PDA

View Full Version : Is the new water in PF gonna be an FPS Buster????



Charlie901
05-14-2004, 03:07 PM
Since the ocean is gonna be a major terrain in this upcomming sim I was just wondering.
On Perfect in AEP, my FPS on my 3.06P4, aren't playable during a battle. Too many stutters.

Is the PF water gonna be worse FPS wise or has it been optimized?

Also will the water have different grafix levels on Perfect and what will it look like on Excellent?

Charlie901
05-14-2004, 03:07 PM
Since the ocean is gonna be a major terrain in this upcomming sim I was just wondering.
On Perfect in AEP, my FPS on my 3.06P4, aren't playable during a battle. Too many stutters.

Is the PF water gonna be worse FPS wise or has it been optimized?

Also will the water have different grafix levels on Perfect and what will it look like on Excellent?

olaleier
05-14-2004, 03:28 PM
More pixel shaded water is likely to cause a fps-hit I presume.
And the non-shaded water will probably look just like it does now.

What vid-card do you have?

Anyways, if you don't get good enough frames, turn dem details down, simple.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

heywooood
05-14-2004, 03:29 PM
I think the text update that Burnin posted the other day indicated that the settings for water would be scalable... but with no terrain or cities to render - I'm hoping the water will be no prob. for my homely little can to handle....
1.2 gigglehertz http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gifsad

Gibbage1
05-14-2004, 04:15 PM
The Pacific fighters demo PC was an Athlon 64 3500+ and a GeForce 6800 Ultra and frames were slow at 1024x768. The fill water detail WILL slow down any system today. As perfect mode was, its for the future. Oleg said to me that no computer today will be able to play with full water detail smoothly. I believe him, as he said that about Perfect mode and it was true then.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

heywooood
05-14-2004, 04:16 PM
Hmmmmm - oh well - so much for my theory

LEXX_Luthor
05-14-2004, 05:40 PM
LOL blue "liquid" and low fps-- a Rus Conspiracy to sap our precious blue fluids.

I bet the New and Bigger and MORE clouds will be smooth like silk stocking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

heywooood
05-14-2004, 05:53 PM
taube http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif..

yer killin' me .... nice uni-tard.

necrobaron
05-14-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Pacific fighters demo PC was an Athlon 64 3500+ and a GeForce 6800 Ultra and frames were slow at 1024x768. The fill water detail WILL slow down any system today. As perfect mode was, its for the future. Oleg said to me that no computer today will be able to play with full water detail smoothly. I believe him, as he said that about Perfect mode and it was true then.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

LEXX_Luthor
05-14-2004, 06:43 PM
Why the Ocean of Tears? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Raise your eyes up on high simmers, for Today is a Good Day for New, Larger, and MORE clouds http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/cb_cal_stbarthelemy_sep01.jpg

Above this tropical turquoise blue water a system is building up. Still in the calvus stage but most likely to develop in to a massive thunderstorm with precipitation.

~ http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudshtml/calvus.html#Anchorcal1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heywooood
05-14-2004, 07:55 PM
oh for the love of ChR***! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

smart alecky plushtoy! dont forget to watch your artificial horizon..augerboy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-14-2004, 09:48 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"How about this nice formation where the top is sun lit. On ground it's already night time."

http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/cb_cal_sdakota_jun00.jpg
~ http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudshtml/calvus.html#Anchorcal1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif


The wording used here was too good to pass up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bearcat99
05-14-2004, 10:34 PM
As long as I can run it in settings that give me what I have now with no loss in FPS I'll be happy.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

heywooood
05-14-2004, 10:38 PM
Plushy is now going to tell you its the water not the vapors that will hit FPS the hardest...

matkal80
05-15-2004, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie901:
Since the ocean is gonna be a major terrain in this upcomming sim I was just wondering.
On Perfect in AEP, my FPS on my 3.06P4, aren't playable during a battle. Too many stutters.

