Acceptable FPS | Forums

[Shigawire]

This topic speaks for itself. Even when you have a mega-topnotch computer rig, LOMAC has a generally poor performance with regards to framerate.

[Shigawire]

This topic speaks for itself. Even when you have a mega-topnotch computer rig, LOMAC has a generally poor performance with regards to framerate.

[StreakEagle0]

I am glad you mentioned FPS. I was thinking about it and in the past I don't ever remembering worrying about FPS. All the games I have played in the past (except for America's Army) always seemed to have fluid motion. I have not always had a top-of-the-line PC, but my PC's usually do not exceeded 4 years of age. I try to buy a new one every 2 or 3 years.

Most of the games I have played in the past were Flight Sims. Although, I have also played racing games (Need for Speed) First person shooters (Duke Nukem) and other types of games.

Does anyone else remember having problems with fps? Maybe the explanation is too complex for me to understand, but it seems like there should be a solution.

- StreakEagle

Compaq 8000Z; 17" MicroTek LCD monitor; AMD Athlon XP 1.47 GHz (1700+); 64MB SDR nVidia GeForce2; Creative SB Live! Value; 512 MB PC 2100 DDR SDRAM; 40 GB Hard drive; Iomega Dual Format DVD-RW Drive; 16X DVD-ROM Drive; CH F-16 Combat Stick; CH Rudder Pedals; Cable Modem

[etherealsilk]

Well StreakEagle0 I can see that you probably haven't played too many games that have come out in the past year or so. You are not going to be able to many of them (such as C&C:Generals or Splinter Cell or NFS:Underground or...) with nice smooth framerates with that badboy of a video card. What it boils down to is your systems ability to render the required graphics that the program is calling for. Of course this comes after a series of calculation occur that then tell the computer what it needs to do. Point being, graphics is a system operation. So if you have a program that is very CPU (Central Processing) intensive, then you will have fewer resource available to go to video processing, networking, sound processing, etc. This is a two way street though, so if you have a program that demands more than your video card is capable of then the excess will be pushed onto your CPU. There is an important interplay between having both capable of running the software.

An example is my friends computer. He has an Athlon XP 2200 which he has overclocked to a XP 2600. This is a sizable overclock and he is running at something around 2 Ghz core speed. He also has a Geforce 3 400 Ti video card. In this particular setup, his video card is a bottleneck for his system. When he has benchmarked his system with Aquamark (which he used to figure out the impact of OC'ing his CPU and Video Card) he go some interesting result. Overclocking his CPU resulted in a higher video graphics score as well as a higher CPU score in the benchmark. When he overclocked his Video Card this resulted in his having a higher CPU score, but the graphics score remained the same. This is a prime example of the interdependence of all of the hardware of your machine.

So what does all of this mean as far as FPS in lomac is concerned? Well, seeing as lomac is constantly simulating many variables (flight model, radar, AI, etc) and it also has very high detailed modeling of objects, lighting and terrain, this means that Lomac is a very CPU and GPU intensive program. So if you have a bottleneck somewhere in your system (read:ANYWHERE) then you will experience a slowing of framerates as the computer tries to compensate for the lagging hardware. For you StreakEagle your Geforce2 is a severe bottleneck on your computers performance. Because it is so large a bottleneck it will have an impact not just on graphics, but also on CPU processing as well (once the video card has reached capacity processing). So, sure lomac may have FPS concerns for many. And from everything I've heard many of these concerns are being addressed in patching. But in the end the problem with FPS issues will always boil down to the hardware. If you have FPS problems, list some specs for your system and there are plenty of people that can help you.

[UncleJimbo]

Wow - what a drawn out and waffly reply!

I have a Barton running at 2Ghz core, a Radeon 9700 Pro and 1Gig of OCZ ram.

I can run every game (including UT2004, NFSU, Generals) at high res (1152x864) with AA and AF with very high frame rates.

I load up LOMAC and BOOM! I struggle to get decent frames running at 1024x768 with all the options set to low. Explotions and smoke/cloud seem particularly bad.

