own threshold and go from there instead of settling on an arbitrary number.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about you guys but I find SB 1 runs at a very nice 60 FPS :biggrin:

Same here and that's only because I have it locked at 60fps. What worries me is that sometimes when new graphic options are added to old 3d engines sometimes the results aren't that good and can really slow it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except you are forgetting one huge aspect in that 'test' - User input. Why do you think movies are running 24FPS? Because there is no connection between visualization and human input plus motion blur is used to smooth out frames to give the illusion of a much smoother image.

However GAMES have user input. That means what you are doing with your hands and what is happening on the screen needs to be much smoother and more accurate to get the same feeling. With games you are also working with PC monitors that have a set refresh rate, meaning 60 and 30 are the two framerates that fit within a typical monitor's refreshrate to not create tearing, which is another visual anomaly.

When you are working with such low framerates it probably means your hardware is struggling and then you also have to factor in frametimes, which is yet another input delay that can screw up.

Yet another factor with sub-30 for many will most likely mean your framerate isn't Vsync locked or stable. The most jarring thing you can ever have in a game is unstable framerate, even small numbers can be a huge nuisance.

So no, you simply can't compare the two nor do you have any ground to stand on in the "22FPS is enough" because it simply isn't. You may have gotten used to it or simply accept it but you simply can't make that a blanket statement of anyone actually wanting anything above that can't be taken seriously or like 'they are doing something wrong' by having that opinion.

Disregard any visual only tests, give someone an actual game they can play running 60FPS and then give them a game running a terrible, unstable 22FPS and the difference is like night and day.

im doing computer flying since over 20 years, and i tell you that userinput is okay if done atyour 24 film-like frames. if your user input make frames drop deep, then you have an issue, but again that means nothing regarding frames and their visual perception, but is internal system stuff and hinting at problems that you are unlikely to solve by adding another gfs board. gfx boards usually do not bother for userinput. cpu does. So you compare apples with oranges there, like brnging in that movie rate of 24 shots per second too.

until just short time, many fsx simmers needed to run their sim at frames below 30, due tohardware constraints. If you want to tellt hem their visuals are not fluid or are unplayable, they laugh at you. Is 60 faster than 22? Of course it si. question is whether that makes a decisive impact on gaming experience, and if it does,wwhat situations that are. input has little to do with it, but the speed by which the angle of the field of view is changing. it is a fact that when you just taxi at 29 knots on a complex addon airport for fsx, your frames may drop below 20, and you hardly notice it, because the field of view on screen just does not change angle fast enough. The same frame rate in a formula 1 sim, appears less smooth, of course, and in a dogfight and pulling maximum Gs it may appear even as slghtly jerky.

But even then it is not unplayable. Millions of players needing to accelt frames below 20 for many years, could confess to that.

i said i consider frames 22 or so as a critical value below which you are no longer sfae in every situation. Fact is i run fsx at frames 30, externally fixed for various reasons. Most sims i run even faster in frames. Its just that above 30 itno longer makes a big difference to the eye, and as i also said all people i asked on frame alteration when we shared screens were unable to reliably identify doubled or halved frame abkve 30 or 35.

like opinion, visual perception is a fascinating matter, and it includes many tricks and cheats done by the brain, making us see things, movements, patterns and colours that in a given situation must not even exist for real. And that I hint at as a former psychologist for whom visual perception was kind of ahobby. ; )

whT it comes down to by the end of the day, is this: beyond acertain value the needed monetarian investement increases at a rate that is not matched by parallel gains in visual quality. I want to doubt whether it is wise to cash out 500 for a gfx board only. People are free to do that, yes.like they are free to buy cars with 250 hp for drivinging into town. Whether that owerpower is needed for their purpose, whezher they can really use it, and whether that is a wise investment - that is something very different. if you do do stuff on a farm and drive no races, you do notneed a 250 hp engine in your car. like you also do not need frames of 100 or so. I claim that people cannot even reliably identify the difference between 50 and 100 frames. if you have 30, you are safe in all practical regards. if you have 22, you still have total, absolute playability, dogfighter or airport txiing.

if your input commands make frames drop below 20, then you have issues - system issues that you are unlikely to solve by just entering a new gfx board. get a new cpu then. the moment you can give any input you want withiut frames chnaging and dropping below that threshhold i suggested, you are fine again.

Saying so after expereince with 9 systems over 24 years. ;)

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