Is the PF water gonna be worse FPS wise or has it been optimized?

Also will the water have different grafix levels on Perfect and what will it look like on Excellent?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, i prefer improved ocean, then you having no stutters on your ****ty comp.

|CoB|_Spectre
05-15-2004, 04:38 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Why the Ocean of Tears? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Raise your eyes up on high simmers, for Today is a Good Day for New, Larger, and MORE clouds http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif [QUOTE]

I will be very happy to see them provided the AI model is corrected to lose padlock within their confines. As is the case now, large cloud formations would be just an expanded opportunity for the AI do shoot you while denying you the same.

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 06:34 AM
Yes!

ZG77_Spectre:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> large cloud formations would be just an expanded opportunity for the AI do shoot you while denying you the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly why we need larger clouds. Why?

Flight sim developers have never needed to program for AI not seeing through clouds because the standard established size of flight sim clouds are too small that it is rarely noticeable flaw when AI sees through clouds. As flight sim clouds have stayed the same small size for 10 years and nothing has been done about AI and clouds, nothing will ever be done about AI/clouds if flight sim cloud size remains the same size for the next 10 years--don't laugh all game reviewers and most flight simmers only think about water colours but that is because they have never seen what is up in the sky, especially if they were required to fly through it, or worse, fight in the sky.

Best way to think of Flight Sims and clouds is...imagine a Tank Sim with no trees, no hills, no villages and buildings, and no roads--nothing but enemy tanks on flat open space. These objects are the environment in which tank combat takes place. Clouds are the combat environment and even more so, the navigational environment, of flight sims.

With realistic clouds in flight sims, something will have to be programmed for the future...unless they all give up on AI programming and go for onwhine flight sim only (with very small market). Something can be done because AI seeing clouds is a very simple thing to approximate using basic college vector math and given simple cloud outline geometry which does not need to account for cloud surface detailed structure.

All that rubbish I just wrote, and the fact that clouds are the ultimate in Eye~Candy floating past your cockpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For now though, new FP clouds will still be optional like FB clouds and we don't have to play with them if we don't want to--the situation we have today with FB.

olaleier
05-15-2004, 09:11 AM
Programming the AI to not see through clouds is one thing...

Programming it to take some action that makes sense when they lose sight of their target is another. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

|CoB|_Spectre
05-15-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Flight sim developers have never _needed_ to program for AI not seeing through clouds because the standard established size of flight sim clouds are too small that it is rarely noticeable flaw when AI sees through clouds. As flight sim clouds have stayed the same small size for 10 years and nothing has been done about AI and clouds, nothing will ever be done about AI/clouds if flight sim cloud size _remains the same size for the next 10 years_--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL-2 came out when?...Demo debuted in Aug., 2001 IIRC and has some of the best cloud models I've seen, albeit variations on cumulous clouds and fog effects for the most part. Rowan's Battle of Britain provided for the tactical use of clouds (some were very large) whereby the player could enter the cloud, perform an evasive maneuver, and there was a good chance that you would lose the AI. Some would argue that size does matter, but I've never noticed a "standard" size for clouds in flight sims. My first Windows-based flight sim, EF2000, had extraordinary cloud modeling even by today's standards. I emailed and idea to Oleg discussing a possible logic method that would help the situation, but no response so far (I know, he recently had a child, has been to E3, and has other irons in the fire). Basically it works on the premise that, since the clouds in FB do not move,their position and dimension are known and presumably the variations in density are as well for purposes of graphic rendering. While a human can initially maintain visual contact with the target aircraft, once cloud density reaches a certain point, padlock (for those of us who use it...rest assured AI always uses it) is lost. Given that AI behavior can be changed under certain conditions resulting in their abandoning an attack on an aircraft, why wouldn't it be possible to interject such a change linked to being within the confines of the densest part of the cloud? Most humans will maintain the flight path they are on when pursuing a bandit into a cloud after losing sight (or padlock) of their target. AI could be programmed to do likewise, giving the human pilot the opportunity to perform an evasive maneuver, and, after emerging from the cloud, re-establish normal AI conditions. Unfortunately, AI knows where you are at all times and it's nearly impossible to "blindside" them even if approaching from below and behind. Perhaps AI's ability to lock-on to an enemy aircraft could be adjusted to give their lowest probability of target acquisition within 45 degrees to the rear. Cloud/AI issues have been discussed for quite awhile with no improvement. I think there is ample evidence that the current size of clouds is adequate to benefit from a change. After all, if you can do it on the ones we now have, scaling it up should be a simple task.

