V 3.0 performance discussion

[GreenSmoke]

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

Thanks for the advice. Looks like my power supply is a bit short for that card :-( Maybe I'll just try it out and see how good/bad it is. Just played a scenario and I was getting 55-60 FPS as the TC out of the hatch...

[Scrapper_511]

Were the new particle effects at all involved in these benchmarks? If not, how will they affect the benchmarks?

[Ssnake]

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.

I don't agree here. It just happens that among our beta testers ATi cards are older models. If we had tested a Radeon HD 7970, for example, I'm confident that the results would be similar to those of the GeForce GTX 780 (maybe not quite, but close enough).

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...

I don't think that there's much sense in trying to speculate about the exact frame rate, and even if we did, whether you would still consider it acceptable or not. It's a very subjective thing; add to that the fact that in most situations the angular velocity of your looking around, scanning and target tracking is both low, and relatively steady. You will simply have to try it out. And if you cannot afford an upgrade at this point, the whole discussion appears to be somewhat academic to me. I mean, what would you do if you find out that the performance is lacking? If a hardware upgrade is out of question, you just have to reduce the shadow mapping level.

I mean, I don't want to sound callous, but really: What else COULD you do?

[Ssnake]

Were the new particle effects at all involved in these benchmarks? If not, how will they affect the benchmarks?

1) No.

2) Who knows?

They will probably cost some extra frames per second, but we'll try to keep the impact at a minimum.

[Sethos]

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.

Not sure where to start with this mess of a post, apologies but it is.

Your entire base of your argument is subjectivity you want to push on others, that is the essence of your stance. However factually, the brain and eye is capable of seeing / processing more than 60 frames, it can discern hundreds of frames. Luckily when presented with a static image and no user input, you can trick the brain into a smoother experience - i.e with motion blur.

However no matter how much you argue, no matter how many unfitting analogies you use when you add user input into the mix, sub-30 simply isn't acceptable to a point where you can lecture people or tell them what is okay to consider 'acceptable'. As I said, fine that you and people that can't afford have adapted or can look past unstable and low framerates but no way in hell do you have any business trying to belittle other people with "Can't take them seriously" because they actually have standards.

Your base for the visual perception is almost cut down to "Hey, I can see pictures moving, then it's okay" however at sub-30 with user input is unbearable for a lot of people. Why do you think ordinary console gamers start to complain once their games start tearing, why do you think it has become such a big focus point? Why do you think games can actually get lower review scores or a lot of community flack for not being able to maintain 30FPS? Why do you think the biggest game in the industry is constantly praised for its smooth gameplay? Why do you think a large amount of the games announced for the upcoming consoles are 60FPS and some 30? Because 30FPS is simply the minimum standard. You simply can't take some skewed perception that everyone is okay with 17-22FPS and run with it, then take some high-almighty stance when people think otherwise.

22FPS is not okay. It's not acceptable nor should it even be considered acceptable HOWEVER there are people who can play with it and can live with it, however that is entirely up to them but when people from this small of individuals i.e you, decide that it's the industry acceptable standard and you "can't take anyone else serious" if they don't agree with that stance, you are taking it too far.

[Gibsonm]

22FPS is not okay. It's not acceptable nor should it even be considered acceptable ....

In your opinion.

Please show me the ISO standard on frame rates otherwise all of this is subjective.

[Sethos]

In your opinion.

Please show me the ISO standard on frame rates otherwise all of this is subjective.

No. Say a console developer released a console game that ran 17-22FPS they would be burned on the cross because it's an almost criminal framerate. No, there is no "ISO standard" however calling 22 acceptable is simply wrong. As I've stated multiple times, someone accepting it personally, playing at that framerate and enjoying it is fine, no worries. However as an industry standard, a game below 30FPS is simply not acceptable -- That is not an opinion, that is fact. Ask any developer developing for fixed hardware.

To the other guy; here's a Dutch article, feel free to run it through Google translate where people are able to IN A BLIND-TEST, see the difference between 60 and 120Hz - 86% no less.

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4588/120-hz-in-de-praktijk-meerwaarde-definitief-aangetoond

30FPS minimum is the industry accepted standard. Like 24FPS in movies is the industry accepted standard.

[TankHunter]

For something dealing with a strategy game, lower than 30fps is ok. But lower than 30fps for something like a shooter, that isn't really acceptable. If you get below that it becomes noticeable and it can influence gameplay. I don't think that is a comment which is controversial.

