mazex Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hi! I read this in the CM:SF forum ("What's your frame rate?" thread): Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The problem with the 8800 is quite interesting. For the people that have problems with it (and not all do), there seems to be a 10fps or lower response to just about all scenarios no matter what the settings are. Something is obviously wrong with that! We're continuing to try and nail that down. Steve I just want to clarify that this is not the case (for me at least!). On some large maps (Allahs Fist etc.) the framerate is awful for me - IN SOME DIRECTIONS! On other maps it's just fine. As an example I've put together a "camera ride" from one end of the first campaign mission map to the other - and back again. I hope that it may be of some help in understanding the 8800GTX problems. Some LOD/Z-buffer problem maybe? Bad models of the Stryker? From one direction (see the jump in fps between image 7 and 8 - the only difference is that a corner of a Stryker is visible on image 7). When going in the other direction (image 22ff) there are no such differences. Well, you have said you don't have any 8800GTX machine that behaves bad so if it's of any help here are the 26 images of the "camera ride". NOTE! fraps fps number in top right corner... My settings and hardware: Game settings: Resolution - 1280x1024 Models - balanced Textures - better Vertical sync - off AA - nope Hardware: Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (@3.0Ghz - 1200Mhz FSB) Asus Striker Extreme NForce680i SLI MB Asus GeForce 8800GTX 768Mb (163.69 drivers) 2 x 1Gb Corsair PC6400 XMS2 XTREME CAS4 @900Mhz 4-4-4-15 2,1 Volt 1 x RAPTOR 150GB + 2 x Raptor 74Gb (raid 0) + Hitatchi T7K500 320GB Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Fatal1ty Professional Dual boot - Windows XP SP2+ and Vista64 Ultimate Starting image - outside of map, looking AWAY from map: Turning around 180deg, looking towards the fort... Moving closer... Moving closer... ... Interesting leap in fps from above image (28->53) when the Stryker goes out of sight... (continued) [ September 22, 2007, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 22, 2007 Author Share Posted September 22, 2007 No increase in fps when the M1A1 goes out of view... (continued) [ September 22, 2007, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 22, 2007 Author Share Posted September 22, 2007 Less stuff - fps going skyrocket... Turning around 180deg and going back again to the origin... (continued) [ September 22, 2007, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 22, 2007 Author Share Posted September 22, 2007 Good luck! /Mazex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 you should start testing out with different map sizes, with and without units, and feature full or clean. interesting screenshoots... IMO the 8800 should be able to run with skyrocketed FPS from any point, hardware wise in any case, and much more with your settings (no AA and stuff) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtechno Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ya.. I am running at 12 fps +/- on scenarios regardless of resolution or AA/Aniso with max textures and max quality.. The FPS should be skyhigh with the textures and quality maxed, regardless of AA/Aniso.. the graphics, while complex, aren't much compared to other games where I'm getting flawless framerates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Originally posted by KNac: you should start testing out with different map sizes, with and without units, and feature full or clean. You're naturally right. I did not intend to do the "camera ride" bunch of images at first, I just wanted to show that my fps was not at 10 all the time and realized that a "ride" like that may be interesting to the devs if they have no machine that behaves bad themselves. Well, amazingly I haven't even fired up the editor in CMx2 yet so I did so to try it a bit more structured, to see which objects cause problems etc. It was easier than that. Just showing a plain 1600m x 1600m flat empty dirt map gets my fps down to 10. Here's how I tested (see system specs and CMSF settings in my first post in this thread- yellow Fraps fps numbers in the top right corner): First I did a plain 512x512 dirt map. And previewed it (going straight up from the "start" corner and looking slightly down against the other corner) - the fps is OK but an 8800Gtx card should do better on a plain surface just covered with textures: OK - I increased to 1024x1024. Already in the editor it was becoming a pain to work. The mouse lag is really annoying (8fps!) OK - a preview in the same way as before of the flat 1024x1024 dirt map: OK - lets go to 1600m x 1600m with flat dirt. I didn't go above this as the editor becomes completely unresponsive... Preview in the same manner - here we have those 10 fps. Does not matter with the number of Strykers etc or LOD of distant vehicles. Just painting the completey flat dirt causes the 10 fps! (continued) [ September 23, 2007, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 -> continued from post above... OK so I tried out some other tiles to see if it was only some that caused the problems (using the map size of 1024x1024 at first) Grass (drop to ~23 from the ~40 for dirt) : Other stuff (rocks etc seemed to be like dirt, around 40). The highest performer I found was pavement2 ("plain" texture without small rocks and such like dirt and the others). Here it is on the 1024x1024 map - increase to 135... A lot better but still no good for a plain map though!: OK, so I tried to go up to a 1600x1600 meter map with pavement2 (that cause 10 fps with dirt). Went from 10 fps to 65. The interesting thing is that from this altitude they look almost identical : OK guys. Look up how you render the plain tiles. Getting 10 fps for rendering a small square of dirt is NO good. Get some help as that must be really easy to fix. Do you have some array of all the tiles that is looped through and each tile is rendered as a new texture instance? Is it all the "small garbage" on the tiles that is still processed from FAR away? Whatever, it must be possible to fix. I would really like to see the FPS that Charles is getting when rendering a plain 1600m x 1600m map with dirt on the 8800GTX machine that you have no problems