Latico
05-15-2004, 11:10 AM
Here's something I haven't seen any one mention in regards to clouds.

I don't know what types of clouds the Dev's are including in PF, but if thunderheads are involved they should be modeled with extremely high turbulance inside of them. In real life, pilots go around these, not through them.

The more severe anvilheads also have large hail that can destroy a plane.

In Fighters Anthology we have one plane that has a blind spot as AI. The Mig 17 Fresco has no radar or IR seeker onboard. It has to find it's target visually. The visual range is about 10 miles (reduced to about 4 miles in night conditions). By staying outside that visual range you can slip around behind the Fresco. I was fooling around with it one day and snuck right up under the tailpipe of a Mig-17 and played around there for several minutes without detection in a F-4 Phantom staying low and behind. Of course, If the AI Fresco had spotted me earlier I couldn't have done this.

Now to me, if you can't loose an AI in the clouds, I don't see the point of having them except for "eye candy".

heywooood
05-15-2004, 11:23 AM
Yep -

Get ridda the clouds.

Ballbuster1
05-15-2004, 12:04 PM
That water will have a similar effect that the water does in Lock On. Slowdowns. The solution is to turn it down.

-------------------------
Because I like too! Get a life!

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 12:29 PM
Good Point...

Latico:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you can't loose an AI in the clouds, I don't see the point of having them except for "eye candy".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. If there are no clouds, I don't see the point of programming AI to be affected by clouds.

There are no clouds worth the programming effort for AI to see. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This is a viscious circle that may continue in flight sims for another 30 years. We agree, the problem is AI not seeing clouds, and not the clouds themselves.

Navigation is still affected by clouds, and severe turbulence inside clouds is one good reason.

|CoB|_Spectre
05-15-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Yep -

Get ridda the clouds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Might as well get rid of any terrain that isn't flat while you're at it. Weather is one of the most basic factors confronting manned flight. Its dynamics take precedent over everything done in the air. Why would you even want a flying game without it?

heywooood
05-15-2004, 03:15 PM
right spectre -

My post was directed towards the bright red plushtoy.. its kind of a running gag if you will..

Obviously detailed and beautiful clouds are vital to a flight sim and especially so to a combat flight sim as they were used by good pilots to evade or conceal.

Not to mention the Candy factor... but the water, it is argued by some (uni-tard clad ones) to be less vital to a virtual pilot - and so needs less detail...

Continue to socialize... er I mean Party on.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif... think Mike Myers was making a subliminal political statement with that?..

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 10:01 PM
heywood:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the water, it is argued by some (uni-tard clad ones) to be less vital to a virtual pilot - and so needs less detail...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay you are right. Mark Twain wrote about how the smallest wave motion in the Mississippi River revealed dangerous underwater obstacles to the experienced River Pilot. We can both see a Tug~Boat Pilot Sim would need more water detail.