That said we got the different settings and as what Nils said fps will be higher in the gunner's sight (as it always has been in the sim) than looking around the world. Without having access to the update all I can say is it is a suck it and see situation, but I don't think it will be as bad as feared.

[Sethos]

That said we got the different settings and as what Nils said fps will be higher in the gunner's sight (as it always has been in the sim) than looking around the world. Without having access to the update all I can say is it is a suck it and see situation, but I don't think it will be as bad as feared.

Just to make it clear, my statements aren't 'attacks' or doubts towards 3.0 not being able to run or being unoptimized. I'm confident at running this beauty at 60FPS. ( If that was what you meant, if not I apologize ).

It was just the nature of the belittling statement that someone can't take other individuals seriously for wanting a stable, accepted minimum framerate.

[TankHunter]

I simply wanted to qualify my first paragraph with the second one.

[Gibsonm]

No, there is no "ISO standard"...

Right, so no objective standard.

Therefore it must be subjective.

QED.

however calling 22 acceptable is simply wrong.

In your opinion - since there is no standard.

25 fps might be fine if you use it predominantly in map view, if you are always in F8 then maybe not, again subjective in terms of how you use the software.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Gibsonm

[Sethos]

25 fps might be fine if you use it predominantly in map view, if you are always in F8 then maybe not, again subjective in terms of how you use the software.

Yeah when not viewing moving pictures or something that requires user input, then a low FPS is probably great.

When browsing my holiday pictures I don't need 60Hz either.

[Skybird03]

Sethos, lean back, and take some deep breath, you seem to take this too serious or too personal.

I base on what I see with my eyes, and what co-players and friends over the years fed back to me in similiar discussions. The higher the frames are already, the less additional benefit for the eye you gain when putting even greater techncial effort into boosting them up. You need to invest overproportional technical-financial efforts the higher you are already with your frames, that simply is a fact. You get most obvious differences for your eye in the low fps range, but the higher they already are, the greater the monetarian-technical jumps you need to do in order to harvest an ever smaller visible effect. 15 to 30, that gives you an experience boost. 30 to 60 is much harder to realise already and gets correctly assessed by much fewer people, and I got feedback on that, as I said. 60 to 120: an even greater jump in frames, but fore even smaller perception difference. Sorry, that's how it is, and I know from too many examples by other people that it is like that for most people. BTW, over 90% of the brain activities related to visual perception deal not with interpreting incoming signals from the eye, but are background processes by which the brain ADDS self-created content to the visual input. This alone should caution you a bit on the assumed "objectivity" of visual perception.

If you want to exchange a 200 bucks card you already have to boost your frames from 30 to 60, you can of course skip that 200 bucks card of yours and cash out another 500 bucks to get one that gives you that additonal 30 frames. You are perfectly free to do that, and IU have nothing against that - its your money, do with it what you want. I only say I do not consider that to be wise, and I stop you a little bit when claiming that games with frames below 30 "are unplayable." That simply is total bull.

People can perfectly buy sporting cars, I have nothing against that, if they can afford it. Just to claim that you can drive well and comfortable only in a Porsche 911 or a Rolls, that would be a statement that I meet with the same "protest", because it is nonsense.

Now take a break, have a relaxed breathing, and let it all go. I'm leaving this meeting here.

[Sethos]

You do like belittling people, don't you?

[Ssnake]

I don't see a reason to get hostile and agitated over all this. You both represent different parts of the spectrum of subjective impressions about what's acceptable and what is not. And that's precisely why I've been offering not "the" recommended specs but rather a range of different setups, their results, and the context in which it must be seen. Everybody may draw his how conclusions from that.

[Rotareneg]

I just experimented using NVIDIA Inspector to lock the frame rate at various settings, and, for me with 2.6, 30 FPS would be the bare minimum, 45+ is ok, and 60 great.

[MAJ_Fubar]

And there you go, you spend what you will to achieve that end; so honestly, there's no sense in complaining. Me, I'll muddle along with my lowly 2.5 Ghz Phenom 9850 and Radeon 7870 and probably will have little to complain about my at best 25fps.

[Homer]

I've been offering not "the" recommended specs but rather a range of different setups, their results, and the context in which it must be seen. Everybody may draw his how conclusions from that.

I don't think you have stressed this point enough.

I don't think everyone understands what these numbers represent but they are certainly planning/making buying decision based on them though.

I know I will not be making any hardware changes until AFTER the final product is released. I recommend to everyone else to do the same.

[haukka81]

Thanks for the advice. Looks like my power supply is a bit short for that card :-( Maybe I'll just try it out and see how good/bad it is. Just played a scenario and I was getting 55-60 FPS as the TC out of the hatch...