with. Rendering a flat terrain box on an 8800GTX should be running at 500+ fps or something. Anyone else with another card that can try a 1600x1600 dirt map and post the fps? Good luck! /Mazex [ September 23, 2007, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 OK - as there is a lot of talk about this problem beeing caused by bad drivers from Nvidia for the 8800GTX i tried the same test as above on my Media Center... Computer: A7N8X-Deluxe Motherboard AMD Athlon XP3000+ 400Mhz FSB 2 x 512Mb PC3200 memory Asus X800 Pro (256Mb) - Catalyst 7.9 drivers MCE 2005 CMSF Settings - same as above but 1360x768 as that's what my LCD TV likes best (less pixels than 1280x1024 to render by ~30%) First one with a plain dirt map 512m x 512m. The X800 produces 48 fps, the 8800GTX gets 152 1600 x 1600 meter dirt map. It runs at 14 fps while the 8800GTX gets 10 fps. OK, the 8800GTX should increase it's lead instead of loosing it at the larger map - but still 14 fps for showing 1600x1600 meters of dirt for the X800 is REALLY bad to! Fix the underlying problem and everyone will be happy. Stop blaming Nvidia... /Mazex [ September 23, 2007, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 seriously ridiculous... how much memory does desert texture take for example? and as for the number of polys, well that's out of question. a 1600x1600 map has 40000 8m grid squares, that makes 80000 triangles. The 8800GTX can render a lot of millions (can't find it now) of triangles and mroe vertices. Gonna do the same tests as you with my system which is far inferior specially the 3dcard. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Asus A8N-E 2GB PC3200 DDR SDRAM GeForce 6800 GS (256MB VDRAM) Gotta upgrade my drivers to the ones you have first. As for the editor I think it may be a matter of the dualcore stuff, I've similar problems. [ September 23, 2007, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: KNac ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Couldn't make any testing (sorry, soccer evening hehe), but there is an update on 1.04 on the main forum http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003051 interesting news about imrpoved terrain rendering which as per this post a lot of problems seem to come from. yeah, nvidia drivers and interaction w/ the hardware may not be the best, but is obvious the game has got serious problems in that department and it's suboptimal, to say the least. cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Originally posted by KNac: Couldn't make any testing (sorry, soccer evening hehe), but there is an update on 1.04 on the main forum http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003051 interesting news about imrpoved terrain rendering which as per this post a lot of problems seem to come from. yeah, nvidia drivers and interaction w/ the hardware may not be the best, but is obvious the game has got serious problems in that department and it's suboptimal, to say the least. cheers Hmm, interesting... Right in line with the findings here as you say. Did a small test scenario called "The 1600" centered around a very exiting battle over 1600x1600 meters of dirt in the middle of nowhere! It's some completely flat dirt with a house on each side and a tree in the middle to fight over. Company sized units on each side and free LOS naturally! I also did an empty version of the mission with no units, houses or trees, just those damned 1600x1600 meters of dirt! See my tests below (Fraps fps score in yellow as usual): First off, the empty version of the scenario, starting as Blue and looking at the startup view: OK, and then the sharp version, startup blue - before starting the mission timer: OK, finally an image from the battle after starting the timer, lots of carnage! Anyone notice something that is the same on all three images? These amazingly exiting battles are downloadable here (copy to "?\Combat Mission Shock Force\Game Files\Scenarios" directory): The 1600 The 1600 (empty version) /Mazex [ September 23, 2007, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: mazex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 LOL My results (GeForce 6800 GS 256MB VRAM): - your settings from default position w/o units: 32 FPS from default position with units: 22 FPS with units camera key 9 (top view): 15 FPS (with or w/o action not real difference) - changing textures to "balanced" from default position w/o units: 50 FPS My card has only 256 MB of RAM that's why tried with lower texture setting, anyway the difference is too big I think anyway, but I don't know my card texture filling specs but only one texture, there is a problem there finally for rendering. I hope 1.04 does improve it. [ September 23, 2007, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: KNac ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I think CMSF renders the dirt at the subatomic level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust1 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Originally posted by peleprodigy: I think CMSF renders the dirt at the subatomic level. quantum theory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 lol good one peleprodigy seriously, i think there are problems with rendering code, but there are serious problems with the 8800. so there are two separate issues that make the game performance lower than it should. thwe rendering stuff, seems to have been improved for 1.04, sow e all shoudl experince better performance with the patch BUT as for the 8800 problems, that may take a while to be fixed, cause I trust BF when they say it's a lot in hands of nvidia. there is a second possibility though, with new rendering code in place, these 8800 issues may niot happen anymore. well let's wait for 1.04 (i hope iots released this week) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 There sure are problems with the rendering engine. Even though your 22 fps for a primitive map with a bunch of units is better than my 11 with the 8800GTX , it's still WAY to bad. It's not like the GeForce 6800 is a bad card. An old Geforce 2 card should be able to get a way higher score on a practically empty flat map like that... Just my 2 cent's. I'm almost thinking of writing an example game that renders a map like that wuth a few tanks to see what fps I could get... /Mazex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.