There, we have reached ironclad agreement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


_____________
New, Bigger, MORE clouds!

heywooood
05-15-2004, 10:07 PM
Yes Lexx -

I appreciate the difference in the two elements and their respective relevance to airplanes... I was just fencing with you.

like the 'tickle me elmo' impersonator you are, you make me laugh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 10:11 PM
I have enjoyed the Fence http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

heywooood
05-15-2004, 10:21 PM
Ofcourse - until I master carrier takeoffs and landings - I am sure to spend more time looking at the water than the sky... so it might as well be pretty, blue, 'sophisticated' water. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 10:27 PM
I will be flying green colour jungle land based missions. Marines Rule! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Not kidding, I hope alot of the airfields are on some Awsum jungle volcanic mountains maps (but with AI given a way to takeoff and land safely lol). Chinese airfields were surrounded by mountains like that 1937 through Flying Tigers. Alot of Chinese pilots came to grief because of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

heywooood
05-15-2004, 10:31 PM
Yep - lots of rugged terrain in C/B theatre.

I am very interested in that maps' possibilities also.

DONB3397
05-15-2004, 11:01 PM
Sounds like the perfect settings will be on hold with PF for many of us. I hope reduced settings to keep fps up won't cause degraded graphics. It must be a balancing act for programmers.

The next gen of computers may handle it. So we'll need to see required system specs for various settings.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BChYvpABNek7LZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death." -- Wordsworth

Charlie901
05-15-2004, 11:28 PM
I just don't get this making games that will only run at max settings on future systems.

Now that the original IL2 finally runs smoothly, with many a/c at once, doesn't excite me much.

Who is still playing the original IL2 and saying, WOW I'm glad my hardware finally caught up? I'm not. I've moved on to the better, new & improved IL2 AEP, which runs about as smooth in "Perfect" mode on my top end system as the original IL2 did on my old system.

Henceforth the vicious cycle repeats with PF and the new water effects. When my system can handle PF on max I'll be shelving it for BOB. Once I get a taste for the advances BOB brings I won't want to go back to my older sims even if they run smoother.

Would be kinda funny though if they did this with console games.

(Example)
Buy this X-Box game that will run like a dog on your current X-Box but will run like a dream on the new X-Box2 comming hopefully next year.

I know all the argument for making PC games with room to grow I just wish developers would spend more time optimizing the code for current systems (my wallet sure could take a break). Maybe this is what's been hurting the PC game industry. I think people get sick of upgrading when their teased by graphics they can't get and have to shell out more money for an upgrade than a whole console cost.

But man those new grafix look good.

Just my $0.02 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

|CoB|_Spectre
05-16-2004, 06:08 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charlie901:
I just don't get this making games that will only run at max settings on future systems.

I know all the argument for making PC games with room to grow I just wish developers would spend more time optimizing the code for current systems (my wallet sure could take a break). Maybe this is what's been hurting the PC game industry. I think people get sick of upgrading when their teased by graphics they can't get and have to shell out more money for an upgrade than a whole console cost.QUOTE]

You've got a valid point. While hardware development is ongoing, most of us have limitations on how often we afford upgrades. Thinking back on my first Windows computer, I bought it because it touted "upgradeability for the future" with things like Flash ROM, ZIF socket, etc. It didn't take long to realize that, unless you're a techno junkie and just had to have the latest, that computer was going to be obsolete before any of those things warranted upgrade. The chip architecture changed, so the socket was dated, the mobo was dated, the BIOS was dated, there were changes in mobo form factor and power supplies...so you had to replace the entire pc. The software is coming at a pace that parallels this evolution. Most of us wanted the new things featured in FB, so we got that. Next, we wanted the things featured in AEP, so we got that. I bit the bullet last fall and got a higher-end video card and, so far, it's let my tired old system run AEP in Perfect mode at acceptable framerates. It looks like the IL-2/FB/AEP stuff is CPU intensive and I am amazed my old Athlon XP1800 is able to keep up. I'm feeling the economic crunch like most other people and would like to be able to upgrade my hardware more often to be able to enjoy all the graphical benefits of programming advances. Having enjoyed the eye candy of Perfect mode, I hate to think that I'll have to back-down my settings just to get comparable framerates in PF. Particularly when I know that, if PF's lifespan is about the same as the original IL-2, I'll always be in the position of playing catch-up.