LOMAC is obviously a CPU intensive game which is hitting the FPS hard, but IMO something needs to be done to help it along a little. More options over vegation and civilian buildings could help.

I'm not bashing anyone and certainly not the game here. I'm just agreeing with the original poster that LOMAC will need a TOP SPEC machine to get desirable frames.

[etherealsilk]

I'm sorry that you seem to disagree. As with all things software related, performance will always very between systems. I have an Athlon XP 1800 oc'ed to 1.7 Ghz, a radeon 9700 pro (powercolor) and only 512 mb of pc2100 ddr ram. I can run lomac on 1024x768 at medium settings with only a minor drop in frames. I need to set certain settings lower for campaign missions to get decent frames. I can also play Generals, Underground, Splinter Cell, Age of Mythology, etc all on high settings with AA and AF at 4x and 8x respectively. When was the last time you defraged your HD, how about the last time you had a fresh install of windows? What video drivers are you running? For that matter what windows do you use? I find it curious that you struggle running lomac at the same settings as me when you have a faster cpu and better ram.

[StreakEagle0]

Well, I just bought a new Video card today and installed it. It's a nVidia GeForce FX 5200. A big improvement over the GeForce2 I had. So, hopefully that will get rid of the bottleneck in my GPU.

Anyway, in my earlier post, I was saying that "in the past" I haven't heard people complaining about fps. Only in the last 2 or 3 years. What has changed in software development that limits fluid motion in games? Is it that games are becoming more GPU and CPU dependent?

- StreakEagle0

Compaq 8000Z; 17" MicroTek LCD monitor; AMD Athlon XP 1.47 GHz (1700+); 128MB nVidia GeForce FX 5200; Creative SB Live! Value; 512 MB PC 2100 DDR SDRAM; 40 GB Hard drive; Iomega Dual Format DVD-RW Drive; 16X DVD-ROM Drive; CH F-16 Combat Stick; CH Rudder Pedals; Cable Modem

[Caretaker.]

Nope, people only demand more these days. Nobody really played Falcon3, Strike Commander or EF2000 at constant 25+ FPS back then, but were still happy. Actually Gunship or F-19 on my C-64 might have averaged 2-3 FPS

Probably people have been spoilt by shooter games which can easily put out 100+ FPS as there isn't much else to calculate except graphics. But throw in some more interesting features like physics and stuff gets complicated again (Deus Ex 2 anyone? ).

- Caretaker

[Cali_169th]

My FPS are around 20-40 most of the time, but sometimes they drop to 10-17. The game is still playable I don't even notice it really. I play at 1024 X 768 I use to play at 1280 X 1024 my FPS were around 15-19 at the high and 7-14 at the low. But like I said it was still smooth no slide show at all.


Play Hard - Play Fair
Flying Officer "Cali"
169th Panthers

AMD Athlon 64-bit 3200+ 1600mhz HyperTransport Tech
1 Gig DDR 3200 | ATI 9200se cats 4.2
X45 | DX9.0b | 22 inch dell monitor
TrackIR2 | Logitech Z-640 5.1 speakers

[MadCat_the_Crak]

Hi,

I'm watching topics with LockOn FPS themes for longer time. I can't understand antybody, who see behind performance of his PC only latest models of CPU's and graphic cards or totally overclocked(and overHEATED) system. Like I posted into forum few days ago, I could play LOMAC on my 1GHz Athlon and GF2. Yes, my FPS weren't very high, but I still could have HIGH textures and 1024x768 res. And I saw LOCKON on copm that was similar to mine(1GHz PIII, GF4MX440) and FPS there were VEERY low. About 5-8. I hint to things like BIOS tweaks and some little optimalizations, that results better performance than overclocking. BIOS tweaking like "I use LOAD OPTIMAL BIOS SETUP and it will work" is not enough. I know, no everybody really knows how to do this, but you have an internet, here are many if resources and tips. In the end, if you wanna tune GPU and you have an nVidia card, try RivaTuner.

(sorry for me english)