Good quality 400wats power suply will be enough.

[haukka81]

Sethos, lean back, and take some deep breath, you seem to take this too serious or too personal.

I base on what I see with my eyes, and what co-players and friends over the years fed back to me in similiar discussions. The higher the frames are already, the less additional benefit for the eye you gain when putting even greater techncial effort into boosting them up. You need to invest overproportional technical-financial efforts the higher you are already with your frames, that simply is a fact. You get most obvious differences for your eye in the low fps range, but the higher they already are, the greater the monetarian-technical jumps you need to do in order to harvest an ever smaller visible effect. 15 to 30, that gives you an experience boost. 30 to 60 is much harder to realise already and gets correctly assessed by much fewer people, and I got feedback on that, as I said. 60 to 120: an even greater jump in frames, but fore even smaller perception difference. Sorry, that's how it is, and I know from too many examples by other people that it is like that for most people. BTW, over 90% of the brain activities related to visual perception deal not with interpreting incoming signals from the eye, but are background processes by which the brain ADDS self-created content to the visual input. This alone should caution you a bit on the assumed "objectivity" of visual perception.

If you want to exchange a 200 bucks card you already have to boost your frames from 30 to 60, you can of course skip that 200 bucks card of yours and cash out another 500 bucks to get one that gives you that additonal 30 frames. You are perfectly free to do that, and IU have nothing against that - its your money, do with it what you want. I only say I do not consider that to be wise, and I stop you a little bit when claiming that games with frames below 30 "are unplayable." That simply is total bull.

People can perfectly buy sporting cars, I have nothing against that, if they can afford it. Just to claim that you can drive well and comfortable only in a Porsche 911 or a Rolls, that would be a statement that I meet with the same "protest", because it is nonsense.

Now take a break, have a relaxed breathing, and let it all go. I'm leaving this meeting here.

You really talk lots of BS.

But be happy with your low fps.

[Homer]

Everyone needs to calm down.

If you have nothing useful to say to each other, then don't post anything at all.

[dejawolf]

Just to make it clear, my statements aren't 'attacks' or doubts towards 3.0 not being able to run or being unoptimized. I'm confident at running this beauty at 60FPS. ( If that was what you meant, if not I apologize ).

It was just the nature of the belittling statement that someone can't take other individuals seriously for wanting a stable, accepted minimum framerate.

the fact is, the shadow mapping in SB is currently not optimized, and there's some good reasons for it.

For the past year, our new graphics programmer Miro Torielli has been doing his best to get shadows implemented to the state they are currently in. he's got the shadows working well with the vehicles, however, shading the ground has been an uphill battle.

the steel beasts rendering code is nearly 10 years old now, and was written mostly in C,

which means a lot of interdependencies and confusing code. it's a bit like looking at a bowl of spaghetti and attempting to discern every single strand of spaghetti in their entire length, where every single spaghetti need to lie exactly like it did before.

after wrestling with the ground shading code, it's now fairly evident that getting the ground shading to work properly will require an entire rewrite of the ground rendering algorithms, the programming equivalent of a bypass operation and is guaranteed to be at least another year of hair pulling and teeth grinding.

But when it's done, SB should run a lot smoother with shadows enabled, as some more advanced and efficient rendering techniques can be utilized.

for now however, SB should run with good framerates if you turn down the shadow quality. you will still have some of the other graphics effects as well, like normal mapping and specular mapping which means the tanks will look better than 2.654.

Nils had a tough decision to make, either we could have left the shadows out of this release entirely, delay SB for another year until the graphics engine is optimized, or release it now, with all the new vehicles and features, and the option to turn off shadows if SB doesn't run well on your computer.

[hoggydog]

Well I am just glad that my clunky old celeron e3200 based mutant can run 3.0

Hell 15fps is better that 0fps if that is all you got.

[Rosmarus]

I'm not exactly sure how to read those results. Was the Ati Radeon 5970 bottlenecked by the processor in that comparison or is the GPU really handling the new version that bad? I know it is an old GPU but it has still worked on ultra settings with everything I've played.

[haukka81]

I'm not exactly sure how to read those results. Was the Ati Radeon 5970 bottlenecked by the processor in that comparison or is the GPU really handling the new version that bad? I know it is an old GPU but it has still worked on ultra settings with everything I've played.

Noticed same thing, There must be some quirk in code or processor is bottleneck.

OR i really have to get faster card :biggrin: