The DesertFox

LOL! You forgot to take your medicine today ?

Yes I can second that. If you loved the original Steel Panthers, Steel Panthers II and III, WinSP:MBT and WinSP:WW2 are the best Steel Panthers you can get. Quality is unsurpassed and the improvements over the originals are simply amazing. cheers Helge Oh! And I forgot one important point...they are for free! Hop over and check them out: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/SPCamo/wSPMBT/1.htm or http://www.shrapnelgames.com/SPCamo/wSPWW2/1.htm [ September 05, 2007, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

Have you tried downclocking your CPU to check this out? I mean if performance in this situation is really CPU dependant, I assume we should see different results with a C2D clocked at 1.8Ghz versus 3.4Ghz ? I guess I´m checking that out with my VISTA32 machine myself once I´m back from work.

I switched my VISTA 32 machine to Forceware 158.18 yesterday. Actually this worsened the situation considerably. With 158.18 I only get 4 FPS in the initial Allah´s Fist setting whereas the 163.44 drivers give me a whooping 8 FPS. CMSF Options: Display: 1600x1200 Vert Synch: Off 3D Model: Better 3D Texture: Best Anti-Alias: On High Priority: On Test Setting: When Allah's Fist is loaded as the Blue Player, looking down the long dimension of the map. VISTA Ultimate 32bit (1600x1200) ASUS P5B Deluxe Wifi MoBo Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.33 Ghz 4.0GB Ram (DDR2 PC 6400) Nvidia 8800GTS (640MB Vram) Forceware 163.44 8 FPS OT remark: This machine scores the following World in Conflict Demo benchmark results: (1600x1200, very high setting: Average 23, Min 13, Max 44) Addendum: Before switching drivers I of course deinstalled the 163.44 via controlpanel, rebooted, cleaned the rig with drivercleaner.net, rebooted and then installed the 158.18 drivers, rebooted and ran the test. What really ticks me off is the fact that my 7950GT card on my other VISTA64 machine scores 15 FPS with the same settings and 163.44 drivers. In this case switching to "threaded optimisation=off" brought an increase of FPS from 4 to 15 FPS. The 8800 GTS is unimpressed by this switch though. [ September 05, 2007, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

Knaust, you have nearly the same hardware as my notebook: Test Setting: When Allah's Fist is loaded as the Blue Player, looking down the long dimension of the map. VISTA Ultimate 32bit (1280x960) Fujitsu-Siemens AMILO Pa 1510 AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-52 @ 1.6 Ghz 1.0GB Ram (DDR2 533Mhz) (minus 128 MB for ATI) ATI Mobility Radeon Xpress 1100 (128 MB allocated) Catalyst 7.8 Result: 3 FPS as per FRAPS The problem here clearly is the ATI mobility card. It shares memory with the build in 1024 MB Ram and isn´t really designed for 3D games. So in conclusion: don´t play 3D games on this minimalistic hardware. As an option you can try to upgrade your RAM to 2048MB and allocate 256 or 512MB to the graphic card via the catalyst driver. Maybe that helps a little but don´t expect wonders. cheers Helge

Hotti, according to the latest posts from BF.C on this matter they didn´t even know WHAT is happening. So I think maybe now they hopefully have a starting point to sort this mess out. cheers

This message is posted many many many times. So it seems that some (programming?) error is causing the game to fallback to software rendering instead of hardware rendering and thus making your CPU do all the work your GPU should be doing!!! No wonder we get a slideshow there.. Our processors (like my Intel C2D E6400) might be able to process small maps in realtime too with some kind of performance but naturally when you increase the mapsize and having to calculate all the stuff that is happening under the "hood" AND on top of that you make your CPU process the gfx too.. How about that Steve? Edit: I found this in the GLExpert userguide: This first part is about that Category 0x00000002: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> NVAPI_OGLEXPERT_REPORT_SWFALLBACK Category ID : 0x00000002 The SWFALLBACK category controls the reporting of situations where the driver has fallen back to software for at least part of the graphics pipeline. This has obvious performance impacts, and should always be avoided.

Hi! All tanks from 1st Coy were of the Porsche variant (IIRC 12 pieces). Also there is a photo available showing the No.300 tank (Hptm.Scherff) being Henschel turret. However I´m not 100% sure if this pic has been taken in Normandy in July or after the refit of 3rd Coy during the retreat in August. However this No.300 tank was lost near Oinville (east of the Seine) the 28 august 1944. I try to find this out once I´m back home. cheers Helge P.S.: You might find this page helpfull: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25879&sid=30d753f7c935c77b09f1bb0f308083ee P.P.S.: Found the No.300 data. During refitting in Mailly-le-Camp 3rd Coy got 12 "Porsche" and 2 "Henschel" pieces. These two were No.300 (Hptm. Scherf) and 301 (Fw. Neeb). So in conclusion for me there is zero evidence that a single "Henschel" piece of 503 participated in any hostilities in France before 20th August 44. [ September 03, 2007, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

Hi! concerning Goodwood and the german counterattack in question I suggest the following reading: Ian Danglish "Operation Goodwood" Battleground Europe series ISBN 1-84415-030-5 Christopher Dunphie "The pendulum of battle" Pen and Sword ISBN 1-84415-010-0 George Bernage+J.P.Benamou "Goodwood - Bombardement geant brise-panzers" Editions Heimdal ISBN 2-84048-028-X Alfred Rubbel "The Combat History of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503" J.J Fedorowicz Publishing ISBN 0-921991-55-X J.P. Perrigault "21. Panzer Division" Editions Heimdal ISBN 2-84048-157-X As for the counterattack of 18th July 1944, the following tanks of 503 were involved: A mixture of Tiger II and Tiger Is at the disposal of Leutnant von Rosen south of Manneville: TigerIIs were from 1st Coy (Porsche variant) Tiger Is were from 2nd and 3rd Coys 3rd Coy was hit hard by the carpet bombing and according to Rubbel had only 6 tanks available at 10:00 hours. At the end of the day 3rd Coy had 14 dead tanks to mourn, most of them due to the bombing. 1st Coy was able to get a portion of its Kingtigers into position by noon and attacked between 12:00 and 14:00 along the Troarn-Caen road towards Demouville with PzIVs from I./PzRgt.22. They suffered the folowing losses on the 18th: Tigers 100,101,122 and the "Gorman Tiger" 112, additionally 8 PzIVs from PzRgt 22. 2nd Coy, which attacked northwest of Troarn along with 16th LwFeldDiv and 346 ID is unclear according to the sources cited. Hope this helps cheers Helge [ September 03, 2007, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

Steve, Nope. Among all the stuff listed I have Halflife 2, COH and Rainbow Six Vegas and neither of them gave me problems even before the KB940105 hotfix. Yeah, I can feel your frustration. However it unfortunately doesn´t help your case. It remains your responsibility to sort out this mess, which might relate to partially dysfunctional OpenGL support of the NVIDIA and ATI drivers, to get your product up to speed and working to the customers satisfaction. I really hope so, because I would love to see this series to have a realistic future. cheers Helge

Look, individual experiences as usual differ. I adopted to VISTA as early as the RC1 beta was available and experienced ZERO problems with any hardware or software since then. I´m running a whole bunch of FPS and strategy games including older stuff completely troublefree on both 32bit and 64bit VISTA. The only exception from this troublefree experience is CM:SF with its 8800 related FPS problems and CM:BB and CM:AK with their 8800 related background problems. Therefore it is tempting to speculate that the problems of this(ese) game(s) are unrelated to VISTA but either closely related to the way this game is programmed or the way NVIDIA drivers handle the 8800s. BTW: KB940105 fix above doesn´t change the FPS problems CM:SF is having most likely because its a DX9 and DX10 hotfix and CM:SF is an OpenGL app. cheers [ September 01, 2007, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

626 MHz GPU and Memory at 2000 MHz certainly make a difference However isn´t it funny that my good 'old 7950GT shows nearly the same performance ? You know that you can unlink memory ocing from FSB ocing on your 680i SLI board? As for your quad...I wouldn´t want to go above 3Ghz with it without having it water-cooled. These things turn damn hot compared to the core-2-duos.

Seems like you are a lucky bastard, since these are the fastest results so far. It can´t be the quad because a core2duo@3400 is significant faster. Dou you have an ULTRA card or a OCed GTX in your rig ??? Did you post the initial framerate after firing up Allah´s fist from the blue side without moving your mouse ??? cheers

Hi! it would be great to know what you guys consider great framerates. Any chance to post the results of Charles combo here with say the Allah´s Fist scen as a benchmark? Only start up the scen from the blue side and don´t move. My 7950GT rig is giving me 15 FPS My 8800GTS rig scores 8 FPS Game resolution, AA, AF, or in-game settings only marginally affect this by 1-2FPS. cheers Helge

Pete, thanks for sending the map. It´s an outstanding piece of work. You really make the editor shine. Please do more of this kind. You really have talent! cheers Helge

Me too wants it Please send it to thedesertfox@gmx.net Thanks in advance! It looks beautiful. cheers Helge

Hi! A lot of performance results are posted here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002646 My own results: CMSF Options: Display: 1600x1200 Vert Synch: Off 3D Model: Better 3D Texture: Best Anti-Alias: On High Priority: On Test Setting: When Allah's Fist is loaded as the Blue Player, looking down the long dimension of the map. VISTA Ultimate 64bit (1600x1200) ASUS P5BL2 MoBo Core2Duo E6300 @ 2.4 Ghz 3.0GB Ram (DDR2 PC 6400) Nvidia 7950GT (512MB Vram) Forceware 163.44 4 FPS !!! 15 FPS with "threaded optimisation = off" VISTA Ultimate 32bit (1600x1200) ASUS P5B Deluxe Wifi MoBo Core2Duo E6600 @ 3.0 Ghz 4.0GB Ram (DDR2 PC 6400) Nvidia 8800GTS (640MB Vram) Forceware 163.44 8 FPS !!! 8 FPS with "threaded optimisation = off" OT remark: This machine scores the following World in Conflict Demo benchmark results: (1600x1200, very high setting: Average 23, Min 13, Max 44) VISTA Ultimate 32bit (1280x960) Fujitsu-Siemens AMILO Pa 1510 AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-52 @ 1.6 Ghz 1.0GB Ram (DDR2 533Mhz) ATI Mobility Radeon Xpress 1100 Catalyst 7.8 3 FPS !!! cheers Helge [ August 26, 2007, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

Haven´t you already realized that this is indeed what happens here ???

I don´t care as far as they produce quality. They can call themselves whatever they want.

Nobody ? Good lesson not to buy the cat in the bag again, as the telling goes. This release in its present state of missing functionality definitively has done more harm than good to BTSs reputation. :shakes head:

Without any doubt, this resembles my own experiences so far. There are big problems in this game including pathfinding and AI which are of urgent need to be fixed ASAP before any further potential really can come to light. I hope the BTS guys manage to get these quirks ironed out, if not CM:FS will fade away into nirvana.

doublepost

That did the trick! Both AK and BB work flawless now. Thanks a bunch All this with VISTA 32bit, a NVIDIA 8800 GTS 640Mb and Forceware 163.44. Thanks again! Great finding. cheers Helge [ August 24, 2007, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: The DesertFox ]

No, it is most likely not a Vista or DX10 problem. On my second machine (Core2duo, Vista64bit and Nvidia 7950GT) everything works perfectly ok for BB and AK. No strange background/horizon problems whatsoever. The problem is most likely due to the 8800GTS doing something differently than the 7950GT does. I wonder, however, if there is a problem with 8800s in XP also ? cheers

@The DesertFox thats nearly the same setup that i and LeanDemon have. yet we get 24 and 28 FPS respectively. try to set "threading optimization" to off if its auto or on for the sytem with the 7950. that helped a good deal for me, but maybe vista is the problem here. i have XPsp2. </font>