quote:

Originally posted by NDS_Camp.:
What AntiVirus software are you using?

I would use the ";" setting and see if i can turn off the Auto Anti Virus updates or set them so they dont run while playing a game etc.

And not every P-25 Mobo, Memory and Harddrive are the same so your specs dont really tell us anything about transfer speeds.

Since no perfonance gain via core change,my AVAST anti virous runs freely on first core while the game is running on 2nd one.
My motherboard is:
Model IP35 PRO(P35+ICH9R)
Version 1.0
North Bridge Intel P35/G33/G31 Revision A2
South Bridge Intel 82801IR (ICH9R) Revision A2
Memory:
2x2GB:5-5-5-15

Thanks
gprr

I ment more like run a Benchmark Test to see if theres something slower than usual.

http://www.cpuid.com/pcwizard.php

That program has a bunch of good features and benchmarks/test.

It could well be that theres a part thats operating slower than average, in that case this program should be able to find it.

But maybe its just a problem with some computer systems v.s. this game and just isnt fixable.

Hi Camp

Many thanks for the benchmark link
Here is my result:
PC Wizard 2008 Version 1.871
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owner: gprr
Organisation: Home
User: gprr
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600 Service Pack 3
Report Date: Sunday 14 June 2009 at 18:27

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC Wizard Rating : 5375.54

<<< Global Performance >>>

> Processor Global Performance : 37414.38

> Cache Global Performance : 10330

> Memory Global Performance : 4394

> Video Global Performance : 1485

> Hard Disk Global Performance : 132

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** End of report *****

Can you run it on your system and post it also?

Thanks
gprr

FYI, I did a little more testing this morning using the low pass over the city of Caen. I tried the following combinations:

Windows 7 64-Bit no Anti Virus with Mods
Vist 64 with and without AV, with and without Mods.

Windows 7 is a little better but not much and all Vista tests got about the same results. My lowest frame rate gets down to about 17-19 in Vista and about 20-22 in Windows 7.

For comparison, my Black Death test looks like this: Min 27, max 63, avg. 56.948 (VSync ON).

Hi

BD on my rig is:
Frames 8122,Min 27,Max 62,Avg 54.147

Not so far from yours but IMO still getting les frames above Caen.

gprr

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gprr,

Did a little more testing last night. I tried dropping my game screen res from 1920x1200(native desk top res) down to 1600x1050. That made a significant difference. The low-pass over Caen frame rate still drops but now the bottom is around 30-34 FPS. I also tried it at 1024x768. At that res. there is no noticable drop in FPS.

Since I've been having trouble seeing aircraft below me at 1920x1200 I'm going to try 1600x1050 for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by bmoffa:
Did a little more testing last night. I tried dropping my game screen res from 1920x1200(native desk top res) down to 1600x1050. That made a significant difference. The low-pass over Caen frame rate still drops but now the bottom is around 30-34 FPS. I also tried it at 1024x768. At that res. there is no noticable drop in FPS.

Since I've been having trouble seeing aircraft below me at 1920x1200 I'm going to try 1600x1050 for a while.

Did the same and got in my stadard flight,24 fps minimum instead of 12......

Decided to continue play on 1920x1200 and wait for SOW to upgrade/replace my rig

Thanks
gprr

SOW is more than a year away, at best.

On my rig. 1600x1050 doesn't look too bad. I don't think that res. was available on either my old video setup (2 x 8800GT's) or previous drivers. Not sure which, but I know I couldn't find a res. that worked well and looked good before.

I'm upgrading my EVGA 285 GTX to a, just anounced, EVGA 295 CO-OP. EVGA has a 90 step option so I can get the 295 for just the price difference.

quote:

Originally posted by gprr:
Hi Camp

Many thanks for the benchmark link
Here is my result:
PC Wizard 2008 Version 1.871
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owner: gprr
Organisation: Home
User: gprr
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600 Service Pack 3
Report Date: Sunday 14 June 2009 at 18:27

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC Wizard Rating : 5375.54

<<< Global Performance >>>

> Processor Global Performance : 37414.38

> Cache Global Performance : 10330

> Memory Global Performance : 4394

> Video Global Performance : 1485

> Hard Disk Global Performance : 132

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** End of report *****

Can you run it on your system and post it also?

Thanks
gprr

If i would run it on my rig and post the numbers here they be of no use to you, like i said you can compair it in there with data stored in the data base of the program + it also has a diagram indicating performance wich should be almost circular if your systems components are well ballanced.

quote:

Originally posted by bmoffa:
FYI, I did a little more testing this morning using the low pass over the city of Caen. I tried the following combinations:

Windows 7 64-Bit no Anti Virus with Mods
Vist 64 with and without AV, with and without Mods.

Windows 7 is a little better but not much and all Vista tests got about the same results. My lowest frame rate gets down to about 17-19 in Vista and about 20-22 in Windows 7.

For comparison, my Black Death test looks like this: Min 27, max 63, avg. 56.948 (VSync ON).

For comparison I have BD Trk on the 150sec test and I get.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
8416, 155166, 24, 64, 54.239

This is with 4.09b+Mods.
Same results as yourself over cities. (I am going the manual O/C route to 3.6/.8GHz route)to see if I can improve any.

I have a i7 965 EE with a GTX295 and I can fly over Berlin very low and fast with all sort of flak and AAA shooting at enemies and it barely skips a beat. And I have everything maxed out. On OpenGL with Water=4 and there are lots of rivers in Berlin all over the place. And that was before I OC'd my memory and processor. I'm sure it all better now. I'm sure Berlin is more intensive than Caen is.

I have 6GB of really fast DDR3 but since I run the game in 32-bit XP Professional it only sees 3GB. Still runs great. I also have a drive with Win 7 64-bit but I can't play IL2 on it at all until I convert to USB controllers from Gameport.

mortoma,

Screen resolution seems to be the big factor here. You didn't mention what screen resolution you are using in the game. Just reducing my game screen resolution, leaving everything else set very high, made a very big difference.

Please post you CONF.INI file for comparison.

Also, Windows XP does run this game much better than Vista. But, for me, the difference was in the smoothness of the display not frame rates. That smoothness is back in Windows 7.

I don't know if this has been mentioned as I haven't read the thread in it's entirity but there is an affintiy setting in the config.ini that will allow you to choose running the game on either core or both of a dual core processor. The only other thing I can suggest checking into is if your having a hard drive access bottleneck. I had and issue once with the game studdering occasionally which turned out to be cause by an over vealous automatic defrag utility that would start running spontaneously in the background at semiregular intrevals that was killing my HD bandwith with what I assume was write cycles causing the bulk of the issue. I'm just throwing that out there so you my look into unobvious area as well.

Could it be it's not just a matter of higher resolutions, but also of the WideScreen aspect?
The original resolutions the game supports being 4:3, these newer ones being 16:10 or 9 and such... just wondering...

FoolTrottle, I just tied run at 1600x1200 (4:3). Its just as bad.

One other thing I have found that helps is reducing VisibilityDistance, but that's a no brainer.

Hi gyz

Did yesterday more Rez tests:

1600*1200(SaveAspect=1) gave minimum 24 fps - Huge leap over 12 minimum with 1920*1200.

1024*764 (SaveAspect=1) gave perfect 60 fps.

Thanks
gprr

Hi all

Back when posting here,I had rhat feeling that
AMD cpu with nvidia card may do better in this case than Intel cpu,look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3

"Your eyes are not deceiving you. After 100+ clean OS installs, countless video card, motherboard, memory and driver combinations, we have results that are not only repeatable, but appear to be valid. We also tracked in-game performance with FRAPS and had similar results. Put simply, unless we have something odd going on with driver optimizations, a BIOS bug, or a glitch in the OS, our NV cards perform better on the AMD platform than they do on the Intel platform. The pattern reverses itself when we utilize the AMD video cards.

It is items like this that make you lose hair and delay articles. Neither of which I can afford to have happen. However, we have several suppliers assisting us with the problem (if it is a problem) and hope to have an answer shortly. These results also repeat themselves in other games like H.A.W.X. and Left 4 Dead but not in Crysis Warhead or Dawn of War II. So, besides the gaming situation, we also see a similar pattern in AutoCad 2010 and other 3D rendering applications where GPU acceleration is utilized, it is just not as pronounced."

Cheers
gprr

Thats nothing new, nVidia been arguing for a while now where Intel behaves as a spoiled brat.
nVidia even prefers working with AMD/ATI better than working with Intel wen it comes to bringing out new motherboard chipsets etc.

quote:

Originally posted by NDS_Camp.:
Thats nothing new, nVidia been arguing for a while now where Intel behaves as a spoiled brat.
nVidia even prefers working with AMD/ATI better than working with Intel wen it comes to bringing out new motherboard chipsets etc.

Which I find really hilarious considering some of the BS they've pulled on ATI, and then they have the nerve to complain about